尹烨揭示多维遗传机制并警告生物技术滥用风险

尹烨揭示多维遗传机制并警告生物技术滥用风险 人类繁衍与演化不仅由血缘与表观遗传驱动，更受多元文化和长期社会制度的规训，而盲目追求生物技术与基因编辑将引发不可逆的伦理危机。 本期节目中，窦文涛携手华大基因 CEO 尹烨与学者许子东，从现代遗传学的多维传承（血缘、菌群、文化与表观遗传）切入，深入拆解了高龄生育的突变代价、男女择偶心理的演化机制以及自然选择中的利他行为。对谈进一步触及生命科学的还原论极限，探讨了濒死体验的神经生化机制、自由意志与爱因斯坦“有限无界”宇宙模型的哲学隐喻。最终，嘉宾们从脑机接口与合成生物学的伦理边界，延伸至对教育单一内卷的批判，呼吁以基因多样性对抗功利评价，并在回望“轴心时代”哲学觉醒中为现代科技寻找人文伦理的锚点。 医学研究表明，男性在35岁之后精子减数分裂过程中每年都会积累可检测出的有害突变，高龄生育男性的表观遗传对人类整体健康走向具有显著影响。 (0:00) 现代神经生物学研究证实濒死状态是一种基因程序：在自然死亡过程中，大脑会集中释放高浓度的五羟色胺、多巴胺和内啡肽，为个体带来极大安详感并有效屏蔽痛苦。 (28:59) 临床脑机接口研究已取得实质突破，在针对癫痫患者的开颅手术中，电极贴片解码语言中枢信号的准确率达到60%至70%，文本输出速度达每分钟100至150个英文单词。 (46:36) 合成生物学展现出巨大的生物制造替代能力：利用基因改造酵母在单一发酵罐中合成青蒿素的产能，已可匹敌种植整个澳门面积甜黄花蒿的农业提取产出。 (41:13)

华大基因 CEO 尹烨与窦文涛、许子东等人从现代生物学与遗传学出发，探讨人类传承的多维机制、利他行为的演化逻辑，以及基因还原论在解释意识、情感与社会伦理时的边界。 多维遗传体系与男性的生殖印记 (0:00) 人类代际传承不仅局限于双亲染色体上的 DNA 序列。尹烨指出，现代遗传体系至少包含四个层面：父母的血缘 DNA、语言思维等文化传承、共生微生物组（如乳母喂养带来的菌群交换），以及不改变 DNA 序列却调控表达的表观遗传学。通过表观遗传，后代得以继承特定的环境应对经验。 在父系遗传方面，男性终生生精的机制使其精子持续受到岁月与生活经历的侵蚀。尹烨引述医学界说法指出，高龄生育男性的精子在减数分裂中不断累积可测突变，通常 35 岁之后每年递增，外在的环境毒素、烟酒消耗均会在生殖细胞中留下印记。相较而言，受精卵的线粒体几乎全部来自母系，全人类追溯母系可归结于约二十万年前非洲的“线粒体夏娃”，而父系亦能追溯至大致同期的“Y 染色体亚当”。 达尔文主义曲解与利他主义超越 (12:56) 针对社会达尔文主义对演化理论的误读，讨论辨析了赫胥黎《进化论与伦理学》的原意：自然界中动物行为多受利己的亲缘选择支配，例如雄狮篡位后会捕杀幼狮以促使母狮发情，粘菌与蜜蜂的牺牲也是为延续亲族基因组；而严复在《天演论》中强调“适者生存”则是出于挽救民族危亡的思想改造。人类之所以区别于一般物种，正在于能跨越血缘边界实现真正的集体利他。 斯蒂芬·平克等人的研究表明，和平文明与社会协作让嗜血攻击性基因失去繁殖优势，促成了基因漂变。在制度层面，一夫一妻制的确立打破了少数特权阶层垄断女性生育机会的局面，从生物学视角看发挥了平衡繁殖资源、维护全人群基因多样性的关键功能。 还原论的极限与高阶意识的迷局 (28:19) 当现代分子生物学尝试解析爱、复杂情感与自由意志时，遭遇了还原论的结构性瓶颈。人类大脑由约 860 亿个神经元构成，基因组包含约 30 亿个碱基对，即便监测到激素波动与脑电波，也仅是生理输出，无法推导出主观意识与高阶精神体验的起源。正如哥德尔不完备性定理揭示的困境，大脑试图依靠自身结构完全理解自身，面临着系统内部无法自证的悖论。 神经生物学揭示出生命系统存在内置程序，如非突发性死亡过程中，大脑细胞转向病理状态并大量释放五羟色胺、多巴胺、内啡肽等递质，带来濒死欣快感与安详感，证明死亡本身也是写在基因中的程序。然而在人类道德实践中，母亲即便抚养非亲生幼童仍能舍身相救，证明关爱与利他绝非单纯由“自私的基因”所能单向决定，而是先天生物学与后天文明共同作用的产物。 生物技术伦理、多样性与教育反思 (41:13) 合成生物学目前已能利用转基因酵母高效率发酵合成青蒿素、人血白蛋白与抗体，大幅替代传统种植与血液提取；临床脑机接口也能在术中唤醒状态下以 60% 至 70% 的准确率解码语言中枢信号。然而，将全基因组精准编辑应用于人体仍面临不可预测的系统性连锁风险。尹烨强调，追求肉体永生违背了代际更迭让渡生态位的演化法则，若长寿与基因优化沦为资本专享，更会加剧社会阶级割裂。 面对当前教育领域的“剧场效应”，尹烨认为，名校招生名额恒定背景下的分数线内卷属于无意义的零和博弈。从生命繁衍的底层逻辑看，物种的抗风险韧性源于异质性，正如具备天然抗病基因的“北京黑豆”曾拯救遭遇孢囊线虫病的美国大豆产业。现代社会应当打破单一评价指标，容纳生命的多样性与个性化价值。 现代生命科学能解析底层生理载体与合成特定分子，但无法单一凭借基因预测个体命运或完全解构人类意识。从公元前 800 年至 200 年的“轴心时代”起，人类先哲关于自我认知、爱与社会协作的伦理追问，至今仍是前沿生物科技不偏离人道主义基石的重要参照。

[28:59] 尹烨: 死亡是一个程序，死亡是写在我们基因里的——细胞死亡和人死亡都是程序。 [46:36] 尹烨: 保持自己的‘守身如玉’，不仅是肉体上的，更重要的是‘守脑如玉’，不被污染、不被虐待、不被操纵。 [7:24] 尹烨: 真正对人类健康产生影响的，是那些依然有生育力的高龄男性。 [33:43] 尹烨: 在没有自由意志的情况下，我们几乎可以认为今天所有的一切都是被设计的，你的思想也是有边界的，因为你没有自由意志。 [15:09] 尹烨: 如果天天打仗，极度嗜血的人留下的后代最多；如果我们今天不打仗了，他没有那么多留下后代的机会，这种嗜血基因——我说的极端一点——就会被慢慢从基因库中筛选掉。 [11:27] 尹烨: 冲在最前面的不一定能成，往往只是前浪死在沙滩上，给后来者开了门。

[0:00] If we trace our lineage back, 500 years [0:02] ago we might not be the same family, [0:04] but 5,000 years ago, we most likely are [0:06] . It’s not that far back, so we [0:08] should love and cherish each other, [0:09] right? I wonder if culture is written [0:14] into our genes—we don't know how it's [0:16] encoded—like how genetic mutations [0:17] happen, if it's written in like data on [0:19] a computer. Of course, I’ve read [0:26] casually that a person’s body holds [0:27] all human experience and memory. I [0:33] don't know if, on a physical level, my [0:35] experiences could be...... [0:39] >> recorded in some form in the DNA passed [0:41] down to the next generation? [0:44] >> Let me give you an extreme example to [0:46] explain. In medicine, there’s a joke, [0:51] or perhaps a jab at us men. What truly [0:56] impacts human health are those older [0:57] men who are still fertile. That would [1:01] be you. Professor Xu. [1:03] >> I didn't say that! I didn't say [1:05] anything! What do you mean? It means [1:07] that all the cigarettes you’ve smoked [1:08] , [1:10] >> all the alcohol you’ve drunk, every [1:11] battle you’ve fought, and everything [1:13] you’ve done is recorded in your sperm [1:15] . [1:16] >> Oh, life experience. [1:17] >> In the sperm, strictly speaking, it [1:19] happens during meiosis, via epigenetic [1:22] mechanisms—or to put it simply, [1:23] it’s mostly an accumulation of [1:25] harmful mutations. On average, after [1:27] age 35, every year adds more—these [1:29] are the ones we can currently measure [1:31] that have a negative impact on humans. [1:34] I didn't hear the word "harmful" just [1:36] now, and I suddenly thought, "Oh, why [1:39] is it so..." Uh, how similar are a [1:41] father and son? How much is determined [1:44] by genes? [1:47] >> That’s quite difficult. Actually, [1:49] there is an important philosophical [1:51] question: which came first, the father [1:53] or the son? [1:55] >> So, what is a child? [1:56] >> Does the father come first or the son? [1:58] Usually, it's like "which came first, [2:00] the chicken or the egg?" It’s a [2:02] widely debated question: father or son? [2:05] >> I remember a Zen Buddhist koan: you are [2:07] often asked to meditate on "what was [2:09] your original face before your parents [2:11] were born." [2:14] >> You’re starting to sound a bit like a [2:15] Zen master. [2:16] >> It’s actually a brain teaser. Until [2:19] the son appears, that man is not a [2:21] father. [2:22] >> Hmm. That’s logic. [2:24] >> But when he talks about this issue...It [2:26] doesn’t have to be a brain teaser; it [2:28] can be very serious. It can be very [2:30] serious. [2:31] >> It’s about the father and the son, or [2:32] the grandfather down to the grandson. [2:36] What is the extent of the similarity [2:38] between them? [2:40] >> When I usually talk about heredity, [2:42] >> Yes, I generally speak from a social [2:44] perspective of a person. [2:45] >> Heredity of what? It's not just the [2:47] blood of the father and mother. [2:48] Parental blood is just one part of what [2:50] we call bloodline. The fact that [2:52] we’ve been speaking Chinese all this [2:54] time—that is cultural lineage. There [2:56] is also a microbiome lineage. Your [2:58] microorganisms are also being inherited [3:00] and passed down. [3:01] >> Especially from a wet nurse. [3:03] >> Not just from the mother. [3:04] >> Right. [3:04] >> The wet nurse basically passes on a [3:06] large amount of her bacteria and their [3:08] genes to you, transferring the whole [3:10] set. [3:11] >> That’s why people say a child might [3:12] grow up to look a bit like their wet [3:14] nurse. [3:15] >> Yes. There is a very important concept [3:17] in genetics called epigenetics. [3:19] >> Oh, what does that mean? [3:21] >> It means that my genes haven't changed. [3:24] But the way these genes are expressed [3:25] has changed. Let’s assume, for [3:29] example, the poem "Moonlight before my [3:31] bed"—everyone knows it's by Li Bai. [3:34] The basic text hasn't changed. But how [3:37] you read it—whether you emphasize [3:39] this word or that word—changes. Its [3:41] expression has changed. And in that [3:44] state, your current condition is [3:45] different. So this kind of heredity is [3:49] also how we define the word today: on [3:51] top of bloodline, cultural lineage, and [3:53] microbiome lineage, there is an extra [3:55] layer of epigenetic content. It allows [3:58] us humans to inherit many memories we [4:00] didn't have before. What you said [4:03] triggers many associations for me; in [4:06] the past, humanities scholars, or [4:07] perhaps some philosophers, actually [4:09] raised a question. That is, can culture [4:13] be inherited? Can culture be written [4:16] into the genetic code of a generation? [4:18] >> Cultural genes. [4:19] >> Mhm. I think we can understand this [4:21] from the simplest organisms; for [4:23] instance, I often use two examples, the [4:25] first of which everyone understands. [4:27] When a mouse sees a cat. Even if it's [4:29] never seen a cat before, it’s afraid. [4:31] >> Regardless of size. [4:32] >> The fear, this fear gene, has been [4:34] recorded through heredity. [4:36] >> There is an even more direct example: a [4:39] very, very small worm we call a [4:40] nematode. This nematode knows which [4:42] bacteria will kill its species if [4:44] consumed. Then, through heredity, it [4:46] learns not to eat that bacteria when it [4:48] encounters it later. It's passed down [4:51] through mRNA, similar to the way our [4:53] RNA carries information across [4:54] generations. So, if we elevate this to [4:57] the cultural level, it should also [4:59] contain hereditary elements; you can't [5:00] say it's completely incapable of being [5:02] inherited. Could it be that it’s not [5:05] really cultural, or a genetic hero, but [5:07] rather about behavioral cognition, [5:09] right? That kind of concept. [5:10] >> It actually involves both nature and [5:12] nurture. [5:13] >> There is a certain innate aspect—I [5:14] admit that people definitely have [5:16] talents—but I’m saying genes cannot [5:18] measure talent; these two things are [5:20] not contradictory. Plus the cultivation [5:22] from upbringing. Nurture is something [5:23] that’s easy for people to understand. [5:25] Yes. [5:26] >> The key is what proportion innate [5:28] factors account for and how much of a [5:29] role they play. "Like father, like son, [5:33] " or "the son of a rat will dig holes" [5:35] —is there any truth to that? [5:39] >> From a social perspective, if you grow [5:41] up lazy and in an affluent environment, [5:43] you inherit that. Your father inherited [5:48] it from your grandfather, like being a [5:50] landlord or an emperor’s son, and so [5:52] on. But these are acquired. How much is [5:58] truly "in the blood," and how much is [5:59] hereditary in a way that can be [6:01] explained physiologically? [6:04] >> Let’s trace it back biologically [6:06] first. [6:06] >> Hmm. [6:07] >> Because all our mitochondria—the [6:09] engines inside our cells—are called [6:11] mitochondria. [6:12] >> Mitochondria. [6:13] >> Mitochondria. There are almost no [6:15] mitochondria in sperm. Mitochondria [6:17] mainly come from the egg. [6:19] >> The male doesn't contribute much [6:21] genetic material, so mitochondria [6:22] basically all come from the mother. [6:25] When tracing back, should everyone have [6:26] the same source? [6:27] >> Oh, that’s "Mitochondrial Eve." [6:29] >> That is, Mitochondrial Eve. [6:31] >> About 200,000 years ago, when we Homo [6:33] sapiens first emerged. [6:34] >> We can't find her. [6:35] >> Y-chromosomes can only come from the [6:37] father. [6:37] >> So tracing back, we can also find a " [6:39] Y-chromosomal Adam." Also about 200,000 [6:41] years ago, but the two weren't a couple [6:43] . This is our current genetic evidence, [6:45] and it all leads to Africa. This is the [6:47] main theory behind the "Out of Africa" [6:48] hypothesis; at least all humans today [6:50] can be traced back to there. Right, [6:52] right. I once watched a documentary [6:54] where they traced it back hundreds of [6:56] thousands of years to Adam. They even [7:00] reconstructed an image of what he might [7:01] have looked like—he basically looked [7:03] a bit like Mike Tyson. [7:06] >> So that’s our ancestor, right? [7:08] >> This is from the perspective of genes, [7:10] specifically from mitochondrial DNA. By [7:12] tracing back mitochondrial and [7:13] Y-chromosomal DNA, we can reach this [7:15] conclusion. Of course, there is still [7:16] debate over whether the origin is [7:18] single-centered or multi-centered, and [7:19] whether it’s the "Out of Africa" [7:21] theory or the "East Asia" theory; [7:22] scholars have yet to reach a consensus. [7:24] But in this process, Professor Xu, to [7:25] put it simply, tracing the Chinese [7:27] nation, especially the males, is [7:29] actually quite straightforward. About [7:30] five or six thousand years ago, there [7:32] was a rapid expansion of three [7:34] Y-chromosomes. If we look back at the [7:36] ancient myths, or rather the classics, [7:38] regarding the Yellow Emperor, [7:40] >> or the Yan Emperor and Chiyou, it’s [7:42] not very clear; the historical records [7:44] are incomplete, and we can't figure it [7:46] out. [7:46] >> But those Y-chromosomes were expanding, [7:48] expanding rapidly, which means they had [7:50] many descendants at that time. Another [7:52] piece of supporting data today is that [7:54] at least 7%of men in the region are [7:56] descendants of Genghis Khan, the Golden [7:58] Family line. [7:59] >> This is easier to understand as the [8:01] time of the Mongol conquests. [8:02] >> Gradually, the men were killed, the [8:03] women were taken to pass on the lineage [8:05] , and eventually, after much mixing, we [8:07] reached the current state where we can [8:08] all trace our ancestry back to the [8:09] Golden Family. It’s said that Genghis [8:11] Khan had the most children. [8:12] >> His other descendants, [8:14] >> they couldn't all have been his [8:15] biological offspring, but his genetic [8:17] markers were passed down through his [8:18] many, many grandsons. [8:20] >> Like Tolui, Jochi, these people... [8:22] Ogedei...Guo Jing, though Guo Jing [8:24] doesn't seem to have much to do with [8:26] him. [8:26] >> For Guo Jing, we'd have to look at Guo [8:28] Xiaotian, that's a different story. So, [8:30] tracing it by bloodline, if we go back [8:32] far enough, we might not have been one [8:34] family 500 years ago, but 5,000 years [8:36] ago, it's highly probable. It’s not [8:37] that far off, so we should love and [8:39] care for one another, right? I wonder [8:42] if culture can be written into... [8:44] because we don't know how it's [8:46] inscribed, say, in a gene, genetic [8:48] variation, as you said. But if I [8:53] imagine it like writing to a computer, [8:55] I once read in some casual books that a [8:57] person's body holds all the human [8:58] experience and memory. I don't know if, [9:03] on the level of a material carrier, my [9:05] life's experience could... [9:07] >> Yes. ... [9:10] >> be recorded in some form in the DNA [9:11] passed down? [9:14] >> Let me give you an extreme example to [9:16] make it easier to explain. In medicine, [9:20] we have a joking way of putting it, [9:22] which is actually a jab at us men. The [9:26] ones who truly have an impact on human [9:27] health are those older men who are [9:29] still fertile. That's you. Professor Xu [9:33] . [9:34] >> I didn't say that! I didn't say what? [9:36] What do you mean? It means that all the [9:38] cigarettes you've smoked, [9:40] >> all the alcohol you've drunk, every [9:42] battle you've fought, everything you've [9:44] done, is recorded in your sperm. [9:46] >> Oh, life experiences. [9:49] >> Actually, sperm cells, during the [9:50] process of cell division, are produced [9:52] in a way that, frankly speaking, tends [9:54] to accumulate more harmful mutations. [9:57] On average, after age 35, every year [9:59] there are mutations that can currently [10:01] be detected, which have a negative [10:03] impact on humans. I didn't quite catch [10:06] that part, but I suddenly wondered, why [10:08] are there sperm banks all over the [10:09] world? You know that in Europe, there's [10:13] ...You know which country has one of [10:15] the most famous sperm banks, right? The [10:18] men in this country are the tallest. [10:19] >> The Netherlands. [10:20] >> Yes, an average height of 1.87 meters. [10:23] >> So, everyone wants sperm from Dutch [10:25] banks. Because many people, even if [10:26] they aren't married, still want to have [10:28] a child. Oh. [10:29] >> There was this one donor who was [10:31] excellent in every way: high IQ, highly [10:33] educated, and handsome. Everyone [10:35] thought he was great. But 90%of the [10:37] offspring born from his donated sperm [10:39] had autism. All the children born were [10:41] autistic; it was later discovered that [10:43] he himself was autistic. He passed the [10:45] autism gene through his sperm. [10:48] >> I once seriously considered it. When I [10:52] was studying at UCI, college students [10:55] would get $ 240 a month. [10:57] >> I was a master's student back then, and [10:59] it was over $ 400. [11:00] >> Just for donating once? [11:02] >> No, not just once. You had to go four [11:04] times a month. [11:05] >> Oh, donating four times. [11:07] >> Master's level. Just now you said over [11:09] 400. [11:09] >> And 800 for PhDs. [11:11] >> At the time, $ 400 was a lot of money [11:14] to me. The only thing that stopped us [11:17] was when someone said, "What if you're [11:19] at the supermarket one day and a 'Xu [11:20] Zidong' walks toward you? What would [11:23] you do?" Thinking about it, I thought, [11:26] "Oh, forget it." I regret it now. [11:27] >> What about women, then? Do eggs have [11:29] this issue? [11:30] >> Eggs are different. [11:32] >> Hmm. [11:33] >> Eggs are from the moment you... [11:34] >> From the moment you are born. [11:36] >> There are only those tens of thousands [11:37] of eggs. [11:38] >> Sperm is competitive. We must admit [11:40] that men's sperm quality is declining. [11:42] >> So, the earlier you perform, the better [11:44] . [11:44] >> It's still better to have children [11:45] early. The logic is that the number of [11:48] sperm in our semen, the count of live [11:50] sperm, has dropped from nearly 100 [11:52] million to about 20 million now. [11:55] >> Oh, they're competitors then. [11:57] >> And the sperm within needs to be [11:58] analyzed. Everyone understands what [12:00] sperm is, right? It's like a tadpole. [12:02] >> Yes. [12:03] >> It has a head and a tail at the back. [12:04] >> Yes. [12:05] >> How does the tail swim? It moves like a [12:06] propeller, spinning as it goes. [12:08] >> Oh, it's like a submarine. [12:09] >> The only source of power for a sperm is [12:10] in its tail, while the head holds the [12:11] genetic material. So, sperm are quite [12:13] impressive, though they can barely [12:14] carry a virus; they're just too small. [12:15] The virus can't get in. [12:16] >> There's not enough space, that's how it [12:18] is. [12:18] >> Yeah. [12:20] >> When the sperm and egg meet, first, one [12:22] sperm hits the egg. Let’s keep it [12:26] simple. It just sends a signal, telling [12:29] it that it’s about to enter. Then [12:32] this sperm, it is... [12:34] >> Useless. [12:35] >> Exhausted. [12:36] >> Immediately after, the egg activates, [12:37] not letting anyone else in—that’s [12:39] the pioneer. [12:40] >> Right. [12:40] >> I sometimes use this as an analogy for [12:42] starting a business. Being the fastest [12:44] one there isn't necessarily a good [12:46] thing; you just paved the way and [12:47] opened a door for the second one. [12:49] >> The front wave crashes on the beach. [12:51] >> Right, but it’s random. [12:52] >> Because there are many sperm around [12:54] that egg. [12:54] >> You never know at which point it will [12:56] activate. [12:56] >> You saw in the last episode, Professor [12:58] Yin mentioned, and Professor Xu, you [13:00] surely know this, about Yan Fu’s [13:01] translation of Evolution and Ethics. [13:03] >> Yes, that’s right. [13:05] >> And later I learned that Yan Fu’s [13:07] translation actually changed some of [13:08] Huxley’s original intent to fit his [13:10] own views. [13:12] >> Exactly, right. [13:14] >> He spoke about survival of the fittest, [13:16] while Huxley’s point was that the [13:17] animal kingdom is driven by selfish [13:19] genes; it’s all selfish. But because [13:22] we are human, [13:23] >> we might actually possess collective [13:25] altruism. [13:25] >> True altruism, true altruism for... [13:28] >> But you know, back then, Yan Fu and his [13:30] peers were at a critical moment of life [13:32] and death for the nation during the [13:33] late Qing Dynasty. [13:34] >> Right. [13:35] >> So, to promote ideological reform, they [13:38] framed the idea as survival of the [13:40] fittest. Survival of the fittest [13:42] implies that if you aren't strong, you [13:44] will be wiped out. [13:45] >> This turned into what we later feared [13:47] as Social Darwinism, which allowed [13:49] people to try and screen for population [13:51] quality. And that is what Hitler later [13:53] took to the extreme. [13:54] >> Through Galton’s eugenics theories, [13:56] that lineage has lasted over 100 years, [13:58] but what you’re talking about is a [14:00] very dangerous signal. Every human [14:02] being who survives has significance. It [14:04] comes down to how you define [14:05] intelligence. We can survive in the [14:07] city, but if we’re thrown onto the [14:09] savanna, perhaps those indigenous [14:10] African tribes are better adapted to [14:12] that environment than we are—it [14:13] depends on how you define it. [14:16] >> So, according to your research, [14:18] theoretically, the offspring of a [14:20] university professor isn't necessarily [14:22] going to be a professor themselves. [14:25] >> We say that wealth doesn't last past [14:27] three generations, and the same goes [14:28] for elite "985" graduates. I’ve asked [14:30] many people; there are almost no cases [14:32] of three consecutive generations from [14:33] schools like Fudan, Peking University, [14:35] or Tsinghua. [14:36] >> In other words, you can’t predict me [14:37] just by looking at my father. [14:38] >> You see, he’s already touched on the [14:40] "selfish gene," like Dawkins did. [14:42] >> And the altruistic gene, too. [14:44] >> Is there really an altruistic gene? [14:46] >> It’s quite difficult. I actually find [14:48] it hard to define what an altruistic [14:49] gene is, but in terms of human nature, [14:51] we are indeed the first species to give [14:53] birth to true altruism. [14:55] >> Hmm. [14:55] >> Other species almost never die for the [14:57] sake of others. At most, they do it for [14:59] their own kin, but that kind of [15:01] altruism isn't genetic; it's a form of [15:03] later moral training. [15:05] >> That’s the question: can moral [15:06] training actually influence genes? [15:09] >> Let’s take it a step further. In the [15:13] past, we believed a child's personality [15:15] , temper, or even how they interact [15:17] with others was learned by imitating [15:19] their parents and being influenced by [15:21] the family environment, right? But... [15:26] Honestly, I’m just rambling here, but [15:28] as a humanities student, I think of [15:30] figures like Wang Yangming. [15:32] >> His philosophy of mind can be traced [15:34] all the way back to Mencius. [15:37] >> Wang Yangming’s philosophy suggests [15:39] that there is something within the [15:40] human heart called "innate knowledge." [15:42] This innate knowledge is something we [15:44] possess without needing to learn it. [15:46] Mencius meant that humans are born with [15:48] a sense of shame, or perhaps an innate [15:50] sense of compassion. For example, if [15:54] you see a child falling into a well, [15:55] you are born with a sense of compassion [15:57] . Wang Yangming believed this [16:03] compassion is—well, I’m just making [16:05] a loose connection—if his philosophy [16:07] holds water, then could this compassion [16:09] be related to our genes? [16:14] >> 3.1 billion, not 100 million... [16:16] regarding how humans developed this [16:18] sense of compassion, we have a book [16:20] called*The Better Angels of Our Nature* [16:22] , which explains why violence has [16:24] decreased. Yes. [16:26] >> A large part of it is due to progress, [16:28] because our technology has advanced, so [16:29] people don’t need to fight to the [16:31] death anymore. The natural world is [16:33] actually a slaughterhouse; there is no [16:35] such thing as a "vibrant" nature. The [16:38] vibrant nature we see is just us [16:39] humanizing it; in reality, nature is a [16:42] slaughterhouse. When two species meet, [16:45] for the most part, it’s about eating [16:46] or killing each other, rather than [16:48] coexisting to continue their lineages. [16:50] Options are very limited; every species [16:52] we see is essentially locked in an [16:53] intense process of choosing and being [16:55] chosen. This is the reality of nature. [16:57] >> In the words of Liu Cixin, it is a " [16:59] dark forest." So, for humans, can genes [17:04] determine personality? There are indeed [17:08] some genes that are extreme and more [17:10] prone to aggression. This group of [17:12] people might also be more likely, for [17:14] example in wartime, to achieve a high [17:16] kill count and be particularly brave. [17:19] These two terms actually mean the same [17:21] thing, depending on whether you're [17:22] looking at it from your side or the [17:24] enemy's side. [17:26] >> Right, right, right. But as the cost of [17:29] such wars becomes increasingly [17:30] unbearable, such as with nuclear war [17:32] which no one can withstand. During this [17:35] process, everyone tends to lean more [17:37] toward resolving issues through [17:38] civilized means. So, on the whole, [17:42] human nature is trending toward having [17:44] more elements of being kind to others. [17:50] I think what we can explain today, or [17:51] what is more easily accepted, is that [17:53] the environment shaped by the social [17:55] context is the key. But from a genetic [17:59] perspective, we are also indirectly [18:00] filtering out these violent elements, [18:02] because they might be...... [18:05] >> weeded out. I am talking about natural [18:07] selection; once you select for it, it [18:09] may no longer be an advantage. [18:10] >> You can understand it like this: if we [18:12] were at war every day, a person who is [18:13] extremely bloodthirsty would have the [18:15] most offspring. [18:16] >> If we aren't fighting today, they don't [18:17] have as many opportunities to have more [18:19] descendants, so the "bloodthirsty" gene [18:21] —I'm putting it rather extremely—is [18:23] gradually weeded out of the gene pool. [18:24] This is called genetic drift, and it [18:26] can happen in a very short amount of [18:28] time. [18:28] >> Oh. I can give you a very simple [18:30] example, which is the cliff swallows in [18:32] the United States. [18:34] >> They build nests under highway bridges. [18:36] >> Mm. [18:37] >> Well, originally, when these swallows [18:39] start to fly, they always drop downward [18:41] first before taking flight. There were [18:43] too many incidents, so those that [18:45] dropped down would get hit and killed. [18:47] Because of this simple occurrence, in [18:49] just a few decades, all the wings of [18:51] these swallows in North America have [18:53] become shorter. Because those with [18:55] longer wings couldn't take off in time, [18:57] while those with shorter wings could [18:58] fly away when cars approached. This was [19:00] a result of natural selection. You [19:02] could say this is a problem caused by [19:03] cars, but genetically, the long-winged [19:05] swallows were indeed weeded out. I can [19:07] share an example from March 8, 1924. [19:10] >> In 1924, women...... [19:14] >> Xiao Ning proposed abolishing the [19:15] polygamy system. [19:17] >> It ended an outdated practice and gave [19:19] women more choices. It made it so that [19:21] every man has a chance to have a wife. [19:23] It means that even if your genes are [19:25] particularly good, back in the [19:26] Republican era, you could have taken 20 [19:28] or 30 wives. [19:29] >> Actually, you are using money to buy [19:30] out these women's opportunity costs to [19:32] bear your children. [19:33] >> That means there will be twenty or [19:35] thirty more bachelors. [19:36] >> So monogamy, in itself, is meant to [19:38] keep genetic diversity as much as [19:40] possible. Everyone's genes have a [19:42] chance to be passed on. So you can't [19:44] simply use things like that. [19:47] >> I thought it was to ensure wealthy men [19:49] couldn't take multiple wives. [19:51] >> That's also correct. Hong Kong didn't [19:53] abolish it until the 60s or 70s, very [19:55] late. [19:55] >> Very late. Look at the students; many [20:00] of my students say their families had [20:02] three or two wives living together. I [20:08] thought monogamy was supposed to [20:10] protect women. Logically speaking, it [20:13] is to protect the vulnerable in the [20:15] gender struggle. [20:16] >> It should be understood this way; that [20:18] is correct. [20:18] >> It’s about distribution. Although the [20:20] Code of Hammurabi advocated for [20:22] monogamy, because China pushed its [20:24] agricultural culture to the extreme. So [20:26] we kept it until the very, very end. [20:29] >> In theory, we called it monogamy, [20:31] followed by monogamy with concubines. [20:36] That's the perspective, because [20:37] theoretically, there was always only [20:39] one spouse, like the empress in dramas [20:41] —there is only one, the others are [20:43] just...it's just gender inequality, [20:45] women couldn't do the same, except for [20:47] Wu Zetian. [20:50] >> So you see, what does this imply? For [20:53] example, in the animal kingdom, it's [20:55] heartless. [20:56] >> Right, like a chimpanzee or something, [20:58] if it has the conditions. It will [21:01] occupy more mating opportunities. Yes. [21:03] >> And thus, the efficiency of gene [21:05] transmission is greatly [21:07] >> directly realized. [21:09] >> But that's why I say, humans are very [21:11] different; human culture and [21:12] civilization ultimately [21:15] >> generated a need for fairness. But, [21:17] however [21:17] >> this fairness you speak of [21:20] >> No, no, but it is this ancient [21:22] distribution system that created—I [21:24] don't know if it's called emotional [21:25] genes or what—that is still in our [21:27] memory. For example, they say the [21:30] origin of jealousy, why men feel [21:31] jealous and why women feel jealous, is [21:33] different. It's said that men feel [21:35] jealous because they don't know if the [21:37] offspring will be theirs, so men care [21:39] more about whether the woman has had [21:41] physical relations with another man. [21:43] But women's jealousy is emotional; for [21:45] example, she might feel that his [21:47] emotional infidelity is more [21:48] significant than physical infidelity, [21:50] because if there's emotional infidelity [21:52] , uh, how should I put it, well. [21:54] >> Half of the property would be... [21:57] >> Meaning that the resources or property [21:59] held by the male would be taken away by [22:01] others, so even with monogamy, in our [22:03] memory... [22:06] >> It is, it is, the memory of not being [22:08] monogamous is still there. [22:13] >> That suddenly makes sense; it means [22:15] animals evolve through the [22:16] environmental genes you mentioned, [22:18] while humans use social systems and [22:19] cultural habits as conditions. Adding a [22:25] layer of restraint, an extra layer. [22:27] >> Moreover, human history is very short [22:29] compared to most animals. Right, if we [22:33] followed the logic of the animal [22:35] kingdom, then many of our demands for [22:37] fairness or civilization... [22:40] >> Unfair. [22:41] >> How should I put it? It's that everyone [22:44] has the chance to pass on their DNA. [22:46] >> This is our value, right? On the [22:49] surface, it seems a bit inconsistent [22:51] with the will of DNA. [22:56] >> But, I have also read a theory that [22:57] some social aspects are written into [22:59] our genes. Meaning, groups that help [23:05] each other might have a higher [23:07] probability of survival in a collective [23:09] sense. [23:12] >> That is a definite conclusion, that's [23:14] correct. [23:15] >> Back during the great purges, families [23:17] with blood relations had a higher [23:18] survival rate. There is evidence for [23:21] this. You see, that is... [23:23] >> Doesn't that violate the selfishness of [23:25] DNA that wants to survive? [23:27] >> Not at all, because there are blood [23:28] relations, so as long as I take care of [23:30] people in my group, I am continuing my [23:32] genes. You will understand that [23:34] lionesses take care of each other's [23:35] cubs. But a male lion will definitely [23:37] kill the previous male's cubs first, to [23:39] make the lioness stop breastfeeding and [23:40] enter the fertile period again to bear [23:42] his own children. [23:43] >> Hey, what about ants? Ants. [23:45] >> Ants reproduce by cloning. They use [23:47] cloning, so this problem doesn't exist. [23:49] Ants are a social species. Because you [23:52] just mentioned this, I was thinking, [23:54] many of us now like to watch nature [23:56] documentaries, animal kingdom films, [23:58] when we watch them, actually... [24:00] >> We find them very good, very beautiful. [24:02] >> But that's adding many human [24:03] interpretations; that is your human [24:05] perspective. Is it because what we see [24:08] is actually—I'm wondering—is it [24:10] like the human world with killing, [24:12] mating, and continuation, when in [24:14] reality it's not? [24:16] >> How were the birds in Australia wiped [24:18] out so quickly? Hmm. [24:19] >> By cats, feral cats. [24:21] >> Hmm. [24:25] >> Actually, the feral cats in Australia [24:27] have reached such a point that when [24:29] they see a fire, they will run from [24:31] very, very far away—not to put out [24:32] the fire, but because the birds will be [24:34] roasted. [24:37] >> I thought they went to help put out the [24:39] fire, I said that’s just too amazing. [24:40] >> In fact, many cats have already [24:42] >> Yes, they take advantage of the birds ' [24:44] distress to start this kind of [24:45] slaughter. They are truly wiping out [24:47] wild birds in an extinction-level way. [24:48] >> They just haven't developed to the [24:50] point of starting the fires themselves. [24:51] >> So, wrong, so we [24:53] >> are still inferior to humans, [24:54] >> so we have to [24:55] >> humans can start fires. [24:57] >> Right, so if we really think the human [24:58] world is the same as the animal world, [25:00] we would just think we are also in this [25:02] jungle. We might see a lot, we might [25:04] see a lot of problems in the animal [25:06] kingdom that we can't explain, for [25:08] example, birds do have a very strict [25:10] monogamous system, for instance [25:12] >> they also have it, [25:13] >> it's also like [25:14] >> the reason [25:15] >> there are also many species that have [25:16] languages you don't understand, and a [25:18] fish's memory is definitely not seven [25:20] seconds; a fish's memory can be very [25:22] long. [25:23] >> Some fish know who their owner is and [25:25] will even greet you. [25:26] >> It’s more or less that meaning, so [25:27] our current understanding of animals [25:29] should be a bit like our understanding [25:30] of human infants; they already know how [25:32] to do things, but they can't say it, so [25:34] you think they don't know. [25:35] >> Hmm. [25:36] >> When we talk about the interests of DNA [25:38] , is the interest of DNA your personal [25:40] interest? Or is it the interest of the [25:42] population? Like honeybees. Right? It [25:46] seems like it's what? As long as my DNA [25:49] can be passed on, the life or death of [25:51] any one individual can be sacrificed, [25:53] and to this extent, it is also [25:54] beneficial to their population. This [25:57] isn't true altruism; this is called [25:59] altruism, but this altruism is [26:00] determined by genes, determined by the [26:02] selfishness of genes. You see, this [26:04] selfishness makes the "I for everyone, [26:06] everyone for me" impossible. [26:08] >> It's animalistic. [26:09] >> Animalistic altruism is, "I die for the [26:11] genes of the population," we can simply [26:12] call this altruistic behavior. This [26:14] altruistic behavior has strict genetic [26:16] factors involved; for example, we know [26:18] many types of fungi. In this process, [26:20] you will find that there are always [26:22] some fungi that keep pushing upward, [26:23] and later you realize it's not a trick, [26:25] but in the end, the stupidest one gets [26:27] pushed up, and this is genetically [26:28] determined. [26:29] >> Hmm. [26:30] >> Whether it's Huang Guang or others, [26:31] they did it for the country, for the [26:33] nation. This isn't base; it's a moment [26:35] of genuine humanity. This is called [26:37] true altruism, which has absolutely [26:39] nothing to do with genetics. It is a [26:41] crucial part of what makes us human. [26:42] From both philosophical and scientific [26:44] perspectives, it is something we should [26:46] promote: true altruism. Is that what [26:48] you mean by sublime? [26:49] >> I wouldn't necessarily call it sublime. [26:51] But why do we define ourselves as the [26:53] primates, the masters of all creatures? [26:55] What is it based on? [26:56] >> This is at least one of the important [26:58] reasons. [26:59] >> Is this love in our DNA? [27:02] >> That relates to reproduction. [27:06] Theoretically speaking, love is an [27:07] emotion that is very difficult to [27:09] describe. For instance, romantic love, [27:14] parental love, love for a group, and [27:16] love for humanity are all different. [27:20] >> Right. [27:21] >> So, this love is not just one thing. At [27:24] least based on the evidence we have [27:26] today from endocrinology—the evidence [27:28] from our various hormone secretions and [27:30] brain waves—it isn't singular. Some [27:32] forms of love, like basic impulses, I [27:34] believe animals have too. But some [27:36] forms of love are likely unique to [27:37] humans, or at least only provable in [27:39] humans, while others remain unprovable. [27:41] Unprovable. So, this brings us back to [27:44] what we discussed earlier—the point [27:46] you mentioned about the city—at what [27:48] stage does love, in the human sense, [27:50] emerge? We may never find that evidence [27:53] . [27:55] >> Because you cannot pull yourself up by [27:56] your own hair to lift yourself off the [27:58] ground. In other words, we still don't [28:00] fully understand how DNA gives rise to [28:02] consciousness. [28:03] >> We don't quite get it. We are currently [28:06] working hard to examine things on two [28:07] levels. First, by using brain waves and [28:11] analyzing these neuronal connections, [28:13] we are only detecting a result. We [28:17] don't know the relationship between [28:19] this result and its cause. Second, we [28:21] are constantly studying how your 86 [28:23] billion neurons are structured. If I [28:24] can't replicate it, I don't understand [28:26] it, so I must first reconstruct you [28:28] structurally. It's a bit like the Human [28:29] Genome Project; I have to map out the 3 [28:31] billion base pairs first before I can [28:32] explain what each individual gene does. [28:33] If I haven't mapped out the 3 billion [28:35] genes yet, talking about what this gene [28:36] or that gene does is just like climbing [28:38] a tree to catch fish; it's [28:39] short-sighted. [28:39] >> Ah. [28:40] >> So, you just said that love cannot yet [28:41] be explained from a genetic perspective [28:43] . What else cannot be explained from a [28:44] genetic perspective? [28:45] >> To this day, issues of emotion can [28:47] hardly be explained solely by genes. [28:49] Then can hormones explain them? [28:51] >> Hormones may show a result, but the [28:53] regulation of these hormones is also [28:55] extremely precise. [28:59] >> For instance, many neurobiologists [29:01] understand a fact: under conditions of [29:03] a natural human death. Not a sudden [29:08] death, but in a natural death, before [29:10] passing, the brain shifts its own cells [29:13] from a physiological to a pathological [29:15] state. Releasing large amounts of amino [29:18] acids. 5-HT, dopamine, endorphins, or [29:22] similar substances. [29:24] >> What does that mean? [29:25] >> It makes you feel very comfortable. [29:27] >> Uh-huh. [29:27] >> Allowing you to sedate yourself into [29:29] passing away. [29:30] >> Yes, so many people who report [29:32] near-death experiences are actually [29:34] enjoying this process, a bit like the [29:36] euphoria caused by brief hypoxia after [29:38] climbing Mount Everest. [29:43] >> Ah, this is also your brain helping you [29:45] avoid pain during a crisis; death is a [29:47] program. Death is a program; it is [29:51] written into our genes—cellular death [29:53] and human death are programs. This is [29:56] ... [29:59] >> Before modern medicine introduced [30:01] concepts like genes, philosophers [30:03] throughout history had long explored [30:05] this, generally discussing love. [30:10] >> And fear—that is, the cherishing of [30:12] life—were both explained as instinct. [30:19] Using instinct, meaning it’s not due [30:21] to morality, education, or training, [30:23] but in its simplest form, the instinct [30:25] is just survival; the first type is the [30:27] reproductive instinct, so there’s a [30:29] fondness for small things, love, [30:31] affection, and even compassion. They [30:39] believe human love for their children [30:41] is like animals' love for their young; [30:43] it's not taught, it's instinct. A [30:48] mother will certainly sacrifice her [30:50] life for her child. [30:52] >> That must be DNA, right? Actually, it [30:55] should be said that it involves both [30:57] the protection of offspring genes and a [30:59] form of altruistic behavior. I think [31:01] that's still correct. [31:02] >> But there are certainly those who don't [31:03] care for their children, too. [31:05] >> Actually, a very important factor is [31:07] that not all children are biologically [31:09] their own. Oh, that makes things even [31:11] more complicated. [31:12] >> Meaning, even if you don't [31:13] intellectually recognize the child as [31:15] yours, if you hold the wrong one, you [31:16] would still save them; at that point, I [31:18] can't use genes to explain it. Such [31:20] cases do exist. There are mothers who [31:22] would sacrifice everything for their [31:23] children, which holds some truth, and [31:25] there are those who don't even know the [31:26] child is not theirs, yet they still [31:28] consider it their own and would give [31:29] their lives for it. These cases have [31:31] all been encountered in the wealth of [31:32] scientific evidence. So, I believe it [31:34] must be a behavior that is a synthesis [31:36] of these two results. [31:37] >> It's still nature and nurture. [31:39] >> A joint behavior. [31:41] >> Could we understand it as DNA being a [31:43] biological entity, where its basic [31:45] operating principle is self-interest? [31:48] >> The issue you're raising is like when [31:50] we have fewer transistors; even if we [31:52] break DNA down to the elemental or [31:54] molecular level, we see how it works, [31:55] but once it reaches a certain [31:57] complexity and develops a nervous [31:58] system, it suddenly gives rise to so [32:00] much intelligence and things we cannot [32:02] explain. [32:03] >> Hmm. [32:03] >> Regarding this question, those of us in [32:04] neuroscience have a pessimistic school [32:06] of thought that believes studying the [32:07] human brain from a human perspective [32:08] will never lead to a full understanding [32:09] . [32:09] >> Right. [32:10] >> Yes. [32:10] >> Towards humans. [32:11] >> It's like saying you cannot...... [32:13] >> pull yourself up by your own hair. It's [32:14] like Gödel's incompleteness theorem; [32:16] it means you cannot, within a system, [32:18] >> always account for every element. You [32:19] must have a third-party vantage point [32:21] to observe it. Let's take the U.S. FDA, [32:23] for instance. Drugs approved by the FDA [32:25] are considered viable; that's the [32:27] extent of what science currently [32:28] recognizes, so you can take them. But [32:31] there will always be people who ask, " [32:33] How can you be sure?" [32:34] >> Calling for absolute, for total safety. [32:38] >> In the infinite future, even [32:40] considering the gene therapies we use [32:42] now, I tell you, gene therapy is a [32:44] blessing for the future, for many [32:46] genetic diseases— [32:48] >> Right, these rare diseases. [32:50] >> Including mRNA, which is a synthesized [32:52] segment of genetic material injected [32:54] into the body, simulating a virus. [32:55] >> Yes. [32:56] >> It allows humans to directly learn how [32:58] to defend against a virus. [33:00] >> Including future tumor treatments, the [33:02] prospects for gene therapy are very [33:04] broad. So this touches on the issue [33:07] that we scientists can only act [33:08] according to the level of our knowledge [33:10] up to this point. But science also says [33:14] , "I am always waiting for correction." [33:16] >> Yes. So, could it be that in the future [33:20] , a therapy we adopt today in science [33:22] —say, in genetics—suddenly [33:24] encounters a "black swan" event? Where [33:28] 100 cases are fine, 100 cases work [33:30] perfectly, but the 101st...... [33:33] >> goes wrong. [33:36] >> So I keep asking them, is the potential [33:38] major threat a sign that we’ve hit a [33:40] boundary? [33:43] >> The point is, aren't there two famous [33:45] and interesting anecdotes in [33:47] theoretical physics? The first one is [33:51] about a sharpshooter who fires a hole [33:53] every ten centimeters. Then a [33:56] two-dimensional creature looks at these [33:57] ten-centimeter holes. It concludes that [34:00] there is a hole every ten centimeters [34:02] and treats it as a law. This is [34:03] described very clearly in Cixin Liu's " [34:05] The Three-Body Problem." The second one [34:09] is about a farm, say, a pen of pigs [34:11] that get fed at 10 AM every day; a [34:13] scientist among the pigs summarizes [34:15] that food always arrives at 10 AM. This [34:19] holds true for an entire year, but on [34:21] the last day of the year, they are all [34:23] slaughtered for the holiday. So this is [34:26] the logic here: there are some problems [34:28] we simply cannot solve within our [34:30] current dimension. You are trapped in [34:33] three dimensions and cannot travel [34:35] through time; if higher intelligent [34:36] beings exist, many things we do today [34:38] are essentially in vain. So, in this [34:41] process, I’ve been emphasizing a very [34:43] important concept: free will. Free will [34:45] —does free will actually exist? Right [34:48] , if free will doesn’t exist, then we [34:50] can practically assume that everything [34:52] today is designed. Your thoughts also [34:54] have boundaries because you lack free [34:56] will. In this process, philosophers [34:59] have actually been quite brilliant; [35:01] isn't Descartes the pinnacle? He [35:04] assumed there was an omnipotent being, [35:06] or perhaps a demon, that could [35:07] manufacture any illusion for you. Then [35:09] he had to ask himself a question. What [35:11] question could I ask that would prove [35:13] my own existence? [35:14] >> Yeah. [35:14] >> He said: I think, therefore I am. [35:17] >> I think, therefore I am. [35:20] >> So today, a core question regarding [35:21] consciousness is whether you truly [35:23] possess free will. Is your free will [35:26] bound by your level of understanding? [35:28] Are your thoughts infinite, with [35:29] endless possibilities? In other words, [35:33] can your calculations span infinite [35:35] dimensions, or are you just a [35:36] higher-level being who has been led to [35:38] believe you are omnipotent? Just like [35:41] the lab rat or the pet cat you keep at [35:43] home. He has never been outside, yet [35:45] that is his whole world. Perhaps you [35:48] are that cat, trapped here. This is [35:50] actually a profound question. We often [35:53] end up discussing this: how do you [35:54] prove you have free will? Because [35:58] sometimes the things you imagine have [36:00] already been thought of by others, or [36:01] thought of elsewhere. It's like, how [36:05] should I put it, being within this [36:07] tradition. [36:09] >> Are you saying that whether we humans [36:10] can prove we have free will is the same [36:12] day we discover whether we can prove if [36:14] the universe has a boundary? [36:16] >> Actually. [36:16] >> Because it is the pinnacle of our [36:18] cognition, the ultimate source for [36:20] everyone. [36:20] >> If the origin of the universe is [36:22] correct, and if the physical laws we [36:24] observe are correct, then I should have [36:25] an origin of life. If I have the degree [36:27] of the power of life, I have an origin [36:29] of consciousness. This origin of [36:31] consciousness, within the current scope [36:33] of the universe, should be governed by [36:34] the laws of this universe. [36:36] >> But what you mentioned, regarding the [36:38] black hole. Reaching that singularity, [36:40] that specific place. [36:42] >> Yes. [36:43] >> All existing physical laws. [36:45] >> Fail. [36:46] >> Yes. But then, scientists also say [36:48] there is a boundary. [36:50] >> Yes. [36:51] >> But what lies beyond that boundary is [36:53] unknowable. These...the first book I [36:55] read as a child was an encyclopedia, [36:57] specifically astronomy. [36:59] >> After reading it, I couldn't think [37:01] about any other questions. [37:02] >> Yes. [37:03] >> I’ve been thinking about one question [37:05] . There must be a boundary, right? [37:07] >> Then what happens if you take one more [37:09] step beyond that boundary? Would you [37:11] die the moment you cross it? [37:13] >> His theory is that the universe is [37:15] finite but unbounded. Finite but [37:17] unbounded. [37:17] >> What does "finite" mean? [37:19] >> Finite means it's like walking on an [37:21] infinitely large sphere. You can't [37:22] leave it, but you feel like every step [37:24] you take is still on the sphere. [37:25] Imagine a basketball, and you are a [37:27] bacterium on it. You cannot cross this [37:29] boundary because gravity or other [37:31] fundamental physical laws exist to [37:32] restrain you. Einstein's conclusion. [37:35] >> It means there is an outside. [37:36] >> There is a boundary. But. [37:38] >> You can't get there. [37:39] >> In other words, at that point, even the [37:41] basis for the existence of matter may [37:43] not exist. In other words, to put it [37:48] more simply, it means you take many [37:50] rulers and many theories, and if you [37:52] find it, those theories all vanish; [37:54] they don't exist. [37:57] >> Einstein once said, the most [37:58] incomprehensible thing about the [38:00] universe is that it is, in fact, [38:02] comprehensible. [38:03] >> Mm. [38:04] >> My, that is a truly wise statement. But [38:07] conversely, he also understood that [38:08] this understanding has its limits. [38:10] Because the more we know, the more we [38:12] realize what we don't know, right? [38:13] >> Once these ultimate questions are asked [38:15] , no one can really answer them. [38:17] >> For instance, in ancient China, they [38:18] talked about figures like Zhuge Liang, [38:20] who could devise strategies in his tent [38:22] to decide the outcome of battles a [38:24] thousand miles away. Then I thought, [38:26] isn't that exactly like Einstein? [38:29] It’s about grasping the underlying [38:31] laws of science. Oh, I think Einstein [38:34] must be chuckling somewhere after his [38:36] passing. I mean, he said light would [38:40] bend from here to there, and years [38:41] later, it was proven to be true. If [38:46] someone like Einstein lived in ancient [38:47] times, he would be a sage, someone who [38:49] could foresee everything from miles [38:51] away, telling you exactly when an [38:53] eclipse would happen. From a scientific [38:57] perspective, Einstein truly relied on [38:59] deduction and mathematical methods to [39:01] prove things we previously couldn't [39:03] even imagine. Einstein was born in 1879 [39:06] , and he wrote his theory of relativity [39:08] in 1905; he was only 26 years old. At [39:11] 26, in four papers, he derived E = mc² [39:14] , all while working as a lowly clerk in [39:16] a patent office. [39:17] >> Right, at the patent office. [39:19] >> His most impressive feat was his work [39:21] on gravitational waves, predicting [39:22] their existence; we didn't actually [39:24] observe them until 2016. [39:25] >> That's because our instruments finally [39:27] caught up. Many of the laws he [39:29] predicted have guided humanity forward [39:31] by leaps and bounds. [39:32] >> So, do you think Einstein's DNA is any [39:34] different from ours? [39:35] >> Yes, yes, yes, I’m thinking about the [39:37] same thing. Why didn't his brain change [39:41] the DNA pool of humanity, right? [39:44] >> Let’s consider a few questions; first [39:46] , you just mentioned Einstein’s brain [39:47] . [39:48] >> Everyone thought Einstein's brain was [39:49] huge, but after he died and it was [39:50] dissected, it was actually small. [39:52] >> It was even small. [39:53] >> Right, nothing special about it. [39:54] Nothing special, so we still wonder. [39:56] >> Compared to an average person—we [39:57] usually say it's about 1400 cubic [39:58] centimeters, or milliliters—that's [40:00] how we understand it. A woman's brain [40:01] might be slightly smaller, because head [40:03] size is a matter of physique, but that [40:04] doesn't mean women are less intelligent [40:05] ; male and female intelligence is the [40:07] same. [40:07] >> It is the same. [40:08] >> Yes, that needs to be said. [40:09] >> It's just focused on different areas. [40:11] >> I thought women were smarter. [40:13] >> That's better said. [40:15] >> That's your feeling, I still... [40:17] >> I still have to use this—this isn't [40:19] about political correctness, this is a [40:21] proven fact. Mhm. [40:22] >> The structural difference in the brain [40:24] between men and women is merely an 11% [40:26] difference in volume. That's just like [40:28] the difference in body size. [40:30] Furthermore, the difference between [40:32] larger-brained men and smaller-brained [40:34] men is just as significant, which [40:36] proves that the brain doesn't exhibit [40:38] sexual dimorphism—it doesn't exist in [40:40] two states based on sex. [40:42] >> This is a settled conclusion, not just [40:44] a guess. [40:45] >> So, this size difference has nothing to [40:47] do with its function. Nothing at all, [40:48] since some brains are just naturally [40:50] smaller. [40:51] >> Does this mean that the so-called [40:53] traditional masculinity and femininity [40:55] are essentially products of our social [40:56] and cultural environment? [40:58] >> I believe so. For example, many think [41:00] women are bad at math or have no sense [41:02] of direction, but that's not true; you [41:04] can find evidence to the contrary in [41:05] women. [41:06] >> Mm. [41:06] >> It's mostly a matter of being [41:07] conditioned. [41:08] >> Exactly, exactly. [41:09] >> It's being conditioned, just like how [41:10] people think horoscopes are real. [41:12] >> Mm, it's really more about being [41:13] conditioned. You mentioned something in [41:16] the last episode that I think we [41:18] haven't fully explored, which is an [41:19] ethical issue we must consider for the [41:21] future. Is it possible for us to [41:25] customize humans, just from a purely [41:27] technological standpoint? [41:29] >> From a purely technical perspective. [41:31] Let's put it this way: with today's [41:33] technology, I could customize a human [41:35] with any sequence, but I cannot predict [41:37] their functionality. For example, there [41:39] are 3 billion base pairs. [41:40] >> Mm. However you want them arranged, I [41:42] might be able to synthesize them for [41:43] you. But whether that child will [41:45] develop according to your expectations [41:47] —like playing basketball better than [41:49] Yao Ming—Or having a specific face, [41:50] that we can't do. I can design... [41:54] >> No, I don't mean can we build it, but [41:56] could we make their liver or stomach, [41:58] based on current science, the most [42:00] ideal size—not too big, not too small [42:02] —eliminate certain disease risks, and [42:05] adjust foot size or body proportions? [42:09] Can these be made into an ideal version [42:11] ? [42:12] >> We can't do that yet today. [42:13] >> Not yet. But fundamentally speaking, [42:16] this should be feasible. Take yeast as [42:19] an example, which is very well-studied [42:21] today. [42:22] >> Mm. [42:22] >> Yeast is what we use to make steamed [42:24] buns. [42:24] >> Steamed buns. Now yeast can do more [42:26] than just make buns; for example, this. [42:27] This is a tomato, right? [42:29] >> Mm. [42:29] >> We used to always... [42:30] >> It was just gold a second ago, now it's [42:32] a tomato. Mm. [42:33] >> Always discussing lycopene. [42:34] >> Mm. [42:35] >> For instance, we drink red wine for [42:37] resveratrol. [42:37] >> Mm. [42:38] >> These used to come from grapes or [42:39] tomatoes, but now we don't have to; we [42:41] can just have yeast express them. The [42:43] most typical successful case of [42:45] expression in yeast is artemisinin; it [42:47] wasn't extracted from Artemisia annua. [42:49] Artemisinin is expressed in yeast. [42:52] >> Many necessities don't come from their [42:54] original sources, [42:55] >> not from biomass. Whatever component [42:57] you need, I just produce that component [42:59] , because the genes are the same. [43:01] >> I once did the math. If you planted all [43:03] of Macau with Artemisia, the raw [43:04] material for artemisinin, the supply of [43:06] artemisinin would be equal to what a [43:08] single fermentation tank the size of [43:09] this table could provide by growing [43:11] yeast. That's bio-manufacturing. What [43:13] can yeast express now? It can express [43:15] antibodies and albumin. It can replace [43:17] components we previously could only [43:18] obtain through blood donation; this is [43:19] what we are seeing. [43:20] >> That is a positive, purely beneficial [43:22] aspect. [43:23] >> At the level of bioengineering, [43:25] >> customizing a human being, as you [43:27] mentioned earlier, is indeed feasible [43:29] on record. But in reality, it's very [43:31] difficult to achieve, [43:32] >> because in this process, as you said, [43:33] when you press one thing, another pops [43:35] up. [43:35] >> You don't know how changing one thing [43:37] will affect the others. Moreover, the [43:38] cost of trial and error is like [43:39] reincarnation; you only get one chance. [43:41] >> Mhm. The secret of genes is actually [43:44] just like what we say about big data; [43:46] it needs to be inclusive, which [43:48] reflects certain human values. You [43:53] absolutely cannot have a future where, [43:55] if you have money, you can get better [43:57] genes or optimize yourself, while those [43:59] without money, are just left to become [44:01] increasingly stupid and weak. [44:05] >> I strongly agree with this view. I [44:07] often say that we cannot turn precision [44:09] medicine into "wealthy-person" medicine [44:11] , where the rich can wantonly enjoy [44:13] genetic editing. In other words, death [44:15] is the most equitable process. Death is [44:17] the most equitable process; death is [44:18] what gives the next generation the [44:20] chance to take over the ecological [44:22] niche of the previous one. [44:26] >> I think genetic science might change [44:28] this—what is currently a human-made [44:30] or surface-level consensus—but there [44:32] will always be someone who uses the [44:34] principle of the "selfish gene" to [44:36] break this. [44:40] >> I have discussed this with many people; [44:42] in fact, this question starts with [44:44] immortality. [44:45] >> Do I support immortality? No, I [44:46] definitely oppose it. [44:48] >> This is not just simply [44:50] >> a question of feasibility. [44:51] >> It is more about the fact that, [44:53] fundamentally, humanity continues as a [44:55] species, not as individuals. That's the [44:58] first point. The second point is, if [45:00] the first person can achieve [45:01] immortality, then there will be a [45:03] second. They would just settle it [45:06] physically with each other. [45:08] >> Yeah, [45:08] >> they'd just kill each other, and that's [45:10] it. The immortality we were just [45:12] discussing is only on the genetic level [45:13] . It’s impossible to say that even [45:15] after I’ve destroyed your physical [45:16] body, you are still immortal. This is [45:18] my second point. The third point is the [45:20] most troublesome one: consciousness [45:22] immortality, hmm. [45:23] >> Just like in sci-fi movies, where your [45:25] consciousness can be downloaded. [45:26] >> This is what people are most concerned [45:28] about. The second danger in this, which [45:31] we already discussed, is that conflict [45:33] between people is absolute. The third [45:37] is what countless people pursue, [45:39] especially those great philosophers, [45:41] like Confucius or Aristotle. If we [45:45] could replicate some of Aristotle’s [45:47] thought patterns now, they wouldn’t [45:49] be outdated even today; many people [45:51] would want that, humanity would reach a [45:53] consensus, so what could stop this in [45:55] the future, or...say... [45:57] >> The Personal Information Protection Law [45:59] recently introduced that bans [46:01] algorithmic recommendations is a good [46:02] step, I think. But how can we avoid so [46:04] much waste in this process? Look at how [46:06] much wisdom humanity has accumulated [46:08] over thousands of years; actually, many [46:10] people today have forgotten most of it. [46:11] How can we maintain this transmission? [46:13] >> How can there be so many brilliant [46:15] minds, right? [46:15] >> Right, the cost is too high; the cost [46:17] of transmitting human wisdom is high. [46:19] >> No, there are some things I just find [46:21] hard to believe, but they think it's [46:23] possible, for example, Musk. [46:26] >> They say they’ve already connected [46:27] >> an interface [46:28] >> connected it to some animal. [46:29] >> Yeah, pigs. [46:31] >> Monkeys too. It’s just that, you see, [46:34] often when Vernor Vinge talks happily [46:36] about it, I don't know how it can be [46:37] done specifically—saying there’s a [46:39] real hope for an interface in the [46:41] future that can read the memories and [46:43] thoughts in my brain. Is that possible? [46:47] >> Some routine experiments have been done [46:48] on this—I don't mean the ones Musk [46:50] did; what Musk is doing is more about [46:52] neural signal connections, which isn't [46:54] hard, it’s just a basic biological [46:55] electrical activity. [46:57] >> You mean you can read my brain waves? I [46:58] don't believe that. How would you read [47:01] my thoughts? [47:01] >> Well, there are a few experiments that [47:03] have actually been conducted, for [47:04] example, we know some epilepsy patients [47:06] require the removal of part of the [47:07] white matter in their brain. [47:09] >> Yeah. [47:10] >> These people have to undergo [47:11] intraoperative awakening—meaning they [47:13] are woken up during the surgery. So, in [47:15] recent experiments, they placed many [47:17] electrodes in the area being operated [47:19] on. Inserted many electrodes, these [47:20] electrode patches, and then you don't [47:22] have to speak. [47:23] >> I ask you a question, and your brain [47:25] answers. Then it outputs your data with [47:27] an accuracy of about 60%to 70%, and an [47:30] input speed of roughly 100 to 150 words [47:33] in English. English. [47:34] >> It is referring to English. [47:36] >> But later on, it finds the pattern and [47:38] understands how your brain operates. [47:39] >> Actually, to some extent, it means we [47:41] can at least process his language; if [47:43] you wanted to speak, for instance if [47:44] Stephen Hawking had this technology, [47:46] that would be great, as he could output [47:47] a large amount of content. [47:48] >> For example, those of us learning a [47:50] foreign language often say, "You're [47:52] used to using English." Your point is [47:55] that if the brain's thought process [47:56] uses language, then at least the [47:58] signals from the language center could [48:00] potentially be accurately identified [48:01] under conditions of a language used by [48:03] billions of people and trained on tens [48:05] of billions of data points. It could [48:08] then translate it into English. What [48:10] I’m talking about is a concrete case; [48:12] this was published in a scientific [48:13] paper, and it has already been achieved [48:15] . So think about it, this future is [48:18] what they call—since this has always [48:20] been a science fiction trope, it's [48:21] something from a sci-fi world. If it [48:23] were real, that would be terrifying; [48:25] it’s just like the issue Yi Juncai [48:27] mentioned. That is to say, we humans [48:29] will die. A person, even as brilliant [48:32] as Einstein, once they die, they are [48:34] gone; we can only say their thoughts [48:36] live on forever. But if one day someone [48:40] proposes a hypothesis where we can [48:42] actually download the thoughts from [48:44] your brain, then that is what is meant [48:46] by immortality in this sense—digital [48:48] immortality. Then it would mean that [48:52] the same brain of Einstein would [48:54] continue to think. Give him another 100 [48:57] years, let him access the internet and [48:59] see everything, right? With that [49:02] accumulation of knowledge, this brain [49:04] might even discover the ultimate truth [49:06] of the universe, you never know. [49:09] >> Liu Cixin once wrote a novel about this [49:11] . But these are two different issues. [49:13] The first issue is that, as you said, [49:14] there are companies in California that [49:16] have programs constantly chatting, [49:18] designing countless questions to ask: [49:19] what did you do at one year old, what [49:21] about at two, with videos and [49:22] everything else. In the future, your [49:24] great-great-grandchildren might want to [49:26] call Teacher Dou. Anyway, don't many of [49:28] our elders already live in your contact [49:30] lists? Haven't seen them for a long [49:32] time? Make a call; based on your voice [49:33] and your records, they can chat with [49:35] you. This kind of company has already [49:37] started to be established in the United [49:38] States, this is just a part of it. Back [49:40] then, everyone was worried about [49:42] hackers, that I could just delete data [49:44] every day until Professor Dou ended up [49:45] with dementia, demanding money or I’d [49:47] delete your great-great-grandfather’s [49:49] data. This is the [49:51] consciousness-uploading process you [49:53] mentioned earlier. That’s one. The [49:55] second question is, as you said, if the [49:57] brain itself—what I’m discussing is [49:59] still within the realm of computation, [50:01] not yet reaching the realm of true [50:02] calculation—is that even human? A way [50:04] to solve this kind of problem. In other [50:06] words, we can reflect on a very [50:08] meaningful point Bezos made when he [50:10] went to space; it was the first time [50:11] I’d heard him put it that way. [50:13] >> The Earth can only support a limited [50:15] number of humans. [50:15] >> Yeah. [50:16] >> Setting aside whether that’s accurate [50:18] , his core point is that the solar [50:19] system can support one trillion people. [50:21] If we have one trillion people, we [50:23] could have a thousand Einsteins. That [50:24] might be the path for the human species [50:26] to venture into deep space. [50:28] >> Yeah. [50:29] >> This represents the American pioneer [50:31] spirit, which also reflects our own [50:33] Sapiens migration; back then, our [50:35] ancestors could walk from Africa to [50:37] North America and South America— [50:39] that’s this same pioneering spirit. [50:42] These two things are actually equally [50:44] important for the human species. He [50:46] thinks from this perspective, from the [50:48] angle of probability—we will still [50:50] produce Einsteins, just as there were [50:52] Newtons, Galileos, Aristotles, Euclids, [50:54] and Pythagorases before Einstein. [50:56] It’s the same. [50:57] >> Including our own Hundred Schools of [50:59] Thought, right? [50:59] >> But you also said you oppose any form [51:01] of immortality. Basically, if it’s [51:03] the third form of immortality I [51:05] mentioned, if it can guarantee that [51:06] everyone preserves their own—let’s [51:08] call it "keeping one’s mind as chaste [51:10] as jade." We have a term for keeping [51:11] one's body chaste, but more importantly [51:13] , it's keeping one's mind chaste. [51:15] >> Not being abused. [51:16] >> Not being polluted, not being abused, [51:17] not being manipulated—preserving the [51:19] self, or whether consciousness even [51:21] truly exists—this question is crucial [51:23] . [51:23] >> So humanity must never forget ethics; [51:25] this depends on us managing our own [51:27] possibilities and fate. It shows you [51:31] still believe that the transmission of [51:33] human knowledge and wisdom through [51:35] generations always has its own logic. [51:40] So my next question is: has your [51:41] research into genes given you any new [51:43] insights on how parents should educate [51:45] their children that you could share [51:47] with us? [51:49] >> Theory and practice. [51:51] >> Exactly, that's exactly why so many [51:52] people are confused right now about how [51:54] to educate their children. [51:55] >> Actually, it comes down to a [51:57] fundamental principle we all know. If [51:59] some children get tutoring, their [52:01] scores go up; if all children get [52:03] tutoring, the cutoff score just rises. [52:05] >> Raising the cutoff score is actually [52:07] meaningless, because it’s a zero-sum [52:08] game. If top universities don't expand [52:10] their enrollment. Then, if it took 700 [52:12] points to get in before, now it takes [52:14] 720; if Tsinghua and Peking University [52:15] don't expand, it’s useless. In [52:17] reality, it keeps us from exploring [52:19] many other things, because your time is [52:21] limited. There is no need to chase [52:23] those last 10 or 20 points, because [52:25] they are useless for your life. [52:26] Strictly speaking, they are truly [52:28] useless. Conversely, genes require [52:31] diversity; biology and ecology all [52:33] require diversity. I care more about [52:36] whether we can define a standard for [52:38] success, or perhaps, not define success [52:40] at all. [52:41] >> Everyone succeeds. Just like the [52:43] monogamy system. Everyone succeeds, and [52:45] everyone is preserved. When soybeans in [52:47] the Mississippi region faced that [52:49] disease, it was the Beijing black bean [52:51] that saved them. [52:52] >> Oh, how did that story go? [52:56] >> Because the Beijing black bean is [52:58] naturally resistant to those soybean [52:59] nematodes, so you would never imagine [53:01] that a gene from thousands of miles [53:03] away could save another closely related [53:05] species. By preserving every [53:09] possibility of success today, we are [53:11] actually providing an important support [53:13] for the diversification of our [53:15] education. The reason this earth is [53:17] beautiful is that it hasn't given up on [53:19] any color, whether it's red or black. [53:22] So in this sense, what I hope for now [53:24] is whether we can better avoid defining [53:26] success. Let's not have more " [53:29] successology," let's not have more of [53:31] that competitive spirit. This is not a [53:33] top-down mandate, but rather allowing [53:35] everyone...I often feel that our [53:38] society has a standard for all forms of [53:40] success; in our Chinese society, [53:42] whenever we talk about problems, we [53:43] talk about the large population. [53:45] >> We have come this far by...... [53:47] >> an elite screening mechanism; it's [53:49] ingrained in our memories, so asking it [53:51] to hit the brakes is very difficult, [53:53] extremely difficult. We've been [53:55] strongly advocating these ideas, but we [53:57] still feel, "Oh, without a screening [53:59] standard, how can we have diversity in [54:01] education?" [54:02] >> But looking at the most developed [54:03] countries, many of the problems they [54:05] face now include an aging population [54:07] and a declining birth rate existing [54:09] simultaneously. If a country eventually [54:11] has no people left, what medium could [54:13] you possibly use to record any of its [54:15] culture or heritage? [54:16] >> Then the Japanese would only have [54:18] immortality left to research. [54:21] >> To answer his question, I feel that it [54:23] is quite difficult to move away from [54:24] using standard markers of success, as [54:26] you mentioned. What we can achieve is a [54:30] diversity of success. I actually really [54:32] want to ask a question: how did that [54:34] so-called "Age of Miracles" come about, [54:36] around 2500 BC—or rather, looking [54:38] back 2,500 years from now? [54:39] >> Hmm. [54:39] >> The Axial Age, that era. [54:41] >> Yes, the Axial Age; Siddhartha Gautama [54:43] and the philosophers emerged then. [54:45] >> Hmm. [54:45] >> Ancient Greece, that group, and the [54:47] pillars of China. That era really did [54:49] have a significant impact. [54:51] >> Hmm. [54:53] >> In this process, we eventually return [54:56] to a very important point: we often say [54:58] innovation is the child of freedom. [55:03] >> And prosperity is its mother. Much [55:06] innovation cannot be top-down; a lot of [55:08] it is low-tech or combinatorial. In [55:12] history, many great advancements [55:13] weren't created by scientists, but by [55:15] craftsmen. [55:17] >> That's right, Watt could hardly be [55:18] called a scientist when he developed [55:20] the steam engine. [55:22] >> I feel that humanity...... [55:25] >> was like a person hitting puberty at [55:27] that time, reaching the age of 17 or 18 [55:29] . [55:31] >> Hmm. [55:31] >> A time to start thinking and heading to [55:33] university. That was back 2,500 years [55:36] ago. [55:37] >> Yes, different nations had different [55:39] focuses, of course. We Chinese were [55:42] particularly adept at the relationships [55:44] between people. Whereas Greece was [55:46] particularly concerned with the [55:48] relationship between humans and nature. [55:50] >> I just want to answer your question: [55:51] it’s not as if China has always been [55:52] like this for thousands of years. [55:54] >> Hmm. [55:54] >> It hasn't always been like this; [55:55] otherwise, how would Tang poetry have [55:57] emerged? How would Song lyrics have [55:58] emerged? It was only after the Ming [55:59] Dynasty that things suddenly became [56:01] extremely controlled, so after the Ming [56:02] , people could only write novels. So, [56:05] speaking of history, like this "Axial [56:07] Age" that Jaspers proposed—I've heard [56:09] an interpretation, though I don't know [56:11] if it's correct—it's like saying that [56:13] before that era, humanity was rooted in [56:15] primitive or shamanistic religions. You [56:18] see, back then, it was truly a [56:20] collective consciousness. Your [56:22] individual awareness was secondary to [56:23] your tribe. The individual was just [56:25] part of the collective— "we, this [56:27] tribe"—because we stayed together. [56:29] And at that time, they believed in [56:31] shamanism and a world of primitive [56:33] divine power; take the Shang Dynasty, [56:35] for example, it was a world full of [56:36] spirits. But, just as he mentioned, [56:39] from 800 BC to 200 BC, during those 600 [56:41] years, so many sages appeared [56:43] simultaneously in both the East and the [56:46] West, such as Confucius, Sakyamuni, [56:48] Plato, and Socrates. And what were they [56:51] doing? The perspective I've heard is [56:54] that humanity began to emerge from [56:56] ignorance and superstition, opening its [56:58] eyes for the first time to reflect upon [57:00] itself. That is, who am I, and what is [57:04] my existence? For instance, people like [57:07] Confucius, the Buddha, or many [57:09] religious figures established ethics [57:11] for living—what we call ethics— [57:13] regarding how people should get along [57:14] with one another. How should you love [57:18] each other? How should husbands and [57:20] wives treat each other? You see, in the [57:24] past, everything was attributed to gods [57:26] , but from that point on, you find that [57:28] these sages all seemed to share a [57:29] commonality: the questions they raised [57:31] back then remain the core issues for [57:33] humanity even today, specifically [57:35] regarding interpersonal relationships. [57:40] How can our society truly become [57:42] harmonious? [57:43] >> Most questions beyond the realm of [57:44] genetics were considered by them back [57:46] then. [57:46] >> From the perspective of the questions [57:48] themselves, yes. [57:49] >> Is that right? [57:49] >> These ultimate questions were already [57:50] being contemplated back then. [57:52] >> Most were considered. [57:52] >> Regardless of whether their conclusions [57:54] were correct. [57:54] >> Yes. [57:55] >> But they asked the right questions. So, [57:56] I must say, your insights are very [57:59] inspiring to us. That is, as we stand [58:02] at the threshold of a future made [58:04] unpredictable by technology, we still [58:06] need to reflect on the basic human [58:08] values defined by the sages of that era [58:10] ; this is what you refer to as the [58:12] ethical issues of biotechnology. [58:16] Specifically for parents today, every [58:18] family actually needs to consider from [58:19] a genetic perspective that parents have [58:21] provided their children with certain [58:23] genetic traits. [58:24] >> But in reality, they should also take a [58:26] good look at who this child is, as you [58:28] said; many things later in life are not [58:30] determined by genes, or perhaps you [58:31] can't even understand what kind of [58:33] genes you've actually given them—they [58:35] don't even know themselves.