Nate Rott

Yeah, basically.

So like think of the kinds of work that scientists do to genetically modify foods, like, you know, making crops more resistant to pesticides or like hardier to endure drought, that kind of stuff.

Totally.

Yeah.

Same exact thing.

So the problem the guy has with this kind of like know it when you see it broad definition is that it's just supporters.

It's jazz.

It's just jazz hands.

The problem is that it's like so broad that supporters of this technology often talk about synthetic biology as if, you know, genetically engineering insulin in laboratories for people, which is like a proven good use of it.

is the same thing as genetically engineering coral so it's more resistant to warming waters and then making those changes heritable so they can pass them on from generation to generation and then releasing that into the wild.

They've never been used.

So it's like we don't know if it's going to work.

And beyond that, we don't know if there might be any unintended consequences.

Like what if the genetic changes hurt the animal in some way or the broader ecosystem they live in?

Like completely on accident, but it's possible.

Yeah, and I mean, in Guy's view, if that happens, right, he thinks it could be irreversible.

Like, how would you capture a bunch of flies that have been released into the wild that are genetically mutated?

So he really worries that scientists could accidentally misuse these new technologies and accidentally create more problems that they're then trying to fix.

So he kind of sums up the whole debate that we're having in this way.

That's definitely true.