Nate Rott

So in Ryan's opinion, and I heard this from pretty much everybody who supports the use of synthetic biology, is that when you consider like how fast the climate is changing right now and how poorly we've done to this point globally at stopping issues like deforestation.

They voted no on the moratorium by like a hair.

And yes, on a framework to integrate synthetic biology into conservation with like all of the safeguards that we mentioned.

Well, they're not going to just like instantly release a bunch of stuff into the wild.

Like that's still going to take a lot of time.

But in terms of the debate, I think this is still very much up for discussion.

Like everyone I talk to thinks this will show up again at the next big IUCN meeting.

And everyone I talk to thinks that's a good thing.

Because one of the concerns I heard here is that there's the potential that this could fundamentally change our relationship with nature.

Like, if a butterfly is genetically modified, would we still care for it the same way we would for one that's just fluttering around now?

Like, would you?

Right.

It's a tough question.

Anthony Waddle, the frog scientist we started with, hears that argument.

But his response is that we've already fundamentally changed nature.

Yeah, thank you so much for letting me talk about something that I am endlessly geeked about.

Toby Kears focuses on a specific type of fungus that penetrates plant roots, creating what's essentially an underground economy.

The fungus gives plants things it needs like nitrogen and phosphorus.

The plant gives the fungi sugars and fats.

It's a symbiotic relationship that's existed for millions of years that Kears says underpins healthy ecosystems.