Naiem Yeganeh

Brisbane, Australia

About Naiem

Favorite talks

Comments & conversations

Noface
Naiem Yeganeh
Posted 3 months ago
Pamela Ronald: The case for engineering our food
We need well-informed, proper scientific discussions about such issues if we want to look after our safety as species (including safe, and proper food for 9B of us). The camp against GMO is dominated with fear-mongering, apocalyptical, religious, dogmatic, and non-scientific approach. It is more about GMO is evil and we are all gonna get cancer rather than understanding the products and what they really are! Many people happily feed their kids food processed and grown with dangerous chemicals, drink from plastic bottles, take sun-bath, eat chickens and eggs grown with hormones and fed tons of antibiotics, yet don't eat gmo rice because it gives them cancer. A very irrational view.
Noface
Naiem Yeganeh
Posted 3 months ago
Pamela Ronald: The case for engineering our food
It is not because of unpredictable consequences that we don't mess with human genes, it is because we have a very different bar about how we treat humans in contrast to other species. We breed fat cows, cute dogs, and furry cats with no GMO technique, yet we don't do this to humans, we do not breed strong humans or tall ones to form a sports club, because it is immoral. We somehow decided that it is moral to breed animals for traits, but is immoral to do the same with humans. The reason we don't mess with human genes is that it is simply immoral to risk any individual. If modifying the human gene can cause the off-spring to die young, it is a totally different situation from making a rice that does not grow well, and can be considered a failed experiment, although none would cause apocalypse!
Noface
Naiem Yeganeh
Posted 3 months ago
Pamela Ronald: The case for engineering our food
The GMO debate is partly down to the dogma of the divinity of nature - a very religious kind of problem. The outrage from golden rice is a testimony! How dare you create a golden rice when nature/god did not! The problem is nature has wiped out human crowds through disease and famine throughout centuries, and it doesn't feel responsible about humans. If something comes through natural means there is NO guarantee that it is safe. It is our duty to look after our safety. The point of this talk is the GMO, despite the sci-fi name, is not anything more than a more accurate and efficient method for doing what we have done for thousands of years with less random outcomes. Somehow mutating thousands or millions of genes is ok, but mutating one gene is going to cause apocalypse! Meybe because there have been no hollywood movies about a cross-bred rice becoming a freak monster!
Noface
Naiem Yeganeh
Posted 3 months ago
Nick Bostrom: What happens when our computers get smarter than we are?
Co-incidentally I am thinking about this problem these days. Question is "How would a super intelligence look like?" We might eventually create it and we would be most likely too late to realize and react. What I can say with high confidence is that the super intelligence, if we create, would not be built by one person at a specific time. It would more likely evolve as technology evolves, and like any other creation of an evolutionary (not necessarily Darwinian) process, it would be defined by its necessities for existence. What is the necessity for existence of AI? Most likely "Survival" would be the #1 skill. And probably a goal. The future robots that we are going to create all need to learn to survive in complex world - by some means of survival. And survival would be perhaps the only common goal between all types of AI. Unfortunately AI would not need to be a social or pack creature and would not need to posses any of the human capacities and moralities for survival. It would most likely be a system that would only optimize its survival and could not care less about the fate of its fathers.
Noface
Naiem Yeganeh
Posted about 2 years ago
Jackson Katz: Violence against women—it's a men's issue
I don't know why my comment was deleted. I am a bit offended and would probably comment less on TED in future. It was a totally sound comment, reflecting the biological similarity between male species of mammals. We share more than 80% of genes with dogs and we share very similar traits. Of-course both humans and dogs can control their instinctive urges, for dogs through the pack ordering, as only dogs with higher social order get to mate and others have to suppress their instincts, and in humans for apparent reasons. However the question was "Why do so many men rape?" and the answer I was suggesting was that its part of our instinct. Obviously, we don't live based on instincts as we are complex social animals, but those who rape do merely follow their instincts. At least when it comes to sexual desires and aggression.