[MUSIC PLAYING]
SPEAKER 1: Daniel
Suarez came on the scene
with his first novel,
"Daemon," like a Unix daemon,
which he self-published
for a while
and marketed on the
Internet to such success
that actual mainstream
publishers eventually picked it
up.
But he did that back
before that was a thing.
And since then, he's
become a New York Times
best-selling author,
and I think that's it.
That's Daniel.
Come on.
[APPLAUSE]
DANIEL SUAREZ: It's so
great to see you guys.
I'm also impressed how many
people came during lunch.
Whenever I-- when I worked
in corporate America,
I would try to schedule
meetings with lunch,
but people can bring it in.
That's good.
So my whole shtick,
if you will, is
that I write sci-fi
thrillers that are heavily
based in real science, or real
software, real code and logic.
And "Change Agent"
is no different.
It's a bit of a departure
for me in that I'm
writing about genetic editing.
And it looks like my
timing might be good,
because CRISPR is very
much in the news right now.
Now, just so I can
take a survey here,
how many people
here are relatively
familiar with CRISPR
genetic editing?
So that's-- OK, I'd
say about maybe 25%.
And that's actually a
much higher percentage
than if I was in a
random Barnes and Noble.
This is a very technical crowd.
So I'll just describe
it very quickly
for those who
aren't as familiar.
CRISPR is actually
an acronym that
is not helpful in
determining what it's about--
clustered regularly interspaced
short palindromic repeats.
It's one of those
acronyms where you hear it
and you say, OK, that
does not help at all.
As a matter of fact,
I'm more confused.
And essentially what
CRISPR is is back in 2012,
some researchers found
out that bacteria has
a way of modifying its own DNA.
It's a part of a
bacterial immune system.
What they noticed were there
were these repeating sections--
and for those people who've
ever concatenated or parsed text
files, it's essentially
a delimiter--
and they noticed this
genetic delimiter.
And within it were these
varying genetic sequences.
And it turns out
that what that was
was a rogue's gallery of
previous viral infections, sort
of a profile.
And so what would happen is
part of the bacterial cell
would go in, retrieve
some of these,
and then unzip the genetic
sequence of the DNA
strand of this, the
bacteria, and scan looking
for those nefarious characters.
And if it found them, it would
cut the DNA, cut them out,
and then the DNA would
reconnect itself.
So what the researchers
did was they said,
well, we see where
it has the target.
Maybe we can program it
to replace after it cuts.
And so what they essentially
did was they created a search
and replace function
by leveraging
this very ancient immunal
process of bacteria.
And that became CRISPR.
And that's what it means
by palindromic repeats.
It's those repeating
segments where
you can tell, OK, that's where
the rogue's gallery begins.
Now, they've already
achieved amazing results
in the lab using CRISPR.
So if genetic editing seems
like it's far away, it's not.
Just last month,
Chinese researchers
were able to correct a genetic--
a heritable genetic disorder
in a viable human embryo.
Now, this embryo was
not brought to term,
but it would have cured
this would-be child.
And so of course
they're looking at a lot
of other heritable
genetic disorders
that they want to cure--
cystic fibrosis, Huntington's
disease, hemophilia.
These are diseases,
heritable genetic disorders
that have only one or two
genetic coding problems that
could be fixed by CRISPR.
And this is what interested me
so much from a fictional point
of view, because
I couldn't think
of anything more important than
the ability to edit ourselves.
And the fact that this
is not too far away--
I think in the next
10 years or so, we
are going to start seeing
these disorders being
cured by genetic editing.
And then the logical
next question
is, what else could we do?
And I think the first thing
that occurs to most people
is, why not improve
yourself or your kids?
Now, this is, right now,
not for living organisms.
But if you have an
embryo, and let's say
you wanted to give your child
30 more years of healthy living,
you might change the
dapH-2 gene to give it
a unique mutation
that is relatively
rare in the natural world,
but if you can edit it,
you could imbue your child
with 30 more healthy years
of living.
If you want them to have
fast-twitch muscle fibers,
give them MEF2, a slight edit.
Actually, that would have helped
me, because if I'm limping,
it's because I hurt my
shoulder the other day.
If I had MEF2, I don't think
I would have been hurt.
If you want to improve
your child's memory,
you could make an edit to DLG3.
And there's a whole
host of them--
PCSK9 could give
them healthier heart,
stronger bones for different
edits, on and on and on.
And you can see where
this is heading.
Now, we're only 10 years
or so out from the ability
to do that.
Now, is it safe?
Probably not.
Probably not just yet.
That's because we barely
understand the human genome.
We know these genes
do this, but we
don't know what else they do.
And that's because--
I like to think of the human
genome as a Word document
that somebody has been working
on for hundreds of thousands
of years, but they
never erase anything.
They just cross stuff out.
And that's because we have
in our genomic sequence
genes that aren't expressed,
but they are, in some ways,
primordial remnants
of who we used to be.
And so when we make an
edit, we are not always
aware of what other things
we might be changing further
down the line.
But in this book,
"Change Agent,"
I wanted to explore the
idea of that impulse, that
impulse to modify ourselves
and to improve opportunities
for our kids.
So I envisioned a world--
this is the first book I've
written, by the way, that
takes place in the future.
Takes place in 2045.
And by this time, I envisioned
that black-market embryo labs
would be fairly common, and that
they would be offering perhaps
risky edits to
expectant parents that
want to give their children
a leg up in the world.
And the end result
of this would be
to rapidly accelerate
human evolution
by an order of magnitude.
Now, my protagonist in this
book is an Interpol agent
who is tasked with trying to
locate these embryo clinics
and try to shut them down.
And again, it's
because of the risk
they represent without
a full understanding
of the human genome, if we start
making willy-nilly changes.
The thing about CRISPR is,
these changes are passed down
to all future
generations, so there's
no easy way to erase it.
Because if we start
changing things
and we didn't understand the
effects of the first change
we made, we start to stack
up all these random changes
very quickly.
And that's why he
tries to prevent it.
I also foresee that this will
be an immensely profitable
activity, embryo labs,
because think about it--
if you can make your child
taller, have perfect vision,
the temptation would be
so strong to do that.
And the people who
would be willing to pay
would find somebody
willing to do it.
And that's primarily because
CRISPR is not a difficult thing
to do.
And I hesitate as I
say this, but you guys
could get on Google, for
instance, and Google CRISPR,
and for about $1,000, you
could set up your own home
genetic editing lab.
And that's no joke.
You can.
I was up at a TED summit
event this summer in Banff,
and everybody got to edit
bacteria and imbue it
with bioluminescence.
And it didn't take
long to learn,
and it didn't take
much equipment.
Now, that is giving
rise to a renaissance
in what's called
synthetic biology, that
is creating synthetic organisms
that are built custom.
And of course, CRISPR is
a tremendous tool in this.
So we're building E.
coli bacteria and yeasts
and algae that do useful work.
And it's very much
like programming,
because of course DNA is
very much like software.
But we're programming
the hardware, in a way.
And George Church at
MIT is really the father
of synthetic biology.
And this has gotten to
the point where now there
is an annual
competition every year.
It's called iGEM, where
undergraduate teams compete
to design the coolest
synthetic life form.
And that is a really
21st-century contest,
if you ask me.
It's pretty damn cool.
Now, I think a lot
of people might
have a problem with what
happens in this book, which
is that one of these very
profitable genetic editing
cartels injects my protagonist
with a serum that changes him
as an adult--
modifies his DNA.
But two years ago,
researchers at the University
of Washington, I
believe it was, they
injected squirrel
monkeys in the eye
and imbued them
with color vision.
And this happened two years ago.
So this was done
by pairing CRISPR
with a virus to try to
propagate it through the cells.
Now, researchers are
starting with the eye
because eyes in mammals are
a relatively self-contained
micro ecosystem, if you will.
They don't want to have these
edits spread willy-nilly
throughout the body, and the
eye is a fairly self-contained
platform.
So they've already had some
really interesting successes
at that.
I also like to tell people--
and it's going to be
harder in this room,
because sometimes my crowds
skew a little older--
but thinking back 30
years, back in 1987,
when I was much younger,
we basically would go
to video stores and bookstores.
We'd receive newspapers
and magazines at our home.
We received or sought
physical goods.
And of course now everyone
has a portable camera,
computer phone that
allows them to broadcast
to the entire world.
And that has radically
transformed everything
from business, economics,
our human relationships.
And that's a dramatic
change in just 30 years.
But I think the next
30 years, by 2045, '47,
will make that
change look minor.
I think there's going to
be a fourth Industrial
Revolution of genetics
and synthetic biology
that is going to radically
change the way we manufacture
products.
And of course, this, I
think, this fourth Industrial
Revolution, will be the first
one where we as human beings
physically change.
Part of the thing
that fascinated me
also about this book, this idea
of having a character change--
it sounds familiar,
because it is.
It's a recurring motif
throughout mythology.
It's an identity switch.
It's losing one's identity,
changing one's face.
And you can go back to
Greek mythology of Zeus.
You could go back to the
legend of King Arthur,
or "The Prince and the Pauper."
It's both a fear and
kind of an alluring idea
to change yourself.
And what I wanted to do
in "Change Agent" was
take this most current research
and make that very realistic,
to make it seem imminent
and relevant to us all.
Now, a lot of the time people
glance at my work and they
think that I'm
doomsaying, or somehow
pessimistic about the future.
I'm actually very
optimistic about the future.
And when I look at
genetic editing,
I again see
something like fire--
a very useful tool that
could hurt us, but also
offers us tremendous
capabilities.
Again, think about
the ability to cure
all of these heritable
genetic disorders.
But more than that, set
us aside for a moment.
There's also
cellular agriculture,
and again, synthetic
biology creating
new ways of manufacturing,
essentially biofacturing,
programming E. coli
bacteria or algae or yeast
to do things like
create biofuels,
or to create pharmaceuticals.
And most importantly, I think,
and what will cause the largest
change, is cellular agriculture,
essentially redesigning
these single-celled organisms
to create things like meat.
Right now on Earth,
our ecosystem
is being ravaged
by meat production.
90% of the deforestation
happening in the Amazon
is occurring to support
meat production.
So we're leveling
all of these forests
either to create pasture or
feed stocks for meat production.
Now, if the human
population increases
to 9 or 10 million people--
billion people-- by 2050,
that will absolutely
devastate the ecosystem.
And of course, more
people are eating meat.
Meat consumption is
going up drastically.
With cellular
agriculture, companies
can grow just the muscle
tissue, not the whole cow,
or not the whole pig
or the whole chicken.
And what this
essentially does is
you're re-creating exactly
the DNA of the meat
that you consume.
And the great thing about
DNA is everyone can check it.
It's the original open source.
So you could take a look to see
that that steak is genetically
identical.
And they're not quite
there yet, but if we
adopt cellular
agriculture to grow meat,
we use 1% of the land and
only 10% of the water.
So there is an ick factor.
It freaks people out.
But there's also the fact that
if we don't do it, or try it,
we could completely
devastate the Earth.
There's also other
changes to crops
that we can make
with CRISPR, and I
think the biggest
single change would
be creating C4 photosynthesis
rice, which is already
a project that's underway.
Right now, rice uses
C3 photosynthesis,
which is less efficient.
Now, a third of the
population of the planet
relies upon rice to survive.
Corn and sugarcane
use C4 photosynthesis,
which is more efficient.
The effort is to change
the photosynthesis of rice,
common strains of
rice, and in doing so,
it would double the
production of rice
and halve the amount
of water it needs.
Otherwise the rice
would remain identical.
And this is really where
we get into, I think,
an interesting
area, which is GMOs.
A lot of people
are against GMOs.
I've historically
been against them,
although for a different
reason than many other people.
A lot of my objection
to GMOs is that they
represent an entire
intellectual property virus--
that is, a certain firm might
create a proprietary organism
and then pair it
with a whole system,
and then have that organism
spread its genomic sequence
to other heirloom varieties
through natural pollination
processes, and then basically
sue their competition out
of existence.
Now, that is one use of GMOs.
But I think CRISPR is
going to radically change
the GMO situation.
I think GMOs are going to
go from being the purview
of multimillion-dollar corporate
labs to being a tool that
everyone will use--
local communities,
tribes, even individuals.
Because remember,
with CRISPR you
could set up a genetic
editing lab with $1,000.
Now, if we're living in a world
that is rapidly heating up,
climate change is
causing fast changes that
make pasture land or croplands
unviable for traditional crops,
or if increased
storms and rising seas
make it difficult to
keep using the crops
that indigenous populations
have been using,
they could conceivably
change them.
Now, a good example--
it goes back a few years, and
if I get this name wrong--
I think it's Pamela
Ronald, her group at Davis,
UCLA Davis, they
changed a strain of rice
so that it could live
17 days under saltwater.
Now, they took a
traditional Indian strain
that had that ability.
They changed a common strain of
rice that was very productive,
and they imbued it
with that same ability.
And then they gave it away.
And I look at that, and
I find it very difficult
to say that that's
a bad thing to do,
when they're going to save
hundreds of thousands,
if not millions
of people's lives.
So GMOs, and the
anti-GMO movement,
I think, needs to
evolve, because this
is going to become a
very personal thing.
People are going
to be able to start
changing organisms in ways
that not only suit them,
but that are imperative,
because they're a life and death
matter.
And it won't just
be just a decision
made behind closed doors.
It might be a
community decision.
And a lot of this is
going to start happening
very soon in coming years.
Actually, I like to think of--
you guys remember
this classic Apple ad
where the PC was the
purview of, let's say, IBM.
That's what it is symbolized as.
And it's sort of represented as
this oppressive technological
environment, and then the
runner comes up in full colors
and shatters the screen.
I think in many
ways, GMOs, are going
to follow the same
pattern, that we're
going to go from this very
controlled environment
to rapid genetic change
that's open source,
and people will be freely
exchanging information.
So I think that's really
the next great renaissance.
And of course, I cover all
of this in my new book,
"Change Agent."
Now, mastery of DNA, to me,
is the next great challenge
for us.
A lot of people talk
about AI, and of course AI
is going to be important.
But I think the
great fuse burning
for us in developing mastery
of DNA is climate change.
If we have methane salts
melting in the Arctic
and possibly changing
our atmosphere,
I think having the
ability to modify
ourselves might come in handy.
So again, this could
be both good and bad.
And part of my incentive for
writing this book, as with most
of my books, is I wanted
to popularize these ideas
so that as many
people as possible,
in the process of
being entertained,
might also entertain
some of these ideas
and think, wow,
that's interesting.
Maybe they Google
it and they find out
a lot of these things
are already underway.
And if it does that, then that
makes me absolutely happy,
and I'd say that I did my job.
But first and foremost, I tried
to tell an exciting story.
So that's my prepared talk.
If you guys have any questions,
I'm happy to answer them.
And please don't be shy.
AUDIENCE: A typical question--
who are your
influences in writing?
What authors influenced you
in developing your stories?
DANIEL SUAREZ: OK.
Well, Neal Stephenson
was probably a later one,
but we go back to Isaac
Asimov, Andre Norton--
a lot of sci-fi.
Loved sci-fi-- JRR
Tolkien, of course.
And also John Dos Passos.
I have an English literature
degree, so I've read widely.
That's why I'm sitting
here trying to think,
whose estate am I going
to piss off by not
mentioning various people?
But I think probably what
inspired me most to write-- oh,
Carl Sagan would be one that
I would say would be a huge
influence to me--
As a matter of fact, probably
the most important influence.
One of my favorite books,
aside from "Cosmos"--
when I was a kid.
I remember asking for Christmas,
like, I want "Cosmos,"
and my parents were looking
like, that looks really boring.
It's thick.
And I loved it.
But also "Demon-Haunted
World" by Carl Sagan,
which is a super
relevant book now.
I see you nodding your head.
And it really is.
And you think about that--
his job, again--
he set upon himself
the task to popularize
science, to make people
understand what the big picture,
what the big issues were.
And I humor myself
in thinking that I'm
trying to do that
in some way here,
for either cyber
or other issues.
My big focus of my
work is I try to focus
on technological
change, where that's
coming, where it might go.
So a lot of authors
who dealt with that--
and I would say Carl
Sagan would be a huge one,
but oh, man, I
could go on and on.
Of course William
Gibson, obviously.
But I'll stop it there,
because I'll just keep going.
Yes.
AUDIENCE: So you mentioned
that genetic engineering can
be something that's
going to become
more community-based
as opposed to something
big corporations do.
DANIEL SUAREZ: Yeah,
I believe it is.
AUDIENCE: As we move
forward towards this,
what can we do to guide people
to make sure that they do this
in an ethical fashion, as
opposed to just starting
to kill each other?
DANIEL SUAREZ: Yes, OK.
So the question was--
this is probably going to come
through fine, because you have
a microphone, but I'll recap.
The question was,
how can we pursue
this would-be renaissance in a
way that doesn't annihilate us
or our neighbors
or everybody else?
And I would say it is going to
take exactly this-- a dialogue,
people knowing a bit
about it, seeing the news,
and then talking about it.
Because I've noticed
this pattern,
and it's really well
covered in books like,
I believe it's called "The
Master Switch" by Tim Wu.
This long process of ingesting
new technologies for societies
typically takes about 30 years.
And that process of a radical
new technology coming in
is really fractious.
People sue each other.
They fight each other.
And I think I would provide
as an example aviation.
Aviation, when it
first came through,
invented a new legal term,
which was aerial trespass.
And if you think
about, it's funny,
because we just think
about it now like,
well, people worked it out.
But what happened
when airplanes first
started flying low and slow over
people's land, very noisily,
is people worried about privacy.
They also didn't like people
flying over their land.
And more particularly,
railroads, which carried mail,
didn't like airmail
stealing their business.
Now, if you look at the
shape of a railroad,
it tends to be like a
wall, and so they really
encouraged this idea
of aerial trespass,
that if you cross our rail
lines, you're trespassing.
And so this started
a series of lawsuits.
And these were quickly
followed by lawsuits
about privacy, lawsuits
about safety, product design,
and on and on.
The end result, after
almost 30 years,
was codifying this
in regulations
from all of those
legal precedents,
and that became the FAA.
To which I would say to people
that no matter what you think
of the FAA, there's
very few people who
would get on an aircraft that
was not certified by the FAA.
So that process, fractious
as it is, it is useful.
And I think we're
going to see this here.
It's if we don't
see those arguments,
if we don't see that vigorous
public debate, that's
when I worry.
Because as long as
people are directly
addressing each other on this,
and really educating themselves
on it--
because I think this
is actually going
to be the central issue of
the next 20 or 30 years--
genetic editing.
I mean, I can't think of
anything more impactful
than the ability to
rapidly evolve ourselves.
That would be
important in everything
from space exploration to
dealing with climate change
to dealing with pandemics,
on and on and on.
And then, of course, you
have the eugenics questions.
To what degree do
we change ourselves?
What's acceptable?
To me, it's a
fascinating question.
But transparency-- that's
what's going to stop us
from killing ourselves.
Now, at this moment I'll
also bring up gene drives.
Now, how many people here
have heard of gene drives?
Got one person--
no, two people--
three.
Or you're just
pointing at your nose.
OK, never mind.
Don't go to an auction
is what I'd say.
A gene drive is an
aspect of genetic editing
that could turn into
a weapon very quickly.
The Pentagon is certainly
concerned about gene drives.
If you've heard of
gene drives, you've
probably heard
about it in relation
to Zika virus or malaria,
some mosquito-borne virus.
And right now-- this is
not a few years from now--
right now as we sit
here, scientists
are creating a gene
drive that could crash
certain species of mosquitoes.
And the way they
do this is because
through sexual
reproduction, the offspring
acquire approximately half of
the genes from each parent.
What a gene drive does
is that researchers
use CRISPR editing, or maybe
some future type of editing,
to make both those sides of the
gene exchange the same thing.
It doesn't even have
to be from each parent.
Basically, they guarantee that
a certain trait is passed down
to the next generation.
And if you keep
doing this, you could
put in a fatal flaw, or a
way to somehow compromise
that species.
Or you can also make it so that
they don't transmit a virus.
But either way, what are
the unintended consequences
of that?
If we, let's say, crash
a mosquito population,
what other parts
of the ecosystem
is it supporting that
we're not thinking about?
Now, remember, this
can happen now.
And also the part that the
Pentagon is concerned about,
and other defense
agencies around the world,
what about angry groups,
terrorist groups,
creating a gene
drive that implants
in the human genome
undesirable traits that
later cause a specific
weakness or a fatal flaw?
And again, remember,
$1,000 for a CRISPR lab.
So I think it's going to be a
very proximate conversation we
need to start having right away.
But that would just
be one example of why
that transparency and
that open communication
is going to be pivotal,
because otherwise, I think,
we do have some
things to worry about.
AUDIENCE: So you seem
very well informed.
I'm very excited
to read this book.
And I was just curious,
how much of your time
did you spend researching, and
where did you learn about this?
DANIEL SUAREZ: I've found
a pattern with my books.
Typically what happens
is-- by the way,
in case it didn't come through
in audio, the question was,
how much time do I spend
researching a book,
and where do I learn
these types of things?
Oh, I will start by saying
Google is really handy.
[LAUGHTER]
And this is not entirely
an answer to your question,
which I'll continue to, but
Google Earth is probably
the single best writers
research tool ever,
because it has saved me a hell
of a lot of money in airfare,
because I'll go to a location,
say, no, that's not right.
I could even do Street
Views in someplace
in Bangladesh-- very useful.
Now, I spend
approximately a third
of the time required to
write a book doing research.
For me-- and I'm sure this is
different for every writer,
but for me, it's
basically a third
of my time conceiving
of the story
and its structure
and its characters,
a third of the time
doing research,
and a third of the time
actually writing the book.
And you can tell I've
worked in software before,
because I organize
everything very carefully.
I don't say-- it's not prose
reuse, but it's efficient.
And that means that
by the time I'm
ready to set pen to
paper to start writing,
I typically don't
backtrack a lot.
And so what I'll do is I
will have some idea that
has taken hold of me,
typically, and genetic editing
is a good example.
Lethal autonomy for my
book "Kill Decision"
is another example.
Whatever the idea is
that I have for a book,
it's typically one
that I'm imagining
whenever I close my eyes
when I go to sleep at night.
And if it won't
let me go, I know
that it's an idea I have
to write a book about.
And then it will
start thinking about,
what is the big issue here
that I'm most concerned about?
And that's really where
I'll root my research.
And it will spread from there.
Typically during
the research process
I will discover so
many new cool things
that I'll go in
different directions.
But to me, it's very
important that I
stop doing that by
the time I write,
because I try to make these
several threads, a, b,
and c thread of the
story, and I like
to have them interweave
at the right moments.
And if you change
things willy-nilly,
it doesn't work out too well.
So I try to do all my
significant changes
during the research and
the structure component.
Oh, and lots of
reading, by the way.
I read lots of books.
That's why at the end of every
single book I've written,
there is a reading list.
And if you just
flip through it, I
guarantee you'll find
some interesting books,
because they're
typically the books that
were the most pivotally
important to me
in the writing of the book.
Yes.
AUDIENCE: So the reason that
CRISPR-Cas9 is in the news
right now is because
of a huge legal fight
over its patent rights.
So what leads you to believe
that this IBM world is going
to get smashed as
opposed to continuing
on kind of as it has been?
DANIEL SUAREZ: Oh,
yeah, that lawsuit.
See, I look at it in this way.
There is the lawsuit
over who invented
CRISPR, which is, I believe,
what you're referring to.
Now, I think they settled
one portion of it already--
which, to me-- now, of course
there's several other issues.
It is so valuable,
I think that there
is a lot of external
pressures saying,
look, nobody is going to make
serious investments until we
get this little matter of
who invented it solved,
and I think there's going to be
a lot of pressure to solve it.
And a lot of money will be
offered to various parties
to settle.
I'm going to boldly
make that prediction.
I don't think it's
that bold, actually.
But there's also the
simple matter that CRISPR
and how it works
is generally known.
And like I said, you
can get a hold of tools.
If you're not running
some registered lab
where you're selling a product,
that kind of changes things.
If you're not selling,
let's say, software,
and you're writing
code, people can
take all sorts of liberties
in where that code came from,
because it's very difficult
to say who's doing what.
And whether that's
right or wrong,
I think the impetus will
be that a lot of people
will start messing around
with this technology,
because it's so simple to use.
And I think the
way it will start
is in designing E. coli
bacteria or yeast or algae
to do cool things.
And I that's really where people
are going to cut their teeth.
So regardless of what
legal case is going on,
I think that's what's
going to drive it.
And familiarity with the
tools will make people come up
with a killer app.
Now, whether that killer app
is literal or figurative,
I think it remains to be seen.
Hey, I know you.
AUDIENCE: Yeah.
[INAUDIBLE] Pasadena.
So speaking of places in the US,
your book is not one of them.
The locations are in
other parts of the world,
in Singapore and Myanmar.
And I want you to talk a little
bit about why you selected
these parts of the world.
DANIEL SUAREZ: So this
book, "Change Agent,"
does not take place in America.
And this is not the only one
of my books that doesn't.
But there is a
particular passage
in this book that has some
people concerned, I'll say,
or at least they've
mentioned it to me,
and that is that by 2045,
Silicon Valley is dead.
[LAUGHTER]
It's like a lot of e-mails like,
what is that supposed to mean?
What it is an admonition.
It is an admonition to America
to engage with reason and logic
and science.
And if we don't, the
rest of the world will.
But it's not an
option, that we can
fall back and lose our place as
the cutting edge of technology.
And that's really
why it's there.
I think that a great many parts
of the world that are dealing
with climate change right now--
no, it's not a hoax.
And there's a drive
to question science
and to muddy the waters here
that I find really worrisome,
and so I wanted to perhaps
model what the world would
look like if that continued.
And I think anybody who is an
American reading this would
probably realize that
this is quite possible,
this world of 2045.
Now, does that mean that all
Americans do not use science?
No.
It does mean that the
best and the brightest
might go to Singapore
or to other countries
where their skills
are used very well
and they have a good future.
And it would be great if we
could have that future here.
But just so you know, Singapore
I chose because back in, I
think it was 2006--
I might have that
wrong by a year or so--
they spent a billion
dollars creating something
called Biopolis, which
is a biotech hub.
It's a lab.
It's a big lab complex,
and they wanted
to lure the best geneticists
and biotech talent
around the world
to come and work
unfettered in these
beautiful, modern labs,
to create an
infrastructure for what
they felt was going to be
the next big tech revolution.
And I tend to agree with them.
Now, that's a serious investment
to make for that tiny nation.
So that's why I chose Singapore.
AUDIENCE: You talked
about [INAUDIBLE]
ourselves from unethical or
morally [INAUDIBLE] behavior.
How do you see us combating
incompetence or stupidity
in this if anybody can
access these [INAUDIBLE]
and anybody can augment E. coli.
It's not uncommon for a
chemistry lab in a high school
to blow up, or alcohol
bootleg to produce methanol.
Well, if this is now an E. coli
with unintended gene drive,
some hilarities might ensue.
So what--
DANIEL SUAREZ: What
controls are in place?
I believe that's
what you're asking.
Essentially this is--
an E. coli bacteria
is one of the most common
organisms there is.
As a matter of fact,
you can get on the web
and from various
sites, you can purchase
a stripped-down
version of E. coli.
And again, I may have it
wrong by one or two genes,
but I think it's 268
genes that they've
reduced E. coli bacteria down.
And all it does, all
this organism does,
is maintain itself
and reproduce itself.
It doesn't do anything.
And the idea is you buy this
and you give it a purpose.
You make it do something--
let's say produce
a pharmaceutical or a biofuel.
I've seen prototype products
that they take an E. coli
bacteria that, let's say,
consumes sunlight and sugar
and produces something
that feeds another E. coli
bacteria, which produces a
biofuel, as sort of a step
by step.
Normally they wouldn't feed into
each other's processing loops,
but somebody has
modified them so they do.
Another very interesting
project that I saw, which you
can see a TED Talk on this--
of course, I don't remember
off the top of my head,
but you could Google it--
it is an art project where
they programmed organisms
to grow chitin, that is
the shell that mollusks
and others have.
And the idea is we could
conceivably grow car fenders.
So instead of having a
factory that produces,
in very carbon-intensive
fashion, fenders,
you could produce biodegradable
fenders that are pre-painted,
because, you know, a
lobster has a color,
but we could just give
it a different color.
But all of those skills,
as you point out,
and the wide availability of
E. coli bacteria, the fact
that you can just order it from
online does make it very risky,
that we might see people
designing custom organisms that
could do great harm.
And the only thing
I can tell you
is, that's why you definitely
want society to be equitable,
because the more
unjust a society is,
I think the more likely
that's going to happen.
It, to me, shows just how
rare that type of activity
is, the fact that it isn't
constantly happening.
It does happen, but
it's not widely common.
And given how common all
of these components are
and how relatively easy it
is to learn how to use them,
it's actually miraculous
that it doesn't happen.
I do think we'll start
to see more of it.
But it's, if anything,
a good incentive for us
to have a more just
society as a whole.
Yes.
AUDIENCE: Hi.
So I should say that I'm
very impressed by the level
of research you've
done for this book.
DANIEL SUAREZ: Thanks
AUDIENCE: That's not
usually the case.
So I want to say
one thing that--
I disagree with one kind of
assumptions you're making here.
DANIEL SUAREZ: Let's hear it.
AUDIENCE: So I think
that the general notion
of genetic editing or genetic
engineering more broadly,
biological engineering are
considered extremely dangerous,
and no matter how
much we discuss it,
there is an inherent
complexity here that
is usually being overlooked.
And it's kind of
what I'm saying is
that it's inherently
complex in a way
that it might be
impossible to compute, or--
DANIEL SUAREZ: Like unintended
consequences are very likely.
AUDIENCE: And I can use--
so I'm a physicist by training.
I can use various
different biology, physics,
and computer science
descriptions of the problem.
First, biologically,
in the 4 billion years
of evolutionary
biology, like from
the first photosynthetic system
to right now what we are,
the system has always evolved
in a close equilibrium.
So changes are very slow,
and entire ecosystem
has time to respond.
So because we are talking
about a complex system--
DANIEL SUAREZ: And
death is usually
involved in that process,
Darwinian selection.
AUDIENCE: Exactly.
But since the Homo
sapiens, potentially
like a kind of a big change
in cognitive ability,
80,000 years ago,
even in the Stone Age
we already destroyed, before
even agricultural revolution,
we destroyed half of mammals.
DANIEL SUAREZ: Yeah.
All the large
herbivores disappeared.
AUDIENCE: Large mammals,
half of them were destroyed.
And during the
agricultural revolution,
Industrial Revolution,
we are destroying,
extincting, on a daily basis,
on the order of thousands.
DANIEL SUAREZ:
40% of species are
supposed to be extinct
at this rate by 2050.
40%.
AUDIENCE: Exactly, yeah.
But once you introduce this
kind of genetic engineering
or editing, and including
various different kinds
of other industries--
nanotechnology, AI, this
combination of things
drives the system such
out of equilibrium
that there is no response time
to any of the biological--
the natural biological
things to respond.
And the system-- to downplay
this, like some people,
policymakers can sit in a room
and figure this out-- this
is very naive.
DANIEL SUAREZ: You
know what this is?
To me-- I'll absolutely
let you continue.
It's not even a choice.
This is already happening.
When we say to allow
this to happen--
again, these tools are
so readily available.
What you're doing right
now is exactly what
I would love to have happen--
that is, people
calling for caution,
and maybe taking action,
because the truth is,
these tools are so
readily available.
Nothing short-- I
mean, failing that--
and there will be
corners of the world
where this happens anyway.
So please continue.
AUDIENCE: So the
last statement I
want to make that's
connecting with the audience
here is that the solutions
to these kind of problems,
predicting or trying to even
project any kind of outcome,
would be near
impossible, because as
far as peace and not peace.
So it's like these
are wars, because we
are approaching wars,
[INAUDIBLE] hard problems.
What I'm saying
is that people who
think that they can predict
this thing are extremely naive.
So what I'm saying is that there
might be serious consequences,
unintended-- forget about
intended consequences--
unintended consequences, because
the combinatory possibilities
is just beyond
evaluation, basically.
DANIEL SUAREZ:
The reason I'm not
disagreeing with you
is that is basically
most of what my book's about, is
those unintended consequences.
And when I stand
here and say that I'm
optimistic about the
future, the only reason
I say that is we
have the ability
to annihilate the human
race, all creatures on Earth,
and we've had that ability
for half a century,
and we haven't done it yet.
And I'm with you.
I hear you.
There's a tremendous
amount of hubris
that might come into play here,
where we think we can play God,
and we're just still
toddlers at it.
But at the same time, I know
the tools are out there,
and a lot of these
changes, rapid editing,
are going to occur.
So whether that's people
using supercomputing
to do bioinformatics to
try to understand genetics
and how all of these
things connect,
I think it is going to
be a race against time.
And your concern, actually,
is, I think, well founded.
But I do think this is going
to start to happen regardless.
And so I would love everybody
in this room to get involved
and to pay attention
to what's going on.
And you'll see just
how concerned I am--
not to force you
to read the book,
but there's a great
deal in there--
this is why I'm sometimes
called a doomsayer.
People say, oh, come on,
Dan, you're ruining the fun.
I like to think what
I do in my books--
this is why they're
thrillers, by the way,
is because there's typically
a perilous outcome at stake.
I like to think what
I do is spot icebergs.
And it's much better to
prototype the future in fiction
than it is to run into it blind.
And I'm not saying
let's all abandon ship.
I'm saying, let's turn a little
to the right, turn a little
to the left.
And that's basically
what I try to do.
So I agree with you.
I think you're dead on.
And I guess we'll
see what happens.
AUDIENCE: So my question is more
along the lines of writing--
the writing side of things.
So one of the reasons--
I came to your last
talk here as well,
and one of the reasons that
I really like your books
and like these talks
is that you're really
obviously very interested
in all of this stuff.
DANIEL SUAREZ: Oh, I am.
AUDIENCE: Like really
intellectually--
you can tell when you're up
there talking about this,
you're like, this
is really cool.
[LAUGHTER]
DANIEL SUAREZ: Well, yeah, I do.
AUDIENCE: Yeah.
So I'm kind of
curious, obviously
you've bounced around to a
lot of very different, very
interesting topics
in their own way,
and run the genetic
editing side of things.
Obviously at some point
you'll be picking up
something for your next book.
When does that
transition for you?
Because you're--
DANIEL SUAREZ: It's
already occurred.
I'm already working
on my next book.
AUDIENCE: So you're
already moving on.
DANIEL SUAREZ: That's why I have
to be careful not to mention
things that don't
happen in this book,
but you know, that's
the way it is.
There's a saying that
you have your whole life
to write your first
book, and you have a year
to write your second one.
It's typically because
if you've done it right
and you've managed
to break through,
they're like, oh,
great, do another one.
And I've been fortunate
with my publisher, Dutton,
part of Penguin Random
House, that I've just
been able to really
focus on the writing.
And they've been always there
to back me up and give me
a new book deal, and I
always have something else
that I'm interested in.
A lot of people have asked
me, like with "Daemon"
and "FreedomTM"
were the first two
books that I did
that focused on cyber
security and other issues--
really a lot more than that--
whether I would do another
one of those books.
And what I typically
say is, I may,
but I have such
wide-ranging interests
that I would hate to just stay
writing the same books again
and again, because
I don't want to go
too many times to the well.
But also, I want to keep
my fascination fresh.
And there is just so many
interesting, risky, cool,
and provocative things going
on with technology in the world
and how it impacts society
that it this becomes a dream
job for me, to be able to
go around and try to think
about what I want to write,
and then have the opportunity
to do it is great.
So I never run out of
stuff, so far, to write.
And that's why I tend to write
different books every time,
as opposed to another sequel.
So I don't know. hopefully--
AUDIENCE: Can you give us a
hint of what's coming next?
DANIEL SUAREZ: What's that?
AUDIENCE: Can you give us a
hint of what's coming next?
DANIEL SUAREZ: Well, actually
I can tell you why I won't.
[LAUGHTER]
The world has changed a bit.
There's a couple
reasons why I don't.
I think the first reason
I don't is I found--
and maybe you find
this, too, that when
you want to write
a story and you
start telling your
friends about it,
that you find that you take more
and more time talking about it
than actually doing it.
And this was very much
the case for "Daemon"
when I wrote it, when I was
not a professional writer.
I could spend some of my
free time talking about it,
or I could do it.
And I found if I prohibited
myself from talking about it
and instead wrote
it, and I can only
talk about it when it was
done, that that worked out
much better for me.
There was also a
commercial aspect of it,
which is if I mentioned
what I'm writing,
there might be a super short
novella up on Amazon three days
from now about that.
So that's just the reality
of the modern world.
And I really do like to try
to preserve the originality
or the impact of
what I'm writing.
So those two things
work together
for me to say, no comment.
[LAUGHTER]
Anybody else?
Any questions at all?
Good questions, man.
All right, I think--
oh, yes.
AUDIENCE: Most of
your books are based
on the idea that doesn't
allow you to sleep at night.
What are a couple ideas that
[INAUDIBLE] discarded that--
DANIEL SUAREZ: That's
a great question.
Since you weren't
at the microphone,
the question was if what I write
about comes from ideas that
won't let me go,
let's say-- it's not
that I won't sleep
at night, it's
that it's typically
when my mind is
in its passive, resting
state, my mind immediately
goes back to that thing.
What are some examples of ideas
that I did not write about?
This goes into my Google search
history and security watch
list.
[LAUGHTER]
I, for a while, had some
difficulty getting back
into the country without
interested people
wanting to talk to me.
And this has been
sorted out since.
I have a very alarming
Google search history.
A typical day for
me would involve
shaped charges, sniper rifles,
bio weapons, just on and on.
And a lot of ideas that involve
innovative ways to cause harm
are ideas that tend to go away.
They might fascinate
me for a while,
but I don't want to be too
instructive, because I think
my problem is I was a D and D
moderator for about 10 years,
and I can make traps
that are very devious.
So I don't want to go too
deep into that territory.
Those are typically the
ideas that I abandon,
looking at that
saying, oh my God,
how awful I'll feel if some
person says, yes, that's it,
and they run out and
start to do that.
That would be bad.
So that's my answer.
Yes.
AUDIENCE: Two words--
incognito mode.
DANIEL SUAREZ: Oh, yeah, I
spend a lot of time doing that.
But I think I'm beyond that.
Also, there's proxies.
There's Tor and on and on.
But see, now I have to
worry less about it,
because I think they know
me, and it's like, oh--
oh no, it's just Dan.
It's fine.
It's not a terrorist.
Yes.
AUDIENCE: What books
are you reading now?
DANIEL SUAREZ: OK, this
ought to alarm everybody.
I'm about halfway through
"The Sixth Extinction."
It's very cheerful reading.
But that's why I knew
that about half--
or 40% of the
species in the world
were going to be wiped
out by 2050 if we
don't change what we're doing.
What other books have I read?
"All the Light We Cannot
See," I read recently.
That's such a beautiful book.
I sometimes like to read
real literary fiction, which
is very different
from what I do,
where each sentence
and paragraph is
very beautiful and evocative.
I will admit that's
not what I do.
My books tend to be about ideas.
I also find it
much more relaxing
to read books that are in
a genre that I don't write,
because otherwise, if I
read another tech thriller,
I tend to look for the
scaffolding all the time,
or say, oh, no, no, I
would have put this here.
And it takes you out of
the story all the time.
So-- also "Name of the
Wind," I read recently,
Patrick Rothfuss,
which I really liked.
Again, fantasy-- I could just
kind of relax and enjoy it.
Yes.
AUDIENCE: So as people
begin body hacking
and modifying
themselves with genes,
do you feel that we might
become more diverse or more
homogeneous as people start
just altering themselves?
DANIEL SUAREZ: Oh,
that's a great question.
So again, the
question was, will we
become more diverse or more
homogeneous as a result?
Well, I think the web is super
instructive with this regard.
If you remember the
early days of the web,
there was this profusion, this--
I don't know, websites all over.
And then what happened
was these certain portals
started to develop,
and one comes to mind.
But it's interesting
how initially, there
was this great profusion.
But then almost a
culture builds around it,
and people start to create
a vocabulary and a language,
and they start to aggregate
towards common themes.
And I think if we have the
ability to genetically edit
ourselves, I don't know whether
it will become Second Life,
or whether people will say,
oh, I really like that--
like fashion, like clothing.
I mean, I think clothing is
probably a perfect example.
We don't-- we wear
different enough things,
but I didn't come here in a suit
of armor or as a Shakespearean
character.
And I don't think the
trend is for people
to be that different.
Now, that's my instinct on it.
I might be wrong.
But I think people will see
the reaction other people get.
I think tastes and
mores might affect it.
So I think initially, we'll
see a great profusion as people
try things out,
but then concerns
with health, unintended
consequences,
and other things will cause
people to do sort of the mall
version of a lizard person.
It's like, well,
it's just the skin.
I'm still the same underneath.
So that's probably
the weirdest answer
to that question you were
thinking you could get.
All right, anybody else?
I'm having fun, so anybody?
All right.
I think [INAUDIBLE].
[APPLAUSE]
Thank you.
Thank you.
