Original subtitles

It is an idea

that has spawned hatred, war, and genocide.

It is one of the most polarizing questions

we could ever ask.

Do different races not just look different?

Are they fundamentally different?

Will a future race of advanced humans look back

and see all of us as a vastly inferior breed?

Could there be a superior race?

Space, time, life itself.

The secrets of the cosmos lie through the wormhole.

Through the Wormhole 03x02 Is There a Superior Race? Original Air Date on June 6, 2012

== sync, corrected by elderman ==

Speak of racial differences,

and you're bound to inflame passions.

Bosnian and Serb.

Japanese and Korean.

Black and White.

The belief that one group's germ line

is superior to another's

has haunted history for thousands of years.

But now we're in the age of DNA technology.

We can track down minute differences

in these chemical strands

and perhaps discover whether they make Africans

not just look different from Indians,

but also think differently.

Science has long been misused to try and prop up bigotry,

but daring to ask how we might be different

is important.

Because the answers could tell us

where the entire human species is headed.

I grew up in an all-black neighborhood in Mississippi.

I never thought of myself as better or worse than anyone.

But all around town,

there were signs that other people did.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream of racial equality.

And in the last 50 years,

we've taken some steps

toward the colorblind world he imagined.

But scientists are still trying to understand what race means,

or if it has any scientific meaning at all.

Is race only skin deep?

Or is there something internal, invisible,

that sets the races apart?

Evolutionary biologist Andy Brower

thinks we can understand what the word "race" means

by looking at another species,

one he feels he was born to study.

Both my parents worked on butterflies for their PhDs

back in the '50s.

So I just became fascinated by that at 5 years old,

and I've had a little butterfly collection as a kid.

Definitely in my DNA, right from the start.

Andy studies Heliconius butterflies.

He has followed their fluttering wings

all over the Western Hemisphere.

As much as he is enchanted by their elaborate wing markings,

he knows that their beauty is only superficial.

They're poisonous butterflies,

and they have mimetic wing patterns

so that they are advertising the fact that they taste bad

to potential predators, birds, usually.

So that the more butterflies exhibit a common color pattern,

the easier it is for the birds to recognize that,

"Okay, there's one of those red and yellow things.

They taste bad. I'm leaving those alone."

But Heliconius butterflies

do not look the same everywhere.

A group in one region of South America

has completely different wing patterns

from another group that lives just across a river

or another on the other side of a mountain.

This is a box of butterflies that are all the same species.

In French Guiana, a red band is on the fore wing

and the hind wing is basically black.

And then, further south,

you have red rays and the yellow areas.

These two rows in the middle here,

the colors are different.

The wing pattern differences

are probably driven by which colors and patterns

stand out most clearly to the local bird population.

But these different-looking varieties --

you could call them races.

Appear to have identical inner biologies.

They smell the same,

they recognize each other as being potential mates.

And so they produce hybrid offspring.

Hybrid offspring are perfectly fine.

There, there viable and healthy.

They can, their fertile, so they can lay their own eggs.

These butterflies all have the same life-span

and the same adaptive poison to ward off predators.

The differences appear to be only skin deep.

It is the same for humans.

Race poses no biological barriers to mating,

and our life-spans are all very similar,

no matter what our ethnic background.

Are people, like Heliconius butterflies,

all the same beneath our different-colored skins?

In the year 2000,

when President Clinton announced the completion

of the Human Genome Project,

the answer appeared to be yes.

And in genetic terms,

all human beings, regardless of race,

are more than 99.9% the same.

Another decade of genetic study

has lowered that number somewhat to 99.5%.

No matter who you are or where you come from,

a mere 0.5% of your genetic code is unique to you.

What kinds of racial differences could like in that 0.5%?

Perhaps plenty.

Human and chimpanzee genomes only differ by about 3%.

That difference is enough

to make our brains radically bigger and smarter.

John Hawks is a leading paleoanthropologist

at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

He studies the bones of ancient humans,

tracking how we have changed

since our evolutionary line split off

from that of the chimp's about 6 million years ago.

When we look at a real brief thumbnail of our evolution,

we started out as apes

and became upright-walking people

and then evolved stone-tool manufacture

and bigger brains.

And those are big events that took millions of years.

But most of my work in the last few years

has been focused on the very recent part of our evolution --

our time since we left Africa

and evolved into the people we are today.

Scientists now agree

the development of separate races

began around 50,000 years ago,

when modern humans migrated out of Africa.

There dark-skinned pigmentation was and remains

a protective force against ultraviolet rays.

But as humans moved further north,

dark skin blocked too much sunlight

and reduced the natural production of vitamin D

in our deep skin layers.

Lighter-skinned people fared better in Europe and China.

For those who migrated

to South America and Southern India,

darker skin once again protected them from the sun.

But John's research is showing

that these now-isolated ethnicities

continued to evolve over the ensuing millennia

and that distinctions between racial groups

do go deeper than our skin.

When I study archaeological samples

of skulls that have come out of the ground

from 5,000 years ago, from 10,000 years ago,

we can see many of the changes unfolding in those samples

as we go forward in time.

Brain size changed.

Teeth changed.

And then there are some kinds of changes

that are distinct to different regions.

So, there are characteristics

that we can point at in the skull

that now characterize Asians versus Europeans.

John thinks racial differences

run much deeper than our bones.

He believes almost every aspect of our biology changed

as humans migrated around the world,

even the way our brains work.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What separates one race from another?

In the 50,000 years

since small groups of people began migrating out of Africa,

we've developed plenty of physical differences.

But what invisible difference might there be?

Just how far apart has our DNA drifted?

Paleoanthropologist John Hawks

is tracking changes in our genes over the past millennia.

And he's discovered something unsettling.

Our DNA loves to gamble.

So, when we look at the way that DNA changes,

it's sort of like our genes are addicted to gambling.

It's got four possible base pairs -- A, C, G, and T.

And here we've got, well, four colors of chips.

This is like a DNA sequence,

except your DNA would be enormously longer.

The way that evolution works on these gene sequences...

As this gene sequence is reproducing itself,

one base pair may get swapped out

and a different one put in its place.

As we lay out many individuals' DNA next to each other,

those individuals are gonna be different from each other

at random places.

When a mutation happens,

that can cause an enormous problem.

Or it could be an enormous advantage.

Between every generation,

DNA makes about 60 of these random changes to its sequence.

Sometimes, it hits the jackpot.

Sometimes, it goes bust.

Most of the time, these mutations do nothing at all.

But all the changes that don't kill us

are handed down to the next generation,

living on like molecular fossils.

And these fossils give John a way to calculate

how old any particular gene is.

The longer it has been around,

the more random mutations would have collected around it.

The part that's functionally important stays the same,

but as you go farther and farther away from that part,

it's more likely to have

swapped up with another sequence.

It's the length of that part that hasn't been swapped

that gives us an idea

of how long it's been around in the population.

Because the longer the gene has been around,

the more likely it is that we'll have these random changes.

When John and his colleagues

used this gene-dating technique

in populations native to Europe, Asia, and Africa,

they were in for a big surprise.

Many genes were much younger than they'd expected.

What we discovered was that lots of them

showed evidence of really fast adaptive changes.

We're talking about 2,000 places

that, in one part of the world or another,

have undergone really recent adaptation.

We were pretty surprised to find that the number was so large.

John had expected to find

that just a fraction of a percent of human genes

would show signs of recent mutation.

But instead, he discovered that about 7% of our genes

have mutated to new forms

in the last 10,000 to 20,000 years.

Some of these genes are only found in certain racial groups.

These mutations are not just related to skin color

and physical appearance.

The changes go far deeper.

Probably the most obvious examples

are the examples where there's a disease that's new

that some people have developed resistance strategies to.

So, malaria, for example,

is a disease that has been around for about 5,000 years

as a human pathogen.

Over that time, populations in South Asia, in Africa,

have developed new adaptations to this particular disease.

But John suspects there is another force

driving these genetic changes --

our civilization.

It is an idea that puts him at odds

with most evolutionary scientists,

including the father of them all --

Charles Darwin.

Darwin talked about the hostile forces of nature,

the sun beating down on us, the cold of the winter,

and these would change us,

because we had to adapt to those environments.

And in human evolution, we could invent things.

We could change our behavior and our culture to insulate us,

to buffer us from those things.

And so the idea was that humans didn't have to change biology

in order to adapt to new places.

Charles Darwin's argument was

that farming, houses, clothes,

should stop our genes from changing and evolving,

because we began protecting ourselves from our environments.

But John's research shows

that the different ways groups of humans chose to live

in different parts of the world

could actually have driven genetic changes.

Probably the best example

of how culture has influenced our evolution is milk drinking.

Now, it's not normal for adult mammals

to have access to milk.

If you think about a bull trying to get milk

up from underneath the cow's udder...

...it just doesn't work in nature.

There have been many populations

that have adopted dairy animals of different kinds.

Five of them have developed new mutations

that give them, as adults,

the ability to digest the sugar in this milk.

In northern Europe, this is a really common mutation.

But if you go to come parts of the world, like China,

it's very rare for people to be able to drink milk.

But in fact, it's the ability to digest this milk,

the lactase persistence, as we call it,

which is the weird, mutant version of this.

And it's all happened in populations

because they've changed their culture.

Just as the climates

where different ethnic groups lived varied,

so did the rules and habits of their societies.

And their DNA was forced to adapt.

If you're a human,

you have to survive and deal with other people every day

in order to reproduce.

And that makes culture your environment.

Genetic adaptations

may even have altered the way our brains work.

John and his colleagues

have discovered around 100 mutations

in genes controlling brain chemistry

that have taken place

since humanity migrated from Africa.

One of them, a genetic variant called DRD4,

may even have triggered that migration in the first place.

It's linked to ADHD,

because when we study patients who have ADHD,

they have a greater chance of having this gene.

One possible reason is

that it made people more likely to move.

The DRD4 mutation is most commonly found

in populations that live outside of Africa.

It appeared around 50,000 years ago.

It has been called "the migration gene,"

because traits like rapidly shifting focus

and quick movements

could have been very useful when our ancestors were on the move.

Even though short attention now appears less useful

in our modern, sedentary society.

DRD4 is the best example of a gene

that is clearly recently selected

and has behavioral impacts.

It affects the brain in some way.

But there are others.

And we don't know what they do,

but we can say that they're expressed in the brain,

they're related to our behavior in some way, potentially.

But we don't know what those changes are for.

The notion that genetic changes affecting the brain

might actually underpin

the spread of humanity across the globe

leads to an unsettling question.

Might some races have evolved

to become more intelligent than others?

It is a highly divisive notion,

but some scientists are probing the issue,

and their conclusions have triggered outrage.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Race.

It is a word that stirs powerful emotions.

Some scientists think

the genetic differences between us are so small

that the word "race" doesn't even make sense.

But understanding how evolution has shaped the races

and continues to do so

is of great scientific importance.

The trait that sets humans apart from all other species

is our incredibly complex brain.

But could the brains of different races be different?

Could they have different intelligences?

Renowned psychologist Stanley Coren

has spent years studying intelligence differences --

not among different races of people,

but in different breeds of dogs.

Dogs are a marvel of genetic engineering,

simply because we've kept the breeds separate.

You know, my grandparents were Latvia, Lithuania, Russia,

but I take a golden retriever,

and his granddaddy was a purebred golden retriever,

and his great-granddaddy was, and so on and so forth.

So, there's less noise in the genome.

For at least 14,000 years,

humans have systematically shaped the evolution of dogs,

changing them to fit our needs.

Stanley has measured the intelligence

of more than 100 breeds.

So, we can get dogs which, because of their breeding,

differ in terms of their intelligence.

If you take a young child below 18 months of age

and you put a towel over his head,

he thinks that the world has gone away,

and he sits there.

So, if Montana has a mental ability

beyond an 18-month-old human,

Montana should throw the towel off of his head

very quickly.

Are you ready, Montana? Go.

Stanley's test results have convinced him

that there are big differences in canine intelligence

from breed to breed.

Where has the world gone?

Okay, what a good dog.

And then I've got a beagle.

And his job is to amuse my grandchildren.

As dog intelligence goes,

beagles are seven from the bottom.

So, this bench that I'm sitting on right now

is more trainable than a beagle.

The top dogs in terms of intelligence

are the Border Collie, followed by the poodle.

Some people say, "the poodle? That's a froufrou dog."

No, the poodle is a retriever, okay?

And he didn't ask for that silly haircut.

If some breeds of dogs are smarter than others,

why could that not be true

for the animals at the other end of the leash?

University of Delaware sociologist Linda Gottfredson

has been analyzing I.Q. test scores

for the past two decades.

She claims they reveal a subtle but measurable link

between intelligence, genetics, and race.

For very complex traits like intelligence,

many genes have small effect,

may push a person this way or that.

And they're really, really hard to find.

Individual I.Q.s

are as diverse as the grains of sand on a beach.

But Linda believes there are patterns in this noise,

patterns that depend on our genes.

As any parent knows,

brothers and sisters look different.

They often have different personalities,

and they often have different levels of intelligence.

The average difference between siblings

is 12 I.Q. points.

If you compare to random people walking on the beach,

you might ask, "Well, how different are those people?"

On the average, strangers differ by 17 I.Q. points.

So, you see that biological brothers and sisters

are 2/3 as different on the average

as random strangers on the street.

The genes of strangers vary more than those of siblings,

and Linda argues this is why their I.Q.s vary more.

Her interpretation of this data

has led her to a controversial notion,

that the genetic differences between races

might lead to differences

in the average intelligence of those races.

I guess there would be

two rules about human diversity.

One is that there's lots of variation

within all groups,

but there's also a gradation between the groups

so that there are recurring

and sometimes large average differences

between racial ethnic groups.

I.Q. scores in any group of people

are spread across a bell curve

ranging from a score of about 70 to about 130.

There are outliers on either end,

but most people are clustered around an average.

There are differences between racial ethnic groups

on the average in I.Q.

The average white I.Q. is arbitrarily set at 100.

Blacks in the United States and in many other western countries

average 85.

Hispanics -- the average would be about 80.

Native Americans around that level.

And then Japanese and Chinese Americans

above the white average.

And then Ashkenazi Jews probably around 110, 115.

Linda's research has made her a scientific outcast.

She's even been called a racist, a claim she denies.

Her critics argue that I.Q. tests results

are heavily skewed by socioeconomic factors.

Childhood nutrition and access to healthcare

can vary widely between different racial groups.

If you live in a good neighborhood

with well-funded schools,

you are more likely to be accustomed

to the academic setting of an I.Q. test.

And if you live in those neighborhoods,

you are more likely to be Asian or White.

There are also concerns

over whether the test questions have a cultural bias,

a bias reflected by the fact

that it's the white I.Q. average that's set to 100.

Is one race smarter than another?

Depends on what you mean by smart.

Could I.Q. scores predict

the greatness of an artist like Picasso

or of a political leader like Gandhi?

I.Q. is a narrow obsession.

No two people think the same way,

regardless of their race.

So, here's a new question.

If the brains of the races are similar now,

will that always be true?

We are still evolving.

Could our brains one day become as different

as those of Border Collies and beagles?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Evolution has given human beings one incredible asset --

the remarkable network of nerve cells

buzzing around inside our heads.

The growth of these three pounds of soft tissue

catapulted human intelligence

to a level far above the other species.

How much further can it grow?

Will we eventually evolve into a superior race

of super-intelligent humans?

Neuroscience Professor Simon Laughlin

from the University of Cambridge studies brain power.

He tests the limits

of what brains and their nerve cells can do,

all the while watching how much fuel they guzzle.

So, I'm interested in what the physical limits

to the performance of brains are

and in what determines the processing power of brains.

Simon has developed a unique way to see

just how much information living brains are processing

while simultaneously keeping track

of how much energy they are using.

His window into the human brain

is through the bulbous eyes of flies.

They're a simpler system,

so it's like looking at a pocket calculator

before you work up to actually trying to understand

a really big computer.

The basic principles by which the fly's brain operates

is the same as ours,

but they're much easier to work with,

and we have a much more complete understanding of what they do.

Simon's ability to measure the performance of fly brains

is all thanks to this insect's most bothersome characteristic.

Anybody who's tried to swat a fly knows

that they're very good at detecting movement.

And to do that, they have to be able to respond

to very rapid and fast changes in light.

In fact, detecting light

is most of what a fly's brain does.

Simon's lab is stocked with two species --

the blowfly, with large, bulging eyes,

and the diminutive fruit fly, whose eyes are much smaller.

He and his team fit microelectrodes

into the fly's nerve cells,

then they expose them to a flickering light

to record their processing power.

So, the cell responds to the light

by changing its membrane potential.

And then we can process those signals

to work out how much information they contain.

Simon discovered that while the fruit fly

is able to see some of the changes in light,

the blowfly picks up on even the most minute flicker.

The blowfly's bulbous eyeballs

spew out a huge quantity of neural data,

enough to fill up a one-gigabyte memory stick

every minute.

But there's a downside for the blowfly.

So, the blowfly picks up

about five times as many bits per second as the fruit fly,

but because it has a much higher performance,

those bits of information,

each bit costs it about 10 times more energy.

Information is very expensive for a fly.

So, we have a sports car that has a very high top speed.

It has a very high performance.

But also, it has a very heavy fuel consumption.

It uses a lot of energy.

So, as we're idling along now in Cambridge,

we're not using any of our performance at all.

This little car here has a lot lower performance

than this sports car,

but it's much more economical.

It uses much less energy to go a given distance.

So, you pay a high price for high performance,

just like neurons.

The powerhouse brain of a human being

is even less fuel efficient than that of the blowfly.

And this is why Simon is almost certain

that the human brain has reached its limit.

So, if the blowfly is this sports car,

then the human brain, with it's vastly superior performance,

is like a space rocket.

Huge amounts of energy being used to process information.

The human brain is only 2% of our body mass,

but it consumes 20% of our oxygen when we are at rest.

The smarter we get, the higher the energy cost.

If we wanted to have a brain that was 10% better,

we might have to have one that was actually 20% bigger.

Then it would make increasingly large demands on the body.

If the human brain got bigger,

it would be more difficult to give birth to children.

And if you wanted to make it much bigger,

when the child was born,

the brain would have to be less well-developed than it is now.

So, infancy and childhood would last longer.

Our brain has evolved to strike some sort of balance

between the cost of processing the information,

which is very high,

and the amount of information we actually need to process.

But there may still be a way for us to become smarter.

If we take matters into our own hands,

we may build a superior human race.

And only some of us will be part of it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

All of modern humanity

can trace its ancestry back to a small group of people

living in East Africa about 50,000 years ago.

We all looked very similar back then.

Over the millennia,

we've adapted to our local climates

and become the rainbow of people we are today.

But evolution hasn't stopped.

Where are we headed?

Could a future race of superior humans...

Look like this?

Peter Ward is a paleontologist

at the University of Washington in Seattle.

He finds evolution everywhere he looks,

even inside a fish market.

Well, we got two really standard wonderful food fish

in the Northwest.

We've got this nice big halibut and these beautiful salmon.

If we look at the fossil record, actually,

these are way more primitive.

These guys were here first and, in fact,

far more fish look like this -- that beautiful fusiform shape --

than this rather ugly thing.

It's been squished down and flattened.

It's like taking a salmon, rolling it on its side,

bringing an eye over,

and living forever with that totally rotated shape.

This guy lives on the bottom,

and this is a superb adaptation for where it lives.

From the salmon, evolution created the halibut.

What, Peter wonders, might it do to humans?

It is tempting to believe that nature has a master plan

to evolve us into fitter, smarter, more attractive beings.

But nature doesn't work that way.

Our best traits and our worst traits

are chosen for us quite randomly.

Albert Einstein most famously said,

"God does not play dice with the universe."

Well, maybe he was right in physics,

but in evolution, there's a whole lot of dice playing.

Here's my evolutionary dice -- die.

This is A, T, G, and C -- the genetic code.

When they combine together,

they tell an organism what traits it's gonna have.

And much of that combination

comes together in random fashion.

So if I throw this evolutionary die,

I'm gonna be stuck with this particular gene,

and that gene might take me up any one of these four roads.

Three of those roads might kill you almost instantly.

One of them might be towards a really superior organism.

If Peter wants to make his way across town

to a high-end restaurant

using the rules of DNA navigation,

he will have to rely on the random roll of a die.

One turn could get him closer.

The next could turn him back toward where he started.

There's no telling when or if he will ever make it.

Evolution is a random process

that usually leads to genetic dead ends.

Ugh!

But what if Peter could escape the randomness

of natural selection?

Up until we became a technical species,

we were, like every other species,

at mercy to the randomness

and to, really, the nastiness of evolution.

The next stage of human evolution

is going to be we humans

tinkering right into the genome itself.

Not only can we change people in their lifetime,

but we'll be able to change their very DNA

so that they and their changes

get passed on to the next generation.

With this type of directed evolution,

Peter does not have to blindly depend on chance

to get him where he wants to go.

Waterfront Seafood Grill.

Genetic technology

could take you on a direct route from "A" to "B",

as long as you can pay for the ride.

Peter believes that once humans

start pursuing unnatural selection,

we will diverge into two separate races --

those who are left rolling the evolutionary dice

and those who can afford to design their own genome.

All right. Thank you much.

Halibut. Thanks.

I could see a point where once the differences

we engineer into ourselves

are so different from what you find

in the wild, stock humans

versus the genetically engineered humans,

there will be a divergence.

If you had children that bred

with other children with these enhancements,

it keeps going.

You're gonna see a social drifting apart.

And speciation happens

when gene pools separate -- populations separate.

It is a grim vision of the future --

a global gated community

of super-rich, long-lived human 2.0's

hogging all the resources...

And a completely separate species of people

who can barely survive.

But another technological course

is driving us in a different direction.

The next big leap toward creating a superior human race

may come from us putting aside our differences

and putting our heads together.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Earth is already a crowded place.

And by the end of this century,

the human population will probably reach 11 billion.

We'll be packed in as tightly as bees in a hive.

That prospect has inspired some scientists

to envision a new evolution of mankind.

Just as insect colonies share the workload,

perhaps we can learn to harness the power of multiple brains

and create a vastly superior global hive mind.

"Sandy" Pentland is the head of the Human Dynamics Lab

at M.I.T.

He's a pioneer of a new field of research --

computational social science.

Sandy believes humanity

is about to become a smarter, superior species --

not because we're going to evolve

at the individual level,

but through a transformation in the way we work together.

So, human organizations

are a little bit like an information machine.

The gears not only have to fit together,

but they have to be synchronized

so that they work together rather than against each other.

So, this desire to synchronize

is something that's very ancient in our species,

and you see it in dance and also in music,

like here with the M.I.T. Logarhythms,

where bass comes in.

Bass: we

And the baritone comes in.

Baritones: are Bass: we

And the tenor.

Tenors: we are Baritones: are Bass: we

and then they meld together into a whole.

We

we are

we

we are we are

we

we are we are

Music like this is an example of something

that's much bigger than just the individuals.

We are

Humans are naturally social creatures.

We developed language and culture

to trade knowledge and share experiences.

Sandy believes that we are about to supercharge

the degree to which we share knowledge,

thanks to a quantum leap in communication technology.

One of the most profound changes has happened in the last decade.

And something that's not well appreciated

is the fact that we all carry around phones,

and these are getting smarter and smarter.

Take traffic, for example.

You can now look on your phone or on your car dashboard

and see how dense the traffic is and get real-time updates.

Technology that lets us share pictures,

share stories in a way we never could

and just turns the clock right up more.

That's all driven by those phones

that people are carrying around.

So, we're being able to make

this sort of unified intelligence.

Handheld smart devices

are getting us to work and think together like never before.

They are merging humanity

into a single interconnected mind

that spans the globe,

capable of feats no single brain could achieve.

In 2009,

the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency

set a challenge designed specifically for hive minds.

It placed 10 red balloons,

each adorned with a special certificate,

at secret locations across the U.S.

It offered a $40,000 prize

to the team that discovered the GPS coordinates

of all 10 balloons the fastest.

Thousands of teams took up the challenge.

Sandy's plan was to engage

a swarm of cell-toting, social-media-connected minds.

And what we did is we leveraged social media

in a very creative way.

So, I wouldn't just give you a prize for finding a balloon.

I'd give you a prize for recruiting people,

one of whom might find the balloon.

So, if they found the balloon, you'd get some, too.

And what this does is it creates a cascade.

Thousands and thousands of people,

all recruiting their friends to look for the balloon

because it's in their interest to do that.

Sandy's method worked incredibly well.

His M.I.T. team bagged photos of all 10 balloons,

uncovered in places like San Francisco's Union Square

and a tennis court in Virginia,

in just nine hours.

They were able to find the balloons

faster than anybody else in the world --

in fact, in a time

that they generally thought was impossible.

In social species, there's a drive to be social.

If you ask, "What's the number-one thing

that contributes to life satisfaction?"

It's building things with other people.

And what we've done is developed technology

to try and help us do that.

Imagine a sea of humanity with instant awareness of events

taking place over ranges of thousands of miles.

We could trace the source of a viral epidemic

to one apartment block in a matter of hours,

just by seeing who was staying home from work

with their cellphone turned on.

We could solve age-old problems of hunger and poverty

by tracking supply and demand for food

on a minute-to-minute basis.

What you'll see in the future,

where we're able to pool our experience

to make all of our individual experiences better.

So, what is the future of race?

Genetics tells us that there are subtle differences between us.

Both on the inside and the outside.

Those differences emerged as we wandered the Earth

as separate tribes, for more than 50,000 years.

But now, something new is happening in human history.

We don't have room to be separate anymore.

Technology, combined with our deep instinct to work together

is about to push us one giant step forward.

And will create not a superior race,

but a superior species, to which we will all belong.

== sync, corrected by elderman == DHD sync by tagman90

Repair and Synchronization by Easy Subtitles Synchronizer 1.0.0.0