the stump. >> our apologies to the dr. suess estate. thanks for spending your sunday morning with us. go to cnn.com/sotu. for extras from the show. fareed zakaria starts right now. this is "gps," the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world, i'm fareed zakaria. we'll start today's show with the nuclear deal. the obama administration got iran to buy in, but can it convince an even tougher crowd? the u.s. congress. i'll talk to one of the deals' negotiators, now salesman-in-chief, energy secretary ernest moniz. then an important new scientific study says sea levels could rise much more dramatically and much faster than previously believed only a few years ago.

the implications for coastal cities everywhere are staggering. could it be accurate? ♪ after world war ii japan vowed never to wage war. it's even enshrined in the nation's constitution, but now the land of the rising sun wants to dial that back, and maybe it is time. i'll explain. also, bringing back extinct animals. hasn't the jurassic park movies shown us it's a bad idea? apparently not. i'll talk to a scientist who says bringing back extinct animals would be good for the globe. first, here is my take. let's imagine that the opponents of the nuclear agreement with iran get their way.

the united states congress kills the deal. what is the most likely consequence? within one year iran would have more than 25,000 centrifuges, its breakout time would shrink to mere weeks and the sanctions against it would crumble. how is this in america's national interest or israel's or saudi arabia's? it's not an implausible scenario. it's rooted in facts. in 2005 three european powers rejected a nuclear deal with iran after two years of negotiations. on the other side of the table, hassan rouhani, now president. he was then iran's chief negotiator. after the talks collapsed, the islamic republic ramped up centrifuge production going from less than 200 installed to 20,000 today. there's no doubt that iran has the capacity to make centrifuges even under crippling sanctions.

between november 2012 and november 2013 when all international sanctions against iran were in place, it built 6,000 new centrifuges. as for maintaining sanctions, the idea that china, russia and the european union would maintain sanctions against iran if washington turned down a deal that they painstakingly negotiated and fully embraced is far fetched. china is desperate to buy iran's oil. russia has already negotiated to sell at nuclear power reactors, and the french foreign minister scheduled a trip to tehran this week to do what that country's diplomats always do, promote france's corporate interests. it's worth recalling that when the obama administration was putting together the last round of u.n. sanctions against iran, many republicans dismissed the effort. in an august 2009 op ed in the

"wall street journal" titled "sanctions won't work against iran," the bush administration's ambassador to the u.n., john bolton, argued they'd never go along with such sanctions and if they did it wouldn't change iran's behavior anyway. now iran says these same sanctions are wondrously effective if only the administration would keep them on indefinitely. the crucial reasons the sanctions have been so effective, more than critics expected, is they are comprehensive, including china, russia and europe. there is a profound gap between america and the world in the perception of these sanctions. for many in the united states, the sanctions are a mechanism to punish an evil regime. for most of the other countries involved, the sanctions were enacted specifically to bring iran to the nuclear negotiating table. these countries would not allow them to be turned into a permanent mechanism to strangle iran. they all have relations with iran, traded with it freely

until 2012 and intend to resume and expand these ties. finally, some who argue against the deal believe that the united states should simply stand firm and iran will either cave or crumble. anyone who dealt with iranians knows they are a proud nationalistic people. the islamic republic has endured more than three decades of u.s. sanctions, a nine-year war against iraq in which saddam hussein used chemical weapons against them and various international pressure. if tiny cuba and north korea haven't caved after decades of much greater isolation, it's hard to imagine iran doing so. as for the belief that the islamic republic will collapse soon, there's little evidence for this hope. obama's critics say he's gambling that iran will comply with the accord. in fact, the administration is making a calculated bet that iran will be constrained by international pressure,

intrusive inspections, verification mechanisms and the prospect of snap-back sanctions. the deal's opponents have conjured up a fantasy scenario in which the world will sign up for more sanctions against tehran. tehran will meekly return to the table for further concessions or the islamic republic will implode and dismantle the entire nuclear program. to bet on this scenario is the real gamble, a high-stakes one with little evidence to support it. for more, go to cnn.com/fareed and read my "washington post" column this week. let's get started. ♪ ♪ the white house had no fewer than three cabinet secretaries on the hot seat on thursday in front of the senate foreign

relations committee, making the case for congressional support of the iran deal. it wasn't a very sympathetic crowd. >> it troubles us that immediately the iranians say the opposite. >> president obama was clear in his press conference last week, any objectors to the deal should be able to tell energy secretary earnest moniz why they are right and he is wrong. he's an m.i.t. nuclear physicist and expert on these issues. despite these credentials. will he make the sale on capitol hill? secretary moniz joins me now. welcome. sir. >> thank you fareed. >> i think marco rubio said the deal is irreparably flawed. which makes me wonder do you think there was any deal that the republicans on hill would have accepted? >> certainly i think the nuclear dimensions of the deal frankly are far stronger than anyone had

expected, really bites hard into the iranian nuclear program for quite a long time. i think as you heard in the hearing, a lot of the objection was really directed at the idea that iran would, in fact, get economic relief and concern about non-nuclear dimensions in terms of using those resources. >> so the main objections that i heard to the deal go as follows, that people like alan cooperman who say the centrifuges -- first of all there should have been more centrifuges disconnected, and more importantly, they're not destroyed, but merely disconnected. that iran still has in a storage room somewhere these thousands of centrifuges it could reconnect very quickly and therefore your breakout time scenarios are unreasonable, they could much more quickly race to the amount of material to make a bomb. is that fair? >> that is actually incorrect.

i read that as well. it's incorrect. the issue of rebuilding centrifuges and infrastructure is, in fact, part of the breakout calculations that our laboratory scientists have done. i might add that these negotiations were constantly supported by the nation's top nuclear scientists and engineers, and it was simply incorrect that those factors weren't included. >> the big objection that has gotten popular attention is this idea that iran has up to 24 days to comply with the request for an inspection of a suspected site. first i want to clarify, when ben rhodes, one of the president's top aides said the inspectors will have any time, anywhere access, he said specifically to iran's known nuclear sites. is that, in fact, true? the sites that are declared nuclear facilities in the towns of iraq, fordo, there will be 24-7 any time, anywhere access?

>> that's correct. the iaea, international inspectors can have daily access to these facilities. this 24-day process is what would apply to undeclared sites that we, the international community, the iaea suspect as having undeclared nuclear activities. >> this was a group negotiation in a sense, the united states was not alone on one side of the table, you had russia, china, the europeans. did you have to give in on some of your core preferences or your preferences to accommodate, say, russia's views? >> by the way, it's a very important point, fareed, this really was a six-nation negotiation. the five permanent members of the security council plus germany. sure, we had to negotiate among ourselves because there are lots of trade-offs in this. for example, even the one-year

breakout time, there are many ways to achieve that and different countries weighted things differently. i think in the end, in that case our scientists from all six countries worked very, very well together. i think the cohesion of these six countries, when we obviously have -- let's say with russia, we obviously have our major differences at the moment. nevertheless, the cohesion of this group in the commitment to seeing that iran will not have a nuclear weapon future is really in itself i think a major outcome of the negotiation. that cohesion, of course, really ups the ante in the current congressional discussion. if we were to undermine this agreement at this stage, we would have significant problems with other major powers. >> are you confident that, were iran to violate the terms of this deal, it would not turn into a kind of endless

interpretation between the united states and, say, russia and china, that the sanctions would, in fact, snap back? >> we have every reason to believe so. russia and china, as well as our european partners, were all very constructive members of this negotiation. i think there's a genuine common interest in, again, iran not having a nuclear weapon, and more generally in supporting the non-proliferation regime. >> you know this is obviously a big deal for the united states, for the world. personally, this must be a big deal for you in the sense that you are an m.i.t. nuclear physicist, you ran a particle accelerator lab. your credibility is on the line. are you confident that this deal achieves -- that this deal blocks iran's path to a nuclear weapon? >> i'm very confident, again, blocks the path or, if they choose to just go after it, to detect it and to have plenty of time to respond. >> secretary moniz, thank you

very much. >> thank you, fareed. next on "gps," "the washington post" says the world's most famous climate scientist outlined an alarming scenario for our planet's future. who is he and what does he say? find out when we come back. kid: hey dad, who was that man? dad: he's our broker. he helps looks after all our money. kid: do you pay him? dad: of course. kid: how much? dad: i don't know exactly. kid: what if you're not happy? does he have to pay you back? dad: nope. kid: why not? dad: it doesn't work that way. kid: why not? vo: are you asking enough questions about the way your wealth is managed? wealth management at charles schwab a new season brings a new look. a chance to try something different. this summer, challenge your preconceptions and experience a cadillac for yourself. ♪

the 2015 cadillac srx. lease this from around $339 per month, or purchase with 0% apr financing. we got the new tempur-flex and it's got the spring and bounce of a traditional mattress. you sink into it, but you can still move it around. now that i have a tempur-flex, i can finally get a good night's sleep. when i flop down on the bed, and it's just like, 'ah, this is perfect.' wherever you put your body it just supports you. like little support elfs are just holding you. i can sleep now! through the night! (vo) change your sleep. change your life. change to tempur-pedic. i am totally blind. and sometimes i struggle to sleep at night, and stay awake during the day. this is called non-24. learn more by calling 844-824-2424. or visit your24info.com.

>> translator: i ask the lord that he may give us the grace and gain awareness of this problem of destruction that we ourselves are responsible for. >> that was pope francis on tuesday praying in front of a group of more than 60 mayors from around the world who had come to the vatican to talk about climate change. his prayers may have been answered.

a controversial paper released this week claims to bring new understanding to just how much damage we've done and says it may be worse than previously believed, predicting much faster polar melting and potentially catastrophic sea level rises, much faster than we ever believed possible, as much as ten feet within just 50 years. the paper's lead author is the name you may know, "the washington post" calls him the world's most famous climate scientist, james hansen is the former director of the institute for space studies and the man who credit for bringing global warming to the world's attention in the 1980s through striking congressional testimony. he's now an adjunct professor at columbia university's earth institute. you say there will be a ten feet rise in 50 years? what does that mean? it feels like a long way off. this number, what would it mean? >> not only would it be ten feet, but it would imply in the

next decades after that, it would be even more, because where this water is coming from is the west antarctic ice sheet. there's another part of the east antarctic ice sheet which has several meters of sea level rise in its ice. what that would mean is coastal cities would become dysfunctional. parts of the city would still be above water, but it wouldn't make sense to try to rebuild them partially because they know the water is going to keep rising. so we can't let it go unstable. we would lose all the coastal cities in the world. that's enormous cost, which would affect everybody, whether they're living on the coast or not. >> most of the world lives around coastlines. >> that's right. >> but your hypothesis, you look at a period that's really 120,000 years ago. some of your critics are saying, well, who knows if that's

applicable now. why did you choose that? >> we did several things. that was one of the things we did, is to look at the laugh time it was warmer than today, and it was less than one degree celsius warmer than today and sea level reached heights of six to eight meters higher than today. if we allow the temperature to go two degrees higher, we're guaranteeing that sea level rise will occur. we just aren't sure how fast it will occur. and what our study shows, it's a lot faster than the glaciologists had imagined. >> you saw "the washington post" asked other scientists, people on twitter like ruth porat who responded. some of them are sceptical. do you understand the skepticism? >> sure. that's the nature of science. that's the lifeblood of science. you always are skeptical of any new conclusion. and so that's not surprising at all. but compare it to the 1980s when

i testified to congress. there was an overwhelming skepticism and criticism, and then over a few years the story changed. here there were a lot of people becoming very suspicious that the ipcc was underestimating the sea level problem. >> so here is the million dollar question, trillion dollar question. what do we do about it? >> what the science is telling us is that we have an emergency. if we want our children and grandchildren to inherit a planet which is not running out of their control, we're going to have to reduce emissions as fast as practical. as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy, people are going to keep burning them, going to find them, dig them up wherever they can find them, but we have to make them pay their cost to society. so what we need to do is add a gradually rising fee to the fossil fuel which you would

collect from the fossil fuel companies at the source, the domestic mine or port of entry. and that money should be distributed to the public, all legal residents of the country. that way the person who does better than average in limiting his carbon footprint will make money and will be a big incentive for them to pay attention to their carbon footprint, will be a big incentive for entrepreneurs to develop no-carbon and low-carbon energy sources and products, and the economic studies that have been done show this actually stimulates the economy. so it doesn't cost anything. it's just common sense that in order to move to a future with clean energies, we have to make the fossil fuels pay their costs to society, but do it in a way which is not a tax. the conservatives will never accept it if it's a tax in which the government takes the money and then uses it to make the

government bigger. we've got to make it revenue neutral, and the best way to do that is to give the money back to the public. >> james hansen, pleasure to have you on. >> thank you. up next, japan vowed after world war ii never to be belligerent again. but now japan wants to expand the powers of its military to fight overseas, and maybe they should. i'll tell you all about the controversy when we come back. it's time to bid farewell... to this booking incredible island resort. and it's incredible island staff. (father:) i can't imagine life without them. this is not goodbye. ♪ yes, it is. ♪ (father:) no, it isn't... ♪ ok, i guess it's not. ♪ you got it booking right.

booking.com booking.yeah i'm gonna crack like nobody's watching and eat like i skipped lunch. why? because red lobster's crabfest is back. and i'm diving into so much crab so many ways. like crab lover's dream with luscious snow and king crab legs and rich crab alfredo or this snow crab bake. who knew crab goes with everything? whoever put crab on this salmon, that's who. with flavors like these, i'm almost too excited to eat! hey i said almost. and now that it's back get crackin' while you still can. are you moving forward fast enough? everywhere you look, it strategy is now business strategy. and a partnership with hp can help you accelerate down a path created by people, technology and ideas. to move your company from what it is now... to what it needs to become.

leave early go roam sleep in sleep out star gaze dream big wander more care less beat sunrise chase sunset do it all. on us. get your first month's payment plus five years wear and tear coverage. make the most of summer... with volvo. hi my name is tom. i'm raph. my name is anne. i'm one of the real live attorneys you can talk to through legalzoom. don't let unanswered legal questions hold you up, because we're here we're here and we've got your back. legalzoom. legal help is here.

now for our "what in the world" segment. in recent weeks japan's political scene has made washington politics look positively friendly. japanese legislators have thrown angry tirades and walked out of parliament. tens of thousands of protesters have been demonstrating in the streets. what in the world is going on in the land of the rising sun? tempers are flaring over controversial legislation that would expand the powers of japan's military to fight overseas. japan's constitution, written by its american occupiers after the war, famously decreed a passivist foreign policy stating the japanese people forever

renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation. article 9 is a revered part of the nation's identity, especially in light of the nuclear horrors that japan itself experienced. but a series of bills would give the japanese military various new powers including the authority to fight on behalf of its allies even if japan wasn't directly attacked. the measures which passed the lower house of parliament this month and have a good chance of becoming law according to observers represent the cornerstone of prime minister shinzo abe's new foreign policy, that japan turn the page on its wartime history and become a more normal nation on the world stage. the japanese public remains passivist. after these proposals, abe's cabinet was at a 37% approval rating in a recent poll, its lowest park in over ten years.

only 29% of those polled support the security bills while 57% oppose them. japan's neighbors in the region aren't happy either. south korea's foreign ministry expressed concern over the bills and china's state-run news service called the legislation a nightmare scenario, warning the historically bloodied samurai sword of japan could once again be wielded by its troops in every corner of the world. this strikes me as an overreaction. world war ii ended 70 years ago. since then japan has been a pillar of stability and a model world citizen. it is the second largest contributor to the united nations, funding more than 10% of the u.n.'s budget. it ranks fifth in the world in foreign aid contributions according to the oecd. and tokyo asks for little in return for its aid, still sensitive about its history of domination in asia. once more, abe's measures will strengthen japan's alliance with the united states and as a

result strengthen stability in the region. the new security measures help facilitate an agreement that japan made with the u.s. earlier this year, attempting to improve the way the two nations collaborate on intelligence, maritime security, air and missile defense among other priorities. the new agreement also clarifies how the alliance would respond to attacks against japan so that there is less chance of confusion or lack of clarity. as china rises, asia needs a balance of power so countries don't worry about a beijing-dominated continent. prime minister abe could have pursued the new security measures in a less divisive way politically, and he should stop toying with hypernationalist symbols as when he pays tribute to the yasukuni shrine which honors several war criminals. at some point asia and the world will have to get comfortable with the japan that comes out of the shadows of its past, becomes a more normal nation and plays a role in asian and, yes,

international politics. next, from the land of the rising sun to the rise of china and tensions in the south china sea. china it tough words for united states this week over its actions in that sea, saying those actions are likely to cause incidents, quote, unquote. what did the united states do? find out when we come back. its active naturals® oat formula... ...goes on feather light. absorbs in seconds... ...keeps skin healthy looking... ...and soft. aveeno®. naturally beautiful results.

vo: today's the day. more and more people with type 2 diabetes are learning about long-acting levemir®. as my diabetes changed it got harder to control my blood sugar. today, i'm asking about levemir®. vo: levemir® is an injectable insulin that can give you blood sugar control for up to 24 hours. and levemir® helps lower your a1c. levemir® lasts 42 days without refrigeration. that's 50% longer than lantus®

which lasts 28 days. levemir® comes in flextouch® the latest in insulin pen technology from novo nordisk. levemir® is a long-acting insulin used to control high blood sugar in adults and children with diabetes and is not recommended to treat diabetic ketoacidosis. do not use levemir® if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. the most common side effect is low blood sugar which may cause symptoms such as sweating, shakiness, confusion, and headache. severe low blood sugar can be serious and life-threatening. ask your doctor about alcohol use, operating machinery, or driving. other possible side effects include injection site reactions. tell your doctor about all medicines you take and all of your medical conditions. check your blood sugar. your insulin dose should not be changed without asking your doctor. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, sweating, extreme drowsiness swelling of your face, tongue, or throat, dizziness, or confusion. today's the day to ask about levemir® flextouch®. covered by most health insurance and medicare plans.

tensions between the united states and china rose again this week after the newly installed commander of the u.s.'s pacific fleet flew over the heavily disputed south china sea during a ride-along on a seven hour surveillance mission. according to state media, china's defense ministry said these surveillance missions seriously damaged mutual trust and warned that these missions will likely cause maritime and

airborne incidents. days later china began a ten-day drill in the south china sea it said would improve its defense combat capacity. what to make of these tensions? is an altercation in the offing and what about china's economy in the wake of its recent stock market crash. to talk about all this, i asked two great china experts to join me. kevin rudd is the former prime minister of australia, now the president of the asia society policy institute. thomas christiansen is the former deputy assistant secretary of state for east asia and pacific affairs, now professor at princeton and author of a new book "the china challenge." kevin, when you listen to this jostling, what do you think is going on beneath it? what's the underlying dynamic here and is it dangerous between china and the united states in general? >> i think the underlying

dynamic is neither side has any interest to allow any significant incident to occur which would then flame into a regional conflict. from the chinese side, that would upset the agenda in terms of their number one priority which is to continue to transform the economy, and secondly, from beijing's perspective, if they were to trigger conflict with the united states, the military realists and the people's liberation army know full well they would in all probability lose hands down. these are very sobering elements within the analysis. from the american side, as we've seen more broadly, has no particular interest in going to war, by accident or design in asia. these incidents will come and go, but i suggest analytically speaking we take a bit of a cold shower because i don't think we're at the cusp of something radically spinning out of control. >> when you talk to small asian countries, philippines, vietnam, even singapore, they are very

worried that china is essentially relentlessly expanding its sphere of influence. >> right, i think that's the right question. laid out so well, but they have a reason to avoid conflict. there are more actors here, the philippines, vietnam, malaysia. in the case of the south china sea there's even taiwan. the philippines is an american ally, so the united states has an interest in protecting its ally's interest. one of the unfortunate things about the south china sea is everybody has claims they really believe are truly theirs. i think the chinese feel that way about their own claims and their claims are the most expansive. the problem is when people believe something is theirs they're willing to pay higher costs and take bigger risks to defend what those claims are. >> you worry about an unintended

incident that could inflame -- >> i worry about the philippines taking a strong stand because they believe the stuff is theirs and china doing the same thing. the u.s. is in an unusual position, we don't have any claims in the south china sea and don't recognize the claims as legitimate or illegitimate. we do want differences to be settled peacefully and want freedom of navigation. that's the point of admiral swift's travel through the region, we're still going to operate regardless of china's claims and operate freely here on international waters and airspace. >> david shambaugh wrote a powerful piece in the "wall street journal" predicting the communist party would go out of business in the next 15 or 20 years because of the accumulated stresses and strains that are gathering, because it's just too difficult to run a one-party state in its huge growing and changing economy. do you buy that analysis?

>> no. i think david is absolutely wrong, not to put too fine a point on it. and this so-called china collapsism these thesis has been galloping along many united states and elsewhere since he wrote that. collapsism is dead wrong. david has written extraordinarily good stuff on china. it's a bit dangerous if people in washington conclude, why worry about china, it's about to head out the door backwards anyway. gentlemen, pleasure to have you on. >> thanks so much. up next, fictional dinosaurs roam the earth again in the blockbuster hit "jurassic world." the results are not pretty. should real animals that used to roam the earth be brought back? that's what my next guest wants to do. hear why when we come back. rings a new look. a chance to try something different. this summer, challenge your preconceptions and experience a cadillac for yourself.

♪ take advantage of our summer offers. lease select cts models in stock the longest for around 399 per month. i am totally blind. and sometimes i struggle to sleep at night, and stay awake during the day. this is called non-24. learn more by calling 844-824-2424. or visit your24info.com. daughter: do you and mom still have money with that broker? dad: yeah, 20 something years now. thinking about what you want to do with your money? daughter: looking at options. what do you guys pay in fees? dad: i don't know exactly. daughter: if you're not happy do they have to pay you back? dad: it doesn't really work that way. daughter: you sure? vo: are you asking enough questions about the way your wealth is managed? wealth management at charles schwab.

this new tempur-flex feels like a dream boat... to sleep on. well, it's got the spring and bounce of a traditional mattress, but then it also adjusts to my body. ahhhh... this new bed it just wraps you up and cuddles you, but you can still move around. now that i have a tempur-flex, i can finally get a good night's sleep. change your sleep. change your life. change to tempur-pedic. to sleep happy guaranteed, and zero percent apr financing... visit mattress firm,

america's number one tempur-pedic retailer.

this summer's blockbuster hit "jurassic world" is the third highest grossing movie of all time. if the world learned anything at all from the jurassic movies, it should have been never try to bring back an extinct animal, right? my next guest wants to do just that, and not just one species. beth shapiro is professor of biology at uc santa cruz. she wants to recreate all manners of creatures, at least the traits of those creature s that have gone the way of the dodo starting with the prehistoric beast the mammoth. her new book is called "how to clone a ma'am mammoth, the science of de-extinction."

beth shapiro, welcome. >> thanks for inviting me. >> first, the jurassic movies have as their original premise, all stem from the basic idea that you can clone a dinosaur. they find a mosquito, i think it is trapped in an embers a mosquito fossil. >> using sophisticated techniques they extract the preserved blood from the mosquito and bingo, dino dna. >> can that happen? >> what i'm about to say is extremely disappointing. we will never clone dinosaurs. the problem is the dna in every single one of our cells does certainly survive after death, but it doesn't survive for very long. in fact, how long it survives will vary depending on the environment, preservation. cold places are a lot better for preservation than warm places, and dry places are better than wet places. it turns out that amber is an extremely poor place for dna to survive. it's porous and bacteria can get in there and chomp up the dna, eat it up until there's nothing else. >> could there be some place in the arctic where there's dino dna? >> sadly not.

the oldest dna recovered is from a horse bone found preserved in the frozen arctic soil. frozen soil called permafrost. we know this bone is somewhere around 700,000 years old. this age is kind of critical because this is actually the oldest ice that's known. so dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. between then and now there have been periods in history when there was no ice, it was a very, very hot planet. that means there's probably not any place that dinosaur dna at all survives. >> what about the frozen mammoths, let's go to "ice age" if we're going to do movies. people do find frozen mammoths, right? >> yes. there are hundreds, even thousands of extremely well-preserved remains like mammoths, mastodons, species that went extinct within the last 20,000 to 50,000 years. mammoths survived we know until around 3,000 years ago on an

island off the coast of siberia called wrangel island. scientists including our group, have been able to extract high quality dna from these preserved bones of things like mammoths and mastodons. >> so what can we do? >> so the technology to bring an extinct species back to life is very much in its infancy. what we can do now is extract dna from bones and piece together genome sequences. in the case of a mammoth we could compare that genome to the genome sequence of the closest living relative which is the asian elephant. they differ by only 1%. with an asian elephant we already have a 99% mammoth, just because evolution is so slow and the differences accumulate over a long period of time. by comparing these two genomes, we begin to make a list of those genes, where an asian elephant is different from a mammoth.

we can use genome editing technology to basically cut and paste our way to a mammoth from an asian elephant. this can be done in a dish, in a lab, growing on the surface, without involving asian elephants at all right now. >> just using the dna. >> just using the dna. >> which would then be injected into -- explain the process. >> after one edited the asian elephant genome so it contained fragments of mammoth dna, we have a cell growing in a dish in the lab that is mostly asian elephant but a bit mammoth. hopefully an important bit mammoth. you would have to take that cell and clone it, use somatic cell nuclear transfer, the process that brought us dolly the sheep in the mid 1990s. that would involve an asian elephant as a maternal host for an embryo that was developing that was mostly asian elephant but a little mammoth dna.

>> and more and more, then you take that creature and put in a little more mammoth? >> one could do it that way or you could simply change as much as you wanted to in that first step. it would require doing this more than once. elephants and mammoths, we assume, are highly social creatures. you wouldn't want to bring one back. you would have to bring back populations, families, lots of individuals who could pass on the knowledge that it is to be a mammoth. this really is where i have the most issues with this particular process. >> explain. you're fascinated by the science of it. you do think technically it's possible to do what you just described, but you don't think we should. >> for mammoths, i don't. the reason that i don't think it would be fair right now to bring mammoths back to life doesn't have to do with mammoths, but with 'em fants. -- elephants. we noel fants fare poorly in cap fifth, often fail to reproduce even with our help. if they do reproduce, they're often mean or even kill their

offspring. until we know better how to meet the physical and psychological needs of elephants in captivity, to my mind mammoth de-extinction at least along this particular route is a no-go. >> you call this de-extinction. you're talking aboutin excontinuityex unextincting a species. what would you do along these lines? >> one would have to think carefully. the community of people who is thinking about de-extinction brought up several different species that are candidates, a passenger pigeon, went extinct in north america about 100 years ago, this bird is a candidate to be resurrected using this technology. species like the file seen that went extinct in australia as a consequence of a massive predator eradication program founded on principles we know now probably aren't true. these animals probably weren't predators. if we could bring them back and repopulate them, they might be welcome in the society. >> what's the point of this? to be very honest and blunt. you talk in the book about ecological resurrection.

it may sound cruel and blunt, but what difference does it make if a bunch of species die? the world is changing -- life -- the earth is changing all the time. some go the way of the dodo. >> it certainly is changing. it is true that extinctions happen all the time, but we are are a species that has the power to prevent extinctions, and in this case maybe the power to reverse extinctions. the thought is if we can bring back species that were linked intricately to the ecosystem in which they lived and that their disappearance has somehow shifted or destabilized this ecosystem, by bringing them back we could re-establish these missing interactions that are gone and hopefully save existing species and existing ecosystems from extinction. >> fascinating report on the frontiers of technology. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> next on "gps," 15 years ago the world set serious goals for tackling global challenges like poverty and disease. the deadline to meet those goals

was 2015. well, time is up. we'll tell you how the world did when we come back. w aveeno® sheer hydration. its active naturals® oat formula... ...goes on feather light. absorbs in seconds... ...keeps skin healthy looking... ...and soft. aveeno®. naturally beautiful results. i'm gonna crack like nobody's watching and eat like i skipped lunch. why? because red lobster's crabfest is back. and i'm diving into so much crab so many ways.

like crab lover's dream with luscious snow and king crab legs and rich crab alfredo or this snow crab bake. who knew crab goes with everything? whoever put crab on this salmon, that's who. with flavors like these, i'm almost too excited to eat! hey i said almost. and now that it's back get crackin' while you still can.

the world's first animal-only airport terminal is under constructions now due to open next year. it will be equipped with a swimming pool flat screen tvs, spa, grooming services and 24-hour pet care. in which of the countries is this terminal under construction? is it in china, the united arab emirates, tajikistan or united states. stay tuned and we'll tell you the correct answer. this week's book of the week is thomas christiansen's "the china challenge, shaping the choices of a rising power." many books are written about china these days. this is a standout. christiansen is a widely respected scholar who served as the bush administration's expert on china. he has combined these perspectives to give us a balanced, informative and highly intelligent guide to dealing with china. now for the last look, in 2000 at the largest ever gathering of its kind, world leaders put together a 15-year

plan to tackle universal challenges like global poverty and disease. these millennial development goals monitor progress in eight areas over a 25-year period from 1990. so time is up, and the report card is ready. it isn't a 4.0 gpa or an a plus, but there is good news to share according to the report out this month. it says that since 1990 the number of people living in extreme poverty around the world has declined by half. 47% of the developing world's population lived on less than $1.25 a day in 1990. today that number is only 14%. too high, but still a big drop. despite population growth, the number of deaths of children under 5 in developing regions has declined by more than half. according to the report, overall maternal mortality has declined

45% worldwide and 1.9 billion people gained access to pipe drinking water. there's still a long way to go in all of these areas and more, so this september a new set of 17 sustainable development goals will be adopted. let's hope by 2030 governments in the private sector can work together for an a plus. the correct answer to the gps challenge question is d, the $48 million, 178,000 square foot animal terminal called the arc is being built at john f. kennedy international airport right here in new york city. it's privately owned and will serve as a quarantine facility for horses, pets, birds, exotic animals and livestock. one might say the money would be better spent on the crumbling human infrastructure in a place like new york city, but people behind the ark say it will benefit more than just our furry friends.

it's expected to create 150 jobs and bring in $108 million in rent for the new york and new jersey port authority over the next three decades. thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week. hello, everyone. thanks for joining me. i'm fredricka whitfield. we begin welcome back donald trump riding high atop the latest presidential polls. a brand new nationwide cnn/orc poll shows trump still well above the pack among republicans' choice for the nominee in the 2016 presidential election. trump has 18% support. he's followed by jeb bush at 15%. governor scott walker at 10%, followed by ted cruz rand paul and marco rubio. trump called into cnn's "state of