Could sex becom passe' ?

bearpoker said:

I actually agree with you there. Just look at what humans have done to Collies through their selective breeding. That being said, I doubt that we could ever control enough variables to control evolution.

Click to expand...

Humans have done that kind of thing to everything they touched. Merino Sheep for example will die eventually if they're not sheared because their wool never stops growing like it should.

And no one thought we would be looking at artificially created eggs, but here we are.

Henrin said:

Why would they create eggs when the person has eggs to begin with? Furthermore, what is the pressing need for this to even exist? Hey scientists, do something that nature didn't already do.

Click to expand...

To give some credit to scientists they have done somethings that nature hasn't done, like create plastics, by unlocking the mysteries of nature.

Science is kind of like an alien from another planet arriving on planet earth, seeing a house, and figuring out how the house came to be by deconstructing it. That's all it really is to me.

Also, the guy is a moron. People are not just going to stop having accidents or wanting to have children the natural way. I don't even see the appeal of designer babies anyway. No surprises in life is boring as ****.

Click to expand...

Hey, you've probably seen that awesome movie Gattaca?

I notice in the car scene--video #1 below--that a Catholic rosary is shown. I wonder if a Catholic was involved in the movie on some level? Or it might be a blinked eye acknowledgement to the scale of work the Catholic Church has done in the field of bioethics.

I have plenty of criticism for modern day Catholicism being no more than Anglicanism, and for being legalistic, and for a number of things. But aside from excelling in the development of hospitals and universities throughout the USA (relative to other religions and branches of Christianity), in more contemporary times the American Catholic Church foresaw the need for philosophical work in the emerging field of bioethics. Consequently, no atheist body, no other religion, no other branch of Christianity has immersed themselves into bioethics as the intellectuals within the Catholic Church has.



The potential for future discrimination based upon an individuals genotype was always recognized among intellectuals. But I think it is less likely to come about in the future since genetic determinism has fallen from grace (like man in Original Sin) in the sought after explanation for why each individual is as he or she is, and epigentics has replaced it.

You can consider epigenetics as the equivalence of the Protestant Reformation.

But it is hard for many scientists to let go of their beloved religion that you can predict every single thing about an individual if you simply unlocked their genetic code.

I really like the movie Gattaca though. It's one of those modern movies with substance. As opposed to some Hollywood movies with not much substance at all.





Genetic gift can't in the end, alone, surpass human will and determination. That seems to be one message from the movie.

Gattaca - Never saved anything for the swim back

Click to expand...

Henrin said:

So why are they trying the same thing with male cells? Is there a reason men need to be able to reproduce with each other? It quite obvious this is not about disease at all, but about creating new means of reproduction that don't have any reason to exist. Sure, it might be useful towards disease, but I don't buy for a moment that is the primary driver here. If that was the primary driver they wouldn't need to create the eggs in the first place.

Click to expand...

Most diseases are not genetically determined anyways. Very few are. There seems to be a genetic predisposition, or a lack of genetic resistance, that is genetically heritable, and may explain why some people would have developed diabetes if they had my diet and why I don't.

So, behaviors and inputs have to activate certain genes to express themselves, or maybe deactivate certain genes, for a disease like lung cancer to occur. We all know some people who smoke for years and years and never develop lung cancers and others that do develop lung cancer from the equivalent smoking patterns.

But there are many different forms of cancer anyways, so, there is no one cure for cancer to be found. Each kind of cancer requires its own cure. Thus far that has been elusive.

But decades ago all the hype was that by about know doctors would be treating and curing diseases and all manner of health issues genetically. They spoke with too much certainty about our triumph over sickness they assumed we would have by know because really we are no more ahead than we were in the early 1990s.




Tall claims probably inspire Federal funding though. Assuming this same scientist subscribes to the end of the world soon coming through climate change, he or she will not construct that story of "it's all over" when asking for money from the Government. No, the story will be one of humanity living for billions of more years on earth, a story of total optimism. They story always changes depending on what they want.

Henrin said:

Not sure why controlling genetics is desirable actually. Species evolve by changes in their DNA, so controlling the DNA is really just keeping things still.

Click to expand...

It's also hypothesized--because why we sexually reproduce with two sexes rather than all humans being hermaphrodites remains a *mystery*--that a key to humans survival success on earth is from the massive genetic diversity that results from two individuals mating with each other. We are a genetic product of our grandparents, too, and all this genetic shuffling supposedly creates more genetic diversity. Which results in some humans being more genetically resistant to x things.

There are microscopic organisms that we might consider predators of sorts of humans. In theory, lack of genetic diversity in a population, can actually become a weakness.

<alt>doxygen said:

:agree

The preggers thing has always been I side effect I took the necessary steps to avoid.

Click to expand...

You know, ironically, this is what a certain Pope predicted decades ago about widespread acceptance of contraception.


But first, let's look at latex condoms relation to giving needles to IV heroin addicts, as they are both in the same boat of harm reduction. (I subscribe to the harm reduction model by the way).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_reduction

Harm reduction

Click to expand...

Harm reduction (or harm minimization) is a range of public health policies designed to lessen the negative social and/or physical consequences associated with various human behaviors, both legal and illegal. Harm reduction policies are used to manage behaviors such as recreational drug use and sexual activity in numerous settings that range from services through to geographical regions. Critics of harm reduction typically believe that tolerating risky or illegal behaviour sends a message to the community that such behaviours are acceptable and that some of the actions proposed by proponents of harm reduction do not reduce harm over the long term.[1][2]

Needle-exchange programmes reduce the likelihood of users of heroin and other drugs sharing the syringes and using them more than once. Syringe-sharing can lead to infections such as HIV or hepatitis C, which can spread from user to users through the reuse of syringes contaminated with infected blood. Needle and syringe programme (NSP) and Opioid Substitution Therapy (OST) outlets in some settings offer basic primary health care.

Click to expand...

Safer sex programmes

Many schools now provide safer sex education to teen and pre-teen students, who may engage in sexual activity. Since some adolescents are going to have sex, a harm-reductionist approach supports a sexual education which emphasizes the use of protective devices like condoms and dental dams to protect against unwanted pregnancy and the transmission of STIs. This runs contrary to abstinence-only sex education, which teaches that educating children about sex can encourage them to engage in it.

Click to expand...

Now, to the past Pope Paul the 6th

Have Humanae Vitae's predictions come true?

POPE PAUL VI AS PROPHET:
HAVE HUMANAE VITAE'S BOLD PREDICTIONS COME TRUE?

Janet Smith
University of Dallas

Click to expand...

Humanae Vitae 25 years ago "prophesied" that marriages and society would suffer if the use of contraception became widespread. Now the vast majority of spouses, as well as those who are unmarried, use some form of contraception.

Click to expand...

Four Prophecies

Pope Paul VI made four rather general "prophecies" about what would happen if the Church's teaching on contraception were ignored.


Infidelity and moral decline

The Pope first noted that the widespread use of contraception would "lead to conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality."

Click to expand...

Lost Respect for Women

Paul VI also argued that "the man" will lose respect for "the woman" and "no longer (care) for her physical and psychological equilibrium" and will come to "the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment and no longer as his respected and beloved companion."

Click to expand...

Henrin said:

I don't think I trust people enough to know which way evolution should go.

Click to expand...

people choosing how it should go is a result of the random chance and selective forces you still trust more since that is what created the people you dont trust

Sabre said:

Well perhaps for one reason, but the fun continues....

Within 30 years we will no longer use sex to procreate, says Stanford professor



A bit more of this at: Within 30 years we will no longer use sex to procreate, says Stanford professor | The Independent

Click to expand...

No shock there really.
I don't agree on the time frame and the wording of "no longer" but yes, sex for procreation will get less and less and that's been obvious for quite sometime. As tech and science improves it just the logical path. :shrug: