12 ms·

The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction

98 points by smaili 11y ago

hashkb 11y ago
I saw that movie! Totally natural and non-dystopic.
- Delmania 11y ago
  Which one? Gattaca?
  - ethanpil 11y ago
    That's what came to me instantly.
- brenfrow 11y ago
  I was thinking demolition man.
transfire 11y ago
Not until they can grow it in a bottle.
maratd 11y ago
Those who haven't seen it, should definitely see Gattaca. Good movie, but aside from that, posits a premise that I think will resonate with virtually everyone. That we are more than the sum of our parts. That there are unquantifiable attributes like willpower, perseverance, honor, compassion, etc. that arise out of adversity and overcoming our shortcomings. Is a genetically perfect human inferior because they were never subjected to the travails of imperfection? Those are the questions that will bounce around in the heads of parents ... and they may lead them to have kids the old-fashioned way.
- eganist 11y ago
  Counterpoint: traits arise through neural networks established in the brain. What's to say that we won't reach a point where such traits can be artificially engineered? Likely not in the near future, but I see it happening hundreds of years from now.
  - Ygg2 11y ago
    Great. Now we only need to decide which traits are those... Perhaps servility and humility. Doing what's told? I bet lot of moms and dictators would love that. Eternal happiness. Why shower, when you are happy as you are? Why eat when you are already happy? EDIT: The point is, our traits depend on environment. If it changes, we change as well. We might think we control our environment, but so far, I doubt that's possible.
- finnh 11y ago
  Life will continue to provide sufficient travails, even to those with "perfect" genetics, that I don't think this is a real concern. On the very, very minor end of the spectrum: If I could guarantee that my child (or i) would never have a cold, I would choose that for sure. There is zero downside. My resulting life will not be excessively perfect; people being mean in high school will still scar people for life, etc.
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    Point of order: We don't know there's no downside to never having a cold. Unforeseen consequences and all that.
    - finnh 11y ago
      That's a different argument than OP was making. Clearly if "never having a cold" happens to also mean "dies at 50" then it's not a good idea. But OP was arguing that the experience of having a cold makes you a better person, and thus we perhaps should not edit colds out of our genome.
      - Ygg2 11y ago
        OP, didn't declare any logical means to achieve it. If "never having a cold" might also mean you suffer allergies due hyper immune system. Or be susceptible to a future disease people without cold can easily overcome.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - Delmania 11y ago
      I'm struggling to find the right way to disagree with this. On one hand, we do know the downsides, provided there is no immunization. We don't develop the antibodies needed to fight the disease, and we're at greater risk for an outbreak. Polio was defeated largely due to immunizations, but there's still outbreaks that are devastating because people don't get vaccinated. I'm also not sure we can vaccinate against the cold, I think it's like the flu, it mutates too quickly.
- cordite 11y ago
  The part about him as a kid being unable to play with the other kids because he may be an insurance risk really struck at me here. At least today, it shouldn't seem to be the same as not having immunization shots and being a risk to others.
- mikeash 11y ago
  I love that movie, but what you say doesn't resonate with me. I see no reason to think that willpower and the rest are "unquantifiable." And ultimately the protagonist selfishly endangers his entire crew because he refuses to accept his physical limitations. Confronting adversity and pushing our limits is great, but imposing unnecessary adversity on our children, when there is an alternative, is no good. It's strange how this sort of sentiment appears whenever you talk about genetics, yet I never see anyone praise the virtues of imperfection when it comes to taking prenatal vitamins or not eating too much fish during pregnancy.
  - pc86 11y ago
    > And ultimately the protagonist selfishly endangers his entire crew because he refuses to accept his physical limitations. I think we watched different movies. Sure the scene on the treadmills showed that he could barely keep up, but he still kept up. To say that he "selfishly endanger[ed]" his crewmates is a bit hyperbolic.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      He had a heart condition which was likely to kill him soon. He was healthy enough at the time, but there was a good chance he'd die from it while in space.
  - maratd 11y ago
    > It's strange how this sort of sentiment appears whenever you talk about genetics, yet I never see anyone praise the virtues of imperfection when it comes to taking prenatal vitamins or not eating too much fish during pregnancy. This is a valid criticism, it's far easier to portray this issue as black/white, when in reality, it is unbelievably complex. Nature of course, does not permit pure defects to exist for any substantial period of time. They are viciously eliminated from the gene pool. The ones that stick around are a double-edged sword. A lot of benefit here, some detriment there. And we separate them and decry the detriment ... but you can't have one without the other. I am fearful of the day when we start eliminating these genes, that clearly have a detriment, but may also have a clear and more substantial benefit that is not readily apparent. The computational power of natural selection over millions of years through trillions of permutations is unfathomable and does not rely on the necessity of human cognition. We are playing with fire when we start playing whack-a-mole with genes. I'm all for trying, but we should tread carefully.
- daodedickinson 11y ago
  China has shown you can do a pretty good job of legislating the heads of parents to change. Their system is rather similarly classist and eugenicist as the Spartan one, where the party leaders at the top are very interested in keeping a national and even international genetic advantage. The eugenicist story of Yao Ming's upbringing, if true, would be far more innocuous than thousands of known programs. And of course, every year there is another rumble that they are leading in the march to human cloning. It seems a possible path to becoming the world's only superpower, unless the smart people just turn on each other without enough dumber people to order around, or some other country somehow gets superhuman AI first. http://www.vice.com/read/chinas-taking-over-the-world-with-a-massive-genetic-engineering-program/ http://www.vice.com/read/chinas-taking-over-the-world-with-a...
- Retric 11y ago
  Gattaca stuck with narrative causality. There is little to suggest that cleaning up DNA is would prevent obstacles. If anything the opposite might happen where achievements are one of the few ways to stand out.
- lordCarbonFiber 11y ago
  I really wish that movie would stop being brought up. If you haven't watched it since HS like most people, I'd encourage you to watch it again. There is nothing noble about hiding a heart condition in order to become a crucial member on an expedition that will almost certainly kill you. On top of that the distopia just ended up feeling shallow. We're never given any reason as to why society drops any pretense at meritocracy just because of the availability of genetically optimized babies (to say nothing of the handwaving around genetic markers for fuzzy traits like intelligence nor the idea that environment plays a nontrivial part in development). The most major discrimination is that a space flight agency doesn't want an astronaut with a high probability of dieing mid mission. That's not only perfectly reasonable it's also what we do now. Vincent never would be allowed on a NASA space flight anymore than he should have been allowed on the GATTACA flight. Gattaca is a film everyone should see if only to understand that the lay person has no business weighing in on issues of scientific ethics. A tale of human exceptionalism that does a great job of ignoring any of the science it claims to take inspiration from.
  - maratd 11y ago
    > If you haven't watched it since HS like most people, I'd encourage you to watch it again. Just did, available on Amazon Prime for streaming. Just as good as I remembered. > There is nothing noble about hiding a heart condition in order to become a crucial member on an expedition that will almost certainly kill you. There's something disgusting about telling people what they can and can't do without actually testing whether they can do it or not. You see, when you test actual ability, you're confirming an almost infinite amount of data points all at once. Your picture is complete and no understanding is necessary. It's a binary proposition. You either can or can't. When you test for a genetic disposition ... it's just that. A disposition. You're testing only a single data point. That data point might be very important ... or it might not. Either way, it's a terrible way to determine actual ability. He wasn't negligent in the slightest. It was all the useless genetic testing. They should have been testing his ability. If they did that, there wouldn't be a movie or anything to be outraged over. > On top of that the distopia just ended up feeling shallow. The movie is over 20 years old. I'd say it held up as well as could be expected. > We're never given any reason as to why society drops any pretense at meritocracy just because of the availability of genetically optimized babies Laziness. Why go through the trouble of testing ability, which is very hard ... vs pressing a button on a computer? > The most major discrimination is that a space flight agency doesn't want an astronaut with a high probability of dieing mid mission. The movie made it clear that this discrimination was pervasive in every walk of life ... which makes sense. Why hire a genetically inferior person if you can determine that through the press of a button? > That's not only perfectly reasonable it's also what we do now. No we don't. We do actual physical testing. We set up physical parameters that the person must clearly demonstrate. I mean, that's why they call it a physical. > Vincent never would be allowed on a NASA space flight anymore than he should have been allowed on the GATTACA flight. No, he wouldn't. You're right. Because he's myopic. Which by the way, is not a genetically inherited defect, although it was thought to be at the time the movie was made. But if the assumption that genetics played a part in myopia was perpetuated in the future as it is in the movie, that would be a truly sad state of affairs. You would have people being discriminated against for no valid rational reason. That's the point of this movie. Genetics very rarely determine a certainty. Merely a probability. > Gattaca is a film everyone should see if only to understand that the lay person has no business weighing in on issues of scientific ethics. Wow. I don't think scientists should have a monopoly on ethics. Pass.
- chillacy 11y ago
  > That there are unquantifiable attributes like willpower, perseverance, honor, compassion, etc. that arise out of adversity and overcoming our shortcomings It's funny because personality is still about 50% genetic (though it can be complex: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/under-the-influence/201307/do-genes-influence-personality https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/under-the-influence/201... ) For instance in Twin studies, we regularly find that if one twin becomes an addict, so will the other, even if they're raised differently. Compassion also seems to be partly genetic as well.
mc32 11y ago
We'll still have the traditionalists and we'll have the ones who have "accidents" and we'll have "increasing disparity" between the have techs and the don't have techs. Wonder what this will do for demographics?
FussyZeus 11y ago
Interesting to see if people choose to avoid diseases or developments that aren't necessarily crippling but for many people would be undesirable, like the various autisms or mental oddities. Maybe it will end up being just like buying a car, you pick the race, eye color, gender, etc. down a list of options and then take delivery in 9 months?
dr0p 11y ago
my name is Buck and I like to
iSnow 11y ago
>Within twenty, maybe forty, years most people in developed countries will stop having sex for the purpose of reproduction. That's a load of hyperbole. First, the time-line is completely unrealistic. The ethical frameworks in a lot of developed countries currently are very much in defense of biological inception and against technological interference. It will take more than a generation to change that. Second, a lot of people actually like reproducing via sex.
- blisse 11y ago
  It's really hard to take an objective stance with the article when the opening statement feels that outrageous...
- Pxtl 11y ago
  https://xkcd.com/678/ https://xkcd.com/678/ 4th row.
- Delmania 11y ago
  > Second, a lot of people actually like reproducing via sex. This is something I thought of. We're biologically engineered to desire sex, and most forms of birth control deprive the pleasure we get from the act. Unless you're one of those people who are into karezza, I'm not sure the author's idea is going to appeal to you.
  - Raphmedia 11y ago
    To save everyone a risky search, "Simply stated, Karezza is the practice of gentle, sexual intercourse, without the goal of orgasm. " But I don't see how birth control would deprive you from pleasure from the sexual act. Both partners can get orgasms in safe sexual intercourses...
    - Delmania 11y ago
      It depends on the method. I don't think I've ever met someone who likes condoms, and IUTs can be painful if something happens (personal experience). The only method I can think of would be birth control medication, which I know a lot of women use for hormone regulation. However, that's not fail safe. Some of my family member got pregnant while "on the pill".
amelius 11y ago
I wonder more about what will happen to people's natural mood if we keep everybody on serotonin boosters for a few generations.
rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
Let's say a generation of humans is born from perfect genetic combinations. Wouldn't natural children from that generation keep the same strong genes? What about epigenetics? If some proto-übermensch were afforded - due to automization and superior talents - to live a far more leisurely life than our own, and spend it with drugs, food, and entertainment, wouldn't that cause genetic regression? I think the problem with Gattaca is that the movie was so damn good at tackling the issue it's made itself the sole narrative that we understand, even though science has advanced tremendously in concepts such as epigenetics and the microbiome. We need a new narrative to understand our new situation.
- lawlessone 11y ago
  "Wouldn't natural children from that generation keep the same strong genes?" They'd drift if it wasn't maintained. Mutations would always be slipping in.
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    And how would we know which mutations are broadly beneficial or not? What if humans of a future earth or larger society have needs we couldn't imagine, like radiation resistance or anti-autoimmune protections? Besides, sometimes there are trade offs with no clear winning picture. Sub-Saharan Africans with sickle cell syndrome are also more resistant to malaria. What's worse? What's more necessary? How do we know malaria won't be a bigger problem tomorrow?
    - tablewatcher 11y ago
      >how would we know which mutations are broadly beneficial or not? In general terms we know what a good specimen looks like and the specific traits that they have. We can only build to that because: >sickle cell syndrome are also more resistant to malaria This is evolution by process of elimination, and unfortunetaly elimination means lack of breeding from disadvantaged phenotypes. We've largely uncoupled reproduction from evolutionary advantages anyway, and just like humans are so dedicated to controlling the world in they inhabit, we'll insist on controlling the finest details of reproduction too.
sremani 11y ago
I think we are overlooking the Economic case for reproduction through sex, even though it is unpredictable.
gyardley 11y ago
It's not enough for IVF be safe, lawful, and free. For the general, not-infertile public to actually prefer IVF over the natural way of doing things, it'd also have to be easy, convenient, and painless, and it'd have to consistently produce a baby. Right now, anyway, IVF is anything but.
- frozenport 11y ago
  The only reason IVF isn't always successful is goverment regulations or medical issues. In a healthy mother we can expect a 15% success rate for each embryo, so you can just implant a bunch and remove the extras. Unfortunately, regulations, in particularly in the EU, limit you to a few at a time and I'm not aware of any human fertility specialists that will remove excess embryos. It is a numbers game that could easily be won with a change of attitude.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    My wife has endometriosis [1]. IVF didn't take until our 3rd cycle (using at least 3 embryos each time). Also, we were given the option every cycle to selectively reduce [2] embryos if too many took (luckily, that was never necessary). This was in the US. /u/gyardley mentions that its not easy, convenient, and painless. The most expensive procedure in IVF is where you stimulate a woman's ovaries in order for them to overproduce eggs for ultrasound-guided retrieval (using an extremely long, large bore needle); as soon as medical science is close enough to converting stem cells filtered out of blood into reproductive tissue (and we're extremely close, believe me; I have done my homework), IVF will be an outpatient procedure no more expensive than an expensive dental appointment. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endometriosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endometriosis [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_reduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_reduction
    - frozenport 11y ago
      As a full disclosure my percentage comes from my research on bovine embryos. But I think viability percentage approximately matches your experience, especially when you consider that I'm used to working with ostensibly healthy individuals who could conceive naturally. If they had dumped 10 embryos each cycle the story would have been different.
Arzh 11y ago
In the year 2525?
- teach 11y ago
  If man is still alive.
codingdave 11y ago
This completely ignores the personal aspect of having children, which is the desire to have a child with your loved one. Adding a scientific way to pick a different child seems to me to be comparable to adopting... You are just doing so at a very young age. So the idea that most of humanity would jump to this mechanism just because it is possible seem to grossly misunderstand human nature.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  So it's just a PR problem. All it takes is some non-invasive technology to enforce that the woman will ovulate the right egg and the man will shoot the right sperm and it will "feel" natural enough for anyone to be ok with it.
  - elcapitan 11y ago
    "Google Jizz"?
    - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
      Google Goo
- dominotw 11y ago
  >which is the desire to have a child with your loved one. I've long wondered about this. How much of this is social inertia of 'next step' in your life and how much is intrinsic desire to do so.
  - gus_massa 11y ago
    I think that the "social inertia" is just a rationalization of the biological instincts to make half-clones.
    - dominotw 11y ago
      Well if that is so there shouldn't be any social incentives to encourage procreation, but every society in the world values procreation heavily, most traditional societies ostracize people who can't procreate. If biological insticts were enough why social incentives/ostracization. How do you explain the social stigma of being childless.
elcapitan 11y ago
> most people in developed countries will stop having sex It's probably more telling to look at the people looking forward to that scenario than the scenario itself.
- daodedickinson 11y ago
  Japan's government estimates there are 500,000 adult hikkikomori in the country who have not left their homes in the last 6 months. Far more people who meet more lax definitions of hikkikomori. I see the Kakuhido (translates roughly as the Revolutionary Alliance of Men that Women Find Unattractive) as a group possibly similar to Christians circa 40. Once it becomes the Revolutionary Alliance of People Governments Find Unattractive the recruitment opportunities are pretty obvious, right?
jfaucett 11y ago
Are we really already far enough along in understanding genetics to do a better job than the process of natural selection? Given, we've been manipulating it well for over a century now, which makes me wonder what percentage of the global population would not have survived to reproduce even two centuries ago? Modern Medicinal science is amazing, but in this field I could easily imagine a scifi future where humans are no longer able to naturally reproduce. Is there any concern with this in the scientific community or is this just my writer's imagination on an unfounded basis?
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  "I could easily imagine a scifi future where humans are no longer able to naturally reproduce" Some of us undoubtedly will still be able, and those and their children will inherit the earth as it always happened.
ProAm 11y ago
Reminds me of the book: The Forever War [1] where towards the end 'humanity has begun to clone itself, resulting in a new, collective species calling itself simply Man.' Fantastic science fiction book. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forever_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forever_War
banach 11y ago
Talk about a click-bait research paple title.
senthil_rajasek 11y ago
Remember the best thing about kids... is making them - Rodney Dangerfield
pi-err 11y ago
There's very little substance in the summary, hopefully the book is less clickbaity. A few reasons why this should join the "pills will replace food" drama: - a long-term trend in wealthier societies has been to get more control on how they have and raise children. Birth control, education, etc. Less, "more valuable" children. Getting (and losing) a child has more individual and social significance today than in 17th century Europe where 30-50% kids would die before adulthood - another trend is for people to look and welcome ways to bypass biological constraint. Low fertility, age, more recently known genetical defects. - a very recent trend among very select groups has now embraced the idea of "perfect children". Now will this last trend ever go mainstream? Are people willing to _pay_ to "improve" or even only pick some traits of their children? Or will most people have to resort to artificial reproduction because of low fertility and longer life expectancy? And then does any of this mean "the end of sex"? To become a market, artificial reproduction would need to be reliable ("I want my kids to get blue eyes") and confortable. I'm not a specialist, but I get from my 23andme data that so little is determined by our genes. And we're very far from understanding how genes affect each others. Among my friends who resorted to artificial insemination for various reasons, they had sex - a lot. Hormones are here to stay. Humans are complex organisms and this (along with the "uploaded brain" fad) forget about the chemistry that shapes intelligence, behaviors, life. People would couldn't will soon be able to get kids. Some will possibly choose to pick a few traits. Most of the planet is _for many generations_ going to have sex.
pyabo 11y ago
I really like the old way, I may be old fashion!
pyabo 11y ago
Then, we will find new diseases related to the new way, like breed dogs.
UnBe 11y ago
This immediately made me think of the Sting song "Straight to my Heart", and the 'sex' scene in "Demolition Man". I'm sure there are other examples. I suspect that if sex/ sexuality were not in such an odd cultural space, ideas like this would either rarely arise, or at least never raise an eyebrow.
cyberpanther 11y ago
You can't sum a person up by a genetic score, personality test, or any other score or test. So this may or may not happen, but it will never be effective. There are too many possibilities and if they get good maybe they will adopt a model of intuition like "AlphaGo" to win. But intuition often fails and life isn't as binary as picking winners and losers.
- Retric 11y ago
  Your assuming that no trait is purely negative. There is no reason to assume this is the case.
  - cyberpanther 11y ago
    No I'm saying every trait must be weighed with a complex interaction of known traits, other immeasurable traits, and the changing environment a person is in. So yes there could be a purely negative trait but it is very hard to tell without testing that combination out. Just detecting a trait, I think is insufficient. I think the chaotic domain of the Cynefin framework describes this situation the best. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_Framework https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_Framework Probing or sensing is insufficient, acting must occur. Maybe a simulation could be sufficient way of acting?
    - Retric 11y ago
      IMO, simulation should work for a range of things. Over the long term things like uncorrected Vision may be less harshly maintained by natural selection. So, a minor level of genetic engineering may be useful over the long term (100,000 years) if we want to avoid ever stronger dependence on medical assistance.
      - onnoonno 11y ago
        > So, a minor level of genetic engineering may be useful over the long term (100,000 years) if we want to avoid ever stronger dependence on medical assistance. We don't know where 'Politicians are able to do 100ky policy planning' comes in the tech-tree, though :D From the current state of affairs, it appears to be still far out in the future...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
enslaved-human 11y ago
Sex without reproduction. Reproduction without sex.
jqm 11y ago
I'm surprised to see the amount of negative comments. Widespread adoption of this kind of technology will likely to be one of the best things to ever happen to the human race. The author might be off on timeline but I'm pretty sure this will become common practice before very long. Some people won't like it, some people will resist, sure. It won't matter. Eventually they will be like the anti vax crowd. And everyone else will say "look what you are doing to your kids!".... there ought to be a law! And then there probably will be a law. And it will be I'm pretty sure, in the end, a huge gain for the human race.
cs702 11y ago
The author's assumption is that artificial (non-sexual) reproduction will eventually be SUPERIOR -- safer, cheaper, faster, more predictable, less painful, etc. -- because unlike sexual reproduction, it benefits from exponential advances in technology. The author therefore predicts that more and more people, and women in particular, will prefer it in the future.
- moogly 11y ago
  I've been pretty sold on the idea for a long time, but maybe I've just read too much Lois McMaster Bujold.
balls187 11y ago
Future generations will look back at us thinking "I can't believe they let reproduction up to random chance." Much the same way we look back at past civilizations and wonder how humans ever survived childbirth without modern medicine.
cwyers 11y ago
Oh please, we can barely figure out how to ensure access of stuff like penicillin for most of the population of the US. How are we going to get to a point where the larger population can afford to forsake sexual reproduction in favor of medical fertility treatment? Sexual reproduction is a time-tested and free method for propagation. The technologies the author talks about are going to have to compete on cost before they're viable on a large scale.
lliamander 11y ago
I am always slightly amused at the idea of designer babies. On the one hand, we already do this at a more coarse grained level: it's called sexual selection. Yet I don't think adding genetic screening will turn out nearly as well as some people hope. The relationship between our genes and the high-level traits we care about is complex and non-orthogonal; it will be difficult to isolate the genes for a specific trait without producing unintended consequences. With standard sexual selection we are able to judge by the end result (especially if you can observe the other person's family prior to reproduction, and you see what recessive traits they may possess).
kleiba 11y ago
By "developed world" you mean "technically developed" or also "ethically developed"?
panglott 11y ago
U.S. society has decided that it must be very costly for young women to have children—having children makes it very difficult to obtain the education and career experience necessary to effectively support young humans. So young women are under immense pressure to delay child-bearing as long as possible, delay it to the very border of infertility. But that's an example of the inhumanity of our society, its lack of humane-ness and human-centered priorities. It's as conceivable that we could adapt by making it socially and economically feasible for young women to have children at the height of their fertility, rather than normalizing surrogacy, eugenics, and mass abortion. Those things are fine in limited circumstances, of course—even if each is under legal limitations in most Western countries (I hadn't realized that surrogacy was banned in most of Western Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy ).
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >U.S. society has decided that it must be very costly for young women to have children I'm pretty sure U.S. society isn't the one responsible for the fact that raising a child consumes significant resources and makes obtaining other goals much harder. The time spent caring for a baby makes it harder to complete higher education. Even if offered help, a baby takes a lot of time. Also, this isn't something that only applies to young women. A single father has to sacrifice a lot of time to raise a child. While the initial pregnancy is not as bad for the single father to deal with, the time spent with a child that could be spent on anything else is a significant factor for the next 18 years.
  - panglott 11y ago
    Human children require lots of care. But high US inequality raises both the consequences of not investing in your individual human capital and the cost of investing in your individual human capital.
- balls187 11y ago
  > U.S. society has decided that it must be very costly for young women to have children—having children makes it very difficult to obtain the education and career experience necessary to effectively support young humans. Do you have children? The challenges that are brought on by children aren't unique to the US. Getting an education and/or performing at a high-level at your job are very difficult to do if you are raising children. Doubly so for women who are typically the primary caregiver for infants.
teslaberry 11y ago
ah yes, and people will soon live forever and upload their minds to the computers. science fanatasy nonsense like this is what drives lots of people away from genuine interest in the sciences and engineering. this is worse than pseudoscientific crap , it's co-opting of actual legitimate science to cloak narratives of fanatasy nonsense for the purpose of selling tickets dreams and page views. it's essentially a parasitic form of cultural theft that destroys the host .
camelNotation 11y ago
I genuinely enjoy reproducing via sex. It seems ridiculous to me to deny such a naturally enjoyable experience just because technology claims to have a better way. Besides, it's tradition. Literally every ancestor I have did it. To NOT do it seems kind of... arrogant.
- firethief 11y ago
  Was the invention of fire arrogant? Climbing out of the ocean on our fins? The first sexual reproduction? Without what you call arrogance we would be RNA replicating in puddles.
  - camelNotation 11y ago
    All of those things had a clear benefit in the cost-benefit analysis of the prior state and after state. Getting rid of reproductive sex isn't worth it at all. It's way better to do it the old fashioned way.

98 points by smaili 11y ago

hashkb 11y ago

I saw that movie! Totally natural and non-dystopic.

Delmania 11y ago
Which one? Gattaca?
- ethanpil 11y ago
  That's what came to me instantly.
brenfrow 11y ago
I was thinking demolition man.

transfire 11y ago

Not until they can grow it in a bottle.

maratd 11y ago

Those who haven't seen it, should definitely see Gattaca. Good movie, but aside from that, posits a premise that I think will resonate with virtually everyone. That we are more than the sum of our parts. That there are unquantifiable attributes like willpower, perseverance, honor, compassion, etc. that arise out of adversity and overcoming our shortcomings. Is a genetically perfect human inferior because they were never subjected to the travails of imperfection? Those are the questions that will bounce around in the heads of parents ... and they may lead them to have kids the old-fashioned way.

eganist 11y ago
Counterpoint: traits arise through neural networks established in the brain. What's to say that we won't reach a point where such traits can be artificially engineered? Likely not in the near future, but I see it happening hundreds of years from now.
- Ygg2 11y ago
  Great. Now we only need to decide which traits are those... Perhaps servility and humility. Doing what's told? I bet lot of moms and dictators would love that. Eternal happiness. Why shower, when you are happy as you are? Why eat when you are already happy? EDIT: The point is, our traits depend on environment. If it changes, we change as well. We might think we control our environment, but so far, I doubt that's possible.
finnh 11y ago
Life will continue to provide sufficient travails, even to those with "perfect" genetics, that I don't think this is a real concern. On the very, very minor end of the spectrum: If I could guarantee that my child (or i) would never have a cold, I would choose that for sure. There is zero downside. My resulting life will not be excessively perfect; people being mean in high school will still scar people for life, etc.
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  Point of order: We don't know there's no downside to never having a cold. Unforeseen consequences and all that.
  - finnh 11y ago
    That's a different argument than OP was making. Clearly if "never having a cold" happens to also mean "dies at 50" then it's not a good idea. But OP was arguing that the experience of having a cold makes you a better person, and thus we perhaps should not edit colds out of our genome.
    - Ygg2 11y ago
      OP, didn't declare any logical means to achieve it. If "never having a cold" might also mean you suffer allergies due hyper immune system. Or be susceptible to a future disease people without cold can easily overcome.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - Delmania 11y ago
    I'm struggling to find the right way to disagree with this. On one hand, we do know the downsides, provided there is no immunization. We don't develop the antibodies needed to fight the disease, and we're at greater risk for an outbreak. Polio was defeated largely due to immunizations, but there's still outbreaks that are devastating because people don't get vaccinated. I'm also not sure we can vaccinate against the cold, I think it's like the flu, it mutates too quickly.
cordite 11y ago
The part about him as a kid being unable to play with the other kids because he may be an insurance risk really struck at me here. At least today, it shouldn't seem to be the same as not having immunization shots and being a risk to others.
mikeash 11y ago
I love that movie, but what you say doesn't resonate with me. I see no reason to think that willpower and the rest are "unquantifiable." And ultimately the protagonist selfishly endangers his entire crew because he refuses to accept his physical limitations. Confronting adversity and pushing our limits is great, but imposing unnecessary adversity on our children, when there is an alternative, is no good. It's strange how this sort of sentiment appears whenever you talk about genetics, yet I never see anyone praise the virtues of imperfection when it comes to taking prenatal vitamins or not eating too much fish during pregnancy.
- pc86 11y ago
  > And ultimately the protagonist selfishly endangers his entire crew because he refuses to accept his physical limitations. I think we watched different movies. Sure the scene on the treadmills showed that he could barely keep up, but he still kept up. To say that he "selfishly endanger[ed]" his crewmates is a bit hyperbolic.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    He had a heart condition which was likely to kill him soon. He was healthy enough at the time, but there was a good chance he'd die from it while in space.
- maratd 11y ago
  > It's strange how this sort of sentiment appears whenever you talk about genetics, yet I never see anyone praise the virtues of imperfection when it comes to taking prenatal vitamins or not eating too much fish during pregnancy. This is a valid criticism, it's far easier to portray this issue as black/white, when in reality, it is unbelievably complex. Nature of course, does not permit pure defects to exist for any substantial period of time. They are viciously eliminated from the gene pool. The ones that stick around are a double-edged sword. A lot of benefit here, some detriment there. And we separate them and decry the detriment ... but you can't have one without the other. I am fearful of the day when we start eliminating these genes, that clearly have a detriment, but may also have a clear and more substantial benefit that is not readily apparent. The computational power of natural selection over millions of years through trillions of permutations is unfathomable and does not rely on the necessity of human cognition. We are playing with fire when we start playing whack-a-mole with genes. I'm all for trying, but we should tread carefully.
daodedickinson 11y ago
China has shown you can do a pretty good job of legislating the heads of parents to change. Their system is rather similarly classist and eugenicist as the Spartan one, where the party leaders at the top are very interested in keeping a national and even international genetic advantage. The eugenicist story of Yao Ming's upbringing, if true, would be far more innocuous than thousands of known programs. And of course, every year there is another rumble that they are leading in the march to human cloning. It seems a possible path to becoming the world's only superpower, unless the smart people just turn on each other without enough dumber people to order around, or some other country somehow gets superhuman AI first. http://www.vice.com/read/chinas-taking-over-the-world-with-a-massive-genetic-engineering-program/ http://www.vice.com/read/chinas-taking-over-the-world-with-a...
Retric 11y ago
Gattaca stuck with narrative causality. There is little to suggest that cleaning up DNA is would prevent obstacles. If anything the opposite might happen where achievements are one of the few ways to stand out.
lordCarbonFiber 11y ago
I really wish that movie would stop being brought up. If you haven't watched it since HS like most people, I'd encourage you to watch it again. There is nothing noble about hiding a heart condition in order to become a crucial member on an expedition that will almost certainly kill you. On top of that the distopia just ended up feeling shallow. We're never given any reason as to why society drops any pretense at meritocracy just because of the availability of genetically optimized babies (to say nothing of the handwaving around genetic markers for fuzzy traits like intelligence nor the idea that environment plays a nontrivial part in development). The most major discrimination is that a space flight agency doesn't want an astronaut with a high probability of dieing mid mission. That's not only perfectly reasonable it's also what we do now. Vincent never would be allowed on a NASA space flight anymore than he should have been allowed on the GATTACA flight. Gattaca is a film everyone should see if only to understand that the lay person has no business weighing in on issues of scientific ethics. A tale of human exceptionalism that does a great job of ignoring any of the science it claims to take inspiration from.
- maratd 11y ago
  > If you haven't watched it since HS like most people, I'd encourage you to watch it again. Just did, available on Amazon Prime for streaming. Just as good as I remembered. > There is nothing noble about hiding a heart condition in order to become a crucial member on an expedition that will almost certainly kill you. There's something disgusting about telling people what they can and can't do without actually testing whether they can do it or not. You see, when you test actual ability, you're confirming an almost infinite amount of data points all at once. Your picture is complete and no understanding is necessary. It's a binary proposition. You either can or can't. When you test for a genetic disposition ... it's just that. A disposition. You're testing only a single data point. That data point might be very important ... or it might not. Either way, it's a terrible way to determine actual ability. He wasn't negligent in the slightest. It was all the useless genetic testing. They should have been testing his ability. If they did that, there wouldn't be a movie or anything to be outraged over. > On top of that the distopia just ended up feeling shallow. The movie is over 20 years old. I'd say it held up as well as could be expected. > We're never given any reason as to why society drops any pretense at meritocracy just because of the availability of genetically optimized babies Laziness. Why go through the trouble of testing ability, which is very hard ... vs pressing a button on a computer? > The most major discrimination is that a space flight agency doesn't want an astronaut with a high probability of dieing mid mission. The movie made it clear that this discrimination was pervasive in every walk of life ... which makes sense. Why hire a genetically inferior person if you can determine that through the press of a button? > That's not only perfectly reasonable it's also what we do now. No we don't. We do actual physical testing. We set up physical parameters that the person must clearly demonstrate. I mean, that's why they call it a physical. > Vincent never would be allowed on a NASA space flight anymore than he should have been allowed on the GATTACA flight. No, he wouldn't. You're right. Because he's myopic. Which by the way, is not a genetically inherited defect, although it was thought to be at the time the movie was made. But if the assumption that genetics played a part in myopia was perpetuated in the future as it is in the movie, that would be a truly sad state of affairs. You would have people being discriminated against for no valid rational reason. That's the point of this movie. Genetics very rarely determine a certainty. Merely a probability. > Gattaca is a film everyone should see if only to understand that the lay person has no business weighing in on issues of scientific ethics. Wow. I don't think scientists should have a monopoly on ethics. Pass.
chillacy 11y ago
> That there are unquantifiable attributes like willpower, perseverance, honor, compassion, etc. that arise out of adversity and overcoming our shortcomings It's funny because personality is still about 50% genetic (though it can be complex: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/under-the-influence/201307/do-genes-influence-personality https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/under-the-influence/201... ) For instance in Twin studies, we regularly find that if one twin becomes an addict, so will the other, even if they're raised differently. Compassion also seems to be partly genetic as well.

mc32 11y ago

We'll still have the traditionalists and we'll have the ones who have "accidents" and we'll have "increasing disparity" between the have techs and the don't have techs. Wonder what this will do for demographics?

FussyZeus 11y ago

Interesting to see if people choose to avoid diseases or developments that aren't necessarily crippling but for many people would be undesirable, like the various autisms or mental oddities. Maybe it will end up being just like buying a car, you pick the race, eye color, gender, etc. down a list of options and then take delivery in 9 months?

dr0p 11y ago

my name is Buck and I like to

iSnow 11y ago

>Within twenty, maybe forty, years most people in developed countries will stop having sex for the purpose of reproduction. That's a load of hyperbole. First, the time-line is completely unrealistic. The ethical frameworks in a lot of developed countries currently are very much in defense of biological inception and against technological interference. It will take more than a generation to change that. Second, a lot of people actually like reproducing via sex.

blisse 11y ago
It's really hard to take an objective stance with the article when the opening statement feels that outrageous...
Pxtl 11y ago
https://xkcd.com/678/ https://xkcd.com/678/ 4th row.
Delmania 11y ago
> Second, a lot of people actually like reproducing via sex. This is something I thought of. We're biologically engineered to desire sex, and most forms of birth control deprive the pleasure we get from the act. Unless you're one of those people who are into karezza, I'm not sure the author's idea is going to appeal to you.
- Raphmedia 11y ago
  To save everyone a risky search, "Simply stated, Karezza is the practice of gentle, sexual intercourse, without the goal of orgasm. " But I don't see how birth control would deprive you from pleasure from the sexual act. Both partners can get orgasms in safe sexual intercourses...
  - Delmania 11y ago
    It depends on the method. I don't think I've ever met someone who likes condoms, and IUTs can be painful if something happens (personal experience). The only method I can think of would be birth control medication, which I know a lot of women use for hormone regulation. However, that's not fail safe. Some of my family member got pregnant while "on the pill".

amelius 11y ago

I wonder more about what will happen to people's natural mood if we keep everybody on serotonin boosters for a few generations.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

Let's say a generation of humans is born from perfect genetic combinations. Wouldn't natural children from that generation keep the same strong genes? What about epigenetics? If some proto-übermensch were afforded - due to automization and superior talents - to live a far more leisurely life than our own, and spend it with drugs, food, and entertainment, wouldn't that cause genetic regression? I think the problem with Gattaca is that the movie was so damn good at tackling the issue it's made itself the sole narrative that we understand, even though science has advanced tremendously in concepts such as epigenetics and the microbiome. We need a new narrative to understand our new situation.

lawlessone 11y ago
"Wouldn't natural children from that generation keep the same strong genes?" They'd drift if it wasn't maintained. Mutations would always be slipping in.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  And how would we know which mutations are broadly beneficial or not? What if humans of a future earth or larger society have needs we couldn't imagine, like radiation resistance or anti-autoimmune protections? Besides, sometimes there are trade offs with no clear winning picture. Sub-Saharan Africans with sickle cell syndrome are also more resistant to malaria. What's worse? What's more necessary? How do we know malaria won't be a bigger problem tomorrow?
  - tablewatcher 11y ago
    >how would we know which mutations are broadly beneficial or not? In general terms we know what a good specimen looks like and the specific traits that they have. We can only build to that because: >sickle cell syndrome are also more resistant to malaria This is evolution by process of elimination, and unfortunetaly elimination means lack of breeding from disadvantaged phenotypes. We've largely uncoupled reproduction from evolutionary advantages anyway, and just like humans are so dedicated to controlling the world in they inhabit, we'll insist on controlling the finest details of reproduction too.

sremani 11y ago

I think we are overlooking the Economic case for reproduction through sex, even though it is unpredictable.

gyardley 11y ago

It's not enough for IVF be safe, lawful, and free. For the general, not-infertile public to actually prefer IVF over the natural way of doing things, it'd also have to be easy, convenient, and painless, and it'd have to consistently produce a baby. Right now, anyway, IVF is anything but.

frozenport 11y ago
The only reason IVF isn't always successful is goverment regulations or medical issues. In a healthy mother we can expect a 15% success rate for each embryo, so you can just implant a bunch and remove the extras. Unfortunately, regulations, in particularly in the EU, limit you to a few at a time and I'm not aware of any human fertility specialists that will remove excess embryos. It is a numbers game that could easily be won with a change of attitude.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  My wife has endometriosis [1]. IVF didn't take until our 3rd cycle (using at least 3 embryos each time). Also, we were given the option every cycle to selectively reduce [2] embryos if too many took (luckily, that was never necessary). This was in the US. /u/gyardley mentions that its not easy, convenient, and painless. The most expensive procedure in IVF is where you stimulate a woman's ovaries in order for them to overproduce eggs for ultrasound-guided retrieval (using an extremely long, large bore needle); as soon as medical science is close enough to converting stem cells filtered out of blood into reproductive tissue (and we're extremely close, believe me; I have done my homework), IVF will be an outpatient procedure no more expensive than an expensive dental appointment. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endometriosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endometriosis [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_reduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_reduction
  - frozenport 11y ago
    As a full disclosure my percentage comes from my research on bovine embryos. But I think viability percentage approximately matches your experience, especially when you consider that I'm used to working with ostensibly healthy individuals who could conceive naturally. If they had dumped 10 embryos each cycle the story would have been different.

Arzh 11y ago

In the year 2525?

teach 11y ago
If man is still alive.

codingdave 11y ago

This completely ignores the personal aspect of having children, which is the desire to have a child with your loved one. Adding a scientific way to pick a different child seems to me to be comparable to adopting... You are just doing so at a very young age. So the idea that most of humanity would jump to this mechanism just because it is possible seem to grossly misunderstand human nature.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
So it's just a PR problem. All it takes is some non-invasive technology to enforce that the woman will ovulate the right egg and the man will shoot the right sperm and it will "feel" natural enough for anyone to be ok with it.
- elcapitan 11y ago
  "Google Jizz"?
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    Google Goo
dominotw 11y ago
>which is the desire to have a child with your loved one. I've long wondered about this. How much of this is social inertia of 'next step' in your life and how much is intrinsic desire to do so.
- gus_massa 11y ago
  I think that the "social inertia" is just a rationalization of the biological instincts to make half-clones.
  - dominotw 11y ago
    Well if that is so there shouldn't be any social incentives to encourage procreation, but every society in the world values procreation heavily, most traditional societies ostracize people who can't procreate. If biological insticts were enough why social incentives/ostracization. How do you explain the social stigma of being childless.

elcapitan 11y ago

> most people in developed countries will stop having sex It's probably more telling to look at the people looking forward to that scenario than the scenario itself.

daodedickinson 11y ago
Japan's government estimates there are 500,000 adult hikkikomori in the country who have not left their homes in the last 6 months. Far more people who meet more lax definitions of hikkikomori. I see the Kakuhido (translates roughly as the Revolutionary Alliance of Men that Women Find Unattractive) as a group possibly similar to Christians circa 40. Once it becomes the Revolutionary Alliance of People Governments Find Unattractive the recruitment opportunities are pretty obvious, right?

jfaucett 11y ago

Are we really already far enough along in understanding genetics to do a better job than the process of natural selection? Given, we've been manipulating it well for over a century now, which makes me wonder what percentage of the global population would not have survived to reproduce even two centuries ago? Modern Medicinal science is amazing, but in this field I could easily imagine a scifi future where humans are no longer able to naturally reproduce. Is there any concern with this in the scientific community or is this just my writer's imagination on an unfounded basis?

guard-of-terra 11y ago
"I could easily imagine a scifi future where humans are no longer able to naturally reproduce" Some of us undoubtedly will still be able, and those and their children will inherit the earth as it always happened.

ProAm 11y ago

Reminds me of the book: The Forever War [1] where towards the end 'humanity has begun to clone itself, resulting in a new, collective species calling itself simply Man.' Fantastic science fiction book. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forever_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forever_War

banach 11y ago

Talk about a click-bait research paple title.

senthil_rajasek 11y ago

Remember the best thing about kids... is making them - Rodney Dangerfield

pi-err 11y ago

There's very little substance in the summary, hopefully the book is less clickbaity. A few reasons why this should join the "pills will replace food" drama: - a long-term trend in wealthier societies has been to get more control on how they have and raise children. Birth control, education, etc. Less, "more valuable" children. Getting (and losing) a child has more individual and social significance today than in 17th century Europe where 30-50% kids would die before adulthood - another trend is for people to look and welcome ways to bypass biological constraint. Low fertility, age, more recently known genetical defects. - a very recent trend among very select groups has now embraced the idea of "perfect children". Now will this last trend ever go mainstream? Are people willing to _pay_ to "improve" or even only pick some traits of their children? Or will most people have to resort to artificial reproduction because of low fertility and longer life expectancy? And then does any of this mean "the end of sex"? To become a market, artificial reproduction would need to be reliable ("I want my kids to get blue eyes") and confortable. I'm not a specialist, but I get from my 23andme data that so little is determined by our genes. And we're very far from understanding how genes affect each others. Among my friends who resorted to artificial insemination for various reasons, they had sex - a lot. Hormones are here to stay. Humans are complex organisms and this (along with the "uploaded brain" fad) forget about the chemistry that shapes intelligence, behaviors, life. People would couldn't will soon be able to get kids. Some will possibly choose to pick a few traits. Most of the planet is _for many generations_ going to have sex.

pyabo 11y ago

I really like the old way, I may be old fashion!

pyabo 11y ago

Then, we will find new diseases related to the new way, like breed dogs.

UnBe 11y ago

This immediately made me think of the Sting song "Straight to my Heart", and the 'sex' scene in "Demolition Man". I'm sure there are other examples. I suspect that if sex/ sexuality were not in such an odd cultural space, ideas like this would either rarely arise, or at least never raise an eyebrow.

cyberpanther 11y ago

You can't sum a person up by a genetic score, personality test, or any other score or test. So this may or may not happen, but it will never be effective. There are too many possibilities and if they get good maybe they will adopt a model of intuition like "AlphaGo" to win. But intuition often fails and life isn't as binary as picking winners and losers.

Retric 11y ago
Your assuming that no trait is purely negative. There is no reason to assume this is the case.
- cyberpanther 11y ago
  No I'm saying every trait must be weighed with a complex interaction of known traits, other immeasurable traits, and the changing environment a person is in. So yes there could be a purely negative trait but it is very hard to tell without testing that combination out. Just detecting a trait, I think is insufficient. I think the chaotic domain of the Cynefin framework describes this situation the best. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_Framework https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_Framework Probing or sensing is insufficient, acting must occur. Maybe a simulation could be sufficient way of acting?
  - Retric 11y ago
    IMO, simulation should work for a range of things. Over the long term things like uncorrected Vision may be less harshly maintained by natural selection. So, a minor level of genetic engineering may be useful over the long term (100,000 years) if we want to avoid ever stronger dependence on medical assistance.
    - onnoonno 11y ago
      > So, a minor level of genetic engineering may be useful over the long term (100,000 years) if we want to avoid ever stronger dependence on medical assistance. We don't know where 'Politicians are able to do 100ky policy planning' comes in the tech-tree, though :D From the current state of affairs, it appears to be still far out in the future...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

enslaved-human 11y ago

Sex without reproduction. Reproduction without sex.

jqm 11y ago

I'm surprised to see the amount of negative comments. Widespread adoption of this kind of technology will likely to be one of the best things to ever happen to the human race. The author might be off on timeline but I'm pretty sure this will become common practice before very long. Some people won't like it, some people will resist, sure. It won't matter. Eventually they will be like the anti vax crowd. And everyone else will say "look what you are doing to your kids!".... there ought to be a law! And then there probably will be a law. And it will be I'm pretty sure, in the end, a huge gain for the human race.

cs702 11y ago

The author's assumption is that artificial (non-sexual) reproduction will eventually be SUPERIOR -- safer, cheaper, faster, more predictable, less painful, etc. -- because unlike sexual reproduction, it benefits from exponential advances in technology. The author therefore predicts that more and more people, and women in particular, will prefer it in the future.

moogly 11y ago
I've been pretty sold on the idea for a long time, but maybe I've just read too much Lois McMaster Bujold.

balls187 11y ago

Future generations will look back at us thinking "I can't believe they let reproduction up to random chance." Much the same way we look back at past civilizations and wonder how humans ever survived childbirth without modern medicine.

cwyers 11y ago

Oh please, we can barely figure out how to ensure access of stuff like penicillin for most of the population of the US. How are we going to get to a point where the larger population can afford to forsake sexual reproduction in favor of medical fertility treatment? Sexual reproduction is a time-tested and free method for propagation. The technologies the author talks about are going to have to compete on cost before they're viable on a large scale.

lliamander 11y ago

I am always slightly amused at the idea of designer babies. On the one hand, we already do this at a more coarse grained level: it's called sexual selection. Yet I don't think adding genetic screening will turn out nearly as well as some people hope. The relationship between our genes and the high-level traits we care about is complex and non-orthogonal; it will be difficult to isolate the genes for a specific trait without producing unintended consequences. With standard sexual selection we are able to judge by the end result (especially if you can observe the other person's family prior to reproduction, and you see what recessive traits they may possess).

kleiba 11y ago

By "developed world" you mean "technically developed" or also "ethically developed"?

panglott 11y ago

U.S. society has decided that it must be very costly for young women to have children—having children makes it very difficult to obtain the education and career experience necessary to effectively support young humans. So young women are under immense pressure to delay child-bearing as long as possible, delay it to the very border of infertility. But that's an example of the inhumanity of our society, its lack of humane-ness and human-centered priorities. It's as conceivable that we could adapt by making it socially and economically feasible for young women to have children at the height of their fertility, rather than normalizing surrogacy, eugenics, and mass abortion. Those things are fine in limited circumstances, of course—even if each is under legal limitations in most Western countries (I hadn't realized that surrogacy was banned in most of Western Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy ).

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>U.S. society has decided that it must be very costly for young women to have children I'm pretty sure U.S. society isn't the one responsible for the fact that raising a child consumes significant resources and makes obtaining other goals much harder. The time spent caring for a baby makes it harder to complete higher education. Even if offered help, a baby takes a lot of time. Also, this isn't something that only applies to young women. A single father has to sacrifice a lot of time to raise a child. While the initial pregnancy is not as bad for the single father to deal with, the time spent with a child that could be spent on anything else is a significant factor for the next 18 years.
- panglott 11y ago
  Human children require lots of care. But high US inequality raises both the consequences of not investing in your individual human capital and the cost of investing in your individual human capital.
balls187 11y ago
> U.S. society has decided that it must be very costly for young women to have children—having children makes it very difficult to obtain the education and career experience necessary to effectively support young humans. Do you have children? The challenges that are brought on by children aren't unique to the US. Getting an education and/or performing at a high-level at your job are very difficult to do if you are raising children. Doubly so for women who are typically the primary caregiver for infants.

teslaberry 11y ago

ah yes, and people will soon live forever and upload their minds to the computers. science fanatasy nonsense like this is what drives lots of people away from genuine interest in the sciences and engineering. this is worse than pseudoscientific crap , it's co-opting of actual legitimate science to cloak narratives of fanatasy nonsense for the purpose of selling tickets dreams and page views. it's essentially a parasitic form of cultural theft that destroys the host .

camelNotation 11y ago

I genuinely enjoy reproducing via sex. It seems ridiculous to me to deny such a naturally enjoyable experience just because technology claims to have a better way. Besides, it's tradition. Literally every ancestor I have did it. To NOT do it seems kind of... arrogant.

firethief 11y ago
Was the invention of fire arrogant? Climbing out of the ocean on our fins? The first sexual reproduction? Without what you call arrogance we would be RNA replicating in puddles.
- camelNotation 11y ago
  All of those things had a clear benefit in the cost-benefit analysis of the prior state and after state. Getting rid of reproductive sex isn't worth it at all. It's way better to do it the old fashioned way.