7 ms·

I wonder how people will feel about two men being genetic parents to one baby (with the help of a surrogate mother) once it becomes technologically possible. In

I wonder how people will feel about two men being genetic parents to one baby (with the help of a surrogate mother) once it becomes technologically possible. In that case, no disease is being avoided, but I don't think it falls under the realm of a "designer" baby either. My guess is that many of us will live to see it happen.

barking 12y ago
Re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic doesn't seem like quite the right metaphor but at a time when the world's population is exploding this doesn't seem like our most pressing problem.
- Tuna-Fish 12y ago
  World population is not exploding, and overpopulation is not and will not be a major world problem.
  - manicdee 12y ago
    Are you suggesting there are no limits to growth? No limits to available fresh water supplies? No limits to energy production? Once you run you of fresh water and have to rely on nuclear power to run the desalination plants to keep people watered, you have three major problems.
    - Buge 12y ago
      Of course there is a limit. But population is soon going to start falling. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate the chart on the right. We're currently at 2.36 fertility rate and falling rapidly. 2.33 is what is necessary for replacement. The US is at 1.9 and Europe is 1.59.
    - damon_c 12y ago
      The growth rate is slowing. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate
      - recibe 12y ago
        Great source. The growth rate is slowing as the population is increasing. Stop a moment to consider how that observation is irrelevant.
    - Tuna-Fish 12y ago
      > Are you suggesting there are no limits to growth? There are limits to growth. We are just not anywhere near them, and don't seem to be approaching them. World birth rates are coming down fast enough that world population will probably never again double. > No limits to available fresh water supplies? Fresh water is a local problem. The world fresh water supply is renewable and renews at a rate several orders of magnitude greater than human consumption. Fresh water is a problem because transportation of it is expensive, and people prefer to live in places that have supply problems above places that don't. Still, I expect that fresh water supply problems will mostly be solved by desalinization rather than migration. > No limits to energy production? Nuclear is limited really only by capital expenditure. Solar's limits are also vastly greater than any feasible demand, and it's getting cheaper. > Once you run you of fresh water and have to rely on nuclear power to run the desalination plants to keep people watered, you have three major problems. And what would those be? In any case, it makes little sense to desalinize using nuclear. Desalinization is a problem that's a perfect fit for solar power, as the capital cost of equipment is low enough in comparison to the energy costs that you can effortlessly vary production with the load, and the end product can be stored well.
      - tn13 12y ago
        Honestly, a cheap and infinite source of energy is all we need. Nuclear and Solar engergy is sooner or later going to be both cheap and near infinite. That is likely to solve most problems for humanity.
        _almosnow 12y ago
        I also believe that nuclear/solar will provide us with our holy grial energy source; but we've been expecting this for the last 50 years so I don't hold my hopes too high.
        lkbm 12y ago
        http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/US_Solar_Electricity_Production.svg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/US_Solar_... (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_States#Growth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_State... ) There are issues with transmission and storage, but I'm seeing a pretty comforting trend on the solar side of things.
  - alextgordon 12y ago
    Surely the large amount of greenhouse gasses festering in the upper atmosphere would seem to contradict that assertion. Or the fish populations mysteriously disappearing from the seas. Or the former rainforests suddenly becoming farmland and chopsticks. Or the many many species going extinct. Yes I'm sure the Earth can support more humans but it is at the expense all other life. Humans are so destructive they named an epoch after us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene
  - recibe 12y ago
    Based on what? Your opinion? The U.N. projects world population to increase to 10.8 billion by 2100 from 6.9 billion in 2010. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/technical/TP2013-3.pdf http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publication... The academic laziness of you and those who agree with you is disgusting.
    - Tuna-Fish 12y ago
      10.8 is not enough to be a major problem, and the UN projects total population to start decreasing soon after that.
- jqm 12y ago
  I would argue that having offspring with the best chance of surviving and prospering is the most pressing problem and always has been.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- geographomics 12y ago
  That's not the problem - if such a technique worked (it's been attempted in mice [1,2]), two males could produce XX or XY offspring, as you get X sperms and Y sperms. The restriction would be on two females, they could only combine to make XX. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6722870 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6722870 [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4123998/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4123998/
  - stenl 12y ago
    Men would get on average 1/3 daughters (XX) and 2/3 sons (XY and YX). The YY offspring would not be viable. Women would only get daughters.
    - _almosnow 12y ago
      We don't know what happens with YY, but yeah, at least a terrible syndrome.
      - foobar2020 12y ago
        The X chromosome codes quite a few crucial proteins [0], such as certain clotting factors (that's why women rarely get haemophilia), or retinal proteins (that's why women see more colors, and rarely get daltonism). It is pretty impossible for a fetus to develop with a YY genotype. [0] http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome/X/show/Genes http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome/X/show/Genes

barking 12y ago

Re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic doesn't seem like quite the right metaphor but at a time when the world's population is exploding this doesn't seem like our most pressing problem.

Tuna-Fish 12y ago
World population is not exploding, and overpopulation is not and will not be a major world problem.
- manicdee 12y ago
  Are you suggesting there are no limits to growth? No limits to available fresh water supplies? No limits to energy production? Once you run you of fresh water and have to rely on nuclear power to run the desalination plants to keep people watered, you have three major problems.
  - Buge 12y ago
    Of course there is a limit. But population is soon going to start falling. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate the chart on the right. We're currently at 2.36 fertility rate and falling rapidly. 2.33 is what is necessary for replacement. The US is at 1.9 and Europe is 1.59.
  - damon_c 12y ago
    The growth rate is slowing. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate
    - recibe 12y ago
      Great source. The growth rate is slowing as the population is increasing. Stop a moment to consider how that observation is irrelevant.
  - Tuna-Fish 12y ago
    > Are you suggesting there are no limits to growth? There are limits to growth. We are just not anywhere near them, and don't seem to be approaching them. World birth rates are coming down fast enough that world population will probably never again double. > No limits to available fresh water supplies? Fresh water is a local problem. The world fresh water supply is renewable and renews at a rate several orders of magnitude greater than human consumption. Fresh water is a problem because transportation of it is expensive, and people prefer to live in places that have supply problems above places that don't. Still, I expect that fresh water supply problems will mostly be solved by desalinization rather than migration. > No limits to energy production? Nuclear is limited really only by capital expenditure. Solar's limits are also vastly greater than any feasible demand, and it's getting cheaper. > Once you run you of fresh water and have to rely on nuclear power to run the desalination plants to keep people watered, you have three major problems. And what would those be? In any case, it makes little sense to desalinize using nuclear. Desalinization is a problem that's a perfect fit for solar power, as the capital cost of equipment is low enough in comparison to the energy costs that you can effortlessly vary production with the load, and the end product can be stored well.
    - tn13 12y ago
      Honestly, a cheap and infinite source of energy is all we need. Nuclear and Solar engergy is sooner or later going to be both cheap and near infinite. That is likely to solve most problems for humanity.
      - _almosnow 12y ago
        I also believe that nuclear/solar will provide us with our holy grial energy source; but we've been expecting this for the last 50 years so I don't hold my hopes too high.
        lkbm 12y ago
        http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/US_Solar_Electricity_Production.svg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/US_Solar_... (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_States#Growth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_State... ) There are issues with transmission and storage, but I'm seeing a pretty comforting trend on the solar side of things.
- alextgordon 12y ago
  Surely the large amount of greenhouse gasses festering in the upper atmosphere would seem to contradict that assertion. Or the fish populations mysteriously disappearing from the seas. Or the former rainforests suddenly becoming farmland and chopsticks. Or the many many species going extinct. Yes I'm sure the Earth can support more humans but it is at the expense all other life. Humans are so destructive they named an epoch after us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene
- recibe 12y ago
  Based on what? Your opinion? The U.N. projects world population to increase to 10.8 billion by 2100 from 6.9 billion in 2010. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/technical/TP2013-3.pdf http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publication... The academic laziness of you and those who agree with you is disgusting.
  - Tuna-Fish 12y ago
    10.8 is not enough to be a major problem, and the UN projects total population to start decreasing soon after that.
jqm 12y ago
I would argue that having offspring with the best chance of surviving and prospering is the most pressing problem and always has been.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

geographomics 12y ago
That's not the problem - if such a technique worked (it's been attempted in mice [1,2]), two males could produce XX or XY offspring, as you get X sperms and Y sperms. The restriction would be on two females, they could only combine to make XX. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6722870 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6722870 [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4123998/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4123998/
- stenl 12y ago
  Men would get on average 1/3 daughters (XX) and 2/3 sons (XY and YX). The YY offspring would not be viable. Women would only get daughters.
  - _almosnow 12y ago
    We don't know what happens with YY, but yeah, at least a terrible syndrome.
    - foobar2020 12y ago
      The X chromosome codes quite a few crucial proteins [0], such as certain clotting factors (that's why women rarely get haemophilia), or retinal proteins (that's why women see more colors, and rarely get daltonism). It is pretty impossible for a fetus to develop with a YY genotype. [0] http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome/X/show/Genes http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome/X/show/Genes