No Need For Sex: Conception From Artificial Eggs

http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/technology/fertility/0,2930,68970,00.html?tw=wn_story_page_prev2

You will soon be able to conceieve a baby from the genetic material of two gay men, two lesbians, a couple of family members in need, or just about anyone. And why not polish it up before you use it (the genetic material) ?
You can now edit the bits you don't like.

So why get married anymore. A life of one night stands, and the odd mechanically produced, computer edited super baby when you're bored (on your own of course, who needs a man), why not...

I'm not really in favour. I think it will erode the fabric of the standard family unit (man, woman, child) our ape forefathers were so keen on. I think it'll lead to designer babies. I think it will cheapen human life. But I posted this with the intention of opening the floor to other viewpoints, as a way of balancing my own thoughts. So:

Discuss.

You seem to be equating marriage to being a resource-consuming baby-producing unit. Please correct my mistaken assumption, if it is indeed mistaken.

Maybe people will get married for reasons like, oh, I don't know, loving each other. Kind of like now!

That said, "being able to produce a kid from two random individuals" is one hell of a lot different from raising a kid; all available evidence seems to indicate that children do better in a family of some sort. (Not necessarily your 50s nuclear family with Dad, Mom, and 2.5 kids and dog - "just" a stable environment with loving parental figures.) How the kid gets there doesn't seem to be a terribly important matter, to me.

Sorry. Won't be justifying or clarifying anything. This is a space for you to bring your own thoughts and take on the article posted. Over and out, unless I choose to debate a specific point later.

Yes science is marching along steadily. This day hasn't come yet, but the topic has been in the air almost since the discovery of genetics. Science fiction writers love it.

I seem to recall successful experiments many many years ago where they produced an embryo using genetic material from two eggs (when was this, the 1980s?). I don't think this was done with human embroys, but it generated intrest in the question: Are men superfluous?



Why get married now? or in the past?



I vote for the odd mechanically produced, computer edited one night stands when you're bored.



The nuclear family (man, woman, child) is itself an erosion of the family from its more extended form that includes aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins etc all living in a close knit community. Which form is better? Not only that, but the nuclear family itself is not holding up well in modern life and so far we only have limited ability to produce offspring artificially. Although oddly... artifically assisted reproduction is used to strengthen marriages more than break them apart. Wouldn't this argue in favor or more options for reproduction?

Yes, I think we are headed down the road of designer babies. Again sci-fi loves this stuff. I think the real danger is that we rush in too fast. By moving to genetically engineered children we could quickly destroy the diversity in our gene pool and make our species much less able to adapt to unforseen changes. I think the trend would be toward a homogenization of the human population and that is just dangerous in a statistical sense.

Of course there are also the societal implications that you are hinting at.... That is really will be difficult to predict. I think by moving slowly we will be able to adapt and be ready as a society when these issues come up in the future. I really don't see anyone advocating charging ahead ignoring popular opinion like you see in all the hollywood movies on the subject.

I worry sometimes that if we allow same sex conception, and then designer embryos, and then anything else you could possibly want, I won't feel like I understand or belong to society anymore. Where I come from a baby comes from a man and a woman. If we do whatever we possibly can, whenever anyone wants it, or feels it's their right, I worry one day I'll be very lost in an alien world of freakish experimental genetic people and science experiments gone wrong. I'm all for people's rights, but surely not everything that's possible is a good idea. There has to be a line somewhere I think.

Just my two cents.

genetically engineered super-faggots who force the world to its knees! (and you can imagine what happens then) *drifts off contemplating for a moment*

Very very similar arguments were put forward regarding intermarriage between people of different races.

I agree that there does need to be a line. The Eugenics movement in the 20th century taught us the mistake of using gentics as a political tool.

Sometimes I wonder, should I be letting go more? Should we be saying, whatever you want, if it fits, you can have a kid with it?

What about two men?
What about two women?
One man and his horse?
One woman and her gorilla?

Three men and a monkey!

But hey, don't be infringing on the rights of those three happy guys. Seriously though, I have no idea where the line should be drawn between infringing on rights, and enough is enough. Maybe there should be no enough is enough. Maybe as long as what is done doesn't place the offspring in physical harm, or warp them, anything should be allowed.

Some people on this thread are hinting I'm homophobic (which I'm not) but I'm here to say, well have I got it wrong, should I be more accepting of ... anyone and anything?

As a society, where should we be drawing the line? If at all? Is it good to draw lines?

Why marry anyone you ask?

Well... who would you argue with then?

/smarmy

I for one, am with Dogbert, against sex after marriage.

why not just do the ultimate and use strictly your own genetic code clone fashion? Surely the world can do with a lot more of me running around. I always wanted to see what it would be like after watching that movie "Multiplicity"
Then I imagine the not so sharp version of me:
"I like pizza, nice party steve"

If you took a person from 1850 and dropped him off in 1950, would he not feel "lost in an alien world?" Change is inevitable.

Anyway, "designer babies" have been actively created since the dawn of time, not only by our species, but by every single life form on the planet. When you choose a mate, you are selecting for traits you want to pass on to your offspring. You're not always aware that that's what you're doing, but it is. You probably want someone who's physically attractive, who's intelligent, who's enjoyable to talk to, etc. Well, the reason you want that, whether you know it or not, is so that your children will likely also possess those qualities, which will ensure that they inturn are able to find mates of their own.

The only thing science is potentially doing in this case is making the process more intilectualized, more conscious, and perhaps a bit more efficient, while removing some of the "magic" of the experience that we are programmed to hold dear. The end result is the same though. You end up with offspring that are likely to possess the qualities you want them to have.


These "science defies nature" arguments always disturb me a little. Was it not nature that gave us the ability to do everything we do, including the mental capacity to develop science? Who's to say that any changes we make to ourselves are not simply the next step in our evolution?

Certain species of ants have developed farming techniques, raise livestock, use tools. In short, they've got a knowledge of "science" that propels their "civilization" and the development of their species to a state that it could never acheive without that knowledge. This is no less "artificial" than anything we do, yet no one would ever accuse an ant of denying nature.

Things change, and species evolve. There is no stopping it. Whether that evolution happens on auto pilot or it happens by conscious choice makes no difference in the grand scheme of things.

I think there are two questions you need to ask yourself:

- How would these changes affect me?
- Why am I so afraid of letting go of the status quo?

From: Jsecure Hanks

...the standard family unit (man, woman, child) our ape forefathers were so keen on.

I just thought you might find this interesting, Jsecure.

Primates have all sorts of relations ('family groups'):

Social Group Pattern Primate and Species Following The Pattern

single female and her offspring - orangutans, some of the small nocturnal prosimians (mouse lemurs and galagos), and some humans

monogamous family group - some New World monkeys (titi monkeys), some prosimians(indris, tarsiers, and some pottos), the small Asian apes (gibbons, siamangs), and some humans

polyandrous family group - the smallest New World monkeys (marmosets and tamarins)and some humans

one-male-several-female group - hamadryas baboons, geladas, langurs, howler monkeys, gorillas, and some humans

multimale-multifemale group - savanna baboons, macaques, colobus, and some New World monkeys

fission-fusion society - chimpanzees

So, there probably wasn't a single, specific family 'unit' - but it is more likely that our ancestors followed a few different family unit types.

Actually insertion of genetic material across species is already happening in the food chain.


Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

Juro,

You are quite right, but you left off "...and some humans" from the last two groups...
Was that just an oversight? Since I personally know of a family in the second to last group and the last group is ineveitable if it is not already in practice.

Just my L$0.02 (Which ain't worth much!)

I kinda wonder where George W Bush came from.. since he looks just about identical and all with a few alterations.. hmm. or is that my paranoia striking at me again?

Hmm.. I dunno.

As I've grown fond of saying, humanity is equally close to chimps and bonobos, genetically speaking... yet chimps tend to be quite aggressive and male-dominated, and bonobos are rather more social and female-dominated (and use nearly any occasion as an excuse to have sex, which sounds particularly human, eh? ).

Many animals are adaptable, but humanity really is nature's swiss-army chainsaw.

Not just GM foods, too. I think that some pigs have had human genetic information spliced into them to make them more immunologically acceptable for xenotransplantation. I think this has been happening for something like ten years now.

I was thinking about this last night, and I realised if I let go of all my prejudices, and decided everything everyone wanted was OK, I would lose quite a bit of what makes me a human.

I wouldn't need to be nice to anyone anymore, it's my world. I would tolerate all kinds of sexual devience, at all times of day, in the street if it happens. If I saw two people having sex in the street I'd just move past them. If I wanted a woman I'd just sleep with her and leave.

I'd alter the genetic code of my offspring to be great, and maybe insert genes from other species for added effect. It's all good.

I think a world where I just exercise complete tolerance would be without boundaries, and would be rather too free.

But as I was discussing with some of the people at work, the decisions on the future of genetic messings with offspring are likely to be ones I won't vote in; my children will. I think this is a future largely out of my time and out of my hands. Which is good cause mentally I'm not ready to deal with these issues. For me it's too far from what I know to be comfortable.

I'll say this though. If in the future we do start mixing and matching genetic code I hope we are cautious. Sometimes we think we wrote the book on Human being v. 1.002.3005, but the truth is we have only managed to reverse engineer a few of the settings and switches. And doing what we think "ought to work" might go wrong.

That's the line for me ; doing stuff irresponsivly to offsprings is bad ; like naming your child "George" but even worse.

If you don't have to get married, and have a life of one night stands, you may not be getting bored.

I don't think that letting two women or two men (I'm using these since they were the first examples you put forth) combine thier genetic material to produce an offspring that has traits of both parents would spawn the doomsday type scenario you mention.

I also don't quite understand how letting parents be selective with some traits of an unborn child would destroy the world you live in and cause you to become 'less human' than you currently are. I think if that scenario played out, you would be the only one to blame for losing your humanity.