It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sex may be redundant as IVF effectiveness increases chances for 30-somethings

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Sex may be redundant as IVF effectiveness increases chances for 30-somethings


www.couriermail.com.au

COUPLES will soon stop having sex to conceive babies and use IVF instead, a scientist said yesterday.

Scientists say 30-somethings will increasingly rely on artificial fertilisation because of inefficiencies in natural human reproduction.

If experts are right, it means the sci-fi world of books such as Brave New World, in which all children are born in "hatcheries", could soon be closer to reality.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   
I really dont know what to say about this story. It makes me very uncomfortable. Surely there is a line that we should not cross with regards to screwing around with nature. This amazing medical procedure that brings hope to thousands of people every year, suddenly has sinister possibilities.

What kind of future are we creating?

Anyway, thought I would share with you guys.

www.couriermail.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by eternal_vigilance
 


Unless the proceedure becomes affordable, I don't see how it will ever replace the old fashioned way.

Also, while birth defects can be a problem for couples that wait until they are in their 30's, there is already amniocentesis, to check for problems, so that part is already there, even when IVF is not used.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Yeah and now the state will control who has children and who can't...

Real freedom right there!

Totally not eugenics! Look the other way!

The birth rates wouldn't be going down if it wasn't for the crappy food we eat, the vaccines and the water/food-filled hormones that screws us up.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:56 AM
link   
I have always said that ne day we will have 1 gender. I think behind the scenes the techs are already here, but time takes along time to change in our world.

But one day they will look back and say and think of sex as eeuu, and disgusting, and a good thing too.

But thats a while in the future and not in our life times.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   

The prediction comes from John Yovich, a veterinary doctor from Perth's Murdoch University
from the OP's link

Apparently, the guy is a vet. Not to be dismissive of vets, it's an admirable profession, but we're not talking horse breeding here. IVF is probably the best method of conception for animals, from an economic point of view, but I'm fairly sure that the traditional method has certain charms which will save it from obsolescence.

IVF is a fantastic technology but sex is a hell of a lot more fun.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


Of course its more fun...but I dont think he was suggesting we will be giving up sex altogether...just for breeding purposes (for lack of a better word).

I can't ever imagine a time with no sex (its too horrible to even consider), but its not too much of a stretch to see science completely take over the whole process from conception to birth. There are lots of references online to decreasing fertility rates in the western world...and on top of that the dangers that still face women during pregnancy and birth.

I am not saying I think it will happen...but i do think its a possibility.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by eternal_vigilance
 


I think one day mankind will give up sex altogether.

I think the plan is to go one gender one day.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033

But one day they will look back and say and think of sex as eeuu, and disgusting, and a good thing too.


No, that will never happen.
Sex is too much fun and one of the most beautiful things to do. Nobody would ever stop doing it.



Originally posted by andy1033
I think the plan is to go one gender one day.


It's good that you can also enjoy sex with the same gender. I do it and it's also great


[edit on 17-5-2010 by ShadowAngel85]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by eternal_vigilance
 


I have to say this...
When you spare the rod,you spoil the child!
This is true in both genetics and discipline.
Anything that goes against nature will backfire
some how!



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowAngel85

Originally posted by andy1033

But one day they will look back and say and think of sex as eeuu, and disgusting, and a good thing too.


No, that will never happen.
Sex is too much fun and one of the most beautiful things to do. Nobody would ever stop doing it.


I do not think so, if mankind will ever get out of the rubbish it is in, and wants to be independent i think we will go 1 gender one day. But heck we will not be alive to see it.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
I do not think so, if mankind will ever get out of the rubbish it is in, and wants to be independent i think we will go 1 gender one day. But heck we will not be alive to see it.


I don't think that it would solve any problems if their would be only 1 gender. With the same you could argue that mankind would be better if their was only 1 "race" and that's equally stupid.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by eternal_vigilance
There are lots of references online to decreasing fertility rates in the western world


Sorry, I know it's a bit of a sideline but modern science's little myth's and spun factoid's are a bugbear of mine.

The fertility rate in western nations isn't falling, the conception rate is. People are choosing to have fewer children, later in life. Very few people have more than 2 or 3 children and each generation seems less inclined to have a big family.

This has nothing to do with the dangers of birth, it's a social change and it's probably a good thing, all in all.

It's much more lucrative for science to come up with solutions to a claimed physical problem than it is to observe a positive social change.

[edit on 17/5/10 by pieman]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowAngel85

It's good that you can also enjoy sex with the same gender. I do it and it's also great



Well good for you! First of all the article says nothing about the physical act being done away with. It has to do with IVF, and the testing that will go along with it, because people who wait until their 30's and beyond have a hard time conceiving.

Go toot your own horn somewhere else, where it's part of the topic.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowAngel85
I don't think that it would solve any problems if their would be only 1 gender. With the same you could argue that mankind would be better if their was only 1 "race" and that's equally stupid.

The gender thing is silly because while men and women are different in many ways, they compliment each other well and the family unit continues the natural cycle of humanity.

As for race...if every single person was the same race, racism would cease to exist. Whether that means 100% of the world's population is black, brown, white or yellow. Sure, there would be some other way to divide ourselves, but mankind would probably be better off if we were all the same race. (Some people believe we are all one race - Human race - but it is a matter of perspective).

[edit on 17/5/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Sure, there would be some other way to divide ourselves, but mankind would probably be better off if we were all the same race.


If we'd just use some other stupid random physical characteristic to divide ourselves, how on earth would we be better off losing the infinitely interesting variety of features that help to make life interesting?

Blaming my skin colour for someone else's hatred is less than pointless.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
If we'd just use some other stupid random physical characteristic to divide ourselves, how on earth would we be better off losing the infinitely interesting variety of features that help to make life interesting?

Blaming my skin colour for someone else's hatred is less than pointless.

Nevermind.

/facepalm.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
What is more, some of those markers for disease have good reasons for being there. They have had some selective advantage which is not well studied. Some aren't diseases at all.

For example - in Native Americans diabetes isn't a disease of genetics It is a disease of modern lifestyle usually. "Correcting" something that isn't a disease is absoluletly stunningly dangerous.

Some "diseases" don't qualify as diseases at all but tendencies in the population. ADD is about 5% of boys. That isn't a disease - it is a tendency in the population. The numbers are too large to be a disease, and are large enough to be indicative of a selection advantage which isn't understood.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
From the other thread.

Originally posted by Aeons
This is a study in epigenetics.

The biological parents only contribute chromosomes. The surrogate contributes the environment and all the components.

Do you know that family violence effects the way a fetus develops? How prevalent is domestic violence in India?

Did you know that RNA is contributed in this case by the surrogate? That RNA turns "on" or "off" chromosomes. It can be influenced by trauma, and environment and many other unknown factors currently.

This is a mass experiment, the end product of which is utterly unknown.

How would you feel to find out that some trauma that influenced the mother of your surrogate had caused her RNA changes that the surrogate then based onto your child?

Fascinatingly stupid.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by eternal_vigilance
reply to post by pieman
 


Of course its more fun...but I dont think he was suggesting we will be giving up sex altogether...just for breeding purposes (for lack of a better word).

I can't ever imagine a time with no sex (its too horrible to even consider), but its not too much of a stretch to see science completely take over the whole process from conception to birth. There are lots of references online to decreasing fertility rates in the western world...and on top of that the dangers that still face women during pregnancy and birth.

I am not saying I think it will happen...but i do think its a possibility.



You underestimate humanitys natural desire to have a baby the normal way.

I want to see my womans belly swell with my child. I want to put my ear on her stomach and here my child kicking.

A woman has a natural desire to feel her child growing in her womb. Some women even have the desire to go in labor without painkillers.....its just a natural instinct.

Furthermore how would humans do this?

Will men stop ejaculating in women?

You dont think that you wont get pregnant that way?

Unless you are on birth control(and those have failures)you WILL get pregnant.

There would be huge consequences for this type of environment. Studies have shown the child actually bonds with the mother in embryo. Many serial killers never bonded with there mother after being born.


To be blunt...it will never happen.

This guy is full of brown and smelly stuff.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join