Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Procreation Without Sex? Within Next 30 Years, Says Stanford Prof
Quote | Reply
Where's the non-transhumanism-based, crap-game-like-random-odds fun in that? ;-)


"Within three decades people will no longer be having sex to procreate, a professor from Stanford University has said.

Screening of the embryos would highlight any potential diseases and the Stanford professor believes the process will get to a point where parents can also potentially have the ability to choose eye or hair colour.

“I think one of the hardest things about this will be all the divorces that come about when she wants embryo number 15 and he wants embryo number 64,” Mr Greely said at Aspen Ideas Festive, Tribune reported.

“I think the decision making will be a real challenge for people. How do you weigh a slightly higher chance of diabetes with slightly lower risk of schizophrenia against better musical ability and a much lower risk of colon cancer? Good luck.”




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

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: Procreation Without Sex? Within Next 30 Years, Says Stanford Prof [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Where's the fun in that?

I have 3, and love the different little people they are. Well, the teen daughter is now bigger than mom...

******************************
If I don't, who will? -Me
It's like being bipolar in opinion is a requirement around here. -TripleThreat
Quote Reply
Re: Procreation Without Sex? Within Next 30 Years, Says Stanford Prof [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks again for my morning read.

There was a great movie based on this premise from 1997: Gattaca, staring Ethan Hawke. It focusses on the life of a natural born man -- a genetic inferior. Great movie. Also had Uma Thurman.

But that raises the question. When we have that degree of genetic engineering capability, what other reasons might we want to create people? For that, see The Island, from 2005 with Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson. I liked it.

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev
Quote Reply
Re: Procreation Without Sex? Within Next 30 Years, Says Stanford Prof [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think chaos theory comes into play here. Single genes that cause a given disease or a given trait are relatively rare. Genes have multiple effects, and interact with other genes and the environment. Seems like a no brainer to use the technology to eliminate disease when possible, but I think the notion that you're going to be able to design your child to produce some wonder kid to any significant degree is unlikely. There's just too many variables at play.
Quote Reply
Re: Procreation Without Sex? Within Next 30 Years, Says Stanford Prof [H-] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
H- wrote:
Thanks again for my morning read.

There was a great movie based on this premise from 1997: Gattaca, staring Ethan Hawke. It focusses on the life of a natural born man -- a genetic inferior. Great movie. Also had Uma Thurman.

But that raises the question. When we have that degree of genetic engineering capability, what other reasons might we want to create people? For that, see The Island, from 2005 with Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson. I liked it.


Great minds think alike. :-) Those two movies immediately popped into my head as I read that article, as well.

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: Procreation Without Sex? Within Next 30 Years, Says Stanford Prof [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Is this good or bad news for those disgusting purity balls?
Quote Reply
Re: Procreation Without Sex? Within Next 30 Years, Says Stanford Prof [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sex is overrated. Our soon to be birthed child was conceived sans sex.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Quote Reply
Re: Procreation Without Sex? Within Next 30 Years, Says Stanford Prof [Tibbsy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tibbsy wrote:
Is this good or bad news for those disgusting purity balls?


I guess it all depends on how accessible (meaning, how affordable) these procedures are, for one. Will they only be available to the (relatively) well-off, and will we soon see a society similar to what was modeled in "Gattaca"? Worse still, would we see something along the lines of "The Island," in which clone-like people are created solely so that their organs can be harvested?

Both are extreme, dystopian, visions and we're more likely to just create yet another low-level mess in the areas of culture, bioethics and, most importantly, the law. And we're also likely, in my opinion, to see even more of a disconnect between life and how and when we value it highly.

We're gradually moving into the realm of what were once considered powers reserved only to a higher being. I hope we're ready for that. But I doubt it. LOL!

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: Procreation Without Sex? Within Next 30 Years, Says Stanford Prof [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm ahead of the curve. I've never had sex to procreate.

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Quote Reply
Re: Procreation Without Sex? Within Next 30 Years, Says Stanford Prof [H-] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
H- wrote:
Thanks again for my morning read.

There was a great movie based on this premise from 1997: Gattaca, staring Ethan Hawke. It focusses on the life of a natural born man -- a genetic inferior. Great movie. Also had Uma Thurman.

But that raises the question. When we have that degree of genetic engineering capability, what other reasons might we want to create people? For that, see The Island, from 2005 with Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson. I liked it.

Definitely a good movie. I look forward to the day where disease of all types is eliminated. I'm all for giving parents as much info as possible before creation and before birth.

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."
Quote Reply
Re: Procreation Without Sex? Within Next 30 Years, Says Stanford Prof [jkca1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It could lead to this:



Or the younger re-booted version:







Last edited by: loxx0050: Jul 5, 17 14:49
Quote Reply
Re: Procreation Without Sex? Within Next 30 Years, Says Stanford Prof [loxx0050] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You guys are too funny. ;-)

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Quote Reply
Re: Procreation Without Sex? Within Next 30 Years, Says Stanford Prof [loxx0050] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I give up. Can't find a decent pic that will let me link it.

Look up Khan from Star Trek. Mr eugenics himself.
Quote Reply
Re: Procreation Without Sex? Within Next 30 Years, Says Stanford Prof [j p o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
j p o wrote:
I'm ahead of the curve. I've never had sex to procreate.
Oh yes, you have.....you just don't know it yet!
Quote Reply
Re: Procreation Without Sex? Within Next 30 Years, Says Stanford Prof [ThisIsIt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sure for now that is true but 30-50 years maybe maybe not. 100 years? I bet we'll have the genome pretty figured out by then. There is a ton of money in this for companies to cure diseases with gene therapy.

Also the only thing that is complex about doing this is what we haven't figured out how to do easily. It sounds stupid but this is what medicine is. 50 years ago surgery was very difficult and risky, now you could have a ligament replaced and be rehabbing within a couple days. This is the same it'll just take time and research.
Quote Reply