"I think we should stay the course and do as humans have always done, namely to fix problems with technology. We are making rapid progress in both of these directions of biotechnology, and I have no doubt we will make a lot more progress in the future as well."
Great summary. I am a big fan of human genetic research, and I prefer to forge ahead with research on positive human traits.
I have three children naturally conceived with two women and five children conceived by IVF with four other women (I was a sperm donor). One of the donor sons is homosexual and one of the donor daughters identifies as male to the point of breast removal. Homosexuality and gender dysphoria are not otherwise present in my extended family. With those exceptions, there does not seem to be a major difference in vitality between my natural and donor children (though subjectively I think the naturals have the edge). Obviously there are many factors at work other than IVF in producing these outcomes, but I think it would be informative to take a broader survey of differences in fertility and sexual preferences between IVF and naturally conceived children, because I strongly suspect statistically significant differences.
My naïve assumption here would be that the biggest difference lays in the other 50% that are genetically contributing to the children. As in, the selection for women who might be in need of a sperm donor skews away from the general population in several traits
Or it could simply be statistical coincidence since there are regularly cases of homosexuality and gender dysphoria among naturally conceived population, too. The "broader survey" Timothy suggested will indeed be vital in settling the question.
Not sure 50% death rate in children will fix some of the “problems” mentioned. To wit, how does that fix aging first-time parents? The best of us will still most likely postpone initial child birth and as a result have fewer/weaker eggs and weaker/less viable sperm when they decide to have that first “one and done” child. :-(
Please read this text book of Natural Medicine and nutrition -
"EPIGENETICS
THE DEATH OF THE GENETIC DISEASE THEORY"
By Dr. Joel Wallach.
Do some experiments on yourself with his plant mineral products? Call him and arrange a meeting? Etc...
We are living in an incredible era - the end of the J D Rockefeller funded program called Allopathic Medicine - founded on the findings of 'The Flexner Report', and financed with the profits of the forced break-up of the Standard Oil monopoly, and the subsequent assassination of President Andrews...
Note the Parallels with the recent history of Bill Gates, his forced divestment of Microsoft monopoly, and his subsequent reinvestment in big pharma...hmmm.
Epigenetic comes after genetics, i.e.: you may be fortunate and your genetic disease may be silenced by the cell, but if you have not the gene you are more fortunate. In fact, epigenic medice may help us a lot (from gene non-activation to artificial silencing of bad genes) but does not refute the genetic origins of many diseases.
"I think we should stay the course and do as humans have always done, namely to fix problems with technology. We are making rapid progress in both of these directions of biotechnology, and I have no doubt we will make a lot more progress in the future as well."
Great summary. I am a big fan of human genetic research, and I prefer to forge ahead with research on positive human traits.
Emil, thanks for the article.
I have three children naturally conceived with two women and five children conceived by IVF with four other women (I was a sperm donor). One of the donor sons is homosexual and one of the donor daughters identifies as male to the point of breast removal. Homosexuality and gender dysphoria are not otherwise present in my extended family. With those exceptions, there does not seem to be a major difference in vitality between my natural and donor children (though subjectively I think the naturals have the edge). Obviously there are many factors at work other than IVF in producing these outcomes, but I think it would be informative to take a broader survey of differences in fertility and sexual preferences between IVF and naturally conceived children, because I strongly suspect statistically significant differences.
My naïve assumption here would be that the biggest difference lays in the other 50% that are genetically contributing to the children. As in, the selection for women who might be in need of a sperm donor skews away from the general population in several traits
Or it could simply be statistical coincidence since there are regularly cases of homosexuality and gender dysphoria among naturally conceived population, too. The "broader survey" Timothy suggested will indeed be vital in settling the question.
The problem with this logic is that it ends with artificial wombs and humans becoming eusocial.
"I think we should stay the course and do as humans have always done, namely to fix problems with technology."
many of the problems we have to "fix" were created by technology in the first place; there's a difference between fixing problems & fixing people
OK, the alternative is that we get rid of medicine etc., and go back to having 50%+ of children die. Do you prefer this direction?
Not sure 50% death rate in children will fix some of the “problems” mentioned. To wit, how does that fix aging first-time parents? The best of us will still most likely postpone initial child birth and as a result have fewer/weaker eggs and weaker/less viable sperm when they decide to have that first “one and done” child. :-(
Conservatives are as per usual just grasping at semi-plausible scientific ideas in an attempt to impose their interpretation of morality on the world.
Next step for humans use to be outer space and the moon. Now it’s near perfect or perfect genetic health. May humans become like god and join him.
Typo: “enabling higher fertility among the higher human couples” - presumably the word “capital” should be slotted in after “human”?
Please read this text book of Natural Medicine and nutrition -
"EPIGENETICS
THE DEATH OF THE GENETIC DISEASE THEORY"
By Dr. Joel Wallach.
Do some experiments on yourself with his plant mineral products? Call him and arrange a meeting? Etc...
We are living in an incredible era - the end of the J D Rockefeller funded program called Allopathic Medicine - founded on the findings of 'The Flexner Report', and financed with the profits of the forced break-up of the Standard Oil monopoly, and the subsequent assassination of President Andrews...
Note the Parallels with the recent history of Bill Gates, his forced divestment of Microsoft monopoly, and his subsequent reinvestment in big pharma...hmmm.
Epigenetic comes after genetics, i.e.: you may be fortunate and your genetic disease may be silenced by the cell, but if you have not the gene you are more fortunate. In fact, epigenic medice may help us a lot (from gene non-activation to artificial silencing of bad genes) but does not refute the genetic origins of many diseases.