User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 21

  1. #11
    Post Human Post Qlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,480

    Default

    I was always envious of those other species who had different reproduction cycles. Finally, we have options.

    The human, a tool using mammal, has evolved to learn to employ sophisticated processes to increase their individual genes. Their main mode, does not strictly require tools, but does require a male and female to mate. This alternate mode involves the courtship of two individual and a third which represents a greater 'medical caste' of the same species. A complex type of exofertilization is performed and all involved take on the caretaking of the young.
    Likes Dopa liked this post

  2. #12

    Default

    I'm still waiting for us to evolve the ability to eggmorph our victims into new little 8-legged huggy bundles of love.
    Masculine presenting transgender lesbian


    At heart, I’ll always be a bleeding heart liberal.
    Likes Hard liked this post

  3. #13
    failed poetry slam career chubber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    4,221

    Default

    I think the problem starts with the definition of the word natural. What we think and know as what is natural.

    adjective
    1. existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.
      "carrots contain a natural antiseptic"
    2. in accordance with the nature of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.
      "sharks have no natural enemies"
    3. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ):
      "a natural bridge."
    4. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature:
      "Growth is a natural process."


    It's easy to attack the context of natural in that 2nd one.Ssharks have no natural enemies? Maybe today, maybe there were a hundred/thousand years ago. Or was the shark's natural enemy the human, which is also just another being on this planet.

    So I guess all it means is, it is untouched by humans. We would like to think we haven't touched everything. For example, that apple we ate, the flowers we bought, that cat we like. How did that breed get to be like that, did humans interfere or did the animal naturally get to be like that? (the irony of my own statement)

    So what am I getting at? What we thought of as natural might never have been natural to begin with. We (humans) have been influencing a whole lot, out there, over the centuries, that we know of. Male, female? There are people out there with different bodies, internally, externally. A whole cultural ecosystem that exists with everyone playing a key part/role in there and this could be a new way that we know of. (or maybe overlook it).

    Anyway, it seems to be a fear right now because we don't really understand it, fully... yet.


  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    686

    Default

    Meh....wake me up when the womb's redundant.

  5. #15
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Okay. Makes sense now.



    Okay, I understand... and I see that as a concern too. We still do all those things at this point, though. And I'm not sure how comparable those risks are compared to other sorts of common cultural practices, I haven't studied it in detail. (For example, is it worse to have a mom who smokes occasionally during pregnancy versus being a test tube baby? Or have a particular bad diet? etc.) ... just sketching it out in my head of what I would look at first, if I researched it -- the comparative risks of various practices and the severity of harm done.
    Caring about your unborn or born baby is also a moral issue. I dont think that it is healthy as a pregnant woman to think that "i might smoke one or two cigarettes a day, because its not as bad as the baby being a test tube baby". Smoking or any sort of genetic or what ever manipulation is playing russian roulette with your kids health/life, and not just a kid, but a teen, and hopefully an adult. For example this sort of thing might cause some epigenetic problems, that may even travel to their kids and their kids. Not to mention that will have same problems that we have seen in test tube babies(and it was only after over a million of those babies made that we found out) and its even taking those risks further.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  6. #16
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    Caring about your unborn or born baby is also a moral issue. I dont think that it is healthy as a pregnant woman to think that "i might smoke one or two cigarettes a day, because its not as bad as the baby being a test tube baby". Smoking or any sort of genetic or what ever manipulation is playing russian roulette with your kids health/life, and not just a kid, but a teen, and hopefully an adult. For example this sort of thing might cause some epigenetic problems, that may even travel to their kids and their kids. Not to mention that will have same problems that we have seen in test tube babies(and it was only after over a million of those babies made that we found out) and its even taking those risks further.
    I don't see how this is any different than parents that are carriers for genetic disorders having children. They take a calculated risk. This is also a calculated risk. We won't know if this will have any ill effects until we try. As I understand cell biology and biochemistry, I don't think this is likely to cause a genetic issue in life any more or less than normal cell processes would. From what I read, the machinations aren't that much different from other stem cell based therapies and research. It's new of course, but the underlying prinicipals hold steady.

    I see this absolutely as a risk worth taking.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  7. #17
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    I don't see how this is any different than parents that are carriers for genetic disorders having children. They take a calculated risk. This is also a calculated risk. We won't know if this will have any ill effects until we try. As I understand cell biology and biochemistry, I don't think this is likely to cause a genetic issue in life any more or less than normal cell processes would. From what I read, the machinations aren't that much different from other stem cell based therapies and research. It's new of course, but the underlying prinicipals hold steady.

    I see this absolutely as a risk worth taking.
    Yes people who have some genetic disorder and who know that it could be carried to the child take a risk, and i dont think that for example two people with autism should make a baby together. BUt i dont think it should be illegal either, because thats how nature works. But for example what @Jennifer said about adopting after finding out that she has something like this was the right thing to do.

    There have been studies that show that test tube babies have increased chance for cancer(cancer is always because of genetic mutations), that the babies have higher chance of born too early etc. that often causes problems later in life. This method is basically taking stem cells and then doing the test tube baby, so it carries all those risks + quite likely some other risks as well.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  8. #18
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Good news, @Lark. The bishop's argument is beginning to falter.

  9. #19
    Member Dopa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Sounds like a cause for celebration! Our mastery of genetics is just now starting to open serious doors in medicine. I'm super excited about it.

  10. #20
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    Study: Stem Cell Breakthrough Opens Door To Same-Sex Couples Having Their Own Babies

    Excerpt from article:



    It seems a bit strange to me that the article focuses on same-sex couples having a biological child, but I understand why it is brought up so much. They have shown it is possible to generate either sex cell from an individual person, essentially making the original gender of the person a moot point.

    This is wildly exciting for a multitude of reasons. We are getting better and better each day at controlling biology and what it's capable of. While it's nice that homosexual couples could have a biological child, this is more of a "cosmetic" thing. Compared to individuals who are infertile, diseased, or in some other regard unable to have a child of their own. This opens the doors significantly. We now have another new method of creating a child for individuals who otherwise can't.

    This does bring up some ethical concerns, briefly mentioned in the article that many will call into question.

    Discuss.


    ----------------------------------
    I suspect (though I am not certain) I will not enjoy the "ethics" debate that's likely to come up in this thread. Partly because those are debates that never have a conclusion of an agreed upon solid answer. I have little patience or interest in those debates. But, I do have strong opinions on matters like this that I have a difficult time holding in. As such, I'll say my piece on it and see what happens from there:

    I am worried about the following sequence:

    1) ability to select certain characteristics in one's offspring
    2) (bifurcation) : the rich getting disease free "custom" children, the poor consigned to the genetic lottery and falling behind
    3) the siren song of Eugenics, resurrected
    4) a totalitarian state mass producing soldiers to order (Keith Laumer came up with the idea in Retief's Ransom long before George Lucas and the Clone Wars)
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.
    Likes Tippo liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Would little people in America like to have their own town?
    By Grand Admiral Crunch in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-17-2016, 08:19 PM
  2. Is democracy an open door to totalitarianism?
    By Typh0n in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 10-05-2013, 11:26 PM
  3. Chatype (the first U.S. city to have their own typeface (font))
    By swordpath in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-05-2012, 09:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO