Scientists grow sperm in the laboratory
Discussion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/89880...
My question is, why?
Of all the problems we have in the world, inability to reproduce is not one. Isn't there a line we ought to draw when individuals are dealt a cruel hand by nature at which we say, sorry but that's that. Spending money on research into helping increase the human population is surely counter to solving the problems we are running into of over-population?
My question is, why?
Of all the problems we have in the world, inability to reproduce is not one. Isn't there a line we ought to draw when individuals are dealt a cruel hand by nature at which we say, sorry but that's that. Spending money on research into helping increase the human population is surely counter to solving the problems we are running into of over-population?
king arthur said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/89880...
My question is, why?
Of all the problems we have in the world, inability to reproduce is not one. Isn't there a line we ought to draw when individuals are dealt a cruel hand by nature at which we say, sorry but that's that. Spending money on research into helping increase the human population is surely counter to solving the problems we are running into of over-population?
Best stop all medical research and burn all antibiotics then.My question is, why?
Of all the problems we have in the world, inability to reproduce is not one. Isn't there a line we ought to draw when individuals are dealt a cruel hand by nature at which we say, sorry but that's that. Spending money on research into helping increase the human population is surely counter to solving the problems we are running into of over-population?
MiniMan64 said:
anytime soon with them euthanasia kits then. when you're ready. no rush. king arthur said:
My question is, why?
The HFEA puts the cost of a cycle of IVF at between £4,000 and £8,000How much do you think this will cost?
king arthur said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/89880...
My question is, why?
Of all the problems we have in the world, inability to reproduce is not one. Isn't there a line we ought to draw when individuals are dealt a cruel hand by nature at which we say, sorry but that's that. Spending money on research into helping increase the human population is surely counter to solving the problems we are running into of over-population?
A rather odd point of view, if I may say so.My question is, why?
Of all the problems we have in the world, inability to reproduce is not one. Isn't there a line we ought to draw when individuals are dealt a cruel hand by nature at which we say, sorry but that's that. Spending money on research into helping increase the human population is surely counter to solving the problems we are running into of over-population?
Have you een had any medical treatment in your life? Why should scientists have bothered to invent/discover such treatments if all it did was to increase the population? It is cruel blow but then someone dying of, perhpas, pernicious anaemia should look on the bright side and accept that it is just nature doing its bit.
All medical effort and research is an attempt to beat nature at its own game.
king arthur said:
wolves_wanderer said:
Best stop all medical research and burn all antibiotics then.
That's where you would draw the line?wolves_wanderer said:
I'm just taking your point to a logical conclusion. All medical interventions increase population, the question is, why do you draw the line here?
Well not quite, techniques that help to detect certain defects in foetuses might be said to decrease the population.What I'm asking though is, wouldn't it be better to use the money being spent here, to instead research ways of improving the lot of those who are already alive? And before you say that could include childless couples, is not having children really as bad as not being able to walk or live independently?
Perhaps by growing sperm, scientists will be able to understand the factors that produce healthy sperm. This would then maybe lead onto drugs to produce healthy sperm naturally, or being able to have your own sperm reproduced and filtered for artificial insemination. As a result, we would be able to eliminate birth defects that parents have to deal with for the rest of the child's life and use up resources in the NHS which could be used elsewhere.
strudel said:
Perhaps by growing sperm, scientists will be able to understand the factors that produce healthy sperm. This would then maybe lead onto drugs to produce healthy sperm naturally, or being able to have your own sperm reproduced and filtered for artificial insemination. As a result, we would be able to eliminate birth defects that parents have to deal with for the rest of the child's life and use up resources in the NHS which could be used elsewhere.
Where do you guys get the rose tints?Seriously, the most serious problem the planet faces is human overpopulation and we devote huge resources to make it worse.
Insanity.
REALIST123 said:
strudel said:
Perhaps by growing sperm, scientists will be able to understand the factors that produce healthy sperm. This would then maybe lead onto drugs to produce healthy sperm naturally, or being able to have your own sperm reproduced and filtered for artificial insemination. As a result, we would be able to eliminate birth defects that parents have to deal with for the rest of the child's life and use up resources in the NHS which could be used elsewhere.
Where do you guys get the rose tints?Seriously, the most serious problem the planet faces is human overpopulation and we devote huge resources to make it worse.
Insanity.
Experts have been saying the planet is over-populated for centuries - and still the numbers go up...
king arthur said:
wolves_wanderer said:
I'm just taking your point to a logical conclusion. All medical interventions increase population, the question is, why do you draw the line here?
Well not quite, techniques that help to detect certain defects in foetuses might be said to decrease the population.What I'm asking though is, wouldn't it be better to use the money being spent here, to instead research ways of improving the lot of those who are already alive? And before you say that could include childless couples, is not having children really as bad as not being able to walk or live independently?
mondeoman said:
Really??
Experts have been saying the planet is over-populated for centuries - and still the numbers go up...
Without going into how the agricultural and industrial revolutions allowing the wholesale exploitation of the planet has managed to allow the huge population growth based on finite fossil fuels, millions are dying in the third world and species around the world are going extinct at a rate not seen since the fall of the dinosaurs (may even be exceeding that rate).Experts have been saying the planet is over-populated for centuries - and still the numbers go up...
Unless humans find an inexhaustible clean energy source and can terra form nearby planets, population will stop rising and then fall in our closed loop system as resources dwindle.
REALIST123 said:
strudel said:
Perhaps by growing sperm, scientists will be able to understand the factors that produce healthy sperm. This would then maybe lead onto drugs to produce healthy sperm naturally, or being able to have your own sperm reproduced and filtered for artificial insemination. As a result, we would be able to eliminate birth defects that parents have to deal with for the rest of the child's life and use up resources in the NHS which could be used elsewhere.
Where do you guys get the rose tints?Seriously, the most serious problem the planet faces is human overpopulation and we devote huge resources to make it worse.
Insanity.
strudel said:
Perhaps by growing sperm, scientists will be able to understand the factors that produce healthy sperm. This would then maybe lead onto drugs to produce healthy sperm naturally, or being able to have your own sperm reproduced and filtered for artificial insemination. As a result, we would be able to eliminate birth defects that parents have to deal with for the rest of the child's life and use up resources in the NHS which could be used elsewhere.
I now understand why there doing this, to eliminate the gene defect of gingers! Brilliant, carry on I say.REALIST123 said:
Seriously, the most serious problem the planet faces is human overpopulation and we devote huge resources to make it worse.
What problems is this human overpopulation causing? We are more numerous than ever, and at least in material terms better off.Malthus was worried about overpopulation 200 years ago and it hasn't happened yet. Certain areas may seem crowded but there are also vast swathes of totally untouched land that could be lived in.
....you'll be in trouble nowGassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff