Scientists grow sperm in the laboratory

[king arthur]

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?

[king arthur]

wolves_wanderer said:

Best stop all medical research and burn all antibiotics then.

That's where you would draw the line?

[king arthur]

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?

[king arthur]

Dr Jekyll said:

And supplying power water and medical care to a town of 100,000 people is not twice as difficult as supplying a town of 50,000.

Maybe not twice as difficult logistically but takes twice the resources.

[king arthur]

The Wookie said:

But don't let that get in the way of a good argument.

Of course not!