Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    You've obviously misunderstood what a 'test tube baby' means.....
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    He wasn't proposing taking away your right or ability to give birth naturally.
    My bad.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    This is the one of the only posts that has any good reason for not doing it.

    We can do the egg freezing and sperm freezing now though. Why don't we all do that bit?

    I never said we could do it now, or we will ever be able to. More should we if we could. I included the need for science, engineering and economics to all be feasible.
    I see no reason why not in principle, although in practice it would be hijacked for eugenic purposes.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    I see no reason why not in principle, although in practice it would be hijacked for eugenic purposes.
    Why? My thought experiment doesn't involve messing with DNA.

    (Original post by yasmin#2)
    You've obviously misunderstood what a 'test tube baby' means.....
    I regret not calling them Frankenstein Babies in thread title. Much better.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    I wouldn't have a problem with my child being grown in a lab. As long as it made 0 physical difference to the child. Though it probably would.
    Anything grown under artificial conditions in vitro has the potential to become cancerous. A lot of research into growing patient stem cells into transplantable tissues ATM, and that's one of the biggest concerns.
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by Asklepios)
    Anything grown under artificial conditions in vitro has the potential to become cancerous. A lot of research into growing patient stem cells into transplantable tissues ATM, and that's one of the biggest concerns.
    Why is that, out of curiosity?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greenlaner)
    Yes, let's take one of the most natural and beautiful life experiences, suck all the humanity out of it, and turn it into just another cold, clinical, procedure.

    And while we are at it, let's go full sociopath and cut down all the real trees and replace them artificial ones that will do the same job of producing oxygen as real trees, with the added bonus that they don't need pruning, won't catch diseases and will never die. Sure they might not be as aesthetically pleasing as real trees, but who cares about such trivial matters, function and efficiency is all matters in our brave new world.
    But really that IS all that matters overall. You only need to look in the mirror to see that. Why'd you think our ugly mugs still cover the planet? Because overall we can function more efficiently on the planet than other animal species so we survived and bred and now the planet's overflowing with us.

    The universe doesn't work based on aesthetics, it works based on the laws of physics and unless you're like me then you're not going to find things like this https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99.../sml_small.jpg beautiful.

    Function > form.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asklepios)
    Anything grown under artificial conditions in vitro has the potential to become cancerous. A lot of research into growing patient stem cells into transplantable tissues ATM, and that's one of the biggest concerns.
    As in there's a higher chance of cancerous mutations in lab grown tissue?
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Puddles the Monkey)
    Why is that, out of curiosity?
    Cells growing and specialising in the body is normally controlled by a host of growth factors and gene switches (called transcription factors). Cancer is caused by a dysregulation of this process, e.g. By mutations in the genes encoding these factors. And is characterised by lots of growth but no specialisation/differentiation of cells.

    When you grow stuff in a dish you have to provide external growth factors so that could mess with the process. Another big worry, not so much OP's idea, but for growing making stem cells in the lab from somatic cells is that you have to introduce genes that reverse differentiation. So if this becomes permanent then that's quite bad with regards to cancerous potential.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    But really that IS all that matters overall. You only need to look in the mirror to see that. Why'd you think our ugly mugs still cover the planet? Because overall we can function more efficiently on the planet than other animal species so we survived and bred and now the planet's overflowing with us.

    The universe doesn't work based on aesthetics, it works based on the laws of physics and unless you're like me then you're not going to find things like this https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99.../sml_small.jpg beautiful.

    Function > form.
    And anyone who thinks anything otherwise is a right ...


    http://www.quantumdiaries.org/wp-con...06/cernmug.jpg
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Why? My thought experiment doesn't involve messing with DNA.

    I regret not calling them Frankenstein Babies in thread title. Much better.
    As in immigrants/poor people/disabled people can't use the service (at all, for 20 years, whatever)

    Or a market based solution so only the rich can afford it, combined with cuts to natural maternity wards etc

    Governments, banks, etc engage in population control to guarantee economic returns, cause demographic crises, revolutions, overpopulation as required

    Plus...
    Job market will clear in such a way that anyone having a kid before they retire loses their job/gets paid less (as it has already with not having a baby until late 30s). See also Facebook which offered its hard working employees egg freezing: cui bono?

    Parents dying while kid still requires care or guidance.

    Even less kids born as people start having them later and it is a variable cost to have them
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    As in there's a higher chance of cancerous mutations in lab grown tissue?
    Yes that's another big worry. OPs idea would still have a normal number of cell divisions, but culturing other cells for transplant would involve more divisions and thus some mutations will be introduced.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asklepios)
    Yes that's another big worry. OPs idea would still have a normal number of cell divisions, but culturing other cells for transplant would involve more divisions and thus some mutations will be introduced.
    Thanks, in theory it all sounds quite possible. I wouldn't feel like I was missing out on anything profound if I gave natural pregnancy a pass. I may attract a lot of hate for saying this but; I think many women enjoy pregnancy because of the sometimes positive hormonal changes, the pampering, the attention, the excitement of seeing your child, but it's not all positives and I'm fine missing out on the above tbh.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    As in immigrants/poor people/disabled people can't use the service (at all, for 20 years, whatever)

    Or a market based solution so only the rich can afford it, combined with cuts to natural maternity wards etc

    Governments, banks, etc engage in population control to guarantee economic returns, cause demographic crises, revolutions, overpopulation as required

    Plus...
    Job market will clear in such a way that anyone having a kid before they retire loses their job/gets paid less (as it has already with not having a baby until late 30s). See also Facebook which offered its hard working employees egg freezing: cui bono?

    Parents dying while kid still requires care or guidance.

    Even less kids born as people start having them later and it is a variable cost to have them
    These things are not inherently part of my OP. To deliberate not make developments in medicine because of the current socio-economic order is stupid (even if I understand the concerns and they are real).

    I thought you meant eugenics of a more direct kind. Like actually messing with DNA. What you are describing is like a form of natural selection in economics. Sexual competition is a form of eugenics if the above counts.

    We can either use science and technology to head towards utopia or we use it and head towards dystopia. It's a choice.

    (Original post by Asklepios)
    Yes that's another big worry. OPs idea would still have a normal number of cell divisions, but culturing other cells for transplant would involve more divisions and thus some mutations will be introduced.
    I admit I am in no way knowledgeable of the biology surrounding this.

    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    Thanks, in theory it all sounds quite possible. I wouldn't feel like I was missing out on anything profound if I gave natural pregnancy a pass. I may attract a lot of hate for saying this but; I think many women enjoy pregnancy because of the sometimes positive hormonal changes, the pampering, the attention, the excitement of seeing your child, but it's not all positives and I'm fine missing out on the above tbh.
    It;s also because we don;t have a choice. Humans seem to need to create a myth surrounding everything and find meaning in it. It;s in every culture and is probably an important survival copping mechanism.
    • PS Helper
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Peer Support Volunteers
    Clearly I'm going to be an awful mother. I do not want to get pregnant and go through it all. All you ever hear is people complaining. Also I don't particularly like pain, so if I could give that a miss I'd be up for it.

    Saying that I don't even know if I want to have babies, I change my mind every couple of months lol. I think I like the concept.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lyrical_lie)
    Clearly I'm going to be an awful mother. I do not want to get pregnant and go through it all. All you ever hear is people complaining. Also I don't particularly like pain, so if I could give that a miss I'd be up for it.

    Saying that I don't even know if I want to have babies, I change my mind every couple of months lol. I think I like the concept.
    I think it could be argued that babies have become so big before birth, without our bodies adapting quickly enough over time, that much of pregnancy and birth is uncomfortable , painful and dangerous. So why not choose an artificial pregnancy is what I'd argue.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lyrical_lie)
    Clearly I'm going to be an awful mother. I do not want to get pregnant and go through it all. All you ever hear is people complaining. Also I don't particularly like pain, so if I could give that a miss I'd be up for it.

    Saying that I don't even know if I want to have babies, I change my mind every couple of months lol. I think I like the concept.
    I wish they were like cats :-/
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Only if you think that is their one sole use to society....

    I think my proposal is motivated by my feminist concerns to be honest.
    No, I don't think so. It still reduces a womans role in society as this is role unique to women, something that "men cannot take away from them". Ofcourse it's not seen as their "sole use to society" but it's a pretty important role, and one that woman can claim. So for it to be duplicated by men/ male Dr's and scientists is quite insulting.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    No, I don't think so. It still reduces a womans role in society as this is role unique to women, something that "men cannot take away from them". Ofcourse it's not seen as their "sole use to society" but it's a pretty important role, and one that woman can claim. So for it to be duplicated by men/ male Dr's and scientists is quite insulting.
    Whose to say the doctors and scientists will be men? They could be women.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    Whose to say the doctors and scientists will be men? They could be women.
    Welllll...I don't see that going down well.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.