Using science to create a sex-less utopia.

[VicistiGalilaee (imported)]

So scientists are now on the brink of creating artificial wombs:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/f ... e.research

Apparently, women experience a decrease in sex drive similar to that experienced by males after an orchiectomy when their ovaries are removed. What if humanity started removing the ovaries of women, and the testicles of men, shortly after birth, effectively eliminating the need or desire for sexual reproduction, and instead, used these artificial wombs to reproduce? Biologists are currently capable of producing any form of cell, including sex cells, from skin cells, so sexual reproduction is verging on obsolescence.

What do you guys think of this idea? I personally think the elimination of sexual intercourse would solve a lot of serious problems. I think humans would potentially live a much happier existence.

[Paolo]

Next it'll be Borg maturation chambers.

[fhunter]

What do you guys think of this idea?

Our civilization is rather brittle as it is. Making it even more brittle and dependent on technology? I am not sure.

[Jhalemore (imported)]

I guess women would have a sort of advantage by not having to physically involve themselves in pregnancy. However, I doubt that a technological womb can give the baby all of the development factors that are necessary to make a healthy child. Surely they can make a child, but it most likely will be missing something from the environment and the properties of the umbilical fluids.

[Wolf-Pup (imported)]

I don't think women would go for it generally speaking. The ladies I've known liked bringing life into the world. Feeling it grow inside of them. being able to feed the baby from their body with milk...there a whole lot more going on than just a pregnancy in a clinical sense. Extreme bonding between mother and child. mother and father, and eventually father and baby.

Dehumanizing the process would be a very bad thing IMHO.

[C&TL2745 (imported)]

Sounds like something straight out of the plot of Aldous Huxley's novel Brave New World, which was anything but a utopia.

Wolf-Pup is right. There's more to reproduction than the mechanics. I think it would be a very cold world (emotionally). I wouldn't want to live there.

Sandi

[Ernie of Maine (imported)]

Sound like away to Slave Worker to me. Ernie

[ZeuterMe (imported)]

I guess women would have a sort of advantage by not having to physically involve themselves in pregnancy. However, I doubt that a technological womb can give the baby all of the development factors that are necessary to make a healthy child. Surely they can make a child, but it most likely will be missing something from the environment and the properties of the umbilical fluids.

In a word, antibodies.

[ZeuterMe (imported)]

I don't think women would go for it generally speaking. The ladies I've known liked bringing life into the world. Feeling it grow inside of them. being able to feed the baby from their body with milk...there a whole lot more going on than just a pregnancy in a clinical sense. Extreme bonding between mother and child. mother and father, and eventually father and baby.

Dehumanizing the process would be a very bad thing IMHO.

I enjoy playing Devil's advocate.

If Dad can do all hi

s bonding after the baby's born, why can't the mother?

Sounds like something straight out of the plot of Aldous Huxley's novel Brave New World, which was anything but a utopia.

Wolf-Pup is right. There's more to reproduction than the mechanics. I think it would be a very cold wo

rld (emotionally). I wouldn't want to live there.

Sandi

Lots of couples develop warm and loving relationships with children who were either adopted or conceived through the use of IVF, donor gametes, or surrogate mothers. Why is this really all that different? Hell, we've got a thread around this board somewhere pointing out that in the right century, eunuchs were the preferred form of teacher, based on their developing a maximally nurturing and supportive personality. If anything, it'd eliminate those relationships that are founded out of lust and hormones that result in children being neglected, or the relationship, having no other moorings, dissolving in six months after a child is conceived.

</advocate class="devil's">

[Riverwind (imported)]

I am not so sure the a dad does not bond with his child several months before the child is born. I know I did with all of mine.

River

[Wolf-Pup (imported)]

I don't think mankind wants a sexless society either. I'm sure the ones who would want such things is less than 5% and really probably less than 2% would be my real guess.

I certainly don't see it ever happening, and certainly not with the approval of the vast majority world wanting it.

I don't really think castration on-demand is ever going to be a mainstream idea either. While the folks on here can talk about it matter of factly, the rest of the world just isn't interested.

[Sha Ka Ree (imported)]

Any time science brings a breakthrough to humanity, there is always a potential boon as well as a potential for using it in ways that some could construe as negative. A fully functioning artificial womb would bring reproductive choice to infertile women, and, for the first time in human history, to men. I can see why the latter will bother a lot of women. They are the ones accustomed to having men "by the balls" when it comes to human reproduction. They will lose that leverage on the day that they are no longer the only game in town for men who desire children.

Will this replace conventional sex? Of course not. Too many people enjoy it. Besides, high-tech is always best when it is a supplement to life, not a replacement for anything in it. And new technology is always too expensive for the general public, at least at first. You'd also want to have conventional sex around as a backup, since no matter how many redundancies and safety measures are in place, things will still go wrong. Just ask the crews of Challenger and Columbia.

Will this be a step towards creating a master or slave race? I highly doubt that. We've all read and seen enough dystopian fiction for it to leave an indelibly bad taste in our mouths. Any megalomaniac who would attempt to use it in that way would be lynched by a rampaging mob. If it indeed ever got that far, since legislation would, no doubt, be immediately drafted against this sort of use. It didn't take long for politicians to jump all over VCR's after the fact, and today there is no free recording of entertainment programs anymore. Human life tech will be taken even more seriously.

I've known girls who have never wanted to be pregnant, and as grown women, they remain childless to this very day. But if they had this technology at their disposal, it might've been a different story. It does have its advantages. She can still have a kid without all of the personal inconvenience that she dreads, plus she can smoke, drink, and abuse drugs to her heart's content, without it affecting the kid. Or, if she's a health nut, she can physically train to the nth degree, and never worry about a miscarriage. If she works in a hazardous job, like soldier, for example, no matter what happens to her, the kid will always be safe.

[Jhalemore (imported)]

In a word, antibodies.

I'm not sure if that would be an issue.

[fhunter]

In a word, antibodies.I thought that immunity is formed while breastfeeding or on its own?

[VicistiGalilaee (imported)]

I enjoy playing Devil's advocate.

If Dad can do all hi

s bonding after the baby's born, why can't the mother?

Lots of couples develop warm and loving relationships with children who were either adopted or conceived through the use of IVF, donor gametes, or surrogate mothers. Why is this really all that different? Hell, we've got a thread around this board somewhere pointing out that in the right century, eunuchs were the preferred form of teacher, based on their developing a maximally nurturing and supportive personality. If anything, it'd eliminate those relationships that are founded out of lust and hormones that result in children being neglected, or the relationship, having no other moorings, dissolving in six months after a child is conceived.

</advocate class="devil's">

This, basically. Origen of Alexandria's self-castration in order to be the most effective teacher comes to mind. I see sexuality as more opposed to love than hatred. Imagine all the strife, envy, violence and rage that is produced by sexual desire, and imagine how much of it would be eliminated with the eradication of sexual desire. One of my prime motives in wanting to get rid of my sex drive and to begin taking progesterone is the desire to love others sincerely and more fully. It certainly worked. I find it psychologically impossible to take seriously the idea that it is possible to sincerely love anyone while at the same time being sexually attracted to, or involved with, them.

If nothing else, I think it would be a fascinating experiment to create a desert island full of men whose testicles are removed at birth, and women whose ovaries are removed at birth, so that both grow up in the virtual absence of sexual desire. I think we would see a much more peaceful and loving society. I would be especially interested to see how much less frequent we witness sexual assault against women, abuse of women, and so on.

[VicistiGalilaee (imported)]

I don't think mankind wants a sexless society either. I'm sure the ones who would want such things is less than 5% and really probably less than 2% would be my real guess.

I certainly don't see it ever happening, and certainly not with the approval of the vast majority world wanting it.

I don't really think castration on-demand is ever going to be a mainstream idea either. While the folks on here can talk about it matter of factly, the rest of the world just isn't interested.

This is true enough.

[ZeuterMe (imported)]

This is true enough.

Even while playing Devil's advocate, I don't advocate a "sexless utopia". More likely, and more desirable, is the decoupling of sex from hormones from reproduction. This is the 21st century - why can't I keep my testosterone in an implanted insulin pump, controlled by my iPhone?

Also, on the subject of antibodies, until the kid's immune system kicks in for itself, passive immunity is acquired from breast milk. Immunoglobulin proteins are secreted into breast milk, and are transported straight into the baby's bloodstream, making them immune to anything the mother was immune to so long as they nurse, or until the baby's own immune system kicks in, whichever comes first. In America, there's often a gap between weaning and a full immune-system kickin, so those months are often the sniffliest of a baby's life.

I suspect that baby formula could be supplemented with carefully processed monoclonal antibodies against the most common pathogens, or perhaps with a batch of polyclonal antibodies carefully tuned to be free of potential anti-human antibodies, providing most of the benefit of breast milk when such is contraindicated, such as with HIV-positive mothers. I also wonder how late in life the ability to transport maternal antibodies from the gut into the bloodstream lasts - could you make an oral anti-ebola drug, for example?

Inquiring minds, &c.

[Nestor AEgrotatus (imported)]

Why don't we just stop reproducing at all and finally stop condemning people to be born into this nightmarish reality, whether it involves sex or not?

[Gerslave (imported)]

If there is no sex-drive most people will not reproduce. Why should someone giving birth, let grow up children spending so much time, a lot of money and being responsible for all the trouble in the childhood. Especially men will be in a weak position: they should pay, care for the house, a good standard of living, his wife, his children ... and always not sure whether these are his children indeed.

And my personal experience is that women (with ovaries or with no ovaries) are not really interested in sex. They will only accept sex to get a better life, just using men for their purposes.

I know this is quite pessimistic, but these are my very personal experiences. Perhaps other men have had better experiences.

If a man decides having no more testicles further on, he will be relieved in a real sense and have a better life.

[C&TL2745 (imported)]

....

And my personal experience is that women (with ovaries or with no ovaries) are not really interested in sex. They will only accept sex to get a better life, just using men for their purposes.

I know this is quite pessimistic, but these are my very personal experiences. Perhaps other men have had better experiences....

Sadly, your experience is quite common--perhaps too common--but there are women (myself included) who really enjoy sex, even after 23 years of marriage. I feel closest to my hubby emotionally when we're making love, and the orgasms are good, too. While I'll admit that he provides a comfortable life for me and I haven't had to hold down a job outside the home, that was his decision and not the reason I don't seek employment. He has always maintained that it makes him feel good that he can do that. Sorry to hear that your experience with women has been so negative.

Sandi

[fhunter]

And the same reward circuit can be hijacked in millions other uses - computer games, food, drugs, etc. It is the abuse, that is bad, not what is abused. As anything, porn can have multiple uses, not all of it is bad, and not all of those uses are bad.

And salvation? Are you kidding? Salvation from what or for what?

PS. And Stanislaw Lem once wrote a "Sexplosion", a nice take on what will happen if you take the sex out of the equation. http://lib.uka.ru/lib2/11/LEM/sexplosi_engl.html (not sure if there is official translation, original was in polish, that was the first I found).

[VicistiGalilaee (imported)]

Why don't we just stop reproducing at all and finally stop condemning people to be born into this nightmarish reality, whether it involves sex or not?

Haha, you might be on to something there!

[VicistiGalilaee (imported)]

Sadly, your experience is quite common--perhaps too common--but there are women (myself included) who really enjoy sex, even after 23 years of marriage. I feel closest to my hubby emotionally when we're making love, and the orgasms are good, too. While I'll admit that he provides a comfortable life for me and I haven't had to hold down a job outside the home, that was his decision and not the reason I don't seek employment. He has always maintained that it makes him feel good that he can do that. Sorry to hear that your experience with women has been so negative.

Sandi

This is such a foreign experience to me. From the moment I've hit puberty, sexual desire has existed to produce nothing but almost uninterrupted misery when it comes to the opposite sex. Even now, I doubt castration would have its desirable effects, since it is prior to puberty that it produces its ideal effects. I am happy that you enjoy it though. I am currently on antidepressants, which, fortunately, majorly reduces my sex drive to the point where I would be unable to physically function enough to have intercourse. The progesterone I'd taken worked to a degree, but I didn't like its psychological effects.

[VicistiGalilaee (imported)]

And the same reward circuit can be hijacked in millions other uses - computer games, food, drugs, etc. It is the abuse, that is bad, not what is abused. As anything, porn can have multiple uses, not all of it is bad, and not all of those uses are bad.

And salvation? Are you kidding? Salvation from what or for what?

PS. And Stanislaw Lem once wrote a "Sexplosion", a nice take on what will happen if you take the sex out of the equation. http://lib.uka.ru/lib2/11/LEM/sexplosi_engl.html (not sure if there is official translation, original was in polish, that was the first I found).

What if something cannot be used without being abused? It is possible to have a sex drive without committing heinous crimes, of course, but think of how much bitterness, resentment, envy, rage, and pointless competitiveness all because some guy or guys wanted the attention or approval of some girl or group of girls, or how nasty women can be towards one another when competing for the attention of men. I seriously wonder if we would ever fight another war as long as the human race persisted if we designed a society without sexual desire.