Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
Why scientists feel the urge to avoid natural selection as much as possible and therefore create an army of severely defected people? Is this a Big-Pharma scheme to create entire generations with health issues in order to have lifetime subscribers to pills/meds etc?
-
Embed this notice
@colonelj @RikaDerufu it's a pretty big hint that they are though
-
Embed this notice
@RikaDerufu i'm unsure of the purpose of a nanobots helping a single sperm fertilize an egg, but the sperm being deformed does not necessarily mean the genes inside are bad. and even if it were true, mothers are given/offered genetic screenings to look for genetic conditions and birth defects of the child.
-
Embed this notice
How healthy is a child is usually not correlated to how easy the childbirth is I think. My mom had 2 extremely difficult childbirth but both me and my brother turned out completely fine. In ye old times these women would just die from childbirth, get a miscarriage or the newborn would die. If I was born in the early '900 I would have probably died because I was premature.
To a certain degree new medical technology is good to help deliveries that would otherwise been fatal for the mom or the child, or both.
But the example in the OP is literally fertilizing an egg with defective sperm, which is imo completely different than just making childbirth easier.
-
Embed this notice
You don't even need hard-eugenics, just don't use fertility-stimulation practices with infertile couples and force them to adopt.
If you can't generate children without medical help it's probably nature sending you a clear message, and this goes both for men and women.
-
Embed this notice
@RikaDerufu could the same thinking not apply to those with difficult childbirths?
-
Embed this notice
@RikaDerufu hard-eugenics is frowned about because of mustache man
-
Embed this notice
@jeffcliff @RikaDerufu people are born with birth defects all time, and almost 100% from the "healthy" sperm that wins the race