71–80 of 145 posts
To confirm, we get a clone of the blood donor right, whether man or woman?
Now if the sperm cell were from the same donor I don’t know what would happen
Earlier quoted context omitted.
25% of humans died before reaching 5 in 1800s US, today it is We have not ended up with "humans which aren't as strong, aren't as smart, aren't as well adapted to a changing environment, etc."
Probably throwing quite the grenade here, but around 29% of pregnancies end in termination globally. Absent cultural considerations, it's questionable whether life expectancy has improved in absolute terms in modern times
To confirm, we get a clone of the blood donor right, whether man or woman?
I don't know enough to say if that allows extracting eggs from males. Could two males have a child together using this technique?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it reads to me like the thread parent's point is that there are many unknown risks which can exist? I also wonder about long term effects to the health of the genome from IVF and other forms of fertility treatment as infertility could be acting as some sort of protection mechanism of the genome. But I suppose such objections form a continuum which extends to treatment of all genetic diseases or diseases in genera…
There is precedent for infertility being beneficial for a species in the animal kingdom. For example the vast majority of ants and bees are infertile. Yet the infertile ones still contribute meaningfully to society. Humans could easily be successful with a similar model, and did so in the past before fertility treatments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you point me to anything about mitochondrial transplants? I'd love to see bat mitochondria transplanted into other mammals. They must have really superior ones given the energy expenditures needed to support flight and their long lifespans.
I will let the experts continue from here :) This review is from 2020, i bet things have progressed since then https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7169912/
We need less people not more.
-Stannis Baratheon
To confirm, we get a clone of the blood donor right, whether man or woman?
No, I don’t think so, because the egg still needs to be fertilized by a sperm cell to develop into an embryo. Now if the sperm cell were from the same donor I don’t know what would happen
Probably nothing special except some inbreeding with the loss of 25% of genetic material of the donor individual (each gamete containing a random 50% of the donor's genetic material). Not sure how fast this level of inbreeding would be deleterious.
I am worried about the long term impact of research involving human conception, IVF, etc. The reason is that genetics/evolution don't yet seem to fully explain how humans exist. A computer genetic algorithm run for a billion generations doesn't lead to anything anywhere near the the complexity of a human. I suspect there are as-yet undiscovered effects which shape the next generation. Whether that be DNA methylation,…
25% of humans died before reaching 5 in 1800s US, today it is We have not ended up with "humans which aren't as strong, aren't as smart, aren't as well adapted to a changing environment, etc."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it reads to me like the thread parent's point is that there are many unknown risks which can exist? I also wonder about long term effects to the health of the genome from IVF and other forms of fertility treatment as infertility could be acting as some sort of protection mechanism of the genome. But I suppose such objections form a continuum which extends to treatment of all genetic diseases or diseases in genera…
There is precedent for infertility being beneficial for a species in the animal kingdom. For example the vast majority of ants and bees are infertile. Yet the infertile ones still contribute meaningfully to society. Humans could easily be successful with a similar model, and did so in the past before fertility treatments.
I am worried about the long term impact of research involving human conception, IVF, etc. The reason is that genetics/evolution don't yet seem to fully explain how humans exist. A computer genetic algorithm run for a billion generations doesn't lead to anything anywhere near the the complexity of a human. I suspect there are as-yet undiscovered effects which shape the next generation. Whether that be DNA methylation,…
Tech like this gives some people a chance to be born. If they aren't born, this may damage the rest of the world in subtle, very hard to predict way. The invisible graveyard of medicine, caused by risk aversion, is real. In the name of safety, you may miss out on the next Freddie Mercury or David Attenborough, or Jonas Salk or Paul Erdös.
Also, the 5-10 generations you mention is 150-300 years in current humans. It is very unlikely that biological science will stagnate on current level of knowledge and blindly repeat beginner mistakes from 2026 for 150-300 years.
For comparison - 150 years ago, germ theory was still a contested newcomer. 300 years ago, medicine still believed in Galen's humor theory.