Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 167 posts

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#51

Post by w1ntermute »

delinka wrote: post #13
thasmin wrote: post #9

A 100% effective, low maintenance, reversible birth control method could have an incredible effect on the future of the species. I'm guessing the benefits of fewer unwanted children will be incredible. The possible downsides include a dangerously low birth rate and forced temporary sterilization, but I think the long term effects will be very positive.

You are correct. Except for that part of the population that believes contraception is immoral. Or that rather large part of the population that can't afford the procedure or choose to remain ignorant of even basic contraception. Something like this is certainly more convenient, but ultimately the best method is education.

> Except for that part of the population that believes contraception is immoral.

And since that belief is evolutionarily beneficial, you can see how it would eventually turn into a bigger and bigger problem...

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#52

Post by sorbus »

jonprins wrote: post #46
Sukotto wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do these "modern pharmaceutical manufacturing standards" actually buy us extra safety? Yes, but we pay a price: * Evaluations take a really long time. So it's hard to get the drugs into the hands of people. * Development is now extremely expensive. That forces just about everyone except the largest drug mega-corporations out of the market. * Drugs that would be a net benefit to the world sometimes never make it throu…

"We also have far fewer snake-oil salesmen ripping people off for cures" Yet we still have chiropractors and homeopathy.

Sadly, they get around all the regulation by not making specific medical claims. If they did, then regulation would come down on them like a ton of bricks (as it did to producers of Cherries at one point). It's the difference between saying "Product X will cure Y" (illegal unless it's gone through all the testing) and "Product X may promote health" (which is entirely legal). It doesn't make much sense.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#53

Post by billybob »

delinka wrote: post #13
thasmin wrote: post #9

A 100% effective, low maintenance, reversible birth control method could have an incredible effect on the future of the species. I'm guessing the benefits of fewer unwanted children will be incredible. The possible downsides include a dangerously low birth rate and forced temporary sterilization, but I think the long term effects will be very positive.

You are correct. Except for that part of the population that believes contraception is immoral. Or that rather large part of the population that can't afford the procedure or choose to remain ignorant of even basic contraception. Something like this is certainly more convenient, but ultimately the best method is education.

"Except for that part of the population that believes contraception is immoral"

If you're thinking of Christians, it isn't necessarily all-or-nothing. Although I believe the Catholic church disapproves of all contraception, Protestants typically approve of anything that prevents fertilization. Once the egg is fertilized, it's considered a human life worthy of protection; prior to that, the egg and sperm are just cells. So this would be considered fine.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#54

Post by bakbak »

hugh3 wrote: post #35
bakbak wrote: post #8

This is going to change the world ... this is by far going to have deepest sociological impact (good & bad) on the society ... because many men will use this secretly without telling their partner to avoid having kids ... which eventually will bring enormous decrease in population ... Now someone should come out with novel technique to avoid STD without using condoms ... combination of these 2 techniques will be VIOL…

because many men will use this secretly without telling their partner to avoid having kids ... which eventually will bring enormous decrease in population ... I doubt there are that many men who want to secretly make themselves infertile in order to not give their wives the children they want to have. combination of these 2 techniques will be VIOLA I'm really not sure what violas have to do with it.

VIOLA = one stone will kill multiple birds (no condoms, no pills, no snipping , NO FEAR of having unwanted Kids, No FEAR of STD, etc. etc. etc.)

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#55

Post by bakbak »

anigbrowl wrote: post #39
bakbak wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

dangerously low birth rate will be the biggest impact in long-long term - i wont be surprised if every other men uses this technique secretively to NOT to have a child ... as someone mentioned here "A SEXUAL REVOLUTION" is underway ...

We already have a 'dangerously low birthrate' in the US (and in many other countries from France to Singapore). By this I mean a working-age population too low to support the retirement costs of the preceding generation. Practically speaking, however, this can be offset by immigration and the demographics should have smoothed themselves out by around 2030 or so.

i won't be surprised if eventually small demographic countries banning this procedure :-)

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#57

Post by sorbus »

clistctrl wrote: post #34
thasmin wrote: post #9

A 100% effective, low maintenance, reversible birth control method could have an incredible effect on the future of the species. I'm guessing the benefits of fewer unwanted children will be incredible. The possible downsides include a dangerously low birth rate and forced temporary sterilization, but I think the long term effects will be very positive.

Now if only they can figure out how to do it without surgery.

Any method to do it without surgery would be even more invasive than surgery. Off the top of my head, the only thing I can think of[1] is inserting a long flexible tube down the urethra, hoping that it ends up in the right place (it's not very helpful if it ends up in the bladder), and then sending RISUG through it. Likely to be very painful and not work particularly well.

[1] There are only so many ways to get to the vans deferens without surgery, so I'm not too worried about missing something obvious.

Or nanobots, I suppose, whenever we get those. That doesn't seem likely to be any time soon, sadly.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#58

Post by grantbachman »

hoprocker wrote: post #43
grantbachman wrote: post #18

I would sign up for this procedure in a heartbeat, but it still doesn't get around the (albeit not perfect) STD protection condoms can provide. If this takes off, people probably won't wear condoms most of the time, and the number of people being diagnosed with STD's will skyrocket.

Could be. The question you suggest is then: do we keep this off the market to protect humanity from itself? Should we retract oral contraception on the same grounds? There are many inferences that could be hand-waved here, but, fundamentally, RISUG increases the range of options related to reproductive choice, no more.

No, I'm not suggesting that at all, merely stating an observation. As long as people know the operation doesn't protect you from contracting STD's, that's good enough for me. It's their choice whether to still use a condom or not. In my opinion it can't get to market fast enough! Even if it doesn't end up being 100% effective, it's another layer of protection.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#59

Post by danssig »

hugh3 wrote: post #37
solarmist wrote: post #33

The world has been promising male birth control for decades now and the techniques (There are several that all work at almost 100% and are fully reversible) are proven (numerous long term trials, I can think of two from a decade ago off the top of my head, one in Washington state and one in Australia, in their final stages, with fewer side-effects, complications and failures than female birth control) and much more e…

The problem is there isn't (enough of?) an incentive to actually put out these treatments. I guess the money just doesn't compare to female birth control One issue is that public health authorities are (probably quite legitimately) concerned that improved male birth control methods will lead to a decrease in the use of condoms and an increase in STDs.

Holding back progress in one area as leverage to try and force it in another is nearly always a bad way to go. STD's and unwanted children are both problems. If we can fix one of those we should absolutely do it.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#60

Post by gjm11 »

billybob wrote: post #53
delinka wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct. Except for that part of the population that believes contraception is immoral. Or that rather large part of the population that can't afford the procedure or choose to remain ignorant of even basic contraception. Something like this is certainly more convenient, but ultimately the best method is education.

"Except for that part of the population that believes contraception is immoral" If you're thinking of Christians, it isn't necessarily all-or-nothing. Although I believe the Catholic church disapproves of all contraception, Protestants typically approve of anything that prevents fertilization. Once the egg is fertilized, it's considered a human life worthy of protection; prior to that, the egg and sperm are just cell…

And quite a lot of Protestants are perfectly happy even with methods that may result in the loss of some fertilized eggs. And many, many Catholics use contraception, whatever they're theoretically supposed to think about it.
Post reply on HN