Artificial Sperm and Transhumanism

[macgamer]

The Sinner has been bereft of a controversial topic of debate recently, save some of the more strongly worded exchanges on the 'Is the decline of the West inevitable?' thread.

So, with Newcastle University scientists creating sperm-like cells from human embyronic stems cells, does this make transhumanism more feasible?

More generally, what are the Sinners' thoughts on this latest advance and its implications?

[Tweedle-Dum]

Just seems like a way to punish one's husband twice:

no sex for you..., oh and we're having a baby!

[Frank]

Pfft, transhumanism has been possible since the pegleg and the glasseye. This merely makes it...easier.

I tend to view this sort of thing on a slightly longer scale than my day-to-day ethics. Which is to say: I want to be a big, stampy robot. Nothing and no-one will stand in my way to achieving this goal. It's my right as a human. Sortof.

On a more serious note, I see little value in the divide between 'natural' and 'unnatural', so see transhumanism as one of the many possible avenues which humanity will end up going down. It's neither good nor bad.

The lack of distinction between natural/unnatural means I'm quite content with IVF. It's a bit wasteful and not terribly effective, but other than the stress and potential psychological harm it can cause (and that perhaps the whole procreating process is morally dubious from a 'responsible to society' perspective), I don't see tthe problem of artificial sperm.

Except, of course, all the possible stress and psychological harm they might cause. But that's different from them being the problem. Most of the time, it strikes me that people remain the problem.

Hence: Big, stampy robots.

[Haunted]

^ This ^

[macgamer]

On a related note it would be interesting to find the cause of the decline in male fertility that the media has reported in light of this and over the past few years.

Detergents acting as artificial oestrogens, agrochemicals, the pill etc have been mooted as causes.

If anyone knows of any primary research papers post them here.

[Frank]

What do you call a gong hidden inside a tree?

In tree gong.

(say it)

For my part, this is the first I've heard any mention of a decline in male fertility.

That said, it appears myself and Haunted agree on our 'not to worry' stance for transhumanism ('It'll be great fun, everyone'll have lasers for eyes!'), I wonder on your own stance?

Not to put an argument in your mouth, but if I understand your many previous posts on other threads correctly, you'd be essentially quite against this sort of thing? If so, please elaborate.

(So much so it'd warrant this?

)

[d_24]

One can argue there's no such thing as 'natural'.

Human ingenuity, creativity, strive for survival, etc, can all be argued as aspects of human nature and thus creating nuclear powered knees or intravenous nano-medibots is nothing more than our natural right (whether or not you buy the concept of natural rights is a different argument) to exert our nature and means to extend our life. But surely there has to be a line drawn. This is where you can toss in the old "Just because we can, doesn't mean we should" card. Creating artificial sperm to bring about life, creating artificial limbs to increase ones quality of life, creating pacemakers to sustain life are all (arguably) valid actions because they maintain our view of what a human's abilities are. But creating artificial legs that can kick a fridge into orbit or creating telescopic eyes seems excessive to what a human needs to be able to do.

But something doesn't sit right with me on this view. It seems to me that if someone, like Frank for instance, really wants his body to have stampy robot legs then surely that's his right (whether he uses said awesome limbs to crush-kill-destroy is another ethical question). If he wants to resemble ED-209 then why not? Yes it's excessive and he doesn't need this to just get along in life, but then do we throw away all our technological conveniences because they're not strictly necessary to our survival?

Unsurprisingly it seems like there's no absolutely defined dividing line and plenty of grey areas. But it seems like there should be a balance because one day (assuming our ethics don't shift too dramatically) mind-controlled wheelchairs will be fine while adamantium biceps won't be.

[Haunted]

But creating artificial legs that can kick a fridge into orbit or creating telescopic eyes seems excessive to what a human needs to be able to do.

Doesn't creating a fridge which can artificially store food longer than it usually would be "excessive to what a human needs to do"?

If he wants to resemble ED-209 then why not? Yes it's excessive and he doesn't need this to just get along in life,

We don't need 47" LCD televisions to get on in life, they must be excessive too. Along with anything else a human can create since tools/toys are not needed to get on in life (there is some argument that a good knife is an exception). Excessive compared to what exactly, or on what scale?

but then do we throw away all our technological conveniences because they're not strictly necessary to our survival?

I should read ahead more often.

mind-controlled wheelchairs will be fine while adamantium biceps won't be.

Why not? Those biceps could help rescue workers remove rubble from a building collapse and save lives.

[d_24]

but then do we throw away all our technological conveniences because they're not strictly necessary to our survival?

I should read ahead more often.

mind-controlled wheelchairs will be fine while adamantium biceps won't be.

Why not? Those biceps could help rescue workers remove rubble from a building collapse and save lives.

I was thinking that they'd have an unfair advantage and also seem excessive but yeah I suppose that would be a helpful (assuming robots or other machinery wouldn't be a better use for..ahem, adamantium!) use. My point was that although there's no black and white answer to transhumanism, I'd be tempted to say that there does seem to be a hazy point where some things are acceptable and some aren't, but it depends far too much on context for me to suggest what these are...helpful I know

[Haunted]

I was thinking that they'd have an unfair advantage and also seem excessive

This word "excessive" keeps coming up, would you care to elaborate what exactly you mean?

My point was that although there's no black and white answer to transhumanism, I'd be tempted to say that there does seem to be a hazy point where some things are acceptable and some aren't, but it depends far too much on context for me to suggest what these are...helpful I know

What determines where this line is?
People criticised Ben Franklin for his lightning rod as it "took power away from god". Was the invention of the lightning rod excessive? Is 'insert-what-you-think-is-excessive-here' just a modern day lightning rod?

[d_24]

I was thinking that they'd have an unfair advantage and also seem excessive

This word "excessive" keeps coming up, would you care to elaborate what exactly you mean?

If only I could express exactly what I mean Ok well, to continue playing devil's advocate I suppose I might refer back to my previous post and also maybe answer your other question about "What determines where this line is?":

Creating artificial sperm to bring about life, creating artificial limbs to increase ones quality of life, creating pacemakers to sustain life are all (arguably) valid actions because they maintain our view of what a human's abilities are. But creating artificial legs that can kick a fridge into orbit or creating telescopic eyes seems excessive to what a human needs to be able to do....Yes it's excessive and he doesn't need this to just get along in life, but then do we throw away all our technological conveniences because they're not strictly necessary to our survival?

[/quote]

I'm only really sketching out a vague idea of another way to approach this for the sake of creating an interesting discussion rather than espousing my own belief on this. I too feel that there are many examples where the line is blurred (if there is to be one at all) and what determines where this line is should be more concrete than a rough and varied view of 'what a human needs to be able to do'. It seems that transhumanism can be divided into health benefits and mere human enhancement, one of which seems to be our duty to others and just a innocuous reversion to 'normal' human condition, while the other seems frivolous, self-interested and may give rise to unfair physical or mental advantages. It's an individual's free choice whether they want something frivolous/excessive of course but this choice may negatively effect others or society at large, e.g. designer babies or unfair sporting competition. Again, I'm not 100% supporting this side of the argument, I've advocated the idea of autonomy too, I just feel that in some contexts transhumanism may lead to unethical conduct and in some it's harmless. More of that delicious grey area

Oops, this has gone a little off topic from artificial sperm

[Haunted]

...while the other seems frivolous, self-interested and may give rise to unfair physical or mental advantages.

See the trouble is, antibiotics would be an unfair physical advantage, if no one else had them. The context is crucial. The line is only drawn by what your mind paints as 'familiar'. Even as little as 100 years ago, antibiotics would've been seen as incredibly powerful (adamantium biceps perhaps), today we buy them off the shelf.

[Humphrey]

People criticised Ben Franklin for his lightning rod as it "took power away from god".

In their defence (having just looked at this recently), there was serious confusion among the populace at the time that a grounded lightning rod might actually attract a strike which might otherwise have been avoided. Even experts such as the Abbe Nollet were advising (In Nollet's case, because of his rivalry with Franklin) that conductors were 'more suitable to attract the fire of thunder than to preserve us'. There was also, in contemporary science, a noted correlation between lightning and earthquakes. Hence a nutter like the Reverend Thomas Price of South Church Boston(who believed that he had saved the city from a French attack in 1746 by calling on God for a sea storm) was able to credibly argue against John Winthrop of Harvard that earthing lightning strikes would increase the incidence of earthquakes.

[Haunted]

In their defence

You mean "in the defense of those who criticised it for less retarded reasons".

[the Empress]

On a related note it would be interesting to find the cause of the decline in male fertility that the media has reported in light of this and over the past few years.

Detergents acting as artificial oestrogens, agrochemicals, the pill etc have been mooted as causes.

If anyone knows of any primary research papers post them here.

Maybe I've missed something, but how would a woman taking the pill cause a decline in male fertility?

[jollytiddlywink]

On a related note it would be interesting to find the cause of the decline in male fertility that the media has reported in light of this and over the past few years.

Detergents acting as artificial oestrogens, agrochemicals, the pill etc have been mooted as causes.

If anyone knows of any primary research papers post them here.

Maybe I've missed something, but how would a woman taking the pill cause a decline in male fertility?

I believe that the science behind that is that the hormones in the pill make their way into the water supply by various routes, and end up being drunk by men, which has a detrimental effect on their fertility.

[Andy Monkey B]

On a related note it would be interesting to find the cause of the decline in male fertility that the media has reported in light of this and over the past few years.

Detergents acting as artificial oestrogens, agrochemicals, the pill etc have been mooted as causes.

If anyone knows of any primary research papers post them here.

Maybe I've missed something, but how would a woman taking the pill cause a decline in male fertility?

I believe that the science behind that is that the hormones in the pill make their way into the water supply by various routes, and end up being drunk by men, which has a detrimental effect on their fertility.

A huge problem in the London area, where male fish in the Thames are developing female body parts from the high level of pill-chemicals in the water. It isn't broken down in the female body so is passed straight through.

A few other things that will lower your fertility though: Hot baths, soy-products and beer (contains plant sex hormones).

[the Empress]

Interesting, thanks. I had to look up transhumanism! I don't see this as a worrying development. I'm kind of interested as to what the anti-A-sperm argument is (only if it's rational) . . .

NB: obesity is heavily associated with declining fertility. Apparently losing weight if you're oveweight and having difficulty concieving is one of the first GP recommendations.

[macgamer]

There is the transhumanism which addresses the disabilities people are born with or acquire, which was not the transhumanism I had envisaged. The transhumanism I had envisaged goes beyond that, it begins change what everyone is inherently capable of and potentially alter the nature of those who are modified.

I can see two problems with the artificial sperm:

1) The research involves the use of embyronic stem cells, which destroys human embryos.

2) Creating artificial sperm permits procreation separated from sex (the unitive), which is the same problem I have with IVF.

[the Empress]

Rational, not religous.