Quest to create viable human sex cells in lab progressing rapidly, with huge implications for reproduction
Scientists are just a few years from creating viable human sex cells in the lab, according to an internationally renowned pioneer of the field, who says the advance could open up biology-defying possibilities for reproduction.
Speaking to the Guardian, Prof Katsuhiko Hayashi, a developmental geneticist at the University of Osaka, said rapid progress is being made towards being able to transform adult skin or blood cells into eggs and sperm, a feat of genetic conjury known as in-vitro gametogenesis (IVG).
His own lab is about seven years away from the milestone, he predicts. Other frontrunners include a team at the University of Kyoto and a California-based startup, Conception Biosciences, whose Silicon Valley backers include the OpenAI founder, Sam Altman and whose CEO told the Guardian that growing eggs in the lab “might be the best tool we have to reverse population decline” and could pave the way for human gene editing.
Depopulation is a problem for any economic system. You can't run any form of government or economy when young workers aren't contributing to the tax base and the aging population requires more and more care.
Sure as clockwork someone will come along and say tax the rich. That only works for so long in this scenario. The rich get rich off our backs. No backs, no rich.
No, see, what if we just had way less people? Fuck taxes, fuck the economy, just have everyone commit to a one child policy. Yeah, I won't be able to sit on my ass and play WoW all day, but is that really helping anyone?
Responses will be delayed by WoW marathons.
When you hit retirement, so will literally everyone else. You want to hire a nurse to wipe your ass because you can't, there's a 25 year waiting list because everyone is old.
Your one grandchild has 6 older people to take care of in addition to their one child (spouse exactly in the same position)
Yeah? And? Intergenerational households are a thing. Communities are a thing. A culture of small communities would be, in my opinion, superior to this isolating capitalist society.
Pivoting now, why would I want anyone to wipe my ass? I'm not a king. If I die because my immediate community and I cannot take care of myself, then that's how it goes. I don't plan on living forever and I certainly don't plan on life being free of suffering. It is my sincere hope and goal to be the kind of person that people want in their lives. *I want to contribute positivity and love, which is, again, in my opinion, the pathway to a good life and thereby maintain a close community that helps one another. *
Third pivot. If, and I do mean IF, you read that last sentence and responded cynically, reflect on where that is coming from and let me know. (I have italicized the sentence for clarity.)
Doesn't matter, you need working age people. A society can't function if it's all old people. Period
I hear what you're saying but also see that you have introduced a new idea into the discussion.
I agree that a society comprised solely of the elderly would not work and am not proposing a society comprised of only elderly people. Limiting the number of children people have does not mean that there will be no children. It means that there will be less children. I concede that during the transition to a smaller population there will be periods of suffering as resources and communal abilities to provide care rebalance. However, I also think that is fine. There is no guarantee or promise of an easy or happy existence. That is not to say that there will not be ease and mirth, but rather that experiencing periods of suffering is also part of the human experience.
So, I return to where I started, and state again that declining population is only a concern for capitalism, but will now add that this is because it forces everyone into the same social status. It is less likely that there will be billionaires, millionaires, or independently wealthy non-workers in a society that is focused on existing in the moment. Without an abundance of lower-class people to exploit, I believe that equality would increase.
Why accept the suffering of having fewer workers? If the fertility rate of the world is around 2, there are enough workers to sustain a perfectly good life for everyone
You want it to get worse before it gets better, I don't believe it's necessary
Am I correct that you are proposing to stop population at two children per couple?
Not necessarily at that exact number, replacement is 2.1 which is what I'm actually proposing
It seems like you are for a stable population (let me know if that is wrong) and I am for a stable population at a lower level. I don't think that these two positions are that far apart. I understand that you want to avoid the struggle of dealing with a lopsided generational distribution while I see population reduction, not just the elimination of growth, as necessary to improve the overall quality of life for all people*.
*While I was typing this, I thought to myself, "Oh yeah, okay. This is how Thanos got going."
Depopulation to a lower level will bring unnecessary hardship to the older generations and slow down technological progress.
I think that where we are parting is ways is on the value of progress. If progress were an equitable share of all resources and an improvement in everyone's quality of life, then I would be on board. However, in our current system, progress means infinitely growing wealth for some and infinitely growing labor for others. I believe that we should be less focused on progress and more focused on health and happiness, and these things do not require a lot of people.