Sperm finding could lead to unisex contraceptive. Protein helps sperm swim, penetrate eggs
Re this article above on a contraceptive that might help infertile couples to have children.
Just from a purely genetic perspective, if say (plucking a % from air) 10% of all couples are infertile to one degree or another, is artifical fertility assistance going to propgate these traits (ie being infertile) in the population to the point that infertility becomes a much more substantial problem in the future, or is the nature of these traits such that infertility should not become a major problem?
But I don’t see the problem of the human race being unable to reproduce without medical assistance coming up for a long, long time.
Probably not until after we’re done with the Global Warming Thing and it’s time to start worrying about A New Ice Age.
And you know what they call a gal who relies for birth control on the fact that the guy says he just took his CatSper[sup]R[/sup] and that means his sperm tails are really sluggish?
It’s a problem only if the reasons for infertility are genetic. There are a number of other reasons for infertility, such as injury, medical treatment for cancer (chemo and radiation both can cause sterility), or infections - either STD’s or, in the case of men, as a complication of mumps. The non-genetic reasons can’t be passed on to children, so the children of such people would be just as fertile as the rest of the population (barring accident or illness, just like mommy and daddy).
As for the genetic infertility - in many cases the genetic problem may completely rule out reproduction. Women with Turner’s syndrome, for instance, are completely unable to reproduce since they produce no eggs whatsoever, and in fact lack ovaries so it is impossible to pass this on.
So, of your hypothetical 10%, only a smaller percent are going to have a problem that is both genetic and transmissable. So, those genetic dysfunctions may become marginally more common but I doubt very much they are going to become widespread.
I dunno about that, so far there are over 15,000 Dopers and going strong
Seriously? I’d think that there are enough other reasons for infertility that while this new development may lead some marginally infertile couples into pregnancy, it won’t change the bigger stats on infertility.
I don’t use the term “marginally infertile” lightly, so don’t anyone jump me here. After 4 1/2 years of infertility on both sides of the mattress where there was no definitive finding for either of us, I can say that marginal infertility is a situation that is ameliorated by a single treatment or approach. Yes, they’re infertile, but it can be altered with success in short order.
[HIJACK] *DDG, that hurt. You think that there’s never been a gal who “FORGOT” to take her pills, just so she could insure that one day, she’d get to refer to her boyfriend as a “daddy” ? Harumph. The problem with reproductive responsibility is that it’s a solitary act, like others I won’t go into here in G.Q. I’d love to see a simple pee test that can be used on a litmus strip pre- intimacy that shows BOTH partners have taken their birth control. It’s supposed to be all about trust but as countless stories in real life prove out, there’s trust, then there’s " trust me honey". [/HIJACK]
Even if the scenario presented in the OP comes to pass, it’s only a problem if, at some time in the future, the relevant technology becomes unavailable. Who cares if you need a pill to have kids, as long as you have that pill?
OK, say in the future we make it possible for ANYONE who wants a child to have one. Right now, the current number of infertile couples is somewhere near 10%. Say that due to making it possible for them to all have children if they desire, we increase the percentage of the population that would otherwise be infertile to…really wild guess here: 50%. That’s assuming that whatever makes them infertile is a dominant characteristic and that they all have lots of children.
So, there’s SEVEN BILLION people on this planet. Population is increasing no matter what because all the fertile people (that 90% I mentioned above) are having kids. That means that by the time we reach that WAG of 50% otherwise infertile people, we’ll STILL have 3-4 billion otherwise FERTILE people.
The only major problem I can really see here is if our population crashes to the point that we can no longer support our civilization’s infrastructure. I think 3-4 billion people and their offspring could definitely do that, even if the “magic pills” that cured infertility vanished from the face of the earth.
Was there some other kind of problem you could see with some people NOT being able to reproduce? On a species level, we could really use some infertility, although on a personal level, it really stinks.
Many couples delay childbearing these days. Female fertility declines precipitously after age 30. These “older” couples are the bread and butter of the assisted reproduction industry.
Well, fertility assistance can lead to children, and of course children can be hazardous to your health, finances, and sanity. More importantly, it can lead to multiple children which is exponentially worse.
I’ve also said that children are a sexually transmitted disease.
We now return to your regularly scheduled thread, already in progress.
::rolls eyes in direction of Genseric:: How too too amusing.
Infertility is multi-factorial. This treatment is not going to fix every case of infertility so it won’t lead to a huge population explosion. The genetic side of it isn’t a big deal either as most infertility is not caused by genetics.
yes over population and use of non renewable resources , in the past Humans always had population control from disease
and war , since humans have beat lots of diseases and don’t fight large scale wars anymore there will be a population problem sometime in the near future , however if the earths resources were divided properly the earth could support a few billion more , but that is not the case
a small example is people living longer , with less young people to pay for pension funds (UK and Japan) meaning me a working age person has to pay for my own and other people’s pensions rather than pay only for my own , which the last generation did , young working age people are a resource too you know
What about all the problems that would have been fatal that we are correcting? If someone has a genetic condition that would kill him off before he reproduces that bad gene is elimiated. If we can give him treatment so he can live long enough to reproduce we are weakining humanity.
What about all the problems that would have been fatal that we are correcting? If someone has a genetic condition that would kill him off before he reproduces that bad gene is elimiated. If we can give him treatment so he can live long enough to reproduce we are weakining humanity.
If the person lives long enough to work, love, live and contribute to society in myriad ways, in what way have they “weakened humanity”? Obviously, a cure which provides life to the genetically affected person will be available to their offspring.
Genetic mutations and resultant illness are random and horribly unfair. k2dave, could you look a sick person in the face and tell them they don’t deserve life-saving treatment because any offspring they might have, who might inherit their genetic mutation, would weaken humanity? Can you feel for a moment the cruelty of your argument?
There are a lot of “genetic conditions” that won’t killl you off before reproduction yet result in much suffering - Huntington’s Chorea, for instance, hemachromatosis, and certain forms of heart/vascular disease. Are we going to sterilize all the carriers of these diseases in the name of strengthening humanity?
And there are a number of genetic conditions that, if you carry one gene, are an advantage and if you carry two are a disadvantage. The most famous is the sickle-cell trait. If you carry one gene you are far more resistant to malaria than someone without it. If you carry two you suffer from a horribly debilitating form of anemia that, prior to modern medicine, killed people young after much suffering. Yet, with a couple million people a year still dying from malaria, eliminating the gene entirely would cause more death than keeping it.
The problem with the idea of simply eliminating “bad” genes is that genetics is pretty complicated, and a gene bad in one situation is actually good in another.
You think that there’s never been a gal who “FORGOT” to take her pills, just so she could insure that one day, she’d get to refer to her boyfriend as a “daddy” ? Harumph. The problem with reproductive responsibility is that it’s a solitary act, like others I won’t go into here in G.Q. I’d love to see a simple pee test that can be used on a litmus strip pre- intimacy that shows BOTH partners have taken their birth control. It’s supposed to be all about trust but as countless stories in real life prove out, there’s trust, then there’s " trust me honey". [/HIJACK]