In The Future, We May Only Have Sex For Fun — Not To Procreate

[xchrom]

http://www.businessinsider.com/in-the-future-we-may-only-have-sex-for-fun--not-to-procreate-2013-12



***SNIP

Chan mentioned a genetics expert who had recently stopped by Google Ventures. He opened with a startling statement:

"In the future people will only have sex for fun, not to procreate," this person said.

Chan explained the reasoning:

Thanks to medical advancements and DNA sequencing, people will soon be able to hand-pick their children's genes. They'll be able to select physical traits, like hair and eye color, as well as talents and health factors. By selecting the perfect genes, parents and scientists will be able to create the healthiest, happiest, most perfect children who have the longest life-expectancy possible.

When that happens, traditional conception will seem too risky. The baby might get bad genes. Expectant mothers risk unforeseen accidents. Or they might consume something harmful. Their children can be born with birth defects or diseases for no apparent reason.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/in-the-future-we-may-only-have-sex-for-fun--not-to-procreate-2013-12#ixzz2olkH3V1N

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/in-the-future-we-may-only-have-sex-for-fun--not-to-procreate-2013-12#ixzz2olk8pSdR

[JustAnotherGen]

1. The price is going to have to come way down

Full scope fertility testing includes genetic testing today - its a basic step to ensure there isn't a genetic reason couples can't conceive. $13 K in NJ.

Assuming this would be an IVF situation - $10K to $15K per round . . . And not every round works the first time.

I love these concepts as ideas - but having gone through the Fertility Industrial complex I know first hand the costs involved in the baby race. The financial and the emotional loss - multiple miscarriages, invasive procedures, etc etc.

In the future - either everyone is going to have to be extremely wealthy - or this is going to need to be a "buy over the counter drug store option".

Yes there are risks in natural conception - but that's the circle of life. I would hope in the future more people would have a child on their very early 20's and A.R.T. becomes an extremely rare thing.

[jberryhill]

16. Oh, I thought you meant for the sex

Lol.

I was like, "How much are people paying for it now?"

[JustAnotherGen]

19. Lol!

I needed the laugh! Going for another round next week and is right now sex is just for fun!

[KitSileya]

2. Hello, Gattaca!

And let's not forget how this will probably cause an even more prejudiced environment for those who are not able-bodied. You can become disabled through other means than genes - for every child with a genetic disability, there's a person who got disabled through injury or malice. (If you're shot in the head, don't expect to come out of it without some consequences, for example.) This designer society is very disturbing to me, and as a pro-choice person, I feel it is very important to stress that pro-choice supports those who want abortions and those who choose not to have an abortion. I'm working to make our society a more tolerant one, not less, and that includes differently abled people as well as those of different creeds, races, genders, and classes.

[imthevicar]

4. Yep,Yep!

[d_r]

6. brave new world

Except like the other predictions in it, we won't need the government to do it because well do it to ourselves.

[PowerToThePeople]

14. Yes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

Gattaca is a 1997 science fiction film written and directed by Andrew Niccol. It stars Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman, with Jude Law, Loren Dean, Ernest Borgnine, Gore Vidal, and Alan Arkin appearing in supporting roles. The film presents a biopunk vision of a future society driven by eugenics where potential children are selected through preimplantation genetic diagnosis to ensure they possess the best hereditary traits of their parents. The film centers on Vincent Freeman, played by Hawke, who was conceived outside the eugenics program and struggles to overcome genetic discrimination to realize his dream of traveling into space.

The movie draws on concerns over reproductive technologies which facilitate eugenics, and the possible consequences of such technological developments for society. It also explores the idea of destiny and the ways in which it can and does govern lives. Characters in Gattaca continually battle both with society and with themselves to find their place in the world and who they are destined to be according to their genes.

The film's title is based on the first letters of guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine, the four nucleobases of DNA. It was a 1997 nominee for the Academy Award for Best Art Direction and the Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score.

[Shandris]

22. Yeah, first thing that came to mind.

I rewatched that recently, too; that's a terrifying thought.

As an aside, I think art will suffer dramatically also, as (at least to me) art is best viewed and appreciated when it is -not- perfect, and a society of so-called 'perfect people' will lose the ability to appreciate imperfection. This is like 10,000 horror sci-fi's rolled into one.

[Nay]

26. Beat me to it! nt

[pinboy3niner]

3. OMG!

People have sex to procreate?

[Bluenorthwest]

5. How promising! The Vatican will then have to oppose all sexual behavior as they say

it is only for procreation. This will cause straights, who currently claim to be comfortable with Vatican attacks on other people's sexuality, to take a new accounting of what their dear clerical leaders are saying about others in their name.

[Mariana]

10. The Vatican will oppose the use of any such technology

the same way they already oppose in-vitro fertilization.

[Codeine]

7. That's all I've ever done.

[Octafish]

8. Eugenics with a business plan.

How nice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2511192

[Nikia]

9. This would definitely create a two tiered society if this practice becomes widespread

People that can afford to have designer children and people who have children the natural way. The designer children will naturally be considered superior while the natural children will be considered as the natural poor.
I think that this assumes though that the majority of people would rather have "perfect" children rather than genetic children. Based on the lengths that some couples go to have genetic children, I don't think that this is necessarily true.

[MineralMan]

11. Some of us have lived their entire lives doing that already.

I'm 68 years old. Way back in 1965, I decided not to contribute to population growth. Both of the women I have been married to shared that commitment. It's been fun.

[HappyMe]

13. I thought sex was always fun.

This whole thing creeps me out.

[11 Bravo]

15. As a father of two sons, I'm compelled to point out that the two are not mutually exclusive.

[jberryhill]

17. Yes, it's called "getting older"

Man, that is the dumbest headline I've seen in a while.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

18. Brave New World

[Arcanetrance]

20. Ah eugenics before you know it those left with "undesirable genes" will just be killed

[Matariki]

21. Brave. New. World.

Unless we can imagine a society where everyone is self actualized and doesn't need someone else to clean up after them.

[RainDog]

23. shulamith firestone

shulamith firestone argued that women could not achieve equality in society until childbearing was removed from its biological foundation to something like test tube babies, a long time ago.

I could never find the good in that argument because I'm more inclined to see that society needs to change, not our biological selves.

[LittleBlue]

24. I don't see anything wrong with this

I predict some effort to ban this in the US, cuz God!... and also immoral!

Meanwhile the Chinese are already creating labs to genetically test and create designer babies. We will fall behind with our neo-Luddism and eventually be forced to accept it because we won't be competitive without it.

Whether you disagree with the practice will be irrelevant. It will be another case of a universe which does not care about our notions of fairness.

[GliderGuider]

25. "I'm glad I'm a Delta..." nt

[SolutionisSolidarity]

28. If voluntary, there's no compelling reason to oppose this.

Natural does not mean good. Some genes are just inherently bad, and if genetic engineering can remove them, that is a good thing. Why should my children have to inherit hypercholesterolemia? Why should Huntington's disorder exist? In the long run the only alternatives to genetic engineering are negative eugenics programs or social Darwinism. I know which I choose.

To be clear, I don't want a perfect baby; I want a child that is recognizably a descendant of its parents but with the persistent genetic flaws corrected. Just because my line has suffered with them throughout the ages is no reason to continue on that way.

[Dash87]

29. This is highly immoral, if not dangerous.

I agree with editing out diseases and problems, but I find designer babies immoral and dangerous. Creating a race of genetically superior humans? No thanks.

We're not reasonable enough or ready for this type of science. It'll be heavily abused. The practice of creating designer babies needs to be banned. There's no medical reason for it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. It's the story of my life and our marriage.

[JCMach1]

31. Welcome to the Eugenics Mall

I wrote a Sci/Fi story title that back in the 1980's...

[Warren DeMontague]

32. Jerome Corsi is NOT pleased.

http://www.liberalamerica.org/2013/08/31/tea-party-leader-says-sex-is-not-about-fun/

[WillyT]

33. The Future ???

I lived through the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's...

[Blue Owl]

34. The conservative nightmare continues