Ross I appreciate your comments. Still....
<<Given an average healthy pair of a human male and female, the male has
thousands upon thousands of sperm, per day, while the female has a
lifetime supply of maybe hundreds of eggs.>>
Biological fact yes. Which makes "sperm collection" a much easier task
logistically than "egg collection". which is an important point!
<<Basically, the women have the only functional human reproductive system
in the planet, the women basically have total control of reproduction.
That is a qualified statement.>>
This is true after a fashion. I would like to change this. In a functional
sense
(i.e. redirect the power flow) even if technology is a long way from a
synthetic
womb. One of the easiest ways (given the prescence of surrogate gestation
hosts)
is to "rent" a womb that is much further down the socioeconomic power
gradient
than you are. This sort of thing doesn't have to be cruel. It can be a very
compassionate act to a human from an underdeveloped country with very'
few options.
<<By the same token, more men are in positions of relative "power", or so
the media would have us believe. So, some people in power are corrupt.
So, the point is to be a male brain surgeon, that way the women want
your genes for their children, or to have a nice car.>>
But "your point" is based on the 'fact' that women are holding all the
aces
in this poker game. I am suggesting that 'while this is so in fact' in
application
the matter can be played out differently. Much like an army with lesser
numbers
triumphing through better strategy.
Again..it is now possible to spend your money and divorce sex from the
repro
equation. This is rather startling..since it's usually sex that drives men
into situations
where repro becomes feasible...not the other way around (which is the
biological
reality).
<<I don't think I want a clone, it would be somewhat like inbreeding. I'd
be happy to donate a cloned "good sperm" to a wide variety of screened
candidates. If I have the option to select a sperm cell to impregnate,
then it would have to have a better method than the "survival of the
fittest" natural selection of natural insemination.>>
I have considered the method you suggest. Cloning would not be
inbreeding, more like the ultimate in genetic conservatism. It all
depends on how much you have to conserve, and how important
it is to get a good investment. I like to think I have a good deal
to conserve, and that a random gene shuffle with most females would
result in a less than optimal result (which tends to narrow my focus
to the very best of the female side of the species house). I also tend
to think that with the possible exception of meta-pursuits like self-
improvement and attainment of enlightenment there are NO
investements more important than offspring. though others may not
agree.
And while I would not be adverse to being a donor I feel oddly
about siring children without interaction with them. Anything else
feels like abandonment (sortof like your inbreeding feeling eh?).
I certainly would not relish dying or going into cryostasis knowing
I had not contributed to the epigenetic essence of my children's psyches.
Eugenics is hardly the cureall people claim it to be, euthenics is
equally important I like to think.
One thing I have noted is that it's fairly easy to get "Nobel prize" sperm
but seems rather harder to purchase "genius eggs".
Given current technology the hormonal treatments neccessary to collect
multiple eggs from a donor mean it's not the easy painless task that
sperm donation is for a medical student. I think this is another reason
why cloning will become popular. It doesn't require nearly as much
paperwork,
and it eliminates a major cash outlay going to the egg donor.
In the end..it will be about the money!
brian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:40 MDT