These comments are killing me 😂. This isnt a replacement for the way things are but something a small amount of people could benefit from. If you really think the love a child deserves depends on where it comes from, NEVER have children.
@@YouFearMe I'm assuming you mean getting that bake time from 9 months to atleast 7. There should be microwave options for babies. Less quality than an oven but much faster.
Me to my friend im in an infertile situation myself and for what I've been told by my resources I reached out to this will be clinical for anybody infertile for any reason within 10-20 years in praying
I persoannly hope this is available within a 10-20 year perido from now like dr sherman silber says im in a sad infertile situation and dream to one day see a good healthy 1 of my bio own
My heart is already crying for the orphans, because until now, the selfish people would at least take them home, love and raise them.. even though if it was only because they COULDNT have their own biological kids.. but now with these technics, no one will adopt anymore as everyone will want their "mini-me"! RIP IN PEACE ORPHANS!
If we have population collapse problems like some people think we will this century, the ethical problems will become less pressing. I'm not all that worried.
The tech for this will be hard to sustain with a population collapse, but when I reflect that a population collapse will result in a potential rebound among all other living species I am not worried AT ALL...
When there are billions of you -there is no "population" collapse problem; it's actually just that our (socio)economic ponzi scheme is running out of 'new clients' to milk dry. It's an economic (system) collapse, not a population one.
As a 70 year old woman who chose to not have children so they didn't inherit migraines and severe allergies, but also because I had no intention of 3 a.m. feedings and diapers, I think the fact that you could cherry pick having a child who doesn't have migraines or allergies and you don't mind 3 a.m. feedings and diaper changes is wonderful. I am constantly surprised when I hear of a person who does have migraines or severe allergies who decided to chance bringing a person into the world who does have those things. I'm always amazed when people do. I feel sorry for the children. I guess it is different when, like a friend of mine, the allergies develop late in life, after the children are born.
I live with multiple mental health issues. I got a vasectomy in my 20s because I thought it was irresponsible to force any kids I have to live with the same problems.
@@AggyLovesGames You are a responsible person. I admire you and your dedication to improve the human race by trying to removing an inheritable genetic issue from at least your family.
@nswanberg I have heard that smart people should reproduce, but honestly, as weird and serious as my allergies are, I just felt I couldn't allow them to continue. My brother, who has fewer of these issues did have a child. She has some pretty severe allergies, but as far as I can tell, not the food ones that have made my life hell. However, as she nears 40 and hasn't had a child yet, it looks like our little branch of this family dies with her generation. I mean, my mother's father had 2 children, his son's son adopted a child. Mom had three and only one grand daughter. My father's brother had 3 children with 2 women. The eldest died in a car wreck with no known children, his two daughters didn't have children...
@@hoxiefam6731 they are manageable, not curable, and even if a person gets treatment, it doesn't mean the genes are 'fixed' and the allergies and migraines are still inheritable. IF a person with a chronic, inheritable health issues decides to have children, well, that is their choice. My choice was to not curse a child with these health issues.
This really makes me think ARE WE ABLE TO DO THIS WITH PLANTS?! If so, are we using this technology to restore plant species that are going extinct, or using it to prevent ecological destruction. If not, then why is our genetic engineering so anthropocentric. If we have all this knowledge and technology, why not use it to save the planet rather than things that are good for study of biology but are unnecessary in most situations
Have a read about cell culture in plants. A lot of plants grow easily from stem or leaf cuttings (no gametes needed!), and for types of plants that don't, you can grow whole plants from leaf cells kept in a jar and treated with plant hormones. Lots of commercial potted plants are already raised this way, because each jar yields large numbers of plants very quickly. If you're patient, you can even do it at home with some fairly basic equipment. I think you can even buy cell culture kits! It's true that the plants will be clones of the parent, but once you have a bunch of clones, it's generally possible to get the plant to flower and then set seed. For most plants that are going extinct in the wild, the problem is not infertility, but habitat destruction. Humans are making it so that there's just nowhere for these plants to grow. Even when we leave space for wild plants, often we wipe out important pollinators. When plants go extinct it's not because they can't breed, but because we're actively destroying their homes.
I heard of a couple who tried for years to have bio kids and eventually they devorced and remarried other people; with 2 years they were both parents. There is an "old wife's tale" that some person's are not chemically compatible. It would be interesting to know if this is a thing and if so would IVG circumvent that issue?
Yes sadly some out there will choose ither people for that reason cause it isnthr hurtful for alot hopefully IVG is available within 10-20years like I'm seeing and been told by alot of resources and experts
Behold! Young Boba Fett calling his bounty hunter Mandalorian dad Jango Fett "dad!". Genetically unaltered, nearly identical replacement bounty hunter. Yet such technological access is only available to those who have big pocketbooks. "These Kaminoans keep to themselves. They're cloners. Damn good ones too." "Cloners. Are they friendly?" "Depends." "Depends on what, Dex?" "On how good your manners are, and how big your… pocketbook is." ―Dexter Jettster educates Obi-Wan Kenobi on the pre-Clone Wars Kaminoans
Please excuse my ignorance, but aside from outliers, is it healthy for the future of the human species to pass on these genes? It seems as though passing on the genes of fertility issues would have negative consequences. Aside from other health issues, wouldn't passing on infertility make infertility more probable and make future generations have to rely on these procedures? I'm all for science breakthroughs, but I'm also worried. Again, sorry for my ignorance, but a lot of this is over my head as I'm neither a doctor nor a scientist.
By the time that becomes a concern, the technology to custom-tailor baby's genetics in minute detail - as well as edit the genes of adults - will almost certainly be mature enough to render such concerns moot. This will likely be the case as soon as the end of this century, and probably even sooner than that. Any situation which could take away this technology would have to be on the level of global civilisational collapse, but if such a thing did come to pass, however, and our concern was the survival of species or perhaps a few still-functioning remnant societies, the sheer number of humans in the world will guarantee that we can repopulate, and fairly quickly too. It only takes a few hundred individuals to do this on scales of a few thousand years and the populations of millions needed for industrial economies to function, and even if 99% of humans were naturally infertile, that still leaves something on the order of a hundred million naturally fertile people in the world out of a total population of 10 billion.
I think most infertility is conditional not hereditary - your age, your mate's age, nutrition in early life, sometimes something in your area being toxic and causing early miscarriage, as in The Handmaid's Tale world. If it were a strong hereditary component than there would be a greater percentage of humans having difficulty. I think.
@alexv3357 Thank you. My concern isn't the technology needed, but that it is needed at all. Let's say someone's genes are passed on that have detrimental traits, such as but not limited to infertility. Future generations might not have the same opportunities, money or otherwise, to receive those technologically advanced procedures. In essence, this would be setting up those up for failure. I love technological advances, but I have some healthy amount of worry.
That's assuming that most people's infertility is genetically caused, and I don't think that's been demonstrated. Beyond that, a similar argument could be made against C-sections, or honestly against ANY sort of reproductive health support. Human evolution has held our upright pelvises and our large brain cases in tension because birthing infants is really hard for us. C-sections remove that tension. Should we be passing on large-head genes? Is telling expecting mothers to up their folic acid intake removing selection against people who don't absorb folic acid as efficiently? and so on. I find it interesting that these worries are usually leveled against new medical options for people, but rarely against existing ones, even when the same mechanisms apply. In general, humans rely a LOT on technologies that our ancestors developed. Our adaptability and resourcefulness is one of our key specialties as a species, and our interdependent support for each other is a boon, not a drawback. We shouldn't hold back from helping people *now* out of concern for some future genetic bottleneck event caused by lack of access to a future technology.
@@mcv2178 It's not cool. If you think mixing your DNA with someone who shares 50% (like your parent, child, or sibling) is bad, think about how bad it would be sharing 100%. Inbreeding is dangerous because the average human carries two rare recessive genetic disorders. The chance that a random person carries the same genetic disorder as you is very low, although it does happen - hence why genetic disorders occasionally pop up seemingly out of nowhere. But if you're talking a first degree relative (parent, child, sibling), they share 50% of your DNA, and therefore have a 50% chance of sharing the same recessive condition. And that's per condition - remember the average person carries two. If you _do_ both carry the same recessive condition - and this is regardless of whether you're related, but as I said much more likely if you are - each child has a 1 in 4 chance of having the disease. And although obviously this is more likely the more related you are, it's still something that is a common problem even for cousins. Now imagine both parents share 100% of their DNA (as in they're the same person), any recessive conditions that person carries - average is two - has a 1 in 4 chance of affecting each child they have. And remember this is per condition they carry. And you might be thinking, we could just screen for any genetic disorders, but the fact of the matter is that we don't know the gene that causes most genetic disorders, especially the rare ones we'd be talking about here. TLDR: It would be like inbreeding with yourself, only worse, because nobody is more related to you than you.
@@conlon4332 Thanks, I was completely overlooking that aspect and just thinking of the expanded possibilities. To the side, I read once that inbreeding was usually okay for the first generation but started to get problems if you did it 2 generations in a row, cannot remember why they said that was.
@@mcv2178 It depends greatly on the species and the level of relatedness. The risk is always higher the more related, however. As a general rule, the risk is much higher with mammals than reptiles. And even then, I think the risk in humans might be especially high. If a human has a child with their parent, sibling, or child, there is a very high chance there will be something wrong with it. I heard somewhere a 15% chance of stillbirth and a 40% chance of disability, I don't know if that's accurate but the risk is certainly very high. In regards to your statistic, that may be referring to first cousins. The risk is still higher than the baseline, but it is true that first cousin to first cousin children are normally fine, but the risk increases the more its done over generations.
Another problem is there are always bad people out there who will involve themselves in this scientific area esther for profiting or for commiting harm, or both.
stupid idea of stealing from cells of famous people. do you think when you bring it to the lab and doctors they will do for you ??? or do you need to sign a ton of legal papers. and no doctor help you without reliable cells. This is like you steal a big diamond ring and you want to sell it to get a big amount of money. but no one want to buy that from you.
All kinds of living things broadcast their gametes widely on the wind or currents, this'll be a big change for humans but it may be where we eventually have to treat our shed dna like that.
and off into Sci-Fi how about absollute diesgner for the perfect millitary type for muscle and absoute obedience. i realize that is distant but with the lack of common ethics, morals and sense, apparent even today, what exactly would prevent or even inhibit this in the uture
Who would have thought that with over 8 billion human beings relentlessly trashing the limited resources of the planet we would need yet another way to make more babies?
I think you still have the health related screening issues/ choices with the current IVG with that same problem of selecting the gene that resists X makes Y more likely.
This makes me wonder if it would be possible to grow a living organism from cancer cells. Imagine, cancer cells who seem to be able to reproduce extremely fast.. What if you could replicate a grownup in a matter of years?
I never wanted kids and still don't and do not forsee wanting any in the future. While the technology might be useful for maladies for those of us already here, I simply have a bad taste for bringing another child into the world when there are too many children whose parents are the state. The argument of "giving birth to our own" is weak. I know a couple who live literally next door to one child and take care of the grandchildren. Their other adult child lives hundreds of miles away and barely talks to them. Presumably, though not always, an adopted child who is cognizant of their situation is likely grateful for a parent or parents who want them.
Great, thanks for sharing your opinion even though you don't want children and presumably don't have any either. Some people want bio kids, it's normal and healthy.
Whether you're conservative/religious or marxist/socialist, the increasing commodification of the human and the alienation from the natural world is concerning
Literally talking about helping people who can't concevw when they truly want kids not through an accident and you're choosing to think about technology vs nature 🤦. Technology is part of our human nature either advance with humanity or stay in the past😂
There is nothing wrong with involving a third party to create your family. No same-sex couple is really bothered by having to use the gametes of a sperm/egg donor and by both parents not being genetically related to their child. You're making it seem like it's a real want while in reality, it doesn't exist. Anyway, IVG is a game changer for people/couples who are ACTUALLY infertile or have genetic abnormalities.
Yeah tell that to heterosexual couples, how about they too involve thrid party genetics into their child? Since you claim no one have problem with it? Why would any couple choose to involve a thrid party if there is a solution that offers them a way they can do it by them selves without involving random person? What couple no matter their sexuality wants to a thrid party genetics in their children? Ppl are involving third parties out of necessity because science haven't find a way yet. But once science find a way then homosexual couples will have an option to have their own children without involving another person genetics. You are typical ma|es, you argue from place of emotions, because you are threatened by the idea of women reproducing without sperm, you are having an existential crisis hence why your argument sound so ridic ulous
My heart is already crying for the orphans, because until now, the selfish people would at least take them home, love and raise them.. even though if it was only because they COULDNT have their own biological kids.. but now with these technics, no one will adopt anymore as everyone will want their "mini-me"! RIP IN PEACE ORPHANS!
With a human population reduction the environment might recover and become less toxic, and with a healthier planet sperm counts will go back up at some point.
Yes not only are less people willing to have children but infertility is rising do to many things one or them is all the artificial, processed foods I personally see more pros then cons to this for those like myself who truly dreams to one day see a good healthy 1 of my bio own
Let's hope such a future does not unknowingly sterilize humanity. Similar situations involving religion and superstition partially sterilized human populations in places in history excluding the historic pandemics and natural disasters.
I would love more information on "Similar situations involving religion and superstition partially sterilized human populations". That sounds really interesting. Do you have specific examples?
That's so nice, it can actually help people. Who could have problems conceiving period but I'm afraid of Blade Runner so of course, I don't want this near my life. Also, it's an upfront to God so I need to hold back the entire human race. In progressing into the future.
We don't need more kids sitting around playing video games all day. If you're going to have a kid make sure they don't have a smartphone until they turn 18 years old and no video games until that age either. At least make that human being productive.
Agree I'm on for this there's A lot of people that need help out there and shouldn't have biological restrictions I can see this clinical within a 10-20 year time ❤
Never wanted kids, but if I had, I would have wanted a regular human kid, maybe related, a real kid, not a celebrity clone kid. That's too bizarre and really just plain too much.
Solo IVG is possible yes. Assuming your a man you already have your half of the gamete taken care of, all that would need to be done is to process your skin or blood cells into eggs. Of course you can already become a single surrogate dad if you really want to, I would explore that before hitching my cart to an as of yet still unproven technology.
So women don’t need to get pregnant and men don’t need to cum??? I guess we’re done hearing about women complaining about the pregnancy emotions but until then I don’t think I’m gonna start believing otherwise and as a man, I know my hips specifically did not grow wide enough during my puberty phase that I have physically too small of hips to push a babies head and body through. How can this fix that issue? I would need an entirely new hip you need to disconnect, my two legs disconnect, the hip from my spine or whatever it’s attached from and then putting a female hip in place so that I can push a baby throughout my vagina from my stomach down through my hips and out between my legs. As a man, please stop telling me that I can get pregnant in the same sex relationship.
@@magesalmanac6424 what’s crazy about that I was born a man I don’t even have a womb. How can I get pregnant in a same sex relationship like the videos saying I can? that’s not crazy that’s common sense
@@magesalmanac6424 your forgetting this channel was about earth, and nature, not humans giving birth I was subscribed to this channel for months, if not years and this is not the original content that they had put out nor the channel is named after, so maybe you should ask why these UA-cam channels are putting out content that goes against what people subscribed to them for in the first place
they use your stem cell then turn it into sperm cell then fertilize with eggs from your partner then a lesbian couple can have a child themselve@@nickosmond
So, men won't need women to have kids anymore either. Continuing the line is one of the few remaining reasons to get married these days; and even then it's a coin toss if the wife get's pregnant with the husbands baby (#paternaty fraud). I see marriage rates dropping to almost 0.
I know! Isn't it great?!? Finally we can get rid of one of the major drivers behind expected female domestic servitude! It's so refreshing to see comments from folks who think, like me, before they speak! Hooray for IVG and hooray for you, comrade!
It never will. There are more reasons to marry than reproduction. Going through life with a partner is for most people so much nicer than doing it alone. We are social animals and having that one person always there for us is the best. I am grateful every day for my husband, marriage is a gift and will never go away.
@@CreekValleyCritters Based on the marriage rate trends that we've been seeing over the last decade it's looking more and more like an obsolete arrangement. Companionship doesn't require marriage and the future of relationships looks like something out of science fiction. I'm glad that you and your husband are happy and wish you blessings and health. Younger generations are going a different way though.
"... opening the doors for fertility doctors to use any gender to create both sperm and egg cells." Thank you for explicitly conflating biological sex and gender, implying that they are connected or are even the same thing, on a trusted progressive outlet from someone with a STEM degree. I have to suffer constantly from people telling me that sex and gender are unconnected, but resources like this give me hope the sanity will prevail. The host wouldn't have used "gender" in this way if gender had nothing to do with biological sex. Otherwise, it would make as much sense as saying "... opening the doors for fertility doctors to use people of any hair color to create both sperm and egg cells." Hair color is unconnected to biological sex, so the statement makes no sense. It makes sense with "gender" because it is connected to biological sex, unlike hair color. 4:10
@@magesalmanac6424 Yes! Deforest the Amazon to make room for pastures and grasslands to feed more livestock. More grass, more cows, fewer trees. Then I can touch more grass. Please keep encouraging more practices that accelerate climate change and deforestation to own the chuds.
No, not at all. Making an egg from one person's cells and sperm from another person's is the same as normal sex. A clone uses only the DNA from a single person.
You would be correct if they were to make both the egg and the sperm from the cells of a single person. As for making eggs and sperm from same sex couples, well, that's another matter altogether.
Actually, no: Clones are identical copies of ONE genetical code (One DNA only). This is a melding of TWO genetical codes. The mechanics of growing are similar, but the origines and the end results are quite different.
@@YouFearMe Agreed. But since DNA is storable in liquid nitrogen for practically ever it is not that big a deal. Just preserve unedited backup DNA in case we have to 'restart'. They do the same with plants by the way. They store all plant DNA in a lab in the Arctic in case we mess up.
These comments are killing me 😂. This isnt a replacement for the way things are but something a small amount of people could benefit from. If you really think the love a child deserves depends on where it comes from, NEVER have children.
Glad to see someone here has some sense.
Not fast enough.
@@YouFearMe I'm assuming you mean getting that bake time from 9 months to atleast 7. There should be microwave options for babies. Less quality than an oven but much faster.
Exactly!!! Typical close-minded hypocritical subhumans
@@brooklyn6064 You said these comments are killing you.
And you know what, you know IVG parents will be better parents, because *they have skin in the game*!
argghhhh!
Is there a gene for puns?
Hehehehehe
😂😂😂😂😂😂
I like your pun!
People who have given up on having children now have hope. I hope this works.
Please consider doing a video on artificial wombs!
This could be controversial for the pro-life movement. They seem to be more anti-sex than pro-life.
Anti bodily freedom. Which is ironic considering how hard they fought against vaccines.
"EXFOLIATION IS MURDER!!!"
@@sethsevaroth 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Seems the anti-life movement is all about having sex with 20 people a month and getting abortions to carry on with their useless lives.
Oh yeah that's for sure!
Ever since I had a vasectomy my fertility rate has plummeted. I'm glad science can fix my issues.
uhm? That's a strange way to joke...
Me to my friend im in an infertile situation myself and for what I've been told by my resources I reached out to this will be clinical for anybody infertile for any reason within 10-20 years in praying
I persoannly hope this is available within a 10-20 year perido from now like dr sherman silber says im in a sad infertile situation and dream to one day see a good healthy 1 of my bio own
Thank you for this thoughtful content.
This is such a complex topic!! I know so many people in my family that would have loved to have this option available to them.
My heart is already crying for the orphans, because until now, the selfish people would at least take them home, love and raise them.. even though if it was only because they COULDNT have their own biological kids.. but now with these technics, no one will adopt anymore as everyone will want their "mini-me"!
RIP IN PEACE ORPHANS!
@@blindship5792🤡
If we have population collapse problems like some people think we will this century, the ethical problems will become less pressing. I'm not all that worried.
The tech for this will be hard to sustain with a population collapse, but when I reflect that a population collapse will result in a potential rebound among all other living species I am not worried AT ALL...
When there are billions of you -there is no "population" collapse problem; it's actually just that our (socio)economic ponzi scheme is running out of 'new clients' to milk dry.
It's an economic (system) collapse, not a population one.
How do I sign up for the human trials? This sounds cool as fuck.
I called lit of clinics they have me on list but there isnt trials yet but should begin around 2030 fir wht ive been told
As a 70 year old woman who chose to not have children so they didn't inherit migraines and severe allergies, but also because I had no intention of 3 a.m. feedings and diapers, I think the fact that you could cherry pick having a child who doesn't have migraines or allergies and you don't mind 3 a.m. feedings and diaper changes is wonderful. I am constantly surprised when I hear of a person who does have migraines or severe allergies who decided to chance bringing a person into the world who does have those things. I'm always amazed when people do. I feel sorry for the children. I guess it is different when, like a friend of mine, the allergies develop late in life, after the children are born.
I live with multiple mental health issues. I got a vasectomy in my 20s because I thought it was irresponsible to force any kids I have to live with the same problems.
@@AggyLovesGames You are a responsible person. I admire you and your dedication to improve the human race by trying to removing an inheritable genetic issue from at least your family.
@nswanberg I have heard that smart people should reproduce, but honestly, as weird and serious as my allergies are, I just felt I couldn't allow them to continue. My brother, who has fewer of these issues did have a child. She has some pretty severe allergies, but as far as I can tell, not the food ones that have made my life hell. However, as she nears 40 and hasn't had a child yet, it looks like our little branch of this family dies with her generation. I mean, my mother's father had 2 children, his son's son adopted a child. Mom had three and only one grand daughter. My father's brother had 3 children with 2 women. The eldest died in a car wreck with no known children, his two daughters didn't have children...
This is like eugenics. That if someone has chronic disease is seen as less worthy to life. And did you know migraines and allergies are curable?
@@hoxiefam6731 they are manageable, not curable, and even if a person gets treatment, it doesn't mean the genes are 'fixed' and the allergies and migraines are still inheritable. IF a person with a chronic, inheritable health issues decides to have children, well, that is their choice. My choice was to not curse a child with these health issues.
Your honor, I am not the father! That $%*?! stole my DNA!
I've seen that science fiction plot, actually.
Mnogim ljudima bi ova opcija pomogla. Posebno u danasnje vrijeme . Ova metoda je potrebna i moje postovanje i cestitke za naucnike.
Whew, sex isn’t going away.
folks in the comments acting like it would be a big change in their day-to-day. lmao
@@AdamantineCat it would be.
This sounds super cool!❤
I'm praying this will be clinical available within 10 years like lot of doctors have told me
3:20 That poor kid needs a smaller wheelchair. Look how far out he's having to reach his arms to turn the wheels! It looks so awkward.
This really makes me think ARE WE ABLE TO DO THIS WITH PLANTS?! If so, are we using this technology to restore plant species that are going extinct, or using it to prevent ecological destruction. If not, then why is our genetic engineering so anthropocentric. If we have all this knowledge and technology, why not use it to save the planet rather than things that are good for study of biology but are unnecessary in most situations
It's pretty easy to clone plants.
Have a read about cell culture in plants. A lot of plants grow easily from stem or leaf cuttings (no gametes needed!), and for types of plants that don't, you can grow whole plants from leaf cells kept in a jar and treated with plant hormones. Lots of commercial potted plants are already raised this way, because each jar yields large numbers of plants very quickly. If you're patient, you can even do it at home with some fairly basic equipment. I think you can even buy cell culture kits!
It's true that the plants will be clones of the parent, but once you have a bunch of clones, it's generally possible to get the plant to flower and then set seed.
For most plants that are going extinct in the wild, the problem is not infertility, but habitat destruction. Humans are making it so that there's just nowhere for these plants to grow. Even when we leave space for wild plants, often we wipe out important pollinators. When plants go extinct it's not because they can't breed, but because we're actively destroying their homes.
That's your opinion, its necessary for couples that can't have kids due to infertility.
we could probably do this with extinct animal species as well.
The Future Is A Must🙌
Sounds like the gattaca world is almost here
This is scary
I heard of a couple who tried for years to have bio kids and eventually they devorced and remarried other people; with 2 years they were both parents. There is an "old wife's tale" that some person's are not chemically compatible. It would be interesting to know if this is a thing and if so would IVG circumvent that issue?
It's not an "old wives tale", I've seen this happen personally irl, twice actually
Yes sadly some out there will choose ither people for that reason cause it isnthr hurtful for alot hopefully IVG is available within 10-20years like I'm seeing and been told by alot of resources and experts
Behold! Young Boba Fett calling his bounty hunter Mandalorian dad Jango Fett "dad!". Genetically unaltered, nearly identical replacement bounty hunter. Yet such technological access is only available to those who have big pocketbooks.
"These Kaminoans keep to themselves. They're cloners. Damn good ones too."
"Cloners. Are they friendly?"
"Depends."
"Depends on what, Dex?"
"On how good your manners are, and how big your… pocketbook is."
―Dexter Jettster educates Obi-Wan Kenobi on the pre-Clone Wars Kaminoans
In so glad pbs has a UA-cam channel bc cable is over
Please excuse my ignorance, but aside from outliers, is it healthy for the future of the human species to pass on these genes? It seems as though passing on the genes of fertility issues would have negative consequences. Aside from other health issues, wouldn't passing on infertility make infertility more probable and make future generations have to rely on these procedures? I'm all for science breakthroughs, but I'm also worried. Again, sorry for my ignorance, but a lot of this is over my head as I'm neither a doctor nor a scientist.
By the time that becomes a concern, the technology to custom-tailor baby's genetics in minute detail - as well as edit the genes of adults - will almost certainly be mature enough to render such concerns moot. This will likely be the case as soon as the end of this century, and probably even sooner than that. Any situation which could take away this technology would have to be on the level of global civilisational collapse, but if such a thing did come to pass, however, and our concern was the survival of species or perhaps a few still-functioning remnant societies, the sheer number of humans in the world will guarantee that we can repopulate, and fairly quickly too. It only takes a few hundred individuals to do this on scales of a few thousand years and the populations of millions needed for industrial economies to function, and even if 99% of humans were naturally infertile, that still leaves something on the order of a hundred million naturally fertile people in the world out of a total population of 10 billion.
I think most infertility is conditional not hereditary - your age, your mate's age, nutrition in early life, sometimes something in your area being toxic and causing early miscarriage, as in The Handmaid's Tale world.
If it were a strong hereditary component than there would be a greater percentage of humans having difficulty.
I think.
@@eric2500 that a lot of assumptions. I will stay away from tackling this comment.
@alexv3357 Thank you. My concern isn't the technology needed, but that it is needed at all. Let's say someone's genes are passed on that have detrimental traits, such as but not limited to infertility. Future generations might not have the same opportunities, money or otherwise, to receive those technologically advanced procedures. In essence, this would be setting up those up for failure. I love technological advances, but I have some healthy amount of worry.
That's assuming that most people's infertility is genetically caused, and I don't think that's been demonstrated. Beyond that, a similar argument could be made against C-sections, or honestly against ANY sort of reproductive health support. Human evolution has held our upright pelvises and our large brain cases in tension because birthing infants is really hard for us. C-sections remove that tension. Should we be passing on large-head genes? Is telling expecting mothers to up their folic acid intake removing selection against people who don't absorb folic acid as efficiently? and so on. I find it interesting that these worries are usually leveled against new medical options for people, but rarely against existing ones, even when the same mechanisms apply.
In general, humans rely a LOT on technologies that our ancestors developed. Our adaptability and resourcefulness is one of our key specialties as a species, and our interdependent support for each other is a boon, not a drawback. We shouldn't hold back from helping people *now* out of concern for some future genetic bottleneck event caused by lack of access to a future technology.
This is so freaking cool and creates so much real hope!!!!
So, one person could be both Mum & Dad?
Wow cool - 100% of your DNA, but NOT a clone....neat!
@@mcv2178 It's not cool. If you think mixing your DNA with someone who shares 50% (like your parent, child, or sibling) is bad, think about how bad it would be sharing 100%. Inbreeding is dangerous because the average human carries two rare recessive genetic disorders. The chance that a random person carries the same genetic disorder as you is very low, although it does happen - hence why genetic disorders occasionally pop up seemingly out of nowhere. But if you're talking a first degree relative (parent, child, sibling), they share 50% of your DNA, and therefore have a 50% chance of sharing the same recessive condition. And that's per condition - remember the average person carries two. If you _do_ both carry the same recessive condition - and this is regardless of whether you're related, but as I said much more likely if you are - each child has a 1 in 4 chance of having the disease. And although obviously this is more likely the more related you are, it's still something that is a common problem even for cousins. Now imagine both parents share 100% of their DNA (as in they're the same person), any recessive conditions that person carries - average is two - has a 1 in 4 chance of affecting each child they have. And remember this is per condition they carry. And you might be thinking, we could just screen for any genetic disorders, but the fact of the matter is that we don't know the gene that causes most genetic disorders, especially the rare ones we'd be talking about here.
TLDR: It would be like inbreeding with yourself, only worse, because nobody is more related to you than you.
@@conlon4332 Thanks, I was completely overlooking that aspect and just thinking of the expanded possibilities.
To the side, I read once that inbreeding was usually okay for the first generation but started to get problems if you did it 2 generations in a row, cannot remember why they said that was.
@@mcv2178 It depends greatly on the species and the level of relatedness. The risk is always higher the more related, however. As a general rule, the risk is much higher with mammals than reptiles. And even then, I think the risk in humans might be especially high. If a human has a child with their parent, sibling, or child, there is a very high chance there will be something wrong with it. I heard somewhere a 15% chance of stillbirth and a 40% chance of disability, I don't know if that's accurate but the risk is certainly very high. In regards to your statistic, that may be referring to first cousins. The risk is still higher than the baseline, but it is true that first cousin to first cousin children are normally fine, but the risk increases the more its done over generations.
now when i hear liberate all i can think of is gnosticism
When will it come to commercial use
Within 10-20years according to my everyday research
@@danmulholland1634 do you think two eggs from two different women can reproduce without sperm?
Another problem is there are always bad people out there who will involve themselves in this scientific area esther for profiting or for commiting harm, or both.
lol.. you can see a new black market forming around the selling of Famous people's DNA. Hotel maids and housekeepers are going to get rich!
Now that's an episode of ...something.
stupid idea of stealing from cells of famous people. do you think when you bring it to the lab and doctors they will do for you ??? or do you need to sign a ton of legal papers. and no doctor help you without reliable cells.
This is like you steal a big diamond ring and you want to sell it to get a big amount of money. but no one want to buy that from you.
I wish to have baby on IVG proces. I had cancer uterus... ther is no odher chans for me to have baby.❤❤❤❤❤11111❤❤❤❤
All kinds of living things broadcast their gametes widely on the wind or currents, this'll be a big change for humans but it may be where we eventually have to treat our shed dna like that.
and off into Sci-Fi how about absollute diesgner for the perfect millitary type for muscle and absoute obedience. i realize that is distant but with the lack of common ethics, morals and sense, apparent even today, what exactly would prevent or even inhibit this in the uture
This is awesome! Human beings gaining more control over our biology with SCIENCE
Who would have thought that with over 8 billion human beings relentlessly trashing the limited resources of the planet we would need yet another way to make more babies?
Man!!💯
Getting weird here, I am not sure these folks are prepared to handle a collapse of technology should we have one.
Just rubbing them together also works.
Yes, for really specialized pieces of skin!
I think you still have the health related screening issues/ choices with the current IVG with that same problem of selecting the gene that resists X makes Y more likely.
Maybe Nature does not want these things to be easy?
This makes me wonder if it would be possible to grow a living organism from cancer cells. Imagine, cancer cells who seem to be able to reproduce extremely fast.. What if you could replicate a grownup in a matter of years?
😆 sounds like the plot of a sci fi horror
WHOA! Too FAR! Officially too far.
Nobody should have kids
I never wanted kids and still don't and do not forsee wanting any in the future. While the technology might be useful for maladies for those of us already here, I simply have a bad taste for bringing another child into the world when there are too many children whose parents are the state. The argument of "giving birth to our own" is weak. I know a couple who live literally next door to one child and take care of the grandchildren. Their other adult child lives hundreds of miles away and barely talks to them. Presumably, though not always, an adopted child who is cognizant of their situation is likely grateful for a parent or parents who want them.
Great, thanks for sharing your opinion even though you don't want children and presumably don't have any either. Some people want bio kids, it's normal and healthy.
Whether you're conservative/religious or marxist/socialist, the increasing commodification of the human and the alienation from the natural world is concerning
Literally talking about helping people who can't concevw when they truly want kids not through an accident and you're choosing to think about technology vs nature 🤦. Technology is part of our human nature either advance with humanity or stay in the past😂
There is nothing wrong with involving a third party to create your family. No same-sex couple is really bothered by having to use the gametes of a sperm/egg donor and by both parents not being genetically related to their child. You're making it seem like it's a real want while in reality, it doesn't exist.
Anyway, IVG is a game changer for people/couples who are ACTUALLY infertile or have genetic abnormalities.
Yeah tell that to heterosexual couples, how about they too involve thrid party genetics into their child? Since you claim no one have problem with it? Why would any couple choose to involve a thrid party if there is a solution that offers them a way they can do it by them selves without involving random person? What couple no matter their sexuality wants to a thrid party genetics in their children? Ppl are involving third parties out of necessity because science haven't find a way yet. But once science find a way then homosexual couples will have an option to have their own children without involving another person genetics.
You are typical ma|es, you argue from place of emotions, because you are threatened by the idea of women reproducing without sperm, you are having an existential crisis hence why your argument sound so ridic ulous
Yeah this won't lead to the commoditization of human reproduction. Let the market decide what the human genome should be. What could go wrong?
Why should only men get to reproduce whenever and with whomever only for the baby to be raised by a single mother?
Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.
Woot woot I love when tech topples biological limitations! Gaybies here we come
Yes. 👍
Rodriguez Amy Moore Ronald Clark David
My heart is already crying for the orphans, because until now, the selfish people would at least take them home, love and raise them.. even though if it was only because they COULDNT have their own biological kids.. but now with these technics, no one will adopt anymore as everyone will want their "mini-me"!
RIP IN PEACE ORPHANS!
You parents were selfish since they had you instead of adopting a child.
"Sex isn't going away for making babies" not yet at least... the way sperm counts are dropping we will need tech like this by the end of the century.
Nah, sperm numbers are wayy overkill. All those zillions per one egg a month, most are not needed or used.
With a human population reduction the environment might recover and become less toxic, and with a healthier planet sperm counts will go back up at some point.
Yes not only are less people willing to have children but infertility is rising do to many things one or them is all the artificial, processed foods I personally see more pros then cons to this for those like myself who truly dreams to one day see a good healthy 1 of my bio own
Let's hope such a future does not unknowingly sterilize humanity. Similar situations involving religion and superstition partially sterilized human populations in places in history excluding the historic pandemics and natural disasters.
I would love more information on "Similar situations involving religion and superstition partially sterilized human populations". That sounds really interesting. Do you have specific examples?
Lopez Timothy Thomas Sandra Hall Lisa
That's so nice, it can actually help people. Who could have problems conceiving period but I'm afraid of Blade Runner so of course, I don't want this near my life. Also, it's an upfront to God so I need to hold back the entire human race. In progressing into the future.
glad we both saw that inane comment, thanks for saying something
We don't need more kids sitting around playing video games all day. If you're going to have a kid make sure they don't have a smartphone until they turn 18 years old and no video games until that age either. At least make that human being productive.
I don't know which is more confusing, your misspelling 'affront" giving that sentence a weird double meaning, your sarcasm, or your sci fi reference.
Wow lets goo ❤❤
Agree I'm on for this there's A lot of people that need help out there and shouldn't have biological restrictions I can see this clinical within a 10-20 year time ❤
Curb Your god complex
Awesomy
is not the world populated enough? Get those couple to foster or adopt orfans/ needed childres!!!!
How is circumcision not considered lab grown
Never wanted kids, but if I had, I would have wanted a regular human kid, maybe related, a real kid, not a celebrity clone kid. That's too bizarre and really just plain too much.
Do I need another person? Can I be a single surrogate daddy? I'd rather not get married with divorce laws always favoring the women
You do not need to be married in order to get children (many couples never get married). What you need though is a partner, at least for now 😉
@@coondog7934 I'd rather not fight for custody & visitation rights when that partner lies about me being a deadbeat with no proof.
Solo IVG is possible yes. Assuming your a man you already have your half of the gamete taken care of, all that would need to be done is to process your skin or blood cells into eggs. Of course you can already become a single surrogate dad if you really want to, I would explore that before hitching my cart to an as of yet still unproven technology.
What an incredibly disgusting title. Way to cheapen Life and sterilize it. What madness. 😢
🫣
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
So women don’t need to get pregnant and men don’t need to cum??? I guess we’re done hearing about women complaining about the pregnancy emotions but until then I don’t think I’m gonna start believing otherwise and as a man, I know my hips specifically did not grow wide enough during my puberty phase that I have physically too small of hips to push a babies head and body through. How can this fix that issue? I would need an entirely new hip you need to disconnect, my two legs disconnect, the hip from my spine or whatever it’s attached from and then putting a female hip in place so that I can push a baby throughout my vagina from my stomach down through my hips and out between my legs. As a man, please stop telling me that I can get pregnant in the same sex relationship.
Wtf. Why do these videos attract so many crazies 😂
@@magesalmanac6424 what’s crazy about that I was born a man I don’t even have a womb. How can I get pregnant in a same sex relationship like the videos saying I can? that’s not crazy that’s common sense
@@magesalmanac6424 your forgetting this channel was about earth, and nature, not humans giving birth I was subscribed to this channel for months, if not years and this is not the original content that they had put out nor the channel is named after, so maybe you should ask why these UA-cam channels are putting out content that goes against what people subscribed to them for in the first place
they use your stem cell then turn it into sperm cell then fertilize with eggs from your partner then a lesbian couple can have a child themselve@@nickosmond
Nope 👎
Nope.
If nature allow this then this is natural fuled by men. Why are people angry btw?
Nature is the absence of humans. Just so you know.
because some people tend to control what is diffferent from their own views. ivf used to be criticised like this and then now it is to ivg
So, men won't need women to have kids anymore either. Continuing the line is one of the few remaining reasons to get married these days; and even then it's a coin toss if the wife get's pregnant with the husbands baby (#paternaty fraud). I see marriage rates dropping to almost 0.
I know! Isn't it great?!? Finally we can get rid of one of the major drivers behind expected female domestic servitude! It's so refreshing to see comments from folks who think, like me, before they speak! Hooray for IVG and hooray for you, comrade!
It never will. There are more reasons to marry than reproduction. Going through life with a partner is for most people so much nicer than doing it alone. We are social animals and having that one person always there for us is the best. I am grateful every day for my husband, marriage is a gift and will never go away.
I can see why no woman wants anything to do with you.
You sound depressed.
@@CreekValleyCritters Based on the marriage rate trends that we've been seeing over the last decade it's looking more and more like an obsolete arrangement. Companionship doesn't require marriage and the future of relationships looks like something out of science fiction. I'm glad that you and your husband are happy and wish you blessings and health. Younger generations are going a different way though.
"... opening the doors for fertility doctors to use any gender to create both sperm and egg cells."
Thank you for explicitly conflating biological sex and gender, implying that they are connected or are even the same thing, on a trusted progressive outlet from someone with a STEM degree. I have to suffer constantly from people telling me that sex and gender are unconnected, but resources like this give me hope the sanity will prevail. The host wouldn't have used "gender" in this way if gender had nothing to do with biological sex. Otherwise, it would make as much sense as saying "... opening the doors for fertility doctors to use people of any hair color to create both sperm and egg cells." Hair color is unconnected to biological sex, so the statement makes no sense. It makes sense with "gender" because it is connected to biological sex, unlike hair color. 4:10
You seriously need to touch grass.
@@magesalmanac6424 Yes! Deforest the Amazon to make room for pastures and grasslands to feed more livestock. More grass, more cows, fewer trees. Then I can touch more grass. Please keep encouraging more practices that accelerate climate change and deforestation to own the chuds.
Good for you! Someday you'll be ready to confront real opponents instead of just strawmen
They probably didn't even think about this issue while writing their script, don't overthink this and enjoy the science
STOP THIS NOW!!! This is an abomination!!!
This is the future
Lol!!! You're cute!
@@FireThemAllgood
Clones basically then. Just a new twist.
(:
No, not at all. Making an egg from one person's cells and sperm from another person's is the same as normal sex. A clone uses only the DNA from a single person.
You would be correct if they were to make both the egg and the sperm from the cells of a single person. As for making eggs and sperm from same sex couples, well, that's another matter altogether.
What part of new twist did you not understand,@@jimgore1278 .
LMFAO
Actually, no: Clones are identical copies of ONE genetical code (One DNA only). This is a melding of TWO genetical codes. The mechanics of growing are similar, but the origines and the end results are quite different.
What part of new twist did you not understand?
LMFAO
Parents treat their kids like little projects. Bunch of sociopaths.
If there was a chance to rule out any kind of disability once and for all for all eternity, wouldn't you do it?
@@coondog7934 Can't be 100% there will be no side effects down the line in other generations.
@@YouFearMe Agreed. But since DNA is storable in liquid nitrogen for practically ever it is not that big a deal. Just preserve unedited backup DNA in case we have to 'restart'. They do the same with plants by the way. They store all plant DNA in a lab in the Arctic in case we mess up.
@@coondog7934 Once the alteration is in the gene pool there's no turning back. It's permanent.
Please make it available today
I prefer the old-fashioned method. I'm a traditionalist.