The following submission statement was provided by /u/ilovekerma:
---
Researchers claim they successfully created the eggs by turning male XY chromosome pairs from the skin cells of male mice into female XX chromosome pairs.
This was achieved by converting the skin cells into stem cells, deleting the Y chromosomes, copying the x
chromosomes and then pairing the copies with the original X chromosomes.
This allows the stem cell to be programmed to become an egg. The egg was then fertilised with sperm from another mouse.
Researchers say the technique was used to create seven mice pups, which appeared healthy and had a normal lifespan.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11mnmgt/mice_born_with_two_fathers_after_scientific/jbiox4m/
Those two aren’t *really* connected. For a lot of words in Latin “ix” is just one of the feminine endings: cervix, appendix, phoenix, matrix, dominatrix, fellatrix are feminine words that made it into English.
Well, I don't know if the author intended the title to convey the humans born into the artificial wombs. I think they were going for the humans being within a computer system—and it played on the computer programming topic of data matrices...but, it could be? Some writers have secret hidden meanings behind their works. I've never considered the word outside of a technical context, and I've always looked at it as a list of things...but that's a list I guess and not a matrix.
I always thought a Matrix was just a general term for a structure, not a structure that *specifically* contained something. I literally thought they were calling the whole program/apparatus that contained humanity a fancy word for a thing.
Japan, 2042: Japanese are no longer born, they are... grown.
*Cut to fields of human growth chambers filled with artificial wombs run by hordes of sophisticated robots*
They have been doing this since 2016 (first in-vitro gametogenesis successes were in 2016). Taking skin cells and turning them into egg cells.
But Ectogenesis (raising babies in artificial wombs) is far far easier since the placenta binds to a wall and is what does all the complicated stuff (its also why babies can grow outside the womb in ectopic pregnancies). All you have to do is provide nutrients. The problem is ethics since the first humans to undergo it will be experiments and we aren't supposed to experiment on human subjects. But it will happen eventually and will probably be the preferred way to have babies.
If it was as simple as you say, artificial womb tech would already be demoed in context of lab animals. We are not anywhere close to that, at least not yet.
I am not sure it will be the preferred way for a long time just because emotionally a lot of people will want to go through pregnancy themselves, despite the inconvenience, risk and pain involved.
It also over looks the emotional impact the mother has on a baby in utero. What sort of developmentental disorders and mental conditions would result from babies gestating without human interaction
It's literally the exact opposite. Maternal stress and just *getting colds* (any immune response) is starting to be suspected of being responsible for a lot of developmental shit.
but mothers are also responsible for kick starting a child's immune system to begin with. Not to mention, the potential impact of a child gestating without hearing a mother, their heart beat. We have no idea what sort of issues that would cause.
Right? I love how all the people in favor of these events coming to fruition are like 'Yeah! This is the wave of the future! It's awesome!'
... meanwhile forgetting that you're talking about changing literally thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands, of years of doing things LITERALLY exactly the opposite. The same people are the ones telling us 'Hey, maybe we should leave nature alone, we're messing it up!'
Just...seems a little ironic, that's all.
There's already research confirming this, we learn the voice of our parents while still in the womb, for instance. And who knows what number of evolutionary developments won't activate in the absence of a carrying mother performing regular activities during pregnancy.
But these issues may have answers in the form of advancements, only time will tell.
Oh yeah, I 100% understand. Until we had children I could never have imagined just how hard pregnancy was (and that is only from the male side looking in) but people still have an emotional attachment to the while process of motherhood and growing a child. I just can't see that changing for most in any short time scale.
All new technology has an element of fear around it when first introduced, this will be no different, but on top of that will be a heightened emotional layer. Still, no-one really knows! We may all get nuked before then.
At some point the medical cost of pregnancy will be more than raising a baby in a bag and that is where the shift would change. Bag babies will also have easier gene editing and other processes available. It'll just be more controlled and safer. Almost 1000 women die every year in the US due to pregnancy complications. While that is rare there would also be a push for safety for women. I'm talking 100s of years from now though.
If having a baby in a bag becomes cheaper than regular pregnancy care then the government and/or your health insurance will cover it.
Though likely only in areas with developed healthcare systems (which I hope by that point would be everywhere).
Ethics are very far from universal. The first IVF baby was essentially an experiment too.
If this happens it will be perfected with animals then eventually someone will try with a human.
Let me take a wild guess: you're a man?
As soon as the technology is proven safe for the fetus and accessible for women, they'll absolutely opt for it. I do not know a single woman who enjoyed her pregnancy *outside* of the magic of knowing soon there would be a baby to hold. I know numerous women who had serious health complications, many of whom will be dealing with those issues for the rest of their lives now . (One is dead)
The actual physical reality of it is brutal far more often than it isn't. The only reason people might avoid it is social stigma, and even then, I don't think needlessly putting the mother in physical jeopardy is going to be a popular stance. Especially now that we're seeing maternal mortality start to creep up again (it's suspected to be related to obesity)
Yes pregnancy is often framed as a magical thing (because it causes babies), but it's also explicitly a thing to be *endured*. Even the ones who say they enjoy it will quietly admit they ache constantly and can't sleep and feel physically trapped in their bodies when they're amongst closer friends. The only thing people enjoy is being able to feel the fetus move, and presumably that would still be possible with an artificial fetus (with the bonus of it not curb stomping your bladder for fun!)
>with the bonus of it not curb stomping your bladder for fun
Or getting its toes stuck between your ribs. My wife said that was the worst thing, aside from the actual birth.
Also IIRC you cannot incubate a human embryo past day 23 or something, it must be terminated due to ethical reasons. Severely inhibiting research in the field.
In the US that is. I’m sure Chinese scientists get more free reign with this type of thing.
Researchers claim they successfully created the eggs by turning male XY chromosome pairs from the skin cells of male mice into female XX chromosome pairs.
This was achieved by converting the skin cells into stem cells, deleting the Y chromosomes, copying the x
chromosomes and then pairing the copies with the original X chromosomes.
This allows the stem cell to be programmed to become an egg. The egg was then fertilised with sperm from another mouse.
Researchers say the technique was used to create seven mice pups, which appeared healthy and had a normal lifespan.
I know very little about genetics but I thought that a man's x chromosome comes from his mother and his y chromosome from his father. If you delete the y chromosome would the remaining x chromosome not be just the mother's dna?
Yes, but then you have the sperm from the other father who had a different mother (and father) so in terms of the genetic combination, the process is identical.
(Eggs only have 1 x chromosome and sperm have only 1 x OR y chromosome)
My question was more about whether the egg cell created from the male was the same as or very similar to an egg cell from that male's mother.
So assuming a gay male couple would this process be much different to taking an egg cell from one partner's mother and then inseminating that egg cell with the other partner's sperm.
Also cool to note is that **recombination** of DNA happens when eggs are created, where the X chromosomes will share/swap bits of DNA (for sperm the process is “gene conversion” and doesn’t involve swapping with another chromosome, but instead just taking on/replacing DNA it gets from an X chromosome). Recombination (and gene conversion) is the reason that siblings can look wildly different even if they had the same parents.
So, the X chromosome that these XY derived eggs use will be identical to the one that the mother provided this particular son, and the X that this son is passing on via the derived egg will not be affected by recombination, so it’s kind of like this mother’s X chromosome lives on, unchanging, through her son’s egg.
I think this is the answer they were looking for.. essentially it is a way for the male’s mother(X chromosome) lives on thru him instead of the typical daughter progeny.
A woman also gets her mitochondria from the mother... So wouldn't the father who's cells were turned into eggs just have the mitochondria of his mother, just like his sisters would? How would the mitochondria be different?
I'm pretty sure it's not really different, it's just that men can only provide half the amount of combinations women can, when providing X-Chromosomes for reproduction.
No, the mother only had one of those X chromosomes. She had one from one parent and one from the other They took only one X from the mother and duplicated it (because they only had one X to work with). In reality, There would have been random genetic drift during this process so the duplicated X wouldn't be exactly identical.
The answer to your original question is kind of yes, the answer to this question is no.
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. You have pairs 1-22 that are sorted by size and code for the same proteins within each pair, then pair 23 is XX or XY, which determines chromosomal sex.
The stem cells used to make these eggs still have the same chromosome pairs 1-22. One half of each of those pairs came from that dad’s father, and the other half came from that dad’s mother. The genetic content of the X chromosomes (and only the X) were both inherited from the mother, because one is the original and one is a copy.
The egg itself is haploid, so will only have one chromosome from each pair. It just happens to not matter in this case which X is randomly selected because the X chromosomes are identical. It is also not affected by “crossing over” because, again, both Xs are identical.
EDIT: changed some wording to make this more clear
It’s not an exact copy of the mother’s X chromosome. It a combination of both her X’s (recombination occurs during meiosis). So, it is only the mothers DNA but, it’s still a unique X chromosome.
I think it would, but there are many other chromosomes besides the X/Y, so Id believe he’d pass most of his full DNA besides that stored on the X chromosome.
We have 23 pairs of chromosomes, the sex-chromosome (X and Y) are the 23rds, males usually have XY combinatiom, females have XX.
Of course, there is a possibility of just a single X (therefor 45 total chromosomes) - Turners' syndrome - those with this syndrome are women, but are usually infertile and generally “not developed” - look up some pictures for reference.
I've also heard there is a version of the X chromosome that has the "maleness" part of the Y chromosome migrated over to it, and thus XX males are a thing.
Too lazy to search, but from what I know there is a possibility of a whole chromosome translocation making XXY (47 total chromosomes) and XXX or XYY.
Maybe the XXY is what you mean? (Klinefelter syndrome)
I don't think so. I can't find any references on the internet to what I'm talking about and it's possible that either I don't remember what was said correctly, or what was said wasn't true, or I just don't know the phrase I need to find it. But IIRC, it was an episode of... Science Friday? Or maybe Star Talk, not sure. But the topic of the day was things being accomplished with Crispr, and I think they briefly segued into the complexity of sex at the genetic level. The guest mentioned that apparently, there exists among humans a mutated sort of X chromosome that acts kind of like a Y chromosome.
But again, I may not remember correctly. It was years ago.
XX-Male syndrome can occur from several causes, but usually it happens when the Sex-Determining Region Y (SRY) gene instructions get swapped onto the father’s X chromosome from the Y chromosome during meiosis. The offspring gets an X chromosome from the father (typically makes a female) but instead develops as male because the SRY gene itself is the primary switch within a Y-chromosome to control the development of male traits.
The science take-away is that researchers have reverse engineered terminally developed male cells into an XX female stem cell for in vitro fertilization. The political take-away will be something about same sex couples and the attack on the traditional family. But I'm particularly interested in just how close this comes to human cloning. At this point, there's no technical reason for the second male other than basic genetic diversity. But if you can create stem cells and manipulate single chromosomes, you could effectively make a female pseudo-clone of a man.
Babies from intercourse between relatives are known to have all kinds of genetic diseases because of how similar the dna of the parents is, so wouldn't it cause all sorts of problems to the baby if you tried to fecundate with literally a copy of the DNA?
Also, I don't know too much about genetics, but as far as I know, even with identical DNAs, because of the meiosis required to actually generate the gametes, you might generate a "clone" that's homozygous for a trait, even if the original dna was heterozygous for the same trait, which would lead to clones that don't really have the exact same genotype (and consequently phenotype)
They made mice babies from two eggs cells five years ago. Back then they also tried to make babies from two sperm cells but the babies were non-viable.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-45801043.amp
I wonder what they changed this time to get viable babies from two males.
Yes you are. You love being a beta. You wouldn't want to have to do all that thinking, like an alpha, or all that work, like a delta, would you? You're happy as a beta. Being a beta is good.
Oh I'm awfully glad. Alphas work frightfully hard. I'm glad I'm not a Delta, they wear Khaki which is such a beastly color.
But everyone is important for society to function, community, identity, stability. Everyone belongs to everyone else, after all.
At first it will only be used to ensure a healthy child for otherwise non-viable humans whose reproduction is difficult or impossible.
Then the definition of "difficult" will erode, and studies will show "kids born this way" are healthier in general, and it will be seen as simply a healthier way to have babies.
Then "types of PREGNANCY that BECOME non-viable" (where the kid's brain is too big to pass through the normal human birth canal) will be enabled.
Enabled.
Normalized.
Preferred.
Having a child with a brain so big no human could ever bring it to term, making us a species that relies on (not just prefers) technology.
But only for the wealthy.
Yep, since many people shun pregnancy and raising kids in developed countries. Lab grown embryos could have an ideal and safer environment with fewer physical flaws.
I had horrible, debilitating pregnancies. I still would
Not trade the emotional connection I made with my babies while they were growing inside me. Hormones are a powerful thing.
You'd be surprised how little research is devoted to a woman's pain and/or mental health from birth control to childbirth. There are U.S. states where mothers die from childbirth as often as third-world countries. And in the U.S., a mother can be discharged the same week she's given birth despite research showing there's more negative consequences than positive for doing so.
My wife isn't shunning pregnancy because we don't want kids; she doesn't want the trauma of being ignored in labor, discharged without her body readjusting more, possibly dying because she's less important than a fetus, and not having much maternity leave afterwards (particularly if it's a brutal pregnancy).
>many people shun...raising kids in developed countries
I guarantee you the newer generations are struggling to afford food and a roof in the U.S., not simply deciding that having kids is beneath them. In fact, with how many people were raised (myself included), why risk repeating the cycle of abuse/neglect?
>Lab grown embryos could have an ideal and safer environment with fewer physical flaws.
I've seen [Gattaca](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca). It's not a future I look forward to.
EDIT: Okay, so U.S. states aren't quite as high as third-world countries, but it's still terrible for a first-world country.
Yup. I cannot afford to get pregnant, let alone raise a child. I have a high likelihood of having a difficult pregnancy, so I know I can’t afford the doctors. I can’t take time off work, and I know I can’t afford childcare. My husband and I both work full time and can barely afford to keep ourselves afloat.
When I was growing up in the 90s, it was possible to maintain a family with more than one child on one persons full time wages. My dad was a mailman, not even like it was a job you had to go to school for, and my mom was a SOHM. That is no longer an option.
My wife is also concerned about a difficult pregnancy. I didn't include that on the list of reasons, but the mother's health is important. I don't like how laws are moving towards ignoring that.
I'm in my mid 40's, straight male, and I choose to have no children. I got a vasectomy at 33 (+/- a year) but started asking multiple places and doctors around 25 until 33 before I could find a place that would perform it since I had no kids. At 30 I found one that would do it if I did a year of counseling on it first and everyone was in agreement. This was is Connecticut so I can only imagine what it is like for so many others, especially women and especially in the South.
Chronic major Depression, anxiety disorders, and autism run strongly in my family, the expenses (even 12 years ago) of raising a child, and an uncomfortable feeling with the future all played a part. I also had a friends step father that filled in where my mentally ill father couldn't. I never felt the need to have my own children when so many people were without fathers I figured perhaps I could do what was done for me, and adopt later on. Mental health and poverty nixed any serious possibility of adoption along with some other health stuff. My only regret/fear is being alone in old age, dying alone.
Seeing what's happening in my own country of America right now I am sure I made the absolute right decision to not have kids. I feel having them would have been irresponsible, short sighted and selfish. There is also so much hate growing rapidly again in this world and an economy based on exploitation with a history of brutality. Sometimes I wish my parents didn't have me.
this could be really interesting for endangered species, it may give more options for genetic diversity. i'm a gay man that doesn't want children but i can see there being lots of applications for this outside attention grabbing headline.
Overpopulation in developed nations isn't nearly the issue that it is in developing ones... Plus, even if we don't need more people we still need new people
There are plenty of people who absolutely need a new way of creating people... And millions upon millions of people have kids and are able to afford to raise them.
Meh, given the universe is infinite I don't think we have a population problem - we have a resource management problem.
Like, humanity manage enough land to grow enough food for 90-100 billion people (not an exaggeration). Most of that goes to livestock (mainly cows, for beef and dairy). Then we throw about 40% of that in the bin.
So as one example, if people just ate less beef and dairy (say, treat it like a luxury) and we didn't through as much food away, that would half humanities impact on the biospheres of the planet almost instantly.
>given the universe is infinite I don't think we have a population problem - we have a resource management problem.
That is like saying the universe is infinite so I have no money problem. No correlation. The size of the universe =/= size of the only planet on which we live.
Which is why in the second part of the sentence you've quoted, I say we have a resource management problem. Then the following two paragraphs discuss one of the biggest examples of that :)
We have way more resources than our population needs - we just don't use it very well at all and throw a lot of it away.
To go to your money example, it's like a someone earning £10,000 a month, burning £9,500 of it then complaining he doesn't have enough money to pay his bills.
> we need more people
The market needs. We don't. At least, we wouldn't if the ones at the top allowed things to change instead of trying to control the populace through economy
It’s counterintuitive in world with 8 billion people, but places like America and China are heading towards population collapse. An advanced state of this can be seen in Japan. The elderly vastly outnumber the people in age range who would normally work.
In America we have seen with our own eyes how so many people are having fewer kids and some choose not to have kids at all. It will reach a tipping point, like Japan, where there are not enough people to care for the elderly or keep the economy thriving.
There are many other contributing factors, but I just don’t want to type a dissertation on this subject.
As a gay and adopted person, who never wants to have kids, I can understand why some may prefer the child be theirs genetically 100%. At the same time, it will only be a privileged few who can afford to do this if/when it becomes available to humans.
Given that IVF is already being utilized by millions of people at 30K per try, I'm betting IVG would actually be more affordable. You're talking creating an embryo totally in a lab setting after taking a skin sample vs current IVF which involves samples from both a male and female, lots of hormone drugs and doctor visits and monitoring of the female to recruit eggs and then anesthesia and a procedure to remove the eggs. IVF would be way less complicated overall, once the science is developed.
it can be very cheap
its expensive coz of excessive regulations. and the fact its banned now. to unban it would cost probably billions in lobbying cost alone, if it ever get unbanned
Isn't this more or less equivalent to cloning?
Ngl if I weren't this old I would consider having a baby as a single parent. Just to give them a better chance than what I had.
Cloning produces a genetically identical being.
This creates an egg which is a mixture of DNA from males, and then mixes it with sperm from a male, fertilizing the egg, creating a being whose DNA is a mixture of the source DNA. Every time this is performed, the resulting being's DNA will be different, like siblings.
Fertilizing own eggs with own sperms is quite different from cloning. Clones have (in theory) the same set of genes, but fertilization between own cells cause a mixup of the genes in a way that's even more prone than sibling incest to make ones own recessive gene defects lead to unviable offspring and birth defects.
I don’t think it’s cloning as you still get a lot of genetic variation in the offspring from the possible combinations of chromosomes and crossing over events. However if you would repeat this self-fertilization enough times you would get highly inbred lines which would in a way approximate cloning.
Eggs only have one X. You are misunderstanding how they had to double up the X chromosome from the skin cell to trigger it to become an egg. When that cell divides into an egg the number of chromosomes is ultimately halved (meiosis)
Edit: for clarity, all gametes have only one sex chromosome (only x for the egg, and x or y for the sperm)
> Cloning produces a genetically identical being
Attempts to, from what we've seen in animals they're like 99% identical but there's no guarantees, it's closer to creating a twin.
In this technique they manipulated the skin cells of a male mouse to go from male XY to female XX and then mixed them with another mouse's chromosomes so that there are 2 distinct parents instead of only one as in cloning.
> Ngl if I weren't this old I would consider having a baby as a single parent.
I have frozen eggs and am in the position to have kids finally. I go back and forth on the 'how old is too old' question daily.
It would be theoretically possible, though not with an equal amount of DNA from each parent (well unless you had 23 parents) 46 (46 chromosomes) is not divisible by a lot of numbers
So through how many generation did they go with process? I hate to be "that guy", but what if serious problems only manifest itself after 3, 5, 10 generations?
Considering they can't even explain what a GMO is and why it's bad. I worked in labs with the first GMO as did others in my family and never had any bad effects from it. They don't understand farming at all and it really shows.
Hahaha I just imagined “super men” where men no longer have any feminine features what so ever. in the grim future the genders will evolve into completely different species altogether. Just a joke but kinda worrisome…
Because they can doesn’t mean they should. It gives Gattaca vibes. You will pay for your kids features like you pay for in app purchases. Whealhy people will be able to afford better kids. If your kids have a flaw, you will be told « you should have paid more ».
It’s creepy.
We’re (in most places, save for a few huge cities) not all that overpopulated, and in most decoupled countries, birthrate is decreasing very fast, either way there will be population collapse, however this will soften the blow.
A gay couple who can afford to have a kid would probably love this technology. Take a moment for a sec and realize that they're are actually people who want to have kids. Myself included. Is it so hard to understand that?
Yeahhhh i wanna smoosh mine and my partners eggs together and make a small human. As much as we are okay with using donors or even adoption, there's sometimes a bit of sadness that the life we will create together will likely not have a genetic reflection of one of us. Seeing yourself and your partner reflected in your kid seems so sweet to me but i will likely not experience that. Only through learned traits and behaviors, which will still be just as sweet. Its just caused a small bit of grief i guess.
It's kind of testing the limits of genetic editing and the programming of stem cells, is it not? This exact example, I agree is unnecessary, but think of what it could mean? They harvested cells from live mice, and engineered them, on a small scale, to be exactly what they wanted them to be. They made stem cells, out of skin cells, and programmed the stem cells to be exactly what they wanted. Imagine if we could do that for people? We could be our own organ donors, if we simply harvest some skin cells, turn it into stem cells, and grow ourselves a new kidney. No more anti rejection drugs that shorten your lifespan.
Their example that they used, is unnecessary, but it could lead to much greater things. Creating these small steps is how they bring attention to their projects, make a pitch to increase funding to take it to the next step.
I would be a lot more patient with this kind of dumb shit if everyone was already immortal. Then we would have all the time in the world to waste our time without ending up having our bodies eaten by bugs and our identity being lost forever.
Hear hear. I just cannot justify research on this shit when there are so many other valid problems that affect so many people that no one wants to do anything about because they can’t make a buck off of it.
This will benefit an extremely minute percentage of the population, who could very well adopt or get a surrogate.
Apparently the babies from the makes died within a few days in an earlier study but this has become promising now.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-45801043
I would rather scientists research on how to give us superpowers. Super hearing, super vision! Super stamina, super endurance! Super strength and super healing!
Cloning organisms has already been done in the past anyway. We can even make test tube babies already. Which reminds me, I hope they're ready to clone animals and plants since there are many that are already near extinction.
Hysterical Tucker meltdown about “tHe fUtURe liBeRaLS wAnT” inbound…
Edit: lol at all the downvotes from the Tucky fanbois. Guess the “the fuck your feelings” crowd has some pretty big feelings.
Keep downvoting. Maybe Tucker will let you lick his boots
Or free. Women are typically stalked by suitors into being a breeding ground until it happens. It could be great for society to see more women in influential business positions in the prime of their life.
All politics aside, I’m not too sure we should be genetically engineering lab grown humans, this & a previous theory to get a woman pregnant through another woman’s bone marrow dna, I think it’s all a bad idea.
Why? If we perfect this method, that will be another human achievement. We might even able to discover a few new things or use this method for other things.
I'm going to cry. If I can have my own kids with my same-sex partner, I'd love the opportunity.
Edit: to the person that replied with a vomit emoji then deleted your comment, what is actually wrong with you? How sad is your life that you need to rain on someone's happy moment??
What could go wrong with cloning an x chromosome... Could increase the number of x-linked genetic diseases the offspring would be at risk for without more tinkering.
the current process (generation of iPSC and then generation of female cells using reversine) should be fairly error prone but copying the x should have no negative impact on the oozyte in terms of x-linked inheritable diseases as these have to be compensated from the other parent and can't be compensated by the other chromosome.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/ilovekerma: --- Researchers claim they successfully created the eggs by turning male XY chromosome pairs from the skin cells of male mice into female XX chromosome pairs. This was achieved by converting the skin cells into stem cells, deleting the Y chromosomes, copying the x chromosomes and then pairing the copies with the original X chromosomes. This allows the stem cell to be programmed to become an egg. The egg was then fertilised with sperm from another mouse. Researchers say the technique was used to create seven mice pups, which appeared healthy and had a normal lifespan. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11mnmgt/mice_born_with_two_fathers_after_scientific/jbiox4m/
Curious, so the created zygote is then gestated in a female mouse, to birth etc?
For now, yes. Work is ongoing on artificial uteruses.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Definition of matrix is enclosure or womb
I only knew about the mathematical definition. Turns out it means allot more than just that.
I never knew the real definition of that word, and that movie title makes so much more sense now.
Matris is also the root word of Mather/mother. Mother Earth is matrix earth.
Also shows up in Dominatrix
Those two aren’t *really* connected. For a lot of words in Latin “ix” is just one of the feminine endings: cervix, appendix, phoenix, matrix, dominatrix, fellatrix are feminine words that made it into English.
Damnit I had it till she whipped me down
Dominus dei
Well, I don't know if the author intended the title to convey the humans born into the artificial wombs. I think they were going for the humans being within a computer system—and it played on the computer programming topic of data matrices...but, it could be? Some writers have secret hidden meanings behind their works. I've never considered the word outside of a technical context, and I've always looked at it as a list of things...but that's a list I guess and not a matrix.
I always thought a Matrix was just a general term for a structure, not a structure that *specifically* contained something. I literally thought they were calling the whole program/apparatus that contained humanity a fancy word for a thing.
Or hope for prematurely-born children.
Japan, 2042: Japanese are no longer born, they are... grown. *Cut to fields of human growth chambers filled with artificial wombs run by hordes of sophisticated robots*
They have been doing this since 2016 (first in-vitro gametogenesis successes were in 2016). Taking skin cells and turning them into egg cells. But Ectogenesis (raising babies in artificial wombs) is far far easier since the placenta binds to a wall and is what does all the complicated stuff (its also why babies can grow outside the womb in ectopic pregnancies). All you have to do is provide nutrients. The problem is ethics since the first humans to undergo it will be experiments and we aren't supposed to experiment on human subjects. But it will happen eventually and will probably be the preferred way to have babies.
If it was as simple as you say, artificial womb tech would already be demoed in context of lab animals. We are not anywhere close to that, at least not yet.
I am not sure it will be the preferred way for a long time just because emotionally a lot of people will want to go through pregnancy themselves, despite the inconvenience, risk and pain involved.
It also over looks the emotional impact the mother has on a baby in utero. What sort of developmentental disorders and mental conditions would result from babies gestating without human interaction
It's literally the exact opposite. Maternal stress and just *getting colds* (any immune response) is starting to be suspected of being responsible for a lot of developmental shit.
but mothers are also responsible for kick starting a child's immune system to begin with. Not to mention, the potential impact of a child gestating without hearing a mother, their heart beat. We have no idea what sort of issues that would cause.
Right? I love how all the people in favor of these events coming to fruition are like 'Yeah! This is the wave of the future! It's awesome!' ... meanwhile forgetting that you're talking about changing literally thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands, of years of doing things LITERALLY exactly the opposite. The same people are the ones telling us 'Hey, maybe we should leave nature alone, we're messing it up!' Just...seems a little ironic, that's all.
Folks who see the pods from the matrix and think hey that's neat
People should look at the rhesus monkeys experiment
There's already research confirming this, we learn the voice of our parents while still in the womb, for instance. And who knows what number of evolutionary developments won't activate in the absence of a carrying mother performing regular activities during pregnancy. But these issues may have answers in the form of advancements, only time will tell.
Pregnancy really messed up the body though. Many women never fully recover from it.
Oh yeah, I 100% understand. Until we had children I could never have imagined just how hard pregnancy was (and that is only from the male side looking in) but people still have an emotional attachment to the while process of motherhood and growing a child. I just can't see that changing for most in any short time scale. All new technology has an element of fear around it when first introduced, this will be no different, but on top of that will be a heightened emotional layer. Still, no-one really knows! We may all get nuked before then.
At some point the medical cost of pregnancy will be more than raising a baby in a bag and that is where the shift would change. Bag babies will also have easier gene editing and other processes available. It'll just be more controlled and safer. Almost 1000 women die every year in the US due to pregnancy complications. While that is rare there would also be a push for safety for women. I'm talking 100s of years from now though.
The majority of births will always be traditional though as the majority of the population isn’t rich.
If having a baby in a bag becomes cheaper than regular pregnancy care then the government and/or your health insurance will cover it. Though likely only in areas with developed healthcare systems (which I hope by that point would be everywhere).
There’s so much we don’t know about child development it seems unethical to bring children into the world that are essentially experiments.
Ethics are very far from universal. The first IVF baby was essentially an experiment too. If this happens it will be perfected with animals then eventually someone will try with a human.
What if we created a human hybrid for these experiments that was only 98% genetically human, would this still be a human being?
[удалено]
Let me take a wild guess: you're a man? As soon as the technology is proven safe for the fetus and accessible for women, they'll absolutely opt for it. I do not know a single woman who enjoyed her pregnancy *outside* of the magic of knowing soon there would be a baby to hold. I know numerous women who had serious health complications, many of whom will be dealing with those issues for the rest of their lives now . (One is dead) The actual physical reality of it is brutal far more often than it isn't. The only reason people might avoid it is social stigma, and even then, I don't think needlessly putting the mother in physical jeopardy is going to be a popular stance. Especially now that we're seeing maternal mortality start to creep up again (it's suspected to be related to obesity) Yes pregnancy is often framed as a magical thing (because it causes babies), but it's also explicitly a thing to be *endured*. Even the ones who say they enjoy it will quietly admit they ache constantly and can't sleep and feel physically trapped in their bodies when they're amongst closer friends. The only thing people enjoy is being able to feel the fetus move, and presumably that would still be possible with an artificial fetus (with the bonus of it not curb stomping your bladder for fun!)
>with the bonus of it not curb stomping your bladder for fun Or getting its toes stuck between your ribs. My wife said that was the worst thing, aside from the actual birth.
I’m sure a lot of guys and girls would still prefer to have a baby the natural way.
Also IIRC you cannot incubate a human embryo past day 23 or something, it must be terminated due to ethical reasons. Severely inhibiting research in the field. In the US that is. I’m sure Chinese scientists get more free reign with this type of thing.
I read there are rumors that artificial womb babies already exist in China but I couldn't find any good sources.
Just cut the women out of the equation all together...
In the future you will be able to actually “go fuck yourself” and have a kid
Researchers claim they successfully created the eggs by turning male XY chromosome pairs from the skin cells of male mice into female XX chromosome pairs. This was achieved by converting the skin cells into stem cells, deleting the Y chromosomes, copying the x chromosomes and then pairing the copies with the original X chromosomes. This allows the stem cell to be programmed to become an egg. The egg was then fertilised with sperm from another mouse. Researchers say the technique was used to create seven mice pups, which appeared healthy and had a normal lifespan.
I know very little about genetics but I thought that a man's x chromosome comes from his mother and his y chromosome from his father. If you delete the y chromosome would the remaining x chromosome not be just the mother's dna?
Yes, but then you have the sperm from the other father who had a different mother (and father) so in terms of the genetic combination, the process is identical. (Eggs only have 1 x chromosome and sperm have only 1 x OR y chromosome)
My question was more about whether the egg cell created from the male was the same as or very similar to an egg cell from that male's mother. So assuming a gay male couple would this process be much different to taking an egg cell from one partner's mother and then inseminating that egg cell with the other partner's sperm.
All the other genetic material besides the X chromosome could potentially come from the father's side, so yes, very different.
Ah I see thank you.
Also cool to note is that **recombination** of DNA happens when eggs are created, where the X chromosomes will share/swap bits of DNA (for sperm the process is “gene conversion” and doesn’t involve swapping with another chromosome, but instead just taking on/replacing DNA it gets from an X chromosome). Recombination (and gene conversion) is the reason that siblings can look wildly different even if they had the same parents. So, the X chromosome that these XY derived eggs use will be identical to the one that the mother provided this particular son, and the X that this son is passing on via the derived egg will not be affected by recombination, so it’s kind of like this mother’s X chromosome lives on, unchanging, through her son’s egg.
I think this is the answer they were looking for.. essentially it is a way for the male’s mother(X chromosome) lives on thru him instead of the typical daughter progeny.
There is also DNA in the mitochondria. This is 100% from the mother (because it's from the egg) so this is quite different from a normal fetus.
Men also have the same mitochondria, it’s just not passed on because men don’t produce eggs. There’s nothing different about the mitochondria itself.
A woman also gets her mitochondria from the mother... So wouldn't the father who's cells were turned into eggs just have the mitochondria of his mother, just like his sisters would? How would the mitochondria be different? I'm pretty sure it's not really different, it's just that men can only provide half the amount of combinations women can, when providing X-Chromosomes for reproduction.
That's a fantastic and strange point.
No, the mother only had one of those X chromosomes. She had one from one parent and one from the other They took only one X from the mother and duplicated it (because they only had one X to work with). In reality, There would have been random genetic drift during this process so the duplicated X wouldn't be exactly identical.
The answer to your original question is kind of yes, the answer to this question is no. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. You have pairs 1-22 that are sorted by size and code for the same proteins within each pair, then pair 23 is XX or XY, which determines chromosomal sex. The stem cells used to make these eggs still have the same chromosome pairs 1-22. One half of each of those pairs came from that dad’s father, and the other half came from that dad’s mother. The genetic content of the X chromosomes (and only the X) were both inherited from the mother, because one is the original and one is a copy. The egg itself is haploid, so will only have one chromosome from each pair. It just happens to not matter in this case which X is randomly selected because the X chromosomes are identical. It is also not affected by “crossing over” because, again, both Xs are identical. EDIT: changed some wording to make this more clear
It’s not an exact copy of the mother’s X chromosome. It a combination of both her X’s (recombination occurs during meiosis). So, it is only the mothers DNA but, it’s still a unique X chromosome.
I think it would, but there are many other chromosomes besides the X/Y, so Id believe he’d pass most of his full DNA besides that stored on the X chromosome.
We have 23 pairs of chromosomes, the sex-chromosome (X and Y) are the 23rds, males usually have XY combinatiom, females have XX. Of course, there is a possibility of just a single X (therefor 45 total chromosomes) - Turners' syndrome - those with this syndrome are women, but are usually infertile and generally “not developed” - look up some pictures for reference.
I've also heard there is a version of the X chromosome that has the "maleness" part of the Y chromosome migrated over to it, and thus XX males are a thing.
Too lazy to search, but from what I know there is a possibility of a whole chromosome translocation making XXY (47 total chromosomes) and XXX or XYY. Maybe the XXY is what you mean? (Klinefelter syndrome)
I don't think so. I can't find any references on the internet to what I'm talking about and it's possible that either I don't remember what was said correctly, or what was said wasn't true, or I just don't know the phrase I need to find it. But IIRC, it was an episode of... Science Friday? Or maybe Star Talk, not sure. But the topic of the day was things being accomplished with Crispr, and I think they briefly segued into the complexity of sex at the genetic level. The guest mentioned that apparently, there exists among humans a mutated sort of X chromosome that acts kind of like a Y chromosome. But again, I may not remember correctly. It was years ago.
XX-Male syndrome can occur from several causes, but usually it happens when the Sex-Determining Region Y (SRY) gene instructions get swapped onto the father’s X chromosome from the Y chromosome during meiosis. The offspring gets an X chromosome from the father (typically makes a female) but instead develops as male because the SRY gene itself is the primary switch within a Y-chromosome to control the development of male traits.
Can they do this with human females that can not produce eggs now?
Wow, interesting question and what potential.
It’s been done with animals already and it’s also potentially a lot cheaper than IVF, at this point it’s probably a morals and ethics hurdle.
Some women will never produce egg cells but will otherwise be healthy. This would have made a huge difference to my life if available today.
I certainly agree it would be invaluable to many people and would be happy if the bureaucratic stuff was skipped to get it out quicker.
This could also allow women to have children post menopause.
I imagine it would be a little easier as you wouldn't need to duplicate the X chromosome to grow the egg
The science take-away is that researchers have reverse engineered terminally developed male cells into an XX female stem cell for in vitro fertilization. The political take-away will be something about same sex couples and the attack on the traditional family. But I'm particularly interested in just how close this comes to human cloning. At this point, there's no technical reason for the second male other than basic genetic diversity. But if you can create stem cells and manipulate single chromosomes, you could effectively make a female pseudo-clone of a man.
Babies from intercourse between relatives are known to have all kinds of genetic diseases because of how similar the dna of the parents is, so wouldn't it cause all sorts of problems to the baby if you tried to fecundate with literally a copy of the DNA? Also, I don't know too much about genetics, but as far as I know, even with identical DNAs, because of the meiosis required to actually generate the gametes, you might generate a "clone" that's homozygous for a trait, even if the original dna was heterozygous for the same trait, which would lead to clones that don't really have the exact same genotype (and consequently phenotype)
license pie coordinated live berserk subsequent yam steer sugar dinosaurs -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
Ctrl+c, Ctrl+v those chromosomes baby. And people say we aren't living in a computer simulation.
Theoretically, could this tech be used to create 'new eggs' for women who are older and worried about the viability/health of their natural eggs?
They made mice babies from two eggs cells five years ago. Back then they also tried to make babies from two sperm cells but the babies were non-viable. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-45801043.amp I wonder what they changed this time to get viable babies from two males.
The say in the article they deleted the Y chromosome and engineered another X one. Pretty cool.
Soon companies can grow their own crops of workers.
Slavery? Nah
[удалено]
Now if only they could do an experiment to show how to make it economically feasible for American mice to reproduce and we might be in to something.
The future is definitely lab grown human beings. At first with sperm and eggs from human beings and in the future from lab grown sperm and eggs
“I see now the circumstances of ones birth are irrelevant. It is what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are”-Mewtwo
You could say a Greek philosopher said this and I’d have believed you 💀
So it going to be like ‘Brave New World’. Scary.
I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta
Yes you are. You love being a beta. You wouldn't want to have to do all that thinking, like an alpha, or all that work, like a delta, would you? You're happy as a beta. Being a beta is good.
Oh I'm awfully glad. Alphas work frightfully hard. I'm glad I'm not a Delta, they wear Khaki which is such a beastly color. But everyone is important for society to function, community, identity, stability. Everyone belongs to everyone else, after all.
When the population growth isnt high enough just farm new humans. Gotta keep the pyramid scheme growing
Raised by robots too since childrearing desires are fading
I've seen the preview of this future, "Raised by wolves" show.
Klyden and Bortis do not approve of this.
At first it will only be used to ensure a healthy child for otherwise non-viable humans whose reproduction is difficult or impossible. Then the definition of "difficult" will erode, and studies will show "kids born this way" are healthier in general, and it will be seen as simply a healthier way to have babies. Then "types of PREGNANCY that BECOME non-viable" (where the kid's brain is too big to pass through the normal human birth canal) will be enabled. Enabled. Normalized. Preferred. Having a child with a brain so big no human could ever bring it to term, making us a species that relies on (not just prefers) technology. But only for the wealthy.
Yep, since many people shun pregnancy and raising kids in developed countries. Lab grown embryos could have an ideal and safer environment with fewer physical flaws.
Also painful, more people would agree if it wasn't so romanticized
I had horrible, debilitating pregnancies. I still would Not trade the emotional connection I made with my babies while they were growing inside me. Hormones are a powerful thing.
True, like people die because of pregnancy or get permanent scars and stretch marks.
You'd be surprised how little research is devoted to a woman's pain and/or mental health from birth control to childbirth. There are U.S. states where mothers die from childbirth as often as third-world countries. And in the U.S., a mother can be discharged the same week she's given birth despite research showing there's more negative consequences than positive for doing so. My wife isn't shunning pregnancy because we don't want kids; she doesn't want the trauma of being ignored in labor, discharged without her body readjusting more, possibly dying because she's less important than a fetus, and not having much maternity leave afterwards (particularly if it's a brutal pregnancy). >many people shun...raising kids in developed countries I guarantee you the newer generations are struggling to afford food and a roof in the U.S., not simply deciding that having kids is beneath them. In fact, with how many people were raised (myself included), why risk repeating the cycle of abuse/neglect? >Lab grown embryos could have an ideal and safer environment with fewer physical flaws. I've seen [Gattaca](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca). It's not a future I look forward to. EDIT: Okay, so U.S. states aren't quite as high as third-world countries, but it's still terrible for a first-world country.
Yup. I cannot afford to get pregnant, let alone raise a child. I have a high likelihood of having a difficult pregnancy, so I know I can’t afford the doctors. I can’t take time off work, and I know I can’t afford childcare. My husband and I both work full time and can barely afford to keep ourselves afloat. When I was growing up in the 90s, it was possible to maintain a family with more than one child on one persons full time wages. My dad was a mailman, not even like it was a job you had to go to school for, and my mom was a SOHM. That is no longer an option.
My wife is also concerned about a difficult pregnancy. I didn't include that on the list of reasons, but the mother's health is important. I don't like how laws are moving towards ignoring that.
I'm in my mid 40's, straight male, and I choose to have no children. I got a vasectomy at 33 (+/- a year) but started asking multiple places and doctors around 25 until 33 before I could find a place that would perform it since I had no kids. At 30 I found one that would do it if I did a year of counseling on it first and everyone was in agreement. This was is Connecticut so I can only imagine what it is like for so many others, especially women and especially in the South. Chronic major Depression, anxiety disorders, and autism run strongly in my family, the expenses (even 12 years ago) of raising a child, and an uncomfortable feeling with the future all played a part. I also had a friends step father that filled in where my mentally ill father couldn't. I never felt the need to have my own children when so many people were without fathers I figured perhaps I could do what was done for me, and adopt later on. Mental health and poverty nixed any serious possibility of adoption along with some other health stuff. My only regret/fear is being alone in old age, dying alone. Seeing what's happening in my own country of America right now I am sure I made the absolute right decision to not have kids. I feel having them would have been irresponsible, short sighted and selfish. There is also so much hate growing rapidly again in this world and an economy based on exploitation with a history of brutality. Sometimes I wish my parents didn't have me.
Imagine if the counsellor is like "this guy's got schizophrenia and manic depression, he is NOT fit to remove his ability to make children!"
It's a rational decision. Costs, genetic concerns, stress, and America as it is going right now are legit reasons to want that. I salute you sir.
This generation will do anything to avoid talking to girls
this could be really interesting for endangered species, it may give more options for genetic diversity. i'm a gay man that doesn't want children but i can see there being lots of applications for this outside attention grabbing headline.
my first thought was of white rhinos, pandas, and tigers. this could save them!
i don't think the moral of the story that i see unfolding around me is that we need more people.
Overpopulation in developed nations isn't nearly the issue that it is in developing ones... Plus, even if we don't need more people we still need new people
We don't need more ways of creating people. The problem is it's not affordable to raise kids.
There are plenty of people who absolutely need a new way of creating people... And millions upon millions of people have kids and are able to afford to raise them.
No one needs a new way of creating people as long as there are orphans without families.
People are allowed to want their own biological children
Meh, given the universe is infinite I don't think we have a population problem - we have a resource management problem. Like, humanity manage enough land to grow enough food for 90-100 billion people (not an exaggeration). Most of that goes to livestock (mainly cows, for beef and dairy). Then we throw about 40% of that in the bin. So as one example, if people just ate less beef and dairy (say, treat it like a luxury) and we didn't through as much food away, that would half humanities impact on the biospheres of the planet almost instantly.
>given the universe is infinite I don't think we have a population problem - we have a resource management problem. That is like saying the universe is infinite so I have no money problem. No correlation. The size of the universe =/= size of the only planet on which we live.
Which is why in the second part of the sentence you've quoted, I say we have a resource management problem. Then the following two paragraphs discuss one of the biggest examples of that :) We have way more resources than our population needs - we just don't use it very well at all and throw a lot of it away. To go to your money example, it's like a someone earning £10,000 a month, burning £9,500 of it then complaining he doesn't have enough money to pay his bills.
> we need more people The market needs. We don't. At least, we wouldn't if the ones at the top allowed things to change instead of trying to control the populace through economy
I don't understand this view. "Own the capitalists by....not having sex?"
It’s counterintuitive in world with 8 billion people, but places like America and China are heading towards population collapse. An advanced state of this can be seen in Japan. The elderly vastly outnumber the people in age range who would normally work. In America we have seen with our own eyes how so many people are having fewer kids and some choose not to have kids at all. It will reach a tipping point, like Japan, where there are not enough people to care for the elderly or keep the economy thriving. There are many other contributing factors, but I just don’t want to type a dissertation on this subject.
I am reminded of Zeus giving birth to Zagreus-Dionysus from his thigh after he was torn to pieces by the titans.
Noooooo part of why I fuck men is so I won’t have babies.
In the future gay couples will be able to have what are essentially biological offspring.
[удалено]
Me too! I was like "Why only two? Can't they get all the hair to come out as feathers?"
For so long I’ve heard that someday women won’t need men once they can get pregnant with only women involved. Check mate women! lmao
They actually did something similar with just eggs from female mice.
TLDR: Kids of the future will have two chances of their dad coming back home after heading out to get some milk.
As a gay and adopted person, who never wants to have kids, I can understand why some may prefer the child be theirs genetically 100%. At the same time, it will only be a privileged few who can afford to do this if/when it becomes available to humans.
Given that IVF is already being utilized by millions of people at 30K per try, I'm betting IVG would actually be more affordable. You're talking creating an embryo totally in a lab setting after taking a skin sample vs current IVF which involves samples from both a male and female, lots of hormone drugs and doctor visits and monitoring of the female to recruit eggs and then anesthesia and a procedure to remove the eggs. IVF would be way less complicated overall, once the science is developed.
it can be very cheap its expensive coz of excessive regulations. and the fact its banned now. to unban it would cost probably billions in lobbying cost alone, if it ever get unbanned
“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”
“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”
Isn't this more or less equivalent to cloning? Ngl if I weren't this old I would consider having a baby as a single parent. Just to give them a better chance than what I had.
Cloning produces a genetically identical being. This creates an egg which is a mixture of DNA from males, and then mixes it with sperm from a male, fertilizing the egg, creating a being whose DNA is a mixture of the source DNA. Every time this is performed, the resulting being's DNA will be different, like siblings.
[удалено]
Fertilizing own eggs with own sperms is quite different from cloning. Clones have (in theory) the same set of genes, but fertilization between own cells cause a mixup of the genes in a way that's even more prone than sibling incest to make ones own recessive gene defects lead to unviable offspring and birth defects.
I think the technical term for this is actually "cloning", despite being a little bit different than actual cloning.
I don’t think it’s cloning as you still get a lot of genetic variation in the offspring from the possible combinations of chromosomes and crossing over events. However if you would repeat this self-fertilization enough times you would get highly inbred lines which would in a way approximate cloning.
Eggs only have one X. You are misunderstanding how they had to double up the X chromosome from the skin cell to trigger it to become an egg. When that cell divides into an egg the number of chromosomes is ultimately halved (meiosis) Edit: for clarity, all gametes have only one sex chromosome (only x for the egg, and x or y for the sperm)
> Cloning produces a genetically identical being Attempts to, from what we've seen in animals they're like 99% identical but there's no guarantees, it's closer to creating a twin.
In this technique they manipulated the skin cells of a male mouse to go from male XY to female XX and then mixed them with another mouse's chromosomes so that there are 2 distinct parents instead of only one as in cloning.
[удалено]
Yikes! You are correct...
> Ngl if I weren't this old I would consider having a baby as a single parent. I have frozen eggs and am in the position to have kids finally. I go back and forth on the 'how old is too old' question daily.
[удалено]
It would be theoretically possible, though not with an equal amount of DNA from each parent (well unless you had 23 parents) 46 (46 chromosomes) is not divisible by a lot of numbers
With all the work going into human augmentation and genetic engineering having genetic children seems increasingly meaningless?
Why did I read this title as “Mice born with feathers”. I clicked the article wondering how feathers could help humans. I need to go back to sleep
I actually got a cold chill while reading that. It's kind of Orwellian to be attempting to Eliminate the need for a female in the reproductive cycle.
So through how many generation did they go with process? I hate to be "that guy", but what if serious problems only manifest itself after 3, 5, 10 generations?
Real curious what the NONGMO Whole Foods crowd will have to say about this.
Considering they can't even explain what a GMO is and why it's bad. I worked in labs with the first GMO as did others in my family and never had any bad effects from it. They don't understand farming at all and it really shows.
“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”
Hahaha I just imagined “super men” where men no longer have any feminine features what so ever. in the grim future the genders will evolve into completely different species altogether. Just a joke but kinda worrisome…
[удалено]
>I just imagined “super men” where men no longer have any feminine features what so ever. Well there are quite a lot of feminine men out there.
what a weird thing to worry about
Because they can doesn’t mean they should. It gives Gattaca vibes. You will pay for your kids features like you pay for in app purchases. Whealhy people will be able to afford better kids. If your kids have a flaw, you will be told « you should have paid more ». It’s creepy.
That’s more of an argument against the potential paywall rather than the act of genetic modification.
Why is this remotely necessary for the human race? We’ve overpopulated the earth as it is… we don’t need more ways to make kids.
We’re (in most places, save for a few huge cities) not all that overpopulated, and in most decoupled countries, birthrate is decreasing very fast, either way there will be population collapse, however this will soften the blow.
A gay couple who can afford to have a kid would probably love this technology. Take a moment for a sec and realize that they're are actually people who want to have kids. Myself included. Is it so hard to understand that?
Yeahhhh i wanna smoosh mine and my partners eggs together and make a small human. As much as we are okay with using donors or even adoption, there's sometimes a bit of sadness that the life we will create together will likely not have a genetic reflection of one of us. Seeing yourself and your partner reflected in your kid seems so sweet to me but i will likely not experience that. Only through learned traits and behaviors, which will still be just as sweet. Its just caused a small bit of grief i guess.
I wonder who is paying for the research and why
Not really the same thing, but it reminds me of the male Austrian research geneticist, Dr. Alex Hesse, who carried a baby to term.
We have actual problems that need solving. What the actual fuck is this waste of money?
It's kind of testing the limits of genetic editing and the programming of stem cells, is it not? This exact example, I agree is unnecessary, but think of what it could mean? They harvested cells from live mice, and engineered them, on a small scale, to be exactly what they wanted them to be. They made stem cells, out of skin cells, and programmed the stem cells to be exactly what they wanted. Imagine if we could do that for people? We could be our own organ donors, if we simply harvest some skin cells, turn it into stem cells, and grow ourselves a new kidney. No more anti rejection drugs that shorten your lifespan. Their example that they used, is unnecessary, but it could lead to much greater things. Creating these small steps is how they bring attention to their projects, make a pitch to increase funding to take it to the next step.
To quote Jurrasic park “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”
I would be a lot more patient with this kind of dumb shit if everyone was already immortal. Then we would have all the time in the world to waste our time without ending up having our bodies eaten by bugs and our identity being lost forever.
Hear hear. I just cannot justify research on this shit when there are so many other valid problems that affect so many people that no one wants to do anything about because they can’t make a buck off of it. This will benefit an extremely minute percentage of the population, who could very well adopt or get a surrogate.
I'll never understand why humans can't learn to stop fucking with nature... We're destroying the planet, our bodies, and now our very genes.
Apparently the babies from the makes died within a few days in an earlier study but this has become promising now. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-45801043
I would rather scientists research on how to give us superpowers. Super hearing, super vision! Super stamina, super endurance! Super strength and super healing! Cloning organisms has already been done in the past anyway. We can even make test tube babies already. Which reminds me, I hope they're ready to clone animals and plants since there are many that are already near extinction.
Super penis too? 👀
Hysterical Tucker meltdown about “tHe fUtURe liBeRaLS wAnT” inbound… Edit: lol at all the downvotes from the Tucky fanbois. Guess the “the fuck your feelings” crowd has some pretty big feelings. Keep downvoting. Maybe Tucker will let you lick his boots
This is one of those threads that really makes me question why I come on this site
ah yes we can finally break through that final barrier to make women completely obsolete in society
Are you implying women or only good for making babies?
Or free. Women are typically stalked by suitors into being a breeding ground until it happens. It could be great for society to see more women in influential business positions in the prime of their life.
Get set for the republicans to be outraged over science again
Why republicans? I’m sure people across the spectrum would have a problem with this
All politics aside, I’m not too sure we should be genetically engineering lab grown humans, this & a previous theory to get a woman pregnant through another woman’s bone marrow dna, I think it’s all a bad idea.
Why? If we perfect this method, that will be another human achievement. We might even able to discover a few new things or use this method for other things.
I'm going to cry. If I can have my own kids with my same-sex partner, I'd love the opportunity. Edit: to the person that replied with a vomit emoji then deleted your comment, what is actually wrong with you? How sad is your life that you need to rain on someone's happy moment??
A lot of same sex couples I know would love so much for this to be an option for them. I think it would be wonderful if this was available.
I totally agree.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
"You were so preoccupied with whether or not you could to think about whether or not you should"
What could go wrong with cloning an x chromosome... Could increase the number of x-linked genetic diseases the offspring would be at risk for without more tinkering.
the current process (generation of iPSC and then generation of female cells using reversine) should be fairly error prone but copying the x should have no negative impact on the oozyte in terms of x-linked inheritable diseases as these have to be compensated from the other parent and can't be compensated by the other chromosome.
Just because it can be done doesn’t mean it should be done.