Quest to create viable human sex cells in lab progressing rapidly, with huge implications for reproduction
Scientists are just a few years from creating viable human sex cells in the lab, according to an internationally renowned pioneer of the field, who says the advance could open up biology-defying possibilities for reproduction.
Speaking to the Guardian, Prof Katsuhiko Hayashi, a developmental geneticist at the University of Osaka, said rapid progress is being made towards being able to transform adult skin or blood cells into eggs and sperm, a feat of genetic conjury known as in-vitro gametogenesis (IVG).
His own lab is about seven years away from the milestone, he predicts. Other frontrunners include a team at the University of Kyoto and a California-based startup, Conception Biosciences, whose Silicon Valley backers include the OpenAI founder, Sam Altman and whose CEO told the Guardian that growing eggs in the lab “might be the best tool we have to reverse population decline” and could pave the way for human gene editing.
Am I correct that you are proposing to stop population at two children per couple?
Not necessarily at that exact number, replacement is 2.1 which is what I’m actually proposing
It seems like you are for a stable population (let me know if that is wrong) and I am for a stable population at a lower level. I don’t think that these two positions are that far apart. I understand that you want to avoid the struggle of dealing with a lopsided generational distribution while I see population reduction, not just the elimination of growth, as necessary to improve the overall quality of life for all people*.
*While I was typing this, I thought to myself, “Oh yeah, okay. This is how Thanos got going.”
Depopulation to a lower level will bring unnecessary hardship to the older generations and slow down technological progress.
I think that where we are parting is ways is on the value of progress. If progress were an equitable share of all resources and an improvement in everyone’s quality of life, then I would be on board. However, in our current system, progress means infinitely growing wealth for some and infinitely growing labor for others. I believe that we should be less focused on progress and more focused on health and happiness, and these things do not require a lot of people.
My grandfather went to the bathroom in the outhouse (I know because I visited him). The improvement in the modern lifestyle is huge. You just don’t know because you grew up with running water and didn’t grow your own chickens for eggs
Please don’t make assumptions of my lived experience based on your grandfather’s toileting practices. That doesn’t make sense. Regarding the progression of society, there is an interim step that you are skipping over. We didn’t go from subsistence farming to our present state. We grew a civilization over time.
I am not anti-societal growth. I am anti-endless growth. Capitalism demands an endless amount of growth so that the people at the top are always making more money. It is inherent in the system that there can never be enough. I disagree with this and believe that we would be better off if we defined a standard of living that allowed people to be happy and pursue their own passions while not exploiting one another and over-consuming resources.
On an old commute I used to pass a sticker that said, “If you had enough, would you know it?” In our current system, the answer to that question will always be no because there will always be pressure to want more. This creates an infinite pursuit of more that is damaging to our psyche. We spend more time wanting than we do having. If we had a realistic goal, one that prioritized happiness and health over always getting more, then we wouldn’t need an ever-growing society with an ever-growing population. We could shrink it and improve both the environment and our quality of life.