That's a load of hyperbole.
First, the time-line is completely unrealistic. The ethical frameworks in a lot of developed countries currently are very much in defense of biological inception and against technological interference. It will take more than a generation to change that.
Second, a lot of people actually like reproducing via sex.
4th row.
I'd say, unless we advance our timeline, we're in danger of becoming extinct. So let's hope the article is not all hyperbole.
Sure but this does not contradict what I wrote. I don't think designer babies is the way out of the unwillingness to reproduce we witness in industrialized countries. Maybe baby-care robots, maybe minimal basic income.
Currently, the world population is still growing, but that's mostly due to poorer countries and sub-populations. AFAIK, not even the US's whites are enough to sustain the population size:
"Expected lifetime births have also fallen for White non-Hispanic women from 1.91 in 2007 to 1.75 in 2013. U.S. White non-Hispanic births have been below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman for decades." (http://www.unomaha.edu/news/2015/01/fertility.php).
It is even worse in Europe and Russia.
Maybe it is a question of a middle ground?
I see a slowly declining population as being positive for humanity.
I think 1e9 children having a materially secure future is much better than 1e11 children fighting wars for the last scraps of resources.
Also if those children are not mine.
French INSEE (national statistical institute) doesn't seem to predict any decline here (although it reports a decrease in the rate of growth, and ageing):
http://www.insee.fr/en/themes/document.asp?ref_id=projpop055...
> If recent demographic trends continue, France’s population will reach 70 million by 1 January 2050, 9.3 million more than in 2005.
I'm curious to know what are your sources?
"Around 2045, natural population growth will be negative (-26,000 in 2049), the number of deaths exceeding the number of births. The population will however continue to grow until 2050, thanks to net migration." [paragraph 4]
Edit: Since it was unclear, I was trying to be sarcastic. There is no evidence that the human race is in imminent danger of extinction.
This is something I thought of. We're biologically engineered to desire sex, and most forms of birth control deprive the pleasure we get from the act. Unless you're one of those people who are into karezza, I'm not sure the author's idea is going to appeal to you.
But I don't see how birth control would deprive you from pleasure from the sexual act. Both partners can get orgasms in safe sexual intercourses...
As for condoms, if you really must use them, simply pay extra for quality and there won't be any issues with how it feels. Most people negative experience with condoms are with those they give for free at schools and you might just as well use a thick rubber balloon at that point...
The only people I've ever heard of liking condoms are the ones that have trouble with premature ejaculation, where the [significantly] reduced sensation can help them last longer.
You need to pay premium to get the thin ones and use plenty of lube. If you get the right ones, you will get all the normal feelings (heat, pressure, etc.) except for the wetness. It will not be the exact same feeling as sexual intercourse without a condom, but it will be close enough. That's a small price to pay to be safe with that one-nigh hookup.
If condoms are really an issue for you, get a stable partner that is on birth control.
I do not use condoms very often since I am in a stable relationship, but if I can manage to have a load of fun using sleeves that are as thick as dozen condoms and covered with speed bumps from time to time, surely you can manage the occasional thin rubber.
Yeah, but condoms suck, categorically.
It's a night/day difference.
Edit for circlefavshape's comment: You are right, I got numbers confused. It is suggested to use alternate forms of birth control for 2-3 months after the surgery to verify the success.
What?!
It's books like this that require these ethical frameworks and it's really a shame.
These medical advances have very important use cases in the medical and Infertile community, and these ethical frameworks create massive amounts of heartache and painful waiting for those that really need these advances.
Why do people always have to find ways to exploit technology that can do great things for selfish purposes and ruin it for everyone else?
Look back to the 19th century, and if you look at the number of brothels in even small towns in the US, it's just astonishing: in 1880 or 1890 IIRC, my midwestern hometown was a small town of two thousand people that had more than a hundred brothels advertising. Women had limited legal rights outside of marriage and very limited employment opportunities, and with the example a very large community of sex workers, women had very real incentives to avoid even the hint of a threat to their "marriagability" (ie., virginity and "modesty"). 1890 is just three generations removed from 1950.
Remember it was in the 1950s that people fought major free-speech fights to print and distribute "obscene" books that had been banned for decades, like Lady Chatterley's Lover and Tropic of Cancer. In the 1930s, censorship was upheld in the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act due to the threat of reading the obscene parts on the Senate floor. These days pornography is omnipresent, and there are bestselling books by women about how great anal sex is.
If yes, you would know that there is really nothing new under the sun...
If studies are accurate, oral sex, anal sex (especially between man and woman, duh) and many other sex acts are far more common now. But I guess maybe people just lied about it until more recently.
the movie?