Alabama: Better Save the Tray of Embryos Over the Baby

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

APU_Fusion

Golden Member
Dec 16, 2013
1,695
2,494
136
Why? Survival instincts, just like every other species. Dogs, cats, apes, birds, fish, worms, snakes, etc., all have these instincts to survive and procreate, and use what ever abilities they have to do so. Humans are no different, we just have better tools.

Not long ago "medicine" consisted of blood-letting, drilling holes in the skull, potions elixirs and magic spells. But at the time, it was "modern" medicine.
Read Zorba’s post above and do some research. you clearly are ignorant about how the world was before the 20th century. I am sure you won’t give your kids vaccines or antibiotics or clean drinking water or indoor plumbing because those are cheating natural selection and evolution. Don’t need none of that modern stuff making gene pool weaker.

tell me, should stephen hawking been allowed to die instead of contributing greatly to human kind’s knowledge? After all he couldn’t procreate anymore and his body needed to die according to you because it was worthless evolutionary wise. You completely ignore the human mind in evolution

i mean let’s kill all the children below age 5 who need antibiotics to eliminate their bad genes from gene pool. I mean wtf.
 
Last edited:

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
26,128
15,567
136
If science is helping people that are unable to conceive, are we no longer following "survival of the fittest", and in fact weakening the gene pool?

In virtually every species, only the strongest that can reproduce to carry on the species. This was also true for humans until fertility treatments were developed, and in our (human) timeline that is a very recent event.

Many, many healthy babies are now being born from parents that were unable to conceive. Perhaps mother nature was saying, "have fun, but we don't need 'your' DNA in the gene pool". And now with IVF, man is unknowingly polluting the gene pool with less than optimal DNA.
Yes. Since we’re no longer pushing evolutionary pressure like in the old days, probably late stone age, we’re no longer advancing as a species and actually shredding a little DNA with each generation growing weaker and weaker. What you will note is that our capacity to accumulate knowledge and process data has far outpaced whatever negative a socialized community might “suffer” from not going full Darwin.
We’re on the cusp of writing, rewriting, our own DNA. Our science has lapped natural selection. Its all good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MtnMan

VashHT

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2007
3,351
1,431
136
Doesn't survival of the fittest simply mean those who survive and pass on their genes are the fittest? People have twisted it and think it means you must be physically and mentally fit but I don't think that was the original intent if I remember correctly.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,255
136
Read Zorba’s post above and do some research. you clearly are ignorant about how the world was before the 20th century. I am sure you won’t give your kids vaccines or antibiotics or clean drinking water or indoor plumbing because those are cheating natural selection and evolution. Don’t need none of that modern stuff making gene pool weaker.

tell me, should stephen hawking been allowed to die instead of contributing greatly to human kind’s knowledge? After all he couldn’t procreate anymore and his body needed to die according to you because it was worthless evolutionary wise. You completely ignore the human mind in evolution

i mean let’s kill all the children below age 5 who need antibiotics to eliminate their bad genes from gene pool. I mean wtf.
Didn't Hawkin procreate after becoming wheelchair bound?

Further, if @MtnMan knew anything about human evolution, the "fittest" that survive depending on having functioning and healthy parents and grandparents. Parents can't die immediately after procreating and win the evolutionary roulette. This is why humans naturally live for so long, especially for women after not being able to procreate any longer.

He clearly has a 7th grade biology understanding of evolution.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,255
136
@MtnMan how do you feel about C-Sections? Should women incapable of naturally delivering a baby be allowed to deliver a baby (and often more than one)? I mean their is a good chance if she gives birth to a girl, that girl will not be able to naturally give birth either. Or should we be like the good ol' times when evolution worked on humans and let nature remove the baby and woman from the gene pool?
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
17,364
16,634
146
Doesn't survival of the fittest simply mean those who survive and pass on their genes are the fittest? People have twisted it and think it means you must be physically and mentally fit but I don't think that was the original intent if I remember correctly.
Technically it's the most adaptable, which varies in definition depending on the circumstances. Cats and dogs are as prolific as they are specifically because they're appealing to us visually, and that has nothing to do with their actual survivability.

Note that given our continued dependence on technologies to propagate our species, it's technically possible that we could reach a point where we couldn't realistically propagate without it, but that's not necessarily guaranteed.
 

uallas5

Golden Member
Jun 3, 2005
1,645
1,910
136
Note that given our continued dependence on technologies to propagate our species, it's technically possible that we could reach a point where we couldn't realistically propagate without it, but that's not necessarily guaranteed.
And boom, human beings become the final plot line of the Ancients in SG-1.


SPOILER=We end up risking the remaining few humans to try and recover a frozen ancestor from 1000's of years prior to rejuvenate our DNA line to be able to procreate naturally again.

edit: (spoiler coding not working for some reason)
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,597
46,246
136
I thought it was the Asgardians who relied on tech too much that they became a dying race.

They cloned themselves into extinction and eventually tried to rectify the problem by, unsuccessfully, incorporating pre-cloning Asgard DNA with human DNA to create a hybrid successor race. Though they basically could live inside a sufficiently advanced computer so they could have just uploaded themselves or made androids...
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,631
15,817
146
They cloned themselves into extinction and eventually tried to rectify the problem by, unsuccessfully, incorporating pre-cloning Asgard DNA with human DNA to create a hybrid successor race. Though they basically could live inside a sufficiently advanced computer so they could have just uploaded themselves or made androids...
tumblr_lfytnhxRes1qghwsqo1_500.gif
 

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
9,407
8,803
136
Didn't Hawkin procreate after becoming wheelchair bound?

Further, if @MtnMan knew anything about human evolution, the "fittest" that survive depending on having functioning and healthy parents and grandparents. Parents can't die immediately after procreating and win the evolutionary roulette. This is why humans naturally live for so long, especially for women after not being able to procreate any longer.

He clearly has a 7th grade biology understanding of evolution.
I have clearly stepped on one or more of your toes... why such the reactions... a past experiences, something religious, moral, ethical?

As for evolution, if the DNA strain of anything or anybody is incapable for reproducing... well it's no longer in the gene pool*. Filtering the DNA is evolution.

+ pre-medical intervention
 
Last edited:

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,255
136
I have clearly stepped on one or more of your toes... why such the reactions... a past experiences, something religious, moral, ethical?

As for evolution, if the DNA strain of anything or anybody is incapable for reproducing... well it's no longer in the gene pool*. Filtering the DNA is evolution.

+ pre-medical intervention
You stepped on my toes with your ridiculous, logically inconsistent arguments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: APU_Fusion

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,286
32,778
136
Legislation being introduced. Democrats need to add an amendment protect all forms of legal birth control.
Well well, after claiming they supported IVF in its current form guess who blocked the bill?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69 and hal2kilo
Nov 17, 2019
13,296
7,877
136
- If you think grocery prices are bad, wait till you have a couple ravenous kids to feed...
Poison Ivey doesn't want to feed kids either:

01

Alabama

State officials said changes to federal funding and bad timing would prevent the program from being set up in time.



“Unfortunately, the federal government has now cut funding for administering the program by 50% and issued guidance after our legislative session ended,” Deputy Communications Director Mike Lewis wrote to AL.com, “thereby eliminating the potential for securing state funds to continue administering these limited additional benefits.”



Alabama is reportedly considering whether to participate in 2025, but the total cost to administer the program (an estimated $10 million) has not been determined yet.



 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,286
32,778
136
Poison Ivey doesn't want to feed kids either:

01

Alabama

State officials said changes to federal funding and bad timing would prevent the program from being set up in time.



“Unfortunately, the federal government has now cut funding for administering the program by 50% and issued guidance after our legislative session ended,” Deputy Communications Director Mike Lewis wrote to AL.com, “thereby eliminating the potential for securing state funds to continue administering these limited additional benefits.”



Alabama is reportedly considering whether to participate in 2025, but the total cost to administer the program (an estimated $10 million) has not been determined yet.


Pro-life?