Slashdot Mirror


DNA Vaccine Sterilizes Mice, Could Lead To One-Shot Birth Control For Cats, Dogs

sciencehabit writes: Animal birth control could soon be just a shot away. A new injection makes male and female mice infertile by tricking their muscles into producing hormone-blocking antibodies. If the approach works in dogs and cats, researchers say, it could be used to neuter and spay pets and to control reproduction in feral animal populations. A similar approach could one day spur the development of long-term birth control options for humans.

153 comments

  1. cats and dogs agree... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    "think of the harbles!"

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:cats and dogs agree... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it work on muslims?

      Feckit you beat me to it dratsab .

  2. Suuuure.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...cats and dogs... why do i suddenly have flashbacks to the "vaccine" guns from X-Men: The last stand...?

    Next up: Cure for overpopulation found...

    1. Re:Suuuure.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please. When global population is deemed an issue we'll just do a spring cleaning of our munitions stockpiles. Hell, didn't the DHS put in an order for 1.6 billion hollow point rounds a while back? Maybe they could spare a few...

    2. Re:Suuuure.... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      DHS? I think it was actually the department of education or the IRS (or some other ABC that has no need for weapons)

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re:Suuuure.... by WolphFang · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why do I have flashbacks to forced sterilizations which occurred in the US to those considered "genetically inferior" aka Native Americans and Negroids.

      --
      leather-dog muksihs
      Blog: @muksihs
    4. Re:Suuuure.... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or in Israel in the 21st century, where poor Ethiopian refugees were sterilized without their knowledge, believing they were being vaccinated.

                      http://www.theguardian.com/com...

      It's a recurring practice in human history.

    5. Re:Suuuure.... by Chrontius · · Score: 2

      DoE bought grenade launchers. DHS bought hollowpoints.

      The grenade launchers were deemed useless and returned to the army for a refund, but the hollowpoints are about what it takes to certify every law enforcement officer on their service weapon and do a little training. Not even enough training to be really safe with their sidearms, but a little training is still a definite improvement.

      Remember - violence doesn't need much ammo, but proficiency will eat as much as you can shoot.

    6. Re:Suuuure.... by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      This already exists, and is used in pig farming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . It works equally well for humans.

    7. Re:Suuuure.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, just a white-trash trailer park.

    8. Re:Suuuure.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for confirm that every race has degenerate among them. Your compelling argument reinforce the idea that nigger are genetically inferior.

  3. Will this help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am endowed like a stallion.

    1. Re:Will this help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your dick is attached to your stomach by a sheath, hides inside that, and sags badly when it's fully engorged? So sad for you.

    2. Re: Will this help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention, designed to deliver the genetic package within seconds of insertion...

    3. Re:Will this help? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      To mods: That's a big bang theory reference that's in another story on today's front page.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  4. Umm... WHAT? by orlanz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...new injection ... long-term birth control options for humans.

    What could possible go wrong? Did some government police state / apocalyptic scenarios run through anyone else's minds when they read that?

    1. Re:Umm... WHAT? by Fwipp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah... it's not like our government has a history of sterilizing undesirables or anything, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    2. Re:Umm... WHAT? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Yes. Yes they did.

      And don't forget conspiracy theory wingnuts of all stripes: "Obama wants to destroy us!" and "African holocaust!!"

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re:Umm... WHAT? by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      Not much really, your DNA is in every single cell, reproduction will still be possible, albeit through lab technique, which is preferable since it wont ever happen accidentally.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    4. Re:Umm... WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This comment made me think of that episode of Through the Wormhole - 'Will Sex Become Extinct?' (S04E05). If reproductive technology literally does reach the point where two men can father a child and raise it in an artificial womb* I don't think you have anything to worry about with fertility control apocalypses.

      * IIRC it was a shark womb in the episode, but I'm running with it ;)

    5. Re:Umm... WHAT? by Nrrqshrr · · Score: 0

      Did you watch that UN speech when Agenda 2030 was announced and the whole crowd started applauding? Reminded me of Palpatine's Empire's birth. That dystopian future nearly every apocalyptic movie talked about might not be so imaginary, nor so far away...

    6. Re:Umm... WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's a neat idea. ALL pregnancies have to be planned, and only when you are established enough financially to afford it. That's awesome.

    7. Re:Umm... WHAT? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      ...new injection ... long-term birth control options for humans.

      What could possible go wrong? Did some government police state / apocalyptic scenarios run through anyone else's minds when they read that?

      If Australia had this in the 1970s there would be very few Aborigines left today.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    8. Re:Umm... WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds good to me, if inner city people wants food stamps and free housing they have to take the shot, better than breeding criminal class

    9. Re: Umm... WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Requirements for reproduction license as per US Code 78008-1 (Freedom Under Control Kids Ubiquitous Safety act of 2314):

      1. Must be rich.
      2. Must be white.
      3. Must be approving of authority.*
      4. See above.

      *Approval may be permitted regardless of other qualifications assuming 3 is met on an individual case basis by the state police chief.

    10. Re: Umm... WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2. Must be white.

      Considering that white are a minority that is shrinking every year it is not unreasonable to want to protect that. I am sure other country with other demographic would also want protect their own minority.

      When you observed the current demographic trend and don't care about the disappearance of white peoples that make you a accomplice of genocide. Every race/culture/ethnicity has a right to exist and prosper. Why do you hate white peoples? Are are you so racist?

    11. Re:Umm... WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG PANIC!

      Every single technology can be used for horrible purposes. Every damn one. This can *never* be a reason to resist technological innovation because it *always* applies.

      The population of the earth is ridiculous, and rising with no end in sight. What would you rather have, mass starvation and another violent and horrifying world war? Or a non-invasive sterility technique that will give masses of people the freedom to be as sexually reckless as they want without fear of pregnancy? Of course such a policy would be abused...but...even with the abuse, it is superior to the alternatives.

      In my opinion, with a world this overpopulated, people should *not* be entitled to breed. Breeding drains resources for everyone else, and so the impact to one's neighbors is harmful in overpopulated areas. So, we absolutely should reign that in.

       

    12. Re: Umm... WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. having enough money to support children doesn't make you rich. Current situation means anyone can have children and the state supports it, so you automatically jump to the idea that you have to be rich in the new world? dumbass.
      2. You HAVE to put race into this, didn't you? Not all people are racist like you.

    13. Re:Umm... WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah... it's not like our government has a history of sterilizing undesirables or anything, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Yeah, we know.
      And also Canada.
      And also Peru.
      And also Switzerland
      And also almost every other country in the world that ever had the capability.

      See those assholes in the USA?
      They kill animals and eat them! They're the worst people in the whole fucking world for doing that!

      fucking retard.
      Why don't you shriek about how it gets dark every night in China when the sun goes over the USA?
      Fucking Americans, stealing all the light.

    14. Re:Umm... WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So much for ethics boards.
      When you try to make chimp-human hybrids or breed back the dinosaurs they are all over you, but then they approve this research which has absolutely no possible positive outcome in any scenario.
        Good job ensuring human extinction.

    15. Re:Umm... WHAT? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Consider this for every other species on the planet, that would be considered a good thing. How many is too many, wait before the whole system collapses and the species ceases to exist or start effective birth control that has impact even in cases of intoxicated boredom and too lazy to do anything about it but that OK some one else can look after it and pass on the intoxicated bored lazy genes.

      So which is it, a few billions things going wrong or a few billion things going right, which is going to be by far the most likely demise of humanity, mass human sterility or a planet sterilised by human waste.

      Anything that triggers hormonal changes of course, can be changed, like duhhhh!

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    16. Re:Umm... WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, wait, I've seen that movie!

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_%281992_film%29

    17. Re:Umm... WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...your DNA is in every single cell...

      Wrong. Hair (absent the follicle) and red blood cells don't have DNA.

    18. Re:Umm... WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, like he's any better than idiot-child Bush. Same shit, different pile, still stinks.

    19. Re: Umm... WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you hate white peoples? Are are you so racist?

      Note: Parent AC.

      I should not feed the troll but......

      No, I'm not racist, nor do I hate white people. (Disclaimer: I am a white person.)

      Considering that white are a minority that is shrinking every year it is not unreasonable to want to protect that. I am sure other country with other demographic would also want protect their own minority.

      "Preserving" a race certainly can be done without sterilizing other races. By your own definition:

      Every race/culture/ethnicity has a right to exist and prosper.

      The act of sterilization would be taking away that right to exist, because it prevents the ability to create future generations. Such an act would be even more a denial, if it's institutionalized and forced upon the unwilling by the government.

      When you observed the current demographic trend and don't care about the disappearance of white peoples that make you a accomplice of genocide.

      The only thing I observed was the white racism that exists within the US and the influence it has on it's policy making. For the purpose of making (an admittedly bad) joke about the idea of the government imposing restrictions on birth and how it could be abused. I said nothing about the "current demographic trends" or "not caring about the disappearances of white peoples."

      Actually, it would seem that YOU support racial genocide thru forced sterilization under the guise of "protecting the white peoples".

      Also, how is the shrinking of a given race's population as a result of lowering birth rate (thru NATURAL causes), and an increase in immigration of other races, equivalent to genocide? Much less how any single person could be an accomplice? Currently many white people in the US are either underpaid workers or lack the time to invest in child rearing. They also are not under any real direct threat that would require numbers to defeat, nor are they plagued with short life spans. Given that set of conditions it's natural that white people in the US don't want to have as many kids. They have no use for them. Hell, we have difficulties paying to support the people who are already here! Why would we want to have more kids when we can't afford the people we have? Why would we want to raise our kids in conditions that we know would harm them in the long run and put them at a disadvantage? There are plenty of reasons the white birth rate in the US is low, but genocide is not one of them.

    20. Re:Umm... WHAT? by Maavin · · Score: 1

      Yes: "YAY! A way to avoid the Idiocracy scenario"

      --


      Crivens! I kicked meself in me own heid!
    21. Re: Umm... WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would we want to have more kids when we can't afford the people we have? Why would we want to raise our kids in conditions that we know would harm them in the long run and put them at a disadvantage? There are plenty of reasons the white birth rate in the US is low, but genocide is not one of them.

      Because other races do not have such restrain and are out breeding white peoples. They do not care that they can't feed or care for their children because the benevolent white peoples will raise taxes to take care of all children. Including the one that will grown to hate them and celebrate violence against them. e.g.: #BlackLivesMatter #KillWhitey

      The black population in African is ever exploding even with low infant survival rate, malnutrition, malaria, HIV, etc. These are the natural cause that keep their population in check. And we are supposed to care about these 'human tragedy' and not about the decline of other enlighten race that control their own birth rate and is on the verge of solving ecologies problems?

      Wake up, a race war has been in progress since forever. You can't save them even if you try, and they won't save you because they hate you anyway. Stop pretend you love them, you are only hurting yourself.

      What is the alternative? Hand these savages our civilisation and die off? Why don't YOU die off and let the 'evil racists' attempt survival.

      Why is evil white racists passing their gene down worst then evil arab racist or evil black racist?

      If you believe that you are not racist, then you believe that you are better than all the other races that proposer by favouring their own kind. Which make you the racist. Think about it.

    22. Re:Umm... WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's too bad the government stopped.

    23. Re:Umm... WHAT? by Vermonter · · Score: 1

      Seeing as Bush has an MBA from Harvard Business School, I am going to guess that the "idiot-child" is more educated than you are.

    24. Re:Umm... WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you watch that UN speech when Agenda 2030 was announced and the whole crowd started applauding? Reminded me of Palpatine's Empire's birth. That dystopian future nearly every apocalyptic movie talked about might not be so imaginary, nor so far away...

      But it was adopted unanimously by the entire assembly. That means it doesn't actually require anyone to do shit and will have zero effect on anything.

    25. Re:Umm... WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or Harvard is just giving away degrees if your daddy has enough money.

      Bush was a middling student, and in real life demonstrated himself to be a bit of an idiot.

      So much for the quality of a degree from Harvard.

    26. Re:Umm... WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did and there are.

    27. Re:Umm... WHAT? by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      The link I posted (which contains an incomplete list of notable incidents) lists involuntary sterilization of prisoners as recently as 2010. I wouldn't say that "we stopped 5 years ago" is a good indicator that we've changed our ways as a nation and won't ever do it again.

    28. Re:Umm... WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, all the booze and drugs killed off his brain cells after he had graduated.

    29. Re:Umm... WHAT? by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      i think it's called having a working pair of eyes... and a rope in other parts of the world.

    30. Re:Umm... WHAT? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Unlikely, we enjoy it too much.However, we can unlink from procreation.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    31. Re:Umm... WHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm Looking forward to Improvements in chromosome like gymnosperms with multiple implantations.

    32. Re: Umm... WHAT? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > *Approval may be permitted regardless of other qualifications assuming 3 is met on an individual case basis by the state police chief.

      Its funny, a while back I was curious if one could become a lawyer without a degree. In theory you should be able to self study right?

      After a little digging around in my state, they did define a degree as a requirement.....but there is also a clause which grants the bar association the power to waive any of the requirements they want; which means they are not so much real requirements as guidelines.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    33. Re: Umm... WHAT? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > Because other races do not have such restrain and are out breeding white peoples

      But, this is exactly what you would expect if you acknowledge that wealth is path dependent. If you start with a homogenus group of affulent people, and a much larger mixed group of poor people.

      Since birth rates are directly affected by affluence, you have an affluent group of one race, whose birth rate pales in comparison to the poor, who may include people of the same race, but mixing them in with others..... yah sounds like nothing to see here at all.

      The only thing this really proves is that the affluent are mostly the children of the affluent and the poor are, generation to generation, not climbing up the ladder... which, happens to correspond with a whole bunch of other realities, like that the future economic success of the children of middle class families is strongly influenced by whether their grandparents are also middle class.... those with poor grandparent are far more likely to end up poor themselves.

      All you are seeing is the predictable result of economic inertia causing the affluent minority to act as a litmus for the lack of economic mobility.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  5. Can it target certain races? Dr. Death's wet dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't it the dream of a certain South African doctor to create a virus that could sterilize the entire black population?

    Reminds me of the virus in Mass Effect that sterilizes the planet of warrior race.

    When the smart machines and robots take away the human jobs and we won't need billions of humans, would this be used?

  6. What about humans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems there is a few humans that could do with similar treatment.

    1. Re:What about humans? by ma++i+ude · · Score: 1

      This is /. so nobody is expecting you to read the article. But could you perhaps try to read all the way to the end of the one paragraph summary?

      --
      You can't shut us down! The Internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas!
  7. OR ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Liberals! ... Conservatives! ... (depending on which koolaid drinking faction you ask the response will change)

  8. "hormone-blocking antibodies" by sehlat · · Score: 1

    Short form: instant castration and spaying

    Long form: Just have a mass-injection program to implement a dictator's "final solution."

  9. no thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A similar approach could one day spur the development of long-term birth control options for humans.

    tricking their muscles into producing hormone-blocking antibodies

    Hormone-inhibiting? Sounds like this one is literally for the dogs.

  10. Not sure how I feel about that... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    > A new injection makes male and female mice infertile by tricking their muscles into producing hormone-blocking antibodies [...] control reproduction in feral animal populations [...] similar approach could one day spur the development of long-term birth control options for humans [...]

    Not sure how I feel about that. Part of me is going hey cool, technology! Part of me is going, wait, didn't I see that movie in the 1970's? I seem to recall it didn't end well.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:Not sure how I feel about that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, you'll soon see it again in the water supply and the food you eat. Assuming mass slaughter houses sterilize their animals. I don't know if they do or not, but I would guess so to keep them more docile.

      Human use will be one more tick against those trying to give or receive blood. I hope no one lies on that question before donating.

  11. Re:Great by laie_techie · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This should be given to all welfare recipients and their dependents. Immediately.

    I could not disagree more. Just because someone is down on their luck now does not mean they won't get back up. BTW, I agree that people should make babies unless they are able to provide for them (but I don't trust any organization to determine eligibility).

  12. No by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Because what good is being rich if there aren't plenty of poor for you to enjoy. Hell, look at the Scandinavian countries, they're doing public service announcements begging their population to breed. They've tried everything except paying people enough to raise a family on comfort...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      look at the Scandinavian countries, they're doing public service announcements begging their population to breed. /quote>

      Links please - I must have missed these, but then again I don't watch much TV here in Sweden...

    2. Re:No by beerbear · · Score: 1

      https://www.washingtonpost.com... OP was wrong in claiming it was countries. It's just one.

      --
      Hold my beer and watch this!
    3. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they still don't understand economics?

  13. The Republicans will never allow this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They see women as good for only wombs and want to force them at the threat of prison to have babies. That is the way of their kind. They hate us and want us to die. Want us to die.

    1. Re: The Republicans will never allow this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They only care about profit.

    2. Re: The Republicans will never allow this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are the party of death. They want more babies to be born so that those babies can die.

    3. Re: The Republicans will never allow this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans hate women.

    4. Re: The Republicans will never allow this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GOPpers hate women.

    5. Re: The Republicans will never allow this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll sell this for the profit then make it illegal to use just like the abortion pill.

    6. Re: The Republicans will never allow this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> They see women as good for only wombs
      >>
      > They only care about profit.

      I think you two have Republicans confused with Ferengi.

    7. Re: The Republicans will never allow this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rottenberry obviously based them on Republicans. He admitted that they were 20th century humans, but wouldn't go as far as telling truth.

  14. Or by ajzimm3rman · · Score: 0

    Humans...

  15. it's just a shot away by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    shot away shot away

  16. SG-1 Episode Foreshadowing... by Shoten · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Aschen Vaccine Causes...causes...what does this word mean?"

    "Sterility."

    "Oh, shit...not again..."

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    1. Re:SG-1 Episode Foreshadowing... by Solandri · · Score: 2

      This is the flip side of the vaccine debate. I absolutely believe vaccines are effective and on the balance beneficial to society, and everyone should be vaccinated. But stuff like this is why I reluctantly agree the government should never have the power to force people to get vaccinated. You can't just give government powers based on what good things they could do with it. You have to limit government's powers based on the worst thing they could do with it.

    2. Re:SG-1 Episode Foreshadowing... by Microlith · · Score: 1

      Except it's not the flip side because the only people the government can force to get vaccinated are soldiers. Forcing vaccines on people is not something that has been done, despite how many whiners there are in California.

    3. Re:SG-1 Episode Foreshadowing... by moeinvt · · Score: 2

      "... the only people the government can force to get vaccinated are soldiers."

      Nonsense. Coercion by threat of consequences is exactly the same as force. Requiring injections for kids as a precondition of their enrollment in taxpayer funded public schools is coercing people to make decisions which they might not otherwise make. That "do what we say or there will be consequences" approach is a perfect example of the way government uses force against The People. The threat of having their kids banned from taxpayer funded schools is "forcing" people to get their kids vaccinated because home schooling or private schooling requires resources many people don't have.

    4. Re:SG-1 Episode Foreshadowing... by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 2

      Seriously. We don't need government coercion, what we need are walls around our cities to keep the disease ridden, herd immunity breaking unvaccinated in the slums where they belong.

    5. Re:SG-1 Episode Foreshadowing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "... the only people the government can force to get vaccinated are soldiers."

       
      For now.

    6. Re:SG-1 Episode Foreshadowing... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      A government can do bad things with any power, so you seem to be advocating anarchy.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    7. Re:SG-1 Episode Foreshadowing... by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Those vaccinations also are not even required to even be approved by the FDA. They can also contain adjuncts that are illegal to be given to the general population. The anthrax vaccine that was forced upon me and all others in the military in the early 2000's was not approved by the FDA, it was experimental, and also a large portion of the vaccines(there were several variations) included adjuncts that are illegal in the United States.

  17. Frank Herbert covered what could go terribly wrong by msk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The White Plague.

  18. I am legend by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

    From TFA: "engineered a piece of DNA that - when packaged inside inactive virus shells and injected..."

    I swear the scientists said almost the exact same thing in the movie "I am Legend"... and it caused the zombie apocalypse.

    1. Re:I am legend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that was the vampire apocalypse. But you're close!

  19. Can't wait for eugenics to come back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two things seem to always come back around:

    Malthus and eugenics.

    Now that technology has advanced, where important revolutionaries can be dispatched easily, combined with the attitude of people about not giving a rat's ass about anyone else, I wouldn't be surprised to see a nation starting a sterilization/euthanization plan for their populace. With modern technology (i.e. some planes with Sarin gas containers and some "soldiers" with some basic small arms), the chance of a people's revolution would be zilch.

    With all this in place, I'm not going to be surprised to see this happen. Perhaps it is some gene that shows someone to be of a certain race, so the entire population of a country has to go through a medical office, get DNA tested, then walk through one of three doors: The exit (if no DNA exists), the room with a nurse injecting sterilization drugs, or the room with the euthanization cocktails that feeds into a nearby retort.

    1. Re:Can't wait for eugenics to come back... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      or the room with the euthanization cocktails that feeds into a nearby soylent factory.

      FTFY

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  20. Long-term birth control for humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No doubt certain racist groups will jump up and down and clap their hands in glee at the thought of being able to permanently sterilize certain peoples with just a simple injection. Theoretically a dart gun could be used.

  21. Four words: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fear The Walking Dead

  22. Planned Parenthood by p51d007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "A similar approach could one day spur the development of long-term birth control options for humans." Oh, wouldn't Margaret Sanger have loved this when she started that abortion milling organization. She could have single handed wiped out the black population, as she wanted, in a couple generations. On blacks, immigrants and indigents: "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people On sterilization & racial purification: Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech. On the right of married couples to bear children: Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932 On the purpose of birth control: The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2) On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities: "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

    1. Re:Planned Parenthood by swb · · Score: 1

      What I find appalling about the anti-PP rhetoric is that it's really post-natal eugenics, given the insistence on having babies and the typically concomitant lack of funding for social welfare.

    2. Re:Planned Parenthood by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      Its also interesting that they attack Margaret Sanger rather than the activities of the organization. Look, she was a eugenicist, so everything she was associated with is the evil!

      For example, Planned Parenthood encourages family planning -- choosing when to have children rather than just having them happen. Are opponents concerned that some of their own might be convinced to have children when they are ready rather than as soon as they are in a relationship? Oh, the horrors!

    3. Re:Planned Parenthood by Vermonter · · Score: 1

      No, the concern of anti-abortionists is that they feel that an unborn child still has the right to life. Most pro-choicers seem to either ignore or not realize this, and keep shouting "it's the woman's choice", as if that were the flip side of the anti-abortionist argument. The discussion that needs to be had is not "does a woman have a right to an abortion?", it's "when does a human gain the right to life?"

    4. Re:Planned Parenthood by swb · · Score: 2

      I'm also inclined to give Sanger's eugenics a sort-of-pass.

      I think you don't have to swing a dead cat very far to find contemporary medical ethicists exploring some of the same issues Sanger was pretty gung-ho about. Like should a couple discover they both carry a gene which will result in a high probability of a child with birth defects have children? Such a child would likely impose a significant dollar costs, and since most people can't afford to self-fund such care, they will just be shifting those costs onto everyone else.

      The racialism and forced sterilization stuff seems distasteful (especially now), but there's a certain dark charitibility to her outlook when you consider the poverty, slums and misery of the poor of her historical era. All of the war on poverty money spent still hasn't cured poverty and the social costs of basically unchecked poverty seem to only perpetuate it.

      If you did implement some kind of eugenics, would we have "solved" the problem of poverty, or at least reduced the scale of poverty to the point where it was manageable as a social and economic cost and allowed social welfare spending to actually produce the results its supposed to? Or would it have been a serious problem in terms of shrinking populations and reduced economic growth?

      Could you implement a eugenic program in a way that wasn't coercively Orwellian? Could you model social welfare costs of poverty and offer some kind of net-positive cash benefit to people willing to be sterilized?

    5. Re:Planned Parenthood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the concern of anti-abortionists is that they feel that an unborn child still has the right to life.

      ...and that the mere vessel in which said unborn child is contained does not.

      Under what circumstances does any human have the right to the body of any other human?

    6. Re:Planned Parenthood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Under what circumstances does any human have the right to the body of any other human?

      The biological requirement where the latter is the parent and the former is her child. It's absolutely fucking required for most of Mammalia to survive, you idiotic piece of shit. Holy fucking SHIT, that's what the uterus was DESIGNED for, you industrial-strength retard.

      Under what circumstances does any human have the right to breathe another human's air?
      Under what circumstances does any human have the right to take another human's money?
      Under what circumstances does any human have the right to go on another human's property?
      Under what circumstances does any human have the right to make sound in another human's ear?
      Answer: IN A FUNCTIONAL SOCIETY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    7. Re:Planned Parenthood by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Or "When does a fetus turn human?" or "When does a human gain the right to life by being a parasite on another?".

      Besides that, I am under no legal obligation whatsoever to donate any of my tissue for the benefit of another. The only legal compulsion (where it exists) is pregnancy. Pregnancy is several months of hormonal whipsawing which includes discomfort (sometimes extreme), sometimes severe pain (frequently when giving birth), and a certain amount of danger. It restricts a woman's ability to work and conduct other activities.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    8. Re:Planned Parenthood by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      It is a human when it is no longer a parasite.

  23. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This should be given to all welfare recipients and their dependents. Immediately.

    In order words you are personally volunteering yourself and your family for this, mr cant-stop-sucking-on-the-teet-of-other-peoples-work welfare recipient...

  24. Long-term Birth Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...long-term birth control options for humans.

    Oh, well in that case, I'll stop looking into Vasalgel & RISUG then...

    Thanks but no thanks, I'd rather not be actually infertile

    1. Re:Long-term Birth Control by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      I want something like this very badly. Sorry women, but I don't trust any of you when it comes to birth control.

  25. Just in case by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

    ....Chernobyl tries to reclaim it's title.....

  26. Dont need long term.... by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's effortless to get the snip, then you don't have to worry if the doc does it right where it's non reversible. I.E. he snaps the vas, seals the ends then folds them back 1/2 an inch back on themselves and uses basically a surgical ziptie to hold them there. there is ZERO chance of the Vas reconnecting.

    Real men get their Vas snipped. You do not "need" to have any more kids.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Dont need long term.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until your wife divorces you and you have harder time in the market because women generally want Men who can father kids.

    2. Re:Dont need long term.... by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Sure if your goal is to see Idiocracy come true. I think the world would be vastly superior if /.ers had 4+ kids.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    3. Re:Dont need long term.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiocracy is just an extension of the dunning-kruger effect.

    4. Re:Dont need long term.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real men get their Vas snipped. You do not "need" to have any more kids.

      Real men apparently also go senile earlier, since that's been linked to having the vas snipped.

    5. Re:Dont need long term.... by subreality · · Score: 1

      there is ZERO chance of the Vas reconnecting.

      "Very rarely, tubes grow back together again and pregnancy may occur. This happens in about 1 out of 1,000 cases."

      Of course, that's probably a much lower failure rate than the injections discussed in TFA.

    6. Re:Dont need long term.... by Microlith · · Score: 1

      You missed the important bit, the part about the goal being a reversible contraceptive. You can snipped after you've had all the kids you'll have.

    7. Re:Dont need long term.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sipped men lose something important in the process.. yea that's right.. .YOUR MANHOOD!

    8. Re:Dont need long term.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you believe intelligence is dominated by genetics. Nice troll, though.

    9. Re:Dont need long term.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems like men with your opinion about what "real men" do and do not need will be selected against by nature...

    10. Re:Dont need long term.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol this is why there are so many people too dumb to type

    11. Re:Dont need long term.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiocracy was a movie, you fucking idiot.

    12. Re:Dont need long term.... by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      You do not "need" to have any more kids.

      That being said, most kids grow up to vote so having more kids = supporting your way of life.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    13. Re:Dont need long term.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Effortless? I spent some unpleasant time at the clinic (protip: you do not necessarily want a vasectomy surgeon with a sense of humor), and then some recovery time at home. There was a fair amount of pain involved. Not to mention that you had best be extremely sure you will never want to father a child again.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    14. Re:Dont need long term.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mine got titanium clips. Aerospace material in the nutsack! Doesn't get more metal than that! :)

  27. Re:Can it target certain races? Dr. Death's wet dr by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

    Let's hope Israel employs it ASAP in self-defense...

    They already try to induce abortions in heavily pregnant Palestinian women by keeping them in hot cars at checkpoints for several hours at a stretch.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  28. This is borderline criminally irresponsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The scientists who devised this are fucking morons. Releasing this into the wild without the thought of what could happen if it got into some other vector could be disastrous for all forms of life. An infertility plague. The scientists need a swift kick in the their tender bits followed by an afternoon of electro-convulsive therapy. There are way simpler ways to sterilize a pet without the risk of a catastrophe. Furthermore you will have some politician thinking its a good idea to infect the general population with it. If they can justify radiation experiments and those syphilis experiments they would absolutely look into doing this. Many governments are top heavy with sociopaths.

  29. Attitude Adjustment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The thing with spading and neutering is that, especially in male animals, their normal aggressive behavior goes away immediately after the procedure. I've watched neutered lions and bears playing with a woman that owns an animal sanctuary before. I couldn't believe how docile they were but then I realized it was largely because they had no balls--literally (although the dangers are still always present).

    I would just wonder if this "shot" would also result in the same behavior modifications, or no?

  30. Put it in the flu shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eugenicist psychopaths could dispense special flu vaccines with this sterilant mixed in to targeted neighborhoods

  31. They try to make living creatures become machine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing else to say... It's bad.

  32. Before our species faces extinction..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we will likely face starvation. While all the sci-fi apocalypses referenced by others are real possibilities due to gene jumping through common bacteria, a more immediate issue may be the food supply. It seems likely that all animal husbandry will fail, and that there will be virtually no supply of beef, pork, chicken, milk, eggs, butter. etc. Feeding our sterile species and dealing with the plagues of BILLIONS of dead animals world wide won't be pretty.

  33. great idea by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    So arm up some guys with dart guns and run around shooting stray cats. Obviously they would get shirts that say "professional pussy hunter." You can actually get those on ebay already.

  34. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That is not how evolution work. If one can breed lots of babies and make them someone else problem that is the trait that will be selected.

    The only solution is to not care about someone else children. And if they can't feed them, then they should die from starvation. Feeding the poor is just bad as 'determine eligibility'. Let nature determine eligibility.

    If you are too soft to let stranger's children die then accept welfare recipient sterilisation. It is, after all, the humane thing to do. Personally I think that, like everything that is 'the humane thing to do', are more bad than good. But I am not the one moved by hungry children.

  35. "Children of Men" by FoolishBluntman · · Score: 1

    I think this is a good premise for a new scifi film like "Children of Men" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt02....
    You know, virus gets out, most of the world loses the ability to have children.
    Come on, what could possibly go wrong?

  36. Horizontal Gene Transfer by clovis · · Score: 1

    The real fun begins when some of that DNA gets picked up by an E. Coli.

  37. Re:Great by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    People who suggest forced stelization should be sterilized. Oh wait...

  38. It sure works on Christians ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Does it work on muslims?

    At the present rate of Islamic Invasion into Europe, it sure looks like the Christians gonna be wiped out!

  39. Pigeons? by treczoks · · Score: 1

    Yes, I am aware that pigeons are birds and therefor a different domain as mammals, and that there might be some differences in the biochemistry here, but I hope they work something out to get those flying rats under control.

  40. Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to stop democrats from breeding and spewing their nonsense of globalism and fairness among idiots.

  41. Sounds frightful by cfalcon · · Score: 2

    Invoking autoimmune disorders sounds like a poor idea in pets, and a nightmare in humans. That's what this is. And that's before you get to the possibility that you could absolutely have a future organization that has the desire to eliminate human births, but doesn't have the will to kill humans (and also, that would get them stopped faster), so they use a tech like this. The fact that it's being developed doesn't mean that will happen, but the fact that it's possible should be at least a bit scary.

  42. Oblig Malcolm Reynolds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For humans, you say? I think Captain Reynolds said it best, so I'll just leave it to him...

    Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again.
    Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean.
    A year from now, ten?
    They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better.
    And I do not hold to that.

  43. The real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... it could be used to neuter and spay pets and to control reproduction in feral animal populations ...

    That means catching all the animals and injecting them. If one is going to spend that much effort, why not just kill them? This immediately reduces the pressure on the food supply, the environment, and the damage to man-made objects. When this is available in oral form, it may be an effective control for feral animal populations.

    Where do many feral animals come from? Irresponsible owners. I was involved in animal rescue for while, which has its own problems as it is run self-absorbed tree-huggers but the real issue is the tendency for common people to treat a cat, or sometimes a dog, as toys. Such white-trash type people decide they need a pet and get a baby cat for free. They don't get it de-sexed or chipped as required for cats. The cat produces kittens which, in an act of further irresponsibility, they give away. So the cycle repeats and there is an endless supply of unwanted cats.

    ... development of long-term birth control ...

    Compulsory sterilization has been used on humans before, in some countries. Such a vaccine allows sterilization to be performed secretly; the plot of a few stories.

    Then there are countries who refuse to sterilize the brain-damaged or the mentally ill, guaranteeing more welfare babies. There's no right to motherhood, if she's not allowed to keep the baby. So the government butts-out and allows a woman to injure her child, or it butts-in and prevents pregnancy. The current welfare practice just dumps a 16-year long problem on the taxpayer.

  44. Mandatory Vaccinations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's not look at things in isolation... ...Do you NOW see what was wrong with Mandatory Vaccinations?

  45. Re:Frank Herbert covered what could go terribly wr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The spooge must flow"?

  46. "Children of Men" - The Prequel by RealGene · · Score: 1

    The only thing that could go wrong with this is... everything.

    --
    Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
  47. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This should be given to all welfare recipients and their dependents. Immediately.

    So... all bank and auto company execs?

  48. Title Could Have Been by westcountyboy · · Score: 1

    "Scientists Invent New Way for Humanity to Destroy Itself" A few possibilities that come to mind are: - Using the vaccine against someone someone doesn't like. Arabs, Palestinians, blacks, Hindus, Israelis, White men in golf shirts. - Adding it other vaccines - only in certain selected areas of course. - Inadvertent contamination, intentional or not - genetic modification to include into food, etc. - release of the carrier virus into the wild using a common vector - Work begins immediately on an oral form

  49. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, that would be counter productive. You WANT the rich having lots of kids and then spending a lot of their money to get them through college. What we currently have is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  50. Re:Great by laie_techie · · Score: 1

    Oops, I made a typo (but I hope people recognize what I wanted to say). It happens when your brain is faster than your hands.

    This should be given to all welfare recipients and their dependents. Immediately.

    I could not disagree more. Just because someone is down on their luck now does not mean they won't get back up. BTW, I agree that people should NOT make babies unless they are able to provide for them (but I don't trust any organization to determine eligibility).

  51. Re:Great by laie_techie · · Score: 1

    That is not how evolution work. If one can breed lots of babies and make them someone else problem that is the trait that will be selected.

    That is not how evolution works. Any time an individual breeds, their genes are propagated to the next generation, but that does not exclude other individuals with conflicting genes from also contributing to the gene pool. As an example, take a look at hair color. Obviously different people have different preferences as to their mate's hair color. Since it is not only blondes who procreate, other hair colors will remain in the gene pool. Furthermore, the trait you are addressing (having a knack of making one's offspring someone else's responsibility) does not manifest itself until after one has already procreated. It is similar to male pattern baldness which normally kicks in after most are already married. Additionally, I would argue that taking abusing the welfare system is a learned trait, and not something genetically transferred to the next generation.

    The only solution is to not care about someone else children. And if they can't feed them, then they should die from starvation. Feeding the poor is just bad as 'determine eligibility'. Let nature determine eligibility.

    That is too harsh. You need to distinguish between a family going through a bad patch of a few years and a third-generation recipient of welfare. A better solution would be to put the children in some else's custody at least temporarily. The children have committed no sin to deserve to suffer such dire consequences of their parents' actions.

    If you are too soft to let stranger's children die then accept welfare recipient sterilisation. It is, after all, the humane thing to do. Personally I think that, like everything that is 'the humane thing to do', are more bad than good. But I am not the one moved by hungry children.

  52. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've for sterilizing them. If they work hard and are successful, let them do in-vitro.

  53. Re:Great by laie_techie · · Score: 1

    I've for sterilizing them. If they work hard and are successful, let them do in-vitro.

    Do you know how in-vitro works? In vitro just means that they combine eggs and sperm in a petridish then implant the fertilized eggs into the uterus. This sterilization vaccine causes men to no longer produce viable sperm. The only way to reproduce would involve cloning or direct gene splicing.