Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Get Closer To Replicating Human Sperm (engadget.com)
Rachel England reports via Engadget: Scientists have taken an important step forward in recreating the way the human body makes sperm, which could one day mean creating artificial sperm and eggs for infertility treatment. The researchers, from the University of Cambridge's Gurdon Institute, are thought to be the first team to have reached the "halfway point" -- a significant milestone -- on the path between stem cells and immature sperm. This pathway -- which the team are attempting to track and understand -- involves embryonic cells turning into immature sperm via a series of complex steps known as meiosis. Cells follow the same journey for around eight weeks, before taking different directions depending on whether they're to be sperm or eggs. Previously, the team had managed to track this pathway to the four-week mark. Now, using new technology in the form of miniature artificial testicles (called "gonadal organoids"), it's on track to pass this point and gain new, deep insight into the process of sperm creation. Further reading: The Guardian
We need the MRA douchebags to come out and march against the elimination of the male sex! Just think....in 50 years a woman can create sperm from her own cells or the cells of a partner and when enough of them do that the male sex will end...........
Men are in trouble if this succeeds. Feminists are not all welcoming, open, forgiving or tolerant ;) lol
I take the garbage out.
Just think... in the future, generations may be born that don't have any ancestors at all.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It would all go terribly wrong when there were no more men, and women realized they had nobody to blame for their failures.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
It's only a matter of time.
Besides sperm, we serve no purpose.
By that logic, women will serve no purpose either, given artificially created eggs (which the article suggests they are just as close to replicating as sperm) and an artificial womb, which is much further along.
Of all the things humanity doesn't have a shortage of, spermatozoa have got to be right up near the top of the list :)
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Are the 'Gonadal Organoids' brass? Do they come (sorry, couldn't resist) in sizes?
FTFY
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
This is sooooo necessary because 7.5 billion humans infesting this globe is nowhere near enough.
To reduce crime, make fewer things against the law.
The key difference is this: the way X and Y chromosomes work, some of the children artificially produced from two men will be girls (and some---those with two Y chromosomes that survive---will be homicidal maniacs). But none of the children artificially produced from two women will be boys.
So, yes, I agree with OP. This could make men obsolete---but it won't quite ever make women obsolete.
Most of the women I know prefer the old fashioned way too. I'm not worried.
--
"Well, time to hit the hay... oh I forgot, I ate it!" - Mr. Ed
It's pretty obvious you haven't met my ex.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
...you would have seen it's only meant for drinking.
I think it's the other way around. Men's genetic material can clone both boys and girls without a woman, because men have both X and Y chromosomes. Eradicate the Y and duplicate the X, and you get a female.
But a woman can never clone a boy from her own genetic material.
Similar for gay couples - once technology allows it, two men can sire both boys and girls from their combined DNA, but two women can only ever have girls. Given that more women want boys than girls, men will still be needed as donors.
I thought someone by now would have posted a joke about only reaching the half-way point.
It's only a matter of time.
Besides sperm, we serve no purpose.
By that logic, women will serve no purpose either, given artificially created eggs (which the article suggests they are just as close to replicating as sperm) and an artificial womb, which is much further along.
Of course women will still serve a purpose! How else will the dishes and laundry get done? /s
All kidding aside, this sounds like an important development. SF authors will have fun with it. Though all along it's been pretty easy for them to just talk about people being constructed from high tech goop/whatever, this will make "Hard SF" more plausible if they need to use constructs of humans as a plot point. An AI with a starship could go into the planet populating business even easier now, and to whatever spec it can program in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Well, for instance?
Here's the thing: everything you've ever heard about feminists is true... of some feminist somewhere. It's also false. Just like everything you've ever heard about Trump voters is true ... of some Trump voter somewhere. It's also false.
Some mens-rights advocates have, in response to the whole sexual harassment thing, pointed out that women sometimes sexually harass men too. They were roundly mocked by feminists, but it turns out those mens-rights types have a surprising ally in their point of view: other feminists. The jargon those feminists use might sound foreign (essentialism) but they're making exactly the same point: being a woman shouldn't automatically make you a victim and being a man shouldn't automatically make you a victimizer.
That's because any large group of people (like "all men" or "all women") is bound to have people who aren't very much alike. That's even true of people who identify with some kind of ideological label like "conservative" or "environmentalist". If there's enough of them it's always easy to cherry pick viewpoints to suit your purpose.
People across the political spectrum love them their stereotypes and straw men, because it makes it easy to feel like you're right all the time. But this violates the most basic principle of civilized behavior: the golden rule. That's not how you want your views to be treated.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Let me rephrase it: you will never get the "woman" out of men---no matter how technologically advanced, our society will always have women; that's literally in our DNA. But you can get the "man" out of society. Barring some unforeseen catastrophe (the stuff of sci-fi), it is possible to have a technologically advanced society that only has women and no men anywhere---the structure of human DNA allows for that.
You are presuming that men are somehow necessary (so the ability to produce a boy is a good thing). I am challenging that presumption and instead think in this direction: which gender can be eliminated? Men can be; women cannot be.
P.S. I don't know if more women actually want boys. But preferences can change over time, and in any case, you can imagine a small society of women (again, the stuff of sci-fi) with ideological hatred of the male gender.
Just that tape of the man himself, bragging about it... Dipshit.
Holy crappe!!!
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Is there suddenly a world wide shortage of human sperm? This seems the height of waste.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
Jeez! She's better off going to a psychic!
That's what everyone would worry about, until it actually happens and they realize that men were really the source of all the societal problems.
I knew it, I JUST knew it!
Exactly my question, but I'll never see a mod point to give you.
Looked like a surprisingly active topic, so I stopped by in my usual futile quest for "Funny" or "Insightful" comments. I guess that means I actually square or cube your "WHY?" Not only 'why do this' but 'why were so many people on Slashdot interested enough to comment on it' (without generating any "Funny" or "Insightful" mods (to date)).
As regards your sig I've heard that Honest Abe is the most frequently used source for bogus quotes. However I wonder if his strong reputation can survive what today's so-called Republicans and their ignominious leader have been doing. Maybe you'll feel obliged to change your sig to say it was Shakespeare?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Next: artificial wombs and synthetic eggs impregnated by synthetic sperm. Welcome all ye drones, to our new AI overlords.
Please, let them. Playing God with the procreation process is usually a civilization destroying process.
Wait. You define your existence by your ability to serve up sperm?
This is more of a Science win (Why did we do it? Because we could!) being dressed up in FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). The scientists involved did it because it sounded need (make germ cells from proto-germ cells? has anyone done this? why not?), probably tacked on with some "for the people reasoning" to get the necessary funding ("Umm, it could eventually allow couples lacking reproductive organs to reproduce?? At some point, several decades in the future, after many more grants...plz...").
Anyway, since it's not AI / Robot uprising week, or the NSA is out to get you week (and they really are), it must be Gender Wars week. So this piece of research gets politicized because le grand conspiracy of women everywhere to throw off their male oppressors using unproven technology (with the real results only coming to light 30-40 years later, when that 'tweaked' generation grows up), and that's how we got here.
I think it depends also a lot on the hormones.
So with enough artificial testosterone even a XX whole "female" embryo should develop to a male. Not 100% sure. Definitely a "male" XY embryo will develop to a most of the time fertile woman.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
"neat" not "need"
And we can't cure cancer or AIDS, let alone create designer babies. We have nothing to fear. Unless it's idiots in backwoods garages offering 'super-baby' sperm which at best will be regular sperm, at worst someone playing mad gene splicer with human sperm (with predictably bad side effects).
If we have a nuclear war, there might be.
you haven't met my ex
I was pretty sure you have an "ex".
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
And still we pray to him 2000 years later.
All you really need is a good PR machine, reality or truth are secondary.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If we have a nuclear war, it's more likely you find a functioning male than a functioning lab.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Playing God with the procreation process is usually a civilization destroying process.
What do you mean by "usually" ?
You have a long list of civilisations all destroyed by the process of "Playing God" with the procreation process ?
Like a dozen of such cases, to illustrate that indeed that's the most usual out-come ?
The only instance of "Playing God with the procreation process" is the development of agriculture over the past couple of millennia (hybridizations, selections of weird nearly-impossible offsprings, agricultural crops being so much different from their nearest natural wild relative to be almost unrecognizable, polypoloidy being common in agricultural crops, etc.) and that has in fac turned out quite successful when you look at the evolution of what meal is in your plate.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Men will destroy the world before they allow sperm to be made in a lab. Nothing is so fragile as the male ego.
Your ego[1], certainly. Mine is just fine, you can tell by how little self-loathing I exhibit.
[1] Assuming you identify as a man. Don't want to trigger you, after all.
Note: Feminism ends a couple of milliseconds after the first nukes hit the ground.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Of all the things to be worried about, lab grown sperm that takes over 8 weeks to produce is the least of my worries. I've got it beat by several orders of magnitude, and while my wife might wish it would take me longer, I don't think she wants it to take that long.
So how many people did Trump kill when standing out on the street with a gun? Because he bragged about being able to do that too.
Just how stupid are you? He didn't say he had killed anyone. He bragged that he could. He said he had grabbed women. Sounds like a confession to me. With a witness. On tape. Would it stand up in court. Would a jury convict? Deity knows there are plenty of people in prison that a jury convicted. Did they all actually commit the crime for which they were convicted.
And thus the question is answered. You're pretty goddamn stupid if you're arguing that Twitler didn't grab anyone by the pussy.
Face it. Trump has been nothing but lies for a long time. Him saying something is no more proof that he did it than some random whackjob claiming to be the son of God actually being the son of God.
Good that you at least admit he's a serial liar. That's a step in the right direction.
I lie awake at night worrying that a vibrator and a jar lid wrench is all you need to replace men.
So now what are the chicks going to do when there's a spider in the bathtub?
Also a current...who's a sweetie!
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Maggie Thatcher might disagree with you. Certainly all the people she harmed would.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
...every sperm is great!
When a sperm is created
God gets quite irate
We'll make great pets
I watched the Star Trek where Riker gets horribly raped by a woman. But it's ok he was raped because all men want it (Though he specifically says no just before the rape) and we all know women can't commit sexual crimes. Even afterward on the show, everyone is just fine and happy whereas if you reversed the gender roles it's textbook rape. We aren't going to get anything fixed while male rape is so funny victims can't even go to the police because thier ass will be laughed out to the curb. The golden rule only works if you use it uniformly.
I'll make my own thanks. It's a lot more fun.
Never understood this easy replacement of only males. From a technical standpoint, if you can replace one gender in replicating natural pregnancy you are pretty close to both. And after seeing several women go through pregnancy, the artificial option sure seems like it would be better for everyone.
Playing God with the procreation process is usually a civilization destroying process.
You're kidding, right? Nevermind modern birth control, synthetic hormones, IVF etc, non-procreative sex has been around since before primates waddled around upright. No civilizations destroyed.
The DNA also allows for a male only culture since we are talking artificial births. It's just as stupid as all female. Why does everyone think that this tech is going to turn the world into a monoculture? It's far more likely to do the opposite, but at least furries will be easy to spot when they are sporting real fur.
Even if that were true, can you blame them, after being oppressed for thousands and thousands of years by men? In general, that Y chromosome definitely imparts asshole-ish qualities to its host.
Men are in trouble if this succeeds. Feminists are not all welcoming, open, forgiving or tolerant ;) lol
Good thing that at best, third wave feminists represent about 10% of women. They're quite a minority and the majority of women disagree with them. If you're really that concerned, don't live in one of the far left states. Personally, I'd never live in a locale where third wave feminists and SJW's are elevated in social status. They're just annoying. Three types of people I can't stand: Third Wave Feminists, SJW's and Bible Thumpers. Do your homework on which state to live in and relocate accordingly and live happy.
We'll make great pets
Please, let them. Playing God with the procreation process is usually a civilization destroying process.
Really now? Can you present evidence for this claim? Do you have evidence for the following:
1) There has existed a civilization that advanced science to the point that they could artificially reproduce outside of normal biological processes (assuming that they reproduced sexually)
2) That this scientific advancement destroyed their civilization?
Take your religious mysticism and FUD and go home.
We'll make great pets
You obviously haven't met my wife.
When you think with the wrong head, you reap what you sow.
We'll make great pets
Tolerance of intolerance is fundamentally implied to not being apart of the meaning. So if someone is being an intolerant and sexist jerk, being opposed to that is not generally considered intolerant. For instance, I'm a very tolerant male feminist (as it falls under egalitarian), but I passively or actively oppose inequality, including gender inequality.
It's pretty obvious you haven't met my ex.
And you picked her. Every man that has had this experience needs to read up on psychology especially Histrionic Personality Disorder. No matter how tantalizing and mesmerizing they are, RUN AWAY!
We'll make great pets
I won't even get into the ethical dilemma.
I hear such a process is happening in Japan. Women deciding they don't need men in their lives.
> Men will destroy the world before they allow sperm to be made in a lab.
Wrong. It will be produced in a lab. It will be delivered in convenient "to go" boxes.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Tolerance of intolerance should not be tolerated. I absolutely am intolerant of intolerant people.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
It will go even more wrong when there are no more men and women need a spider to be killed.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
What a disgusting statement.
Most of the women I know prefer the old fashioned way too. I'm not worried.
youll be surprised how hard the door hits you on your way out when theres a more attractive alternative present
I think you were responding to the more attractive alternative.
Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
Houston, Houston, Do You Read?
(by James Tiptree, Jr. - btw, a woman who used a man's name as a pseudonym, in order to get published)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
It's a brave new world we live in! ...
Trust me, when the sex bots are nearly indistinguishable from humans, and artificial wombs and blank eggs are cheap, many men won't hesitate to remove all women from thier lives as well. I'm assuming this will probably start in Japan, they seem to be leading the way in sex robots already.
But eliminating women takes the artificialness of the approach to the next level. Either you have to eliminate all X-chromosome-carrying sperms (and I guess somehow you made sure your artificial eggs only carried X chromosome, unless it's somehow O.K. for an artificial egg to have Y chromosome), or you perform sex-selective abortions where all girls are killed at early age. All these are active measures that need to be taken to keep eliminating women from each generation. In any generation you stop taking these measures, women are re-introduced into your male-only society.
Eliminating men is marginally more natural. Once you have eliminated the Y chromosome, like eliminating polio, it does not get re-introduced into the society absent some overt effort by some group that regrets elimination of men.
P.S. I'm not saying eliminating either gender is good. I am just pointing out that the situation is not symmetric. It is objectively easier to eliminate men than women.
False equivalency. Oh, sure, rape of a man is equally bad as rape of a woman, but on a societal scale rape of women is much worse than rape of men because it's much, much more common. Women are raped far more often than men, so it makes sense to focus primarily on female rape. And, actually, there's every reason to expect that putting a lot of effort into addressing rape in general will help reduce both male and female rape, even if nearly all of the effort is applied to the largest part of the problem (female rape)
Also, it should be pointed out that the reason male rape is often not taken seriously is because we're still carrying old, patriarchal gender stereotypes, which are exactly what feminists wish to erase. When women and gay men have as much social power as straight men do today, then accusations of male rape will be taken as seriously as accusations of female rape are today.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Is there suddenly a world wide shortage of human sperm? This seems the height of waste.
Can you see no value in understanding the process of how sperm is created than to create sperm?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Actually, it was only one part of me that picked her. Unfortunately, it was getting about 90% of my blood supply at the time, leaving my brain starved for oxygen.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Yes. First, two wrongs don't make a right. Second, sweeping generalisations are always wrong.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It's sadly not a false equivalency. Yes, it's far more common, but when you ignore these "smaller slights against humanity" you are stoking discontent and dischord among the majority in control because this affects them directly, is obviously wrong, and people use words like yours to dismiss them, building up to the division and tribalism we see today. At the proverbial psychology circle of patients, you don't laugh at someone just because thier problems aren't the worst in the room, nor do you try to make them feel bad because they had it easier than some others, nor do you bake in some kind of psuedo Christian born guilty crap. Entitlement should be referred to more often as the common decency everyone deserves, and me too will succeed when me==everyone.
You are thinking in 1980s terms. You simply grow eggs and replace the DNA with the donor male artificially and ideally once. Want a female (not sure why in this case)? Simply use two copies of the X. Want a male? Use both. Want some randomness thrown in from samples of your family tree? Add designer genes from popular lines to enable desirable traits. Natural will again be seen as it was in the 16th century, brutal, random and uncaring. But it gets better, tired of being a white male and want to be a full female Pacific Islander instead? Simply upgrade all your cells DNA and supplement it with a few basic nanotechnology innovations and it can be a reality on an accurate cellular level. id be quite supried if this even took 150 years, probably doable in 100 or less.
+10 Ironic!!!!
They aren't even tolerant of each other. Maybe they could start by agreeing on what the exact definition of a woman is.
At the bottom of the
I don't know, the Amazonians seem to do fairly well.
WTB [sig], PST!!!
What am I going to do with all this home made sperm?!
You know it is better than the fake stuff!
Two scenarios come to mind:
1) The Matrix uses this technology to farm their own "battteries", and;
2) SkyNet uses this technology to make the ultimate Terminator.
Either way, humans are doomed!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.