Steerable, Motorized Cyborg Spermbots Take on Infertility

Just FYI, any headline with the words "Motorized Cyborg Spermbots" in it is a technology gone wrong story in my book.

I agree.

So you tell people you want a dog or cat on social media, and you will be told more or less that you are worse than Satan if you don't adopt a dog or cat from a shelter that needs a home, because there are already way too many dogs on the planet.

Well, guess what, there are estimated to be NINE TIMES as many people on the planet as dogs.

So next time you hear about someone on social media say they are taking weird fertility treatments to try and have a baby, give them the same treatment and tell them to adopt.

Besides, honestly this is like reverse eugenics, where not only do all the intelligent and responsible people do just about everything possible to prevent people from winning a Darwin award (you have to try really hard these days), but now we are using cybernetics to get people pregnant that don't have breeding capacity? C'mon now... its hilarious how on Discovery Channel and the like you hear about how important wolves and sharks and the like are to the ecosystem, in that they typically hunt the weakest which helps improve the overall health and vitality of the herd as a whole, and no one questions that, but somehow we are absolutely disgusted when applying the same logic we do to all other organisms on the planet to humanity. We're just animals with big heads... same rules apply.

Ducman69 said:

I agree.

So you tell people you want a dog or cat on social media, and you will be told more or less that you are worse than Satan if you don't adopt a dog or cat from a shelter that needs a home, because there are already way too many dogs on the planet.

Well, guess what, there are estimated to be NINE TIMES as many people on the planet as dogs.

So next time you hear about someone on social media say they are taking weird fertility treatments to try and have a baby, give them the same treatment and tell them to adopt.

Besides, honestly this is like reverse eugenics, where not only do all the intelligent and responsible people do just about everything possible to prevent people from winning a Darwin award (you have to try really hard these days), but now we are using cybernetics to get people pregnant that don't have breeding capacity? C'mon now... its hilarious how on Discovery Channel and the like you hear about how important wolves and sharks and the like are to the ecosystem, in that they typically hunt the weakest which helps improve the overall health and vitality of the herd as a whole, and no one questions that, but somehow we are absolutely disgusted when applying the same logic we do to all other organisms on the planet to humanity. We're just animals with big heads... same rules apply.

Click to expand...

Pretty much...

MUST have kids!!!! And I already predetermined I am going to have 5.

Well, off to work... Have fun at day care! Be ready for nighty night when we get home!

When do we get Penis Bots to insert in the Vagina bots to do all that hard work of inserting the Sperm bots? So us refined future types can sit back and wear out the batteries (or blow out the power grid) with our heavy duty orgasmatrons?

I'm curious how this will be different from IVF.

It says in the article that IVF isn't reliable and that it's costly...but I don't see how this is different.

IVF basically lets the operator choose a sperm, then use a needle to inject it directly into the egg.

This method allows the operator to choose a sperm, then use a needle to inject it directly into the egg.

As the article says, the problem is a bad sperm, but in both cases the operator chooses a visually ok sperm.

Additionally the cost of IVF isn't the material cost, which is just some needles, a microscope, and some cleaning liquids, the cost is the labor to do it and the recovery time from the egg retrieval process, both of which would still exist with this new method?

Anyways...not seeing the benefit.

Xrave said:

I'm curious how this will be different from IVF.

It says in the article that IVF isn't reliable and that it's costly...but I don't see how this is different.

IVF basically lets the operator choose a sperm, then use a needle to inject it directly into the egg.

This method allows the operator to choose a sperm, then use a needle to inject it directly into the egg.

As the article says, the problem is a bad sperm, but in both cases the operator chooses a visually ok sperm.

Additionally the cost of IVF isn't the material cost, which is just some needles, a microscope, and some cleaning liquids, the cost is the labor to do it and the recovery time from the egg retrieval process, both of which would still exist with this new method?

Anyways...not seeing the benefit.

Click to expand...

Don't question scientific progress!! We must have an unrelenting march of progress ignoring the questions of should we do it just because we can. We should ignore all consequences and the costs of progress and continue just for the sake of progress!

Ya Darwin needs to come back from vacation and add some chlorine to the gene pool.

If you think about it, I don't think the species itself would want those that cannot reproduce to now be able to. Adoption is healthier all around, but this is about wanting a particular product, and this looks like some more expensive science that can and will make it happen.

mwallek said:

If you think about it, I don't think the species itself would want those that cannot reproduce to now be able to. Adoption is healthier all around, but this is about wanting a particular product, and this looks like some more expensive science that can and will make it happen.

Click to expand...

We keep people that "shouldn't live" alive all the time. Albert Einstein would have been left for dead as a child that couldn't walk soon enough to move on with the tribe. Isaac Newton was Bipolar on a major level. In fact, if you go back through our brief history, there aren't very many truly exceptional minds in our history that weren't pretty messed up.

Our natural selection is about our brain and its empathy, physically we aren't very impressive anyway and we have almost wrested control of the whole process ourselves. There is a modern right-wing narrative that we must now weed out the week, we must destroy the net-taker society, in doing so a significant number of our species are turning their backs on what continues to makes us an exceptionally adaptable animal.

Your sperm count can be influenced by your work place, your diet, your home environment, injuries, and all sorts of other things that must make you inferior? Right? This would just be another stage in our ability to master ourselves and our world. Whether a few political fear salesmen like it or not, we will continue to progress, and morally complete people will continue to help the weak. It's what makes us, us.

By the way this will never happen. IVF is WAY easier.

Not to mention, it isn't always about low sperm counts and such. For my wife and I, it was an issue with endometriosis that effectively blocked one fillopian tube and caused swelling in the other. Otherwise, she was perfectly capable of carrying a child to full term. We discussed it multiple times and the cost of adoption was equal to or even more expensive than 1 round of IVF. So we opted for a round of IVF, which produced 5 viable embryos. 3 were put back and produced our first child. 3 years later we decided to spend the significantly cheaper amount (most of the IVF costs are in the production and harvesting of the eggs and creation of the embryos) and put the 2 remaining embryos back, which gave us our second child. Net balance on the global population scale, so we are done.

For some people it is an extremely emotional issue trying to decide between adoption, medical assistance, or just accepting that you won't have children. To belittle those decisions and take the "weeding out the weak" or "if you were meant to have children you would" route is just sad.

For us, we could have been happy either way in the end, but my wife felt the need for biological offspring stronger than I did, as I could care less if my "bloodline" continues. Heck, my family name won't even continue since they are both girls. So we looked at the financial aspects and when numbers started balancing out (or actually tipping towards the IVF route in case), we settled on agreeing to one round and if that didn't take then we would go down the adoption route. Yes, logically that could have meant we would have spent 2x or more to adopt if IVF didn't work, but that was a choice we made and hey, we all like choices right... otherwise everyone should be on Windows 8 (not 8.1 or 10) and just like it

adoption

Click to expand...

If they aren't your own, then you aren't continuing your bloodline. It is impeding human evolution. The smartest and strongest should raise the smartest and strongest; and the most stupid and most weak should be culled off.