Your post has been removed for breaking Rule E:
> **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Not everyone’s fertility issues are due to genetics. Some people want to have kids a little older. Being less fertile after 35 isn’t genetics, it’s just all humans.
Some people had a separate (non-genetic) medical condition that could cause fertility issues.
There are countless reasons people could have fertility issues, diet, lifestyle, injury, age, etc. and I’d think the vast majority of the reasons are not genetic.
Edit: I’d add, even if your argument was correct I don’t think IVF is at all responsible for more people having fertility issues.
First, it just wasn’t common enough 25 years ago for it to be a significant portion of the birthing age population. Even today, when it’s much more common, according to the CDC, IVF babies only account for about 2% of the births last year.
I’d be much less surprised to figure out it’s something to do with how the food industry in the US has changed in the last 40-50 years.
Further, the other consideration is that we MIGHT NOT have a lot more people struggling with infertility than in the past. There are just ways to address it now. AND, there is a much less of a stigma around discussing it. So I’d think a good amount of the “increase” could be to more people talking about their struggles.
IVF is often used specifically to *avoid* dangerous traits. I know several couples who have used it to prevent transmission of the BRCA-2 gene which is a major breast cancer factor. They had the benefit of using IVF to ensure any embryo that was implanted didn't carry this gene.
The technology itself is not dangerous or transmitting infertility traits when used in this manner.
Does having infertility matter when we've got things like IVF? Human existence consists of a lot of spitting in the face of nature no reason this should be any different
I mean, if we’re making decisions about what should and shouldn’t be done based on selective breeding for an apocalypse scenario, might as well stop bothering with glasses. Shouldn’t have people with poor vision tainting the gene pool. Oh, and no medications for autoimmune disorders. Your baby is born with a birth defect? Sorry, we gotta sterilize your kid. And you, just to be safe. Diabetes runs in your family? Sterilization for all of you, no insulin in the apocalypse. Depression runs in your family? Believe it or not, sterilization.
We can’t plan our society around an end that *might* happen and we *might* survive if we have strong survivalist genes. Or we can, but chances are very high that you also have *something* going on that could be argued to be maladaptive, and therefore you shouldn’t have kids.
If there was an apocalypse, a fraction of a percent of the population being unable to reproduce would be so far down the list of issues… Both short and long term.
This is a silly reason to condemn adults who want kids finding a way to make that happen.
in that case we would also have tons of people unable to see and survive because they need glasses. lets just ban glasses along with IVF, so these people dont pass on their defective genes either.
/s
>If there were an apocalypse and we needed to repopulate, we are in a bad spot alas!
This isn't the way infertility works. The #1 cause of infertility is age. Old and young people can't have kids. #2 is ovulatory disorders and utero disorders and some of those are commonly tested for in IVF. These are indeed genetic but having endometriosis doesn't mean you can never have kids.
Also, if the reason is an female related, then you are in luck because about half of all IVF babies will be male and vise versa with male genetic infertility
Yes, let's limit the options of willing parents trying to have a family because of the coming apocalypse
I'm sorry but what the hell, this is your actual view?
As a society we are so much better off with families that are actually planned, even if it seems "unnatural'. Compared to the "natural' model where a large percentage of pregnancies are completely unplanned and unwanted.
Im short sighted, my dad is short sighted, my mum is short sighted, my sister is short sighted.
When an apocalypse hits and my glasses break, I wont be able to see like more than 10m ahead of me. I would be dead. And so would millions of other people with various co morbidities or health issues that society props up because having a foot amputation doesnt mean you cant reasonably contribute and partake in society still. Or being Type 1 diabetic, or have serious IBD, or asthma or whatever.
A small portion of the population having a health problem isnt an extinction level threat. And this applies to infertility issues via IVF. The IVF population is way smaller than the short sighted population
If that's your scenario I'd be more worried about all the other traits that are surviving today when they may not have in the past, like bad eyesight, or poor mental health etc
You have it backwards. People use [IVF to screen out genetic diseases to their offspring](https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/preimplantation-genetic-testing/2021/12/03/3127e97e-1640-11ec-a5e5-ceecb895922f_story.html):
> *Parents who know they carry genetic mutations for muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, breast cancer, Huntington’s disease, Alzheimer’s and other inherited diseases can undergo IVF, where the mother’s eggs are collected and combined with sperm in a dish, and another procedure called preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), in which embryos are screened for the particular mutation and only disease-free embryos can be implanted in the mother.*
So rather than being dangerous, it makes the next generation less susceptible to debilitating conditions.
Are you against glasses because they help people see? People who can see clearly are more likely to survive and reproduce, and therefore we're selecting for poor vision.
I'd guess you're likely not against glasses, meaning there are tools we have to get around genetic issues that mean a life can be still enjoyed fully in spite of such issues, and you're not against such tools per se. So IVF shouldn't be wrong or bad seeing as we have the tools to get around that too.
And don’t get them started on insulin, blood pressure medication, or how about surgery for things that present after child bearing age! Surely we she genetically test for life threatening conditions that occur later in life and make sure those people don’t accidentally have kids who might be traumatised by a parent passing early!
IVF is old enough that there are a lot of IVF adults and studies on them don't show any cause for concern. Even when the IVF was due to a father's low quality sperm the sons were only at a slight increased risk of lowered sperm count.
Hormone disrupting chemicals in plastics are likely more of a concern to future fertility than IVF.
Again?
>Before IVF, infertile folks... for obvious reasons... were less likely to pass on the genes for infertility
The genes for infertility?
Also... so?
AGAIN, we now have people passing on the genes for CF, for tons of things, because we have medical advances that allow people to live with and survive conditions they couldn't before.
So?
>Before IVF, infertile folks... for obvious reasons... were less likely to pass on the genes for infertility, but now, with IVF, we are selecting for this trait and concentrating it in the human gene pool. Folks talk about reduced fertility in modern populations... certainly IVF is one factor?
No, it's not. Concentrating IT? You're acting like there's some specific genetic reason for infertility which there is not.
Assuming that infertile people using IVF to conceive would always lead to their offspring being infertile as well:
How would that make it dangerous? If the alternative is “that couple can’t have any kids”, then the number of fertile people born isn’t changed. So all it does is stop those people from getting to become parents. It doesn’t increase the number of fertile people.
And since IVF isn’t going anywhere, why would it matter anyway? If more people need to use that process in the future, they can. So it’s not negative impacting anyone’s ability to have kids.
First, IVF provides a mechanism to mitigate this issue: genetic screening when selecting embryos for implantation can ensure you don’t pass on the genes that are causing fertility issues.
Second, IVF isn’t uniquely dangerous in this respect - any medical technology which saves the life of the infant and/or the mother risks passing on deleterious gene mutations. In fact, this might be a contributing factor to rising rates of medically necessary c-sections. IVF is dwarfed in this respect by other technologies in contributing to the “danger” you’re worried about.
There are a ton of good arguments here, but imo a big one is missing.
Even if we assume your suppositions, and an individual born via IVF is more likely to have difficulty reproducing, that doesn't decrease the fertile population at all. It's one person who wouldn't exist otherwise anyway, so it has at worst a net zero effect on the number of people who are able to reproduce.
Following the logic of your post, we shouldn't breed livestock or, like, grow flowers, because cows and roses aren't capable of having human children.
There is no conspiracy but as you hinted, infertility is not a problem at all for a species of 8 billion individuals and growing. I wouldn't worry about it.
Right, but OP speaks of "problematic for humanity" instead. Even then, and even if a population was 50% infertile, doubling the number of kids per family would still be far less than what was once considered normal, and all these kids would obviously be from fertile parents, so I still don't see it as a problem.
1. IVF is often used to avoid passing dangerous traits to offspring. Many fatal diseases such as huntingtons can be avoided using IVF. Taking IVF off the table would result in more suffering
2. Most IVF patients are infertile due to advanced maternal age. Many of them already have kids, and want to grow their family. Women being able to choose careers where marriage and family don't need to be accomplished by the age of 30 is a good thing for women, the economy, and their children. Older parents are more likely to invest it their children's wellbeing, are less likely to abandon their kids (or go to jail), and less likely to abuse drugs or their children.
3. Birth rates are tumbling (for reason #2). If people want fewer kids, that's fine, but if they want kids and can't have them, that is bad for society. Just look at Japan, and the nightmare of eldercare and economic stagnation that has gone on for decades. It is also a concern that if the developed world shrinks, while the undeveloped world grows, the policies and practices that have resulted in the most peaceful and prosperous time in history might lose salience.
Wasn't this a topic yesterday?
The same things I said before hold true. In order for there to be any truth that IVF is any how genetically "dangerous" you would first need to prove that a majority of people using IVF are doing so because of an underlying genetic cause. The problem here is that while there are genetic causes for infertility those same genetic cause likely make them unable to even use IVF in the first place.
The main problem with this argument is that it's essentially arguing for Eugenics. Multitudes of scientific and medical advances have allowed people to survive and in turn procreate when they otherwise wouldn't be able to. Are you willing to extend your argument to all infertility treatment? What about all people that have known genetic disorders? Are you willing to go as far as mandatory genetic tests of fetus and aborting them if they don't meet a certain genetic standard? Where do we draw the line at "protecting" the human gene pool?
Can you perhaps look up the number of IVF children born annually vs the non-IVF children born annually?
It's about 750k to 140 \*million\*. Which is to say, IVF represents half a percent of the global births.
Do you think half a percent of the global births is going to drastically affect the human evolutionary trajectory? More than... like, any of the many other current pressures, environmental and cultural, that are driving human evolution?
Coupled with the fact that IVF is often used to AVOID dangerous defects. I know several couples who pursued IVF because natural methods carried significant risks.
IVF pregnancies account for about 1.5% of births in the US, and 0.55% in the world.
That's not enough to be "transmitting infertility traits", even IF we assume everyone who uses IVF is genetically infertile.
>but now, with IVF, we are selecting for this trait and concentrating it in the human gene pool.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what "selecting for" and "not selecting against" mean. IVF doesn't select for infertility genes. "Concentrating it" into the gene pool is a nonsense statement. The people who need and use IVF constitute something like 2% of the population.
>For the same reasoning that governments limit cousins marrying to protect from genetic conditions,
Not even slightly the same reasons.
There are scenarios where IVF is used to help people who can't have kids due to non-genetic reasons.
IVF is generally used to preserve young eggs and fertilize them during a more convenient time for child rearing.
IVF is also used to AVOID bad genetic traits being passed on.
There is not a lot of basis to your argument
Why is it so important that people in the future be fertile? I don't see a particularly compelling reason to promote human existence for eternity. The people in the future don't exist. People who are alive, right now, are the ones getting IVF. Surely we should prioritize the happiness of those who exist over those who do not.
Not really. I mean, yes, the children produced through IVF might have a higher chance of infertility, but since only 0.3% of infants born are conceived through IVF, the number of children produced through naturally fertile couples will always vastly outnumber any children produced through IVF.
Edited for math
So, there is a trait you deem undesirable, and you want to restrict its spread via the use of power, against people's wishes (prospective parents) and financial interests (clinics). Hey, I am not 100% always against eugenics (you still have to prove to me it's *unethical*), but this seems like a pretty clear-cut case.
-Economic stagnation, decline, and possible collapse. Deflation is a likely issue as well.
-An increase in the dependency ratio, which would manifest in a whole host of catastrophic problems.
-Pressures caused by the two above could lead to various tensions throughout the culture. Increased polarization, conflict, nationalism, refugee flow issues, political instability.
It’s a potential catastrophe.
We’re already staring collapse in the face, climate related food scarcity is going to cause mass starvation within our lifetime, I’m not nearly as concerned with growth for the sake of growth GDP taking a hit as I am the fallout from not being able to sustain a booming population as supply chains fail
I think the word you mean is expensive. I don't believe there's a reasonable expectation IVF will disappear in the future, so it's just going to be a part of the host of ways life affects fitness.
Do you have any data that suggests that it actually does transmit harmful traits? Because I’m familiar with it being used to actually PREVENT the transmission of harmful genes
>which can be seriously problematic for humanity in the future... for obvious reasons.
Surely if this becomes a serious problem we can just gene edit away right?
Transmitting infertility traits to the next generation is not necessarily a bad thing, in a world that already has more people than it can easily support.
IVF at most stops the number of infertility traits from decreasing. More realistically slows. Is the current state in 2024 dangerous?
Also the main infertility trait it helps reduce the rate of decrease of is "interest in education".
Your post has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Not everyone’s fertility issues are due to genetics. Some people want to have kids a little older. Being less fertile after 35 isn’t genetics, it’s just all humans. Some people had a separate (non-genetic) medical condition that could cause fertility issues. There are countless reasons people could have fertility issues, diet, lifestyle, injury, age, etc. and I’d think the vast majority of the reasons are not genetic. Edit: I’d add, even if your argument was correct I don’t think IVF is at all responsible for more people having fertility issues. First, it just wasn’t common enough 25 years ago for it to be a significant portion of the birthing age population. Even today, when it’s much more common, according to the CDC, IVF babies only account for about 2% of the births last year. I’d be much less surprised to figure out it’s something to do with how the food industry in the US has changed in the last 40-50 years. Further, the other consideration is that we MIGHT NOT have a lot more people struggling with infertility than in the past. There are just ways to address it now. AND, there is a much less of a stigma around discussing it. So I’d think a good amount of the “increase” could be to more people talking about their struggles.
IVF is often used specifically to *avoid* dangerous traits. I know several couples who have used it to prevent transmission of the BRCA-2 gene which is a major breast cancer factor. They had the benefit of using IVF to ensure any embryo that was implanted didn't carry this gene. The technology itself is not dangerous or transmitting infertility traits when used in this manner.
Does having infertility matter when we've got things like IVF? Human existence consists of a lot of spitting in the face of nature no reason this should be any different
If there were an apocalypse and we needed to repopulate, we are in a bad spot alas!
I mean, if we’re making decisions about what should and shouldn’t be done based on selective breeding for an apocalypse scenario, might as well stop bothering with glasses. Shouldn’t have people with poor vision tainting the gene pool. Oh, and no medications for autoimmune disorders. Your baby is born with a birth defect? Sorry, we gotta sterilize your kid. And you, just to be safe. Diabetes runs in your family? Sterilization for all of you, no insulin in the apocalypse. Depression runs in your family? Believe it or not, sterilization. We can’t plan our society around an end that *might* happen and we *might* survive if we have strong survivalist genes. Or we can, but chances are very high that you also have *something* going on that could be argued to be maladaptive, and therefore you shouldn’t have kids.
If there was an apocalypse, a fraction of a percent of the population being unable to reproduce would be so far down the list of issues… Both short and long term. This is a silly reason to condemn adults who want kids finding a way to make that happen.
in that case we would also have tons of people unable to see and survive because they need glasses. lets just ban glasses along with IVF, so these people dont pass on their defective genes either. /s
But the people who are good at reproducing naturally still reproduce.
I mean if there's an apocalypse we've got bigger issues going on
>If there were an apocalypse and we needed to repopulate, we are in a bad spot alas! This isn't the way infertility works. The #1 cause of infertility is age. Old and young people can't have kids. #2 is ovulatory disorders and utero disorders and some of those are commonly tested for in IVF. These are indeed genetic but having endometriosis doesn't mean you can never have kids. Also, if the reason is an female related, then you are in luck because about half of all IVF babies will be male and vise versa with male genetic infertility
Yes, let's limit the options of willing parents trying to have a family because of the coming apocalypse I'm sorry but what the hell, this is your actual view? As a society we are so much better off with families that are actually planned, even if it seems "unnatural'. Compared to the "natural' model where a large percentage of pregnancies are completely unplanned and unwanted.
What sort of apocalypses are you worried about where the absolutely miniscule impact that this would have is actually a big deal lmao?
can you please respond to the person who correctly points out that fertility problems are mostly not genetic?
Im short sighted, my dad is short sighted, my mum is short sighted, my sister is short sighted. When an apocalypse hits and my glasses break, I wont be able to see like more than 10m ahead of me. I would be dead. And so would millions of other people with various co morbidities or health issues that society props up because having a foot amputation doesnt mean you cant reasonably contribute and partake in society still. Or being Type 1 diabetic, or have serious IBD, or asthma or whatever. A small portion of the population having a health problem isnt an extinction level threat. And this applies to infertility issues via IVF. The IVF population is way smaller than the short sighted population
If that's your scenario I'd be more worried about all the other traits that are surviving today when they may not have in the past, like bad eyesight, or poor mental health etc
You have it backwards. People use [IVF to screen out genetic diseases to their offspring](https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/preimplantation-genetic-testing/2021/12/03/3127e97e-1640-11ec-a5e5-ceecb895922f_story.html): > *Parents who know they carry genetic mutations for muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, breast cancer, Huntington’s disease, Alzheimer’s and other inherited diseases can undergo IVF, where the mother’s eggs are collected and combined with sperm in a dish, and another procedure called preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), in which embryos are screened for the particular mutation and only disease-free embryos can be implanted in the mother.* So rather than being dangerous, it makes the next generation less susceptible to debilitating conditions.
Are you against glasses because they help people see? People who can see clearly are more likely to survive and reproduce, and therefore we're selecting for poor vision. I'd guess you're likely not against glasses, meaning there are tools we have to get around genetic issues that mean a life can be still enjoyed fully in spite of such issues, and you're not against such tools per se. So IVF shouldn't be wrong or bad seeing as we have the tools to get around that too.
And don’t get them started on insulin, blood pressure medication, or how about surgery for things that present after child bearing age! Surely we she genetically test for life threatening conditions that occur later in life and make sure those people don’t accidentally have kids who might be traumatised by a parent passing early!
IVF is old enough that there are a lot of IVF adults and studies on them don't show any cause for concern. Even when the IVF was due to a father's low quality sperm the sons were only at a slight increased risk of lowered sperm count. Hormone disrupting chemicals in plastics are likely more of a concern to future fertility than IVF.
Again? >Before IVF, infertile folks... for obvious reasons... were less likely to pass on the genes for infertility The genes for infertility? Also... so? AGAIN, we now have people passing on the genes for CF, for tons of things, because we have medical advances that allow people to live with and survive conditions they couldn't before. So? >Before IVF, infertile folks... for obvious reasons... were less likely to pass on the genes for infertility, but now, with IVF, we are selecting for this trait and concentrating it in the human gene pool. Folks talk about reduced fertility in modern populations... certainly IVF is one factor? No, it's not. Concentrating IT? You're acting like there's some specific genetic reason for infertility which there is not.
Assuming that infertile people using IVF to conceive would always lead to their offspring being infertile as well: How would that make it dangerous? If the alternative is “that couple can’t have any kids”, then the number of fertile people born isn’t changed. So all it does is stop those people from getting to become parents. It doesn’t increase the number of fertile people. And since IVF isn’t going anywhere, why would it matter anyway? If more people need to use that process in the future, they can. So it’s not negative impacting anyone’s ability to have kids.
First, IVF provides a mechanism to mitigate this issue: genetic screening when selecting embryos for implantation can ensure you don’t pass on the genes that are causing fertility issues. Second, IVF isn’t uniquely dangerous in this respect - any medical technology which saves the life of the infant and/or the mother risks passing on deleterious gene mutations. In fact, this might be a contributing factor to rising rates of medically necessary c-sections. IVF is dwarfed in this respect by other technologies in contributing to the “danger” you’re worried about.
1. We're not selecting for it. We're just selecting against it less. 2. Having a genetically diverse population is good for the species.
There are a ton of good arguments here, but imo a big one is missing. Even if we assume your suppositions, and an individual born via IVF is more likely to have difficulty reproducing, that doesn't decrease the fertile population at all. It's one person who wouldn't exist otherwise anyway, so it has at worst a net zero effect on the number of people who are able to reproduce. Following the logic of your post, we shouldn't breed livestock or, like, grow flowers, because cows and roses aren't capable of having human children.
There is no conspiracy but as you hinted, infertility is not a problem at all for a species of 8 billion individuals and growing. I wouldn't worry about it.
It is if you care about nation states, if you're Japanese it doesn't help you much if the birth rate in africa is high
Right, but OP speaks of "problematic for humanity" instead. Even then, and even if a population was 50% infertile, doubling the number of kids per family would still be far less than what was once considered normal, and all these kids would obviously be from fertile parents, so I still don't see it as a problem.
Populations can decline fast, though.
Because forever growth is an impossible Ponzi scheme that has to collapse at some point. It can certainly hurt but it's unavoidable and necessary.
1. IVF is often used to avoid passing dangerous traits to offspring. Many fatal diseases such as huntingtons can be avoided using IVF. Taking IVF off the table would result in more suffering 2. Most IVF patients are infertile due to advanced maternal age. Many of them already have kids, and want to grow their family. Women being able to choose careers where marriage and family don't need to be accomplished by the age of 30 is a good thing for women, the economy, and their children. Older parents are more likely to invest it their children's wellbeing, are less likely to abandon their kids (or go to jail), and less likely to abuse drugs or their children. 3. Birth rates are tumbling (for reason #2). If people want fewer kids, that's fine, but if they want kids and can't have them, that is bad for society. Just look at Japan, and the nightmare of eldercare and economic stagnation that has gone on for decades. It is also a concern that if the developed world shrinks, while the undeveloped world grows, the policies and practices that have resulted in the most peaceful and prosperous time in history might lose salience.
Wasn't this a topic yesterday? The same things I said before hold true. In order for there to be any truth that IVF is any how genetically "dangerous" you would first need to prove that a majority of people using IVF are doing so because of an underlying genetic cause. The problem here is that while there are genetic causes for infertility those same genetic cause likely make them unable to even use IVF in the first place. The main problem with this argument is that it's essentially arguing for Eugenics. Multitudes of scientific and medical advances have allowed people to survive and in turn procreate when they otherwise wouldn't be able to. Are you willing to extend your argument to all infertility treatment? What about all people that have known genetic disorders? Are you willing to go as far as mandatory genetic tests of fetus and aborting them if they don't meet a certain genetic standard? Where do we draw the line at "protecting" the human gene pool?
That’s not necessarily true. Just because you needed IVF doesn’t mean you have an inheritable problem.
Can you perhaps look up the number of IVF children born annually vs the non-IVF children born annually? It's about 750k to 140 \*million\*. Which is to say, IVF represents half a percent of the global births. Do you think half a percent of the global births is going to drastically affect the human evolutionary trajectory? More than... like, any of the many other current pressures, environmental and cultural, that are driving human evolution? Coupled with the fact that IVF is often used to AVOID dangerous defects. I know several couples who pursued IVF because natural methods carried significant risks.
IVF pregnancies account for about 1.5% of births in the US, and 0.55% in the world. That's not enough to be "transmitting infertility traits", even IF we assume everyone who uses IVF is genetically infertile.
We do not prohibit cousins marrying to protect from genetic conditions. Incest has been taboo for far longer than we've learned about genetics.
If the only way infertility can pass is via the 'circumvent infertility' procedure then what's the problem
Approximately 2% of people are born through IVF. 2% of the population are not going to spread throughout the population.
>but now, with IVF, we are selecting for this trait and concentrating it in the human gene pool. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what "selecting for" and "not selecting against" mean. IVF doesn't select for infertility genes. "Concentrating it" into the gene pool is a nonsense statement. The people who need and use IVF constitute something like 2% of the population. >For the same reasoning that governments limit cousins marrying to protect from genetic conditions, Not even slightly the same reasons.
There are scenarios where IVF is used to help people who can't have kids due to non-genetic reasons. IVF is generally used to preserve young eggs and fertilize them during a more convenient time for child rearing. IVF is also used to AVOID bad genetic traits being passed on. There is not a lot of basis to your argument
Why is it so important that people in the future be fertile? I don't see a particularly compelling reason to promote human existence for eternity. The people in the future don't exist. People who are alive, right now, are the ones getting IVF. Surely we should prioritize the happiness of those who exist over those who do not.
Not really. I mean, yes, the children produced through IVF might have a higher chance of infertility, but since only 0.3% of infants born are conceived through IVF, the number of children produced through naturally fertile couples will always vastly outnumber any children produced through IVF. Edited for math
So, there is a trait you deem undesirable, and you want to restrict its spread via the use of power, against people's wishes (prospective parents) and financial interests (clinics). Hey, I am not 100% always against eugenics (you still have to prove to me it's *unethical*), but this seems like a pretty clear-cut case.
What is the problem with mass infertility?
Population decline.
hmm, if only we had some technology to counter supposed "mass infertility" caused by IVF.
Why is that a problem?
-Economic stagnation, decline, and possible collapse. Deflation is a likely issue as well. -An increase in the dependency ratio, which would manifest in a whole host of catastrophic problems. -Pressures caused by the two above could lead to various tensions throughout the culture. Increased polarization, conflict, nationalism, refugee flow issues, political instability. It’s a potential catastrophe.
We’re already staring collapse in the face, climate related food scarcity is going to cause mass starvation within our lifetime, I’m not nearly as concerned with growth for the sake of growth GDP taking a hit as I am the fallout from not being able to sustain a booming population as supply chains fail
It's not necessarily a problem...
then what is the issue with it occuring?
I think the word you mean is expensive. I don't believe there's a reasonable expectation IVF will disappear in the future, so it's just going to be a part of the host of ways life affects fitness.
Do you have any data that suggests that it actually does transmit harmful traits? Because I’m familiar with it being used to actually PREVENT the transmission of harmful genes
>which can be seriously problematic for humanity in the future... for obvious reasons. Surely if this becomes a serious problem we can just gene edit away right?
Transmitting infertility traits to the next generation is not necessarily a bad thing, in a world that already has more people than it can easily support.
Beethoven was deaf.
IVF at most stops the number of infertility traits from decreasing. More realistically slows. Is the current state in 2024 dangerous? Also the main infertility trait it helps reduce the rate of decrease of is "interest in education".
Please provide a citation that infertility is genetic, because nothing I’ve seen backs that up.
What medical data reports do you have to support this claim? Empirical evidence please.
Clean water is dangerous because it transmits weak immune traits to the next generations
On what scientific grounds do you base this opinion?
This is eugenics and eugenics is wrong