Question for Richard Dawkins » UPDATE
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-10-2013, 08:39 PM
RE: Question for Richard Dawkins » UPDATE
Hmm..I think bionic improvements would be more feasible. The technology is already here with artificial limbs and exo-suits. It will only get more compact and advanced. Would not take as long as forcing evolution either. They have bionic implants so a immobile person can interface with a computer..wow it could be really beneficial or go really really bad. Those double edged swords are sharp.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 08:41 PM
RE: Question for Richard Dawkins » UPDATE
(11-10-2013 08:07 PM)Jeffasaurus Wrote:  
(11-10-2013 06:36 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  I don't know about that. I'm not a woman, but I've been involved with the process twice now. I can't speak for all women, just my wife, but there is a profound intimacy inherent in carrying a baby inside of you. For all of the inconveniences and pain that goes with pregnancy, I don't think she'd give it up if she had the choice.

That sounds exactly like my wife. She was able to have that early connection that, as an observer, I could only watch and guess as to the experience. Even through the second pregnancy sheer was able to enjoy the intimacy without worrying about the impending physical trauma that she had yet to endure. In fact, she'd forgotten just how painful it was....until it started. Then it all came flooding back. I spectated.

Besides, Petri dish reproduction eliminates the fun part.

I understand about the bonding, but that happens after she becomes pregnant. Did your wives look forward to becoming pregnant?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 08:45 PM
RE: Question for Richard Dawkins » UPDATE
(11-10-2013 08:39 PM)grizzlysnake Wrote:  Hmm..I think bionic improvements would be more feasible. The technology is already here with artificial limbs and exo-suits. It will only get more compact and advanced. Would not take as long as forcing evolution either. They have bionic implants so a immobile person can interface with a computer..wow it could be really beneficial or go really really bad. Those double edged swords are sharp.

Machine evolution will probably eclipse biological evolution and with machine evolution, mutations will not be random.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 08:55 PM
RE: Question for Richard Dawkins » UPDATE
(11-10-2013 08:41 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Did your wives look forward to becoming pregnant?

Honestly, I can't remember which way she was facing. Cool

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like evenheathen's post
11-10-2013, 09:06 PM
RE: Question for Richard Dawkins » UPDATE
(11-10-2013 08:45 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(11-10-2013 08:39 PM)grizzlysnake Wrote:  Hmm..I think bionic improvements would be more feasible. The technology is already here with artificial limbs and exo-suits. It will only get more compact and advanced. Would not take as long as forcing evolution either. They have bionic implants so a immobile person can interface with a computer..wow it could be really beneficial or go really really bad. Those double edged swords are sharp.

Machine evolution will probably eclipse biological evolution and with machine evolution, mutations will not be random.
Unless we make machines that build themselves...which is kinda happening if you consider assembly line work. Isn't lego fully automated?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 09:06 PM
RE: Question for Richard Dawkins » UPDATE
(11-10-2013 08:41 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(11-10-2013 08:07 PM)Jeffasaurus Wrote:  That sounds exactly like my wife. She was able to have that early connection that, as an observer, I could only watch and guess as to the experience. Even through the second pregnancy sheer was able to enjoy the intimacy without worrying about the impending physical trauma that she had yet to endure. In fact, she'd forgotten just how painful it was....until it started. Then it all came flooding back. I spectated.

Besides, Petri dish reproduction eliminates the fun part.

I understand about the bonding, but that happens after she becomes pregnant. Did your wives look forward to becoming pregnant?

Mine did. She'd spent some time worrying needlessly that she might be unable to. I think most women look forward to it simply as a result of evolution. Men have an innate desire to spread our DNA, women need to reproduce theirs.

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcmPL4codsbtiJhpFav3r...-w_49ttW6a]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 09:17 PM
RE: Question for Richard Dawkins » UPDATE
(11-10-2013 09:06 PM)Jeffasaurus Wrote:  
(11-10-2013 08:41 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I understand about the bonding, but that happens after she becomes pregnant. Did your wives look forward to becoming pregnant?

Mine did. She'd spent some time worrying needlessly that she might be unable to. I think most women look forward to it simply as a result of evolution. Men have an innate desire to spread our DNA, women need to reproduce theirs.

What happens if in the future a husband and wife go to the fertility clinic....they take a pin prick of blood from the woman and a pinprick of blood from the man. Then the clinic manipulates the DNA as per the parents specifications, constructs a zygote which they then implant into an incubator. The parents take the incubator home, plug it in, and 9 months later out pops a baby.

If such technology were available today, I would think a whole lot of moms would opt out of traditional pregnancies and go with this route. Enough that such gene manipulation would significantly start to impact the makeup of humanity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 09:46 PM
RE: Question for Richard Dawkins » UPDATE
(11-10-2013 09:17 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If such technology were available today, I would think a whole lot of moms would opt out of traditional pregnancies and go with this route.

I'd bet not. Some would for sure, but it depends on how your definition of " a whole lot" is in relation to total population for it to actually factor in to the evolution of the human species.

There's a whole lot more to this whole baby making thing that you and I could never comprehend. I've discussed this a little with my wife tonight, she completely agrees. I know that's anecdotal, but I'm pretty sure that any sort of honest polling would produce the same consensus.

It's kind of neat to think about, being able to design your baby. But if you ask me, that's really no fun. I'd have to be one narcissistic sumumabitch to think that I needed to design my kid's life. A designed life is really no life at all.

Hmmm.......Consider

God's perfect design........

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 10:25 PM
RE: Question for Richard Dawkins » UPDATE
(11-10-2013 09:46 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  I'd bet not. Some would for sure, but it depends on how your definition of " a whole lot" is in relation to total population for it to actually factor in to the evolution of the human species.

There's a whole lot more to this whole baby making thing that you and I could never comprehend. I've discussed this a little with my wife tonight, she completely agrees. I know that's anecdotal, but I'm pretty sure that any sort of honest polling would produce the same consensus.

It's kind of neat to think about, being able to design your baby. But if you ask me, that's really no fun. I'd have to be one narcissistic sumumabitch to think that I needed to design my kid's life. A designed life is really no life at all.

Hmmm.......Consider

God's perfect design........

If you took a poll today, I would expect the results you predict. But in the future people are going to think differently. 20 years ago if you polled people about texting, I think many would have said they wouldn't adopt it. That there is something special in the connection made by two people talking to each other with their voices rather than sending text messages.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heywood Jahblome's post
12-10-2013, 12:14 AM
RE: Question for Richard Dawkins » UPDATE
(11-10-2013 10:25 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(11-10-2013 09:46 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  I'd bet not. Some would for sure, but it depends on how your definition of " a whole lot" is in relation to total population for it to actually factor in to the evolution of the human species.

There's a whole lot more to this whole baby making thing that you and I could never comprehend. I've discussed this a little with my wife tonight, she completely agrees. I know that's anecdotal, but I'm pretty sure that any sort of honest polling would produce the same consensus.

It's kind of neat to think about, being able to design your baby. But if you ask me, that's really no fun. I'd have to be one narcissistic sumumabitch to think that I needed to design my kid's life. A designed life is really no life at all.

Hmmm.......Consider

God's perfect design........

If you took a poll today, I would expect the results you predict. But in the future people are going to think differently. 20 years ago if you polled people about texting, I think many would have said they wouldn't adopt it. That there is something special in the connection made by two people talking to each other with their voices rather than sending text messages.

I think that on this particular subject we are out of our league. I'm not about to equate texting to pregnancy. It's safer this way, trust me.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: