Choosing when to reproduce without "Protection"

[Rae'ya]

Re: Choosing when to reproduce without "Protection"

I think its a bizarre question, to be honest. We've been able to consciously control procreation for centuries. It hasn't always been effective in prevention, so we came up with ways to deal with that too, from termination to adoption. I think scientifically we have bigger issues to address.

Don't want babies for absolute certainty? Don't have sex with someone who's stuff is compatible with yours for breeding. The end.

I pretty much agree with this. We already have the ability to consciously chose whether to procreate or not. Of course, that choice requires that we use a few outside tools to help us, but it's still a conscious decision.

Abstinence is amazing for avoiding pregnancy. And contraception... well the possibilities are endless. My question is, do we even NEED to be able to flick a biological switch in order to make it happen / not happen? What would the point of this further evolution actually be? So that we don't have to bother to remember the contraception? So that we can have unprotected sex? What about STD's and STI's?

Not getting pregnant is not that difficult. Getting pregnant is much more difficult for some people. But I'm also of the opinion (which is generally pretty unpopular) that there is a maybe reason for fertility issues. Like maybe evolution is trying to do it's job by not letting us reproduce. I certainly don't mean to insult anyone by that, and I do empathize with the emotional trauma of not being able to conceive naturally (my husband is infertile). But I really do think that it is evolution and natural selection in action. And perhaps half the reason we have some of the evolutionary quirks that we do is because we have spent the last few hundred years controlling our own natural selection to the point that nature doesn't have that much of a say anymore. And now we're debating the merits of divorcing ourselves from natural selection even further.

Thus, any ability to have absolute control over fertility would have to be technological or (bio)chemical. Female birth control medication is a huge step in that direction from the chemical approach. I long to see male birth control pills...

I have an implant in my fridge at work that'll do that for you. Of course, it's designed for dogs and it will also stop testosterone production, and sex drive, thereby taking away a lot of those masculine traits that humans as a species rather enjoy.

How do I stop my period from happening with natural tricks? Besides being anorexic and all that unhealthy stuff?

You don't. Us girls are born with our quota of eggs already present... and they've gotta go somewhere...

Yep, and perhaps I just wasn't clear enough in my first post. That happens when I'm posting from work, sometimes. But I also quoted a text that includes:
"I'd like us to reach a point in evolution to where we can consciously choose to reproduce or not, and the body obeys"
which, in my opinion, sounds clear enough to steer the conversation into the intended direction... yes/no?

I guess it's the 'our body obeys' part that we're really debating here, isn't it? The conscious choice is already present. But the biological switch... there is a switch, it's just that we don't control it or even truly understand it. So could we ever evolve to the point of controlling the switch fully? I doubt it. Reproduction is an amazingly complex biological function, and there are some very sophisticated hormonal signals that respond to things like environmental factors, stress, nutrition, temperature and the 'natural selection' factor. Being able to consciously control that switch would, in effect, bypass all that. And is that actually in our best interests? Can we really be trusted to make the decision from a logical and responsible place rather than a purely emotive one?

We're focusing a lot on the avoidance of pregnancy here, but it works both ways. If we could consciously decide to get pregnant without fail the next time we have sex... would that potentially exacerbate our population problems rather than aid them? Would that place us in a position to have more Octomums running around the world? Would that facilitate more dole-bludger single mothers who have children they can't afford just for the government payouts?

Though in some ways our body already 'decides' for us. We can't get pregnant before puberty. And that number has moved down in age over time. So it may indeed be possible that way down the line, our bodies will find other ways to control our reproductive system. Of course I'm not sure how much male reproduction is involved. Can male children produce sperm before puberty?

The problem is that our highly controlled environment, modern diets and the wonders of modern medicine mean that we are living well past our natural expiry dates, setting off hormonal reactions that aren't supposed to happen in girls as young as nine, and generally introducing all sorts of artificially facilitated factors that nature never intended to happen. And we're doing it a lot faster than evolution can keep up with. We've taken the 'nature' out of the whole process; and because of that, we can no longer trust that our bodies are doing what's best for us.

[Aeran]

Re: Choosing when to reproduce without "Protection"

We're focusing a lot on the avoidance of pregnancy here, but it works both ways. If we could consciously decide to get pregnant without fail the next time we have sex... would that potentially exacerbate our population problems rather than aid them? Would that place us in a position to have more Octomums running around the world? Would that facilitate more dole-bludger single mothers who have children they can't afford just for the government payouts?

I guess that comes down to the question of whether those women have a ton of kids on purpose, or are just lazy about birth control. More research on these issues would definitely be needed before any such system was made available to the public, the last thing we need is more unwanted kids.

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: Choosing when to reproduce without "Protection"

This happened in 2012:

***Missouri Congressman Todd Akin, a conservative Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate,said in an interview broadcast Sunday that women's bodies can prevent pregnancies in the case of "a legitimate rape," adding that conception in such cases is rare.
Akin, a six-term congressman running against incumbent Democrat Sen. Claire McCaskill, was asked in an interview on St. Louis television station KTVI if he would support abortions for women who have been raped.
"It seems to me first of all from what I understand from doctors that's really rare," Akin said. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," Akin said of a rape victim's chances of becoming pregnant.***

So, the thought is out there, on some level. If people of this caliber also thought women could intentionally conceive, I'd imagine the repercussions would make it so only wealthy, married women would be "allowed" to. Because people of this caliber make it to Congress.

[Ula]

Re: Choosing when to reproduce without "Protection"

One can consciously choose not to have kids. It's called talking to a medical professional and getting birth control that fits your lifestyle then doing it right. Men can control having kids as well. It's a matter of not being lazy.

[Rowanwood]

Re: Choosing when to reproduce without "Protection"

I don't know how this couldn't evolve, conversation wise, into eugenics. I will refrain from further comment with one exception and then I promise to let it go: I think that eugenics is the most horrifying aspect of human culture ever evolved, so I do not hope for anything that would ever help facilitate it. I would prefer there to be 'whoops' babies if that's the only other option.

I know people who were "accidents" and I'm glad they are here. There are certainly cultural issues conscious and controlled procreation would solve, but there are as many it would create. I think we aren't nearly as smart as we think we are, as a species. Aren't many of us believers in nature and natural processes as being part of or an expression of god/dess? I think nature does know better, even if its not always obvious to us.

[ThorsSon]

Re: Choosing when to reproduce without "Protection"

Yep, and perhaps I just wasn't clear enough in my first post. That happens when I'm posting from work, sometimes. But I also quoted a text that includes:
"I'd like us to reach a point in evolution to where we can consciously choose to reproduce or not, and the body obeys"
which, in my opinion, sounds clear enough to steer the conversation into the intended direction... yes/no?

I addressed that in my reply

[Raphaeline]

Re: Choosing when to reproduce without "Protection"

I don't think it's likely we would just evolve the capability on our own - breeding a lot of offspring is one of humanity's defining characteristics. Evolution would need a much better reason to give us the ability to choose NOT to reproduce than "I'm not ready for a kid right now."

[ThorsSon]

Re: Choosing when to reproduce without "Protection"

I don't think it's likely we would just evolve the capability on our own - breeding a lot of offspring is one of humanity's defining characteristics. Evolution would need a much better reason to give us the ability to choose NOT to reproduce than "I'm not ready for a kid right now."

and considering that the things that lead to reproduction are the things that evolution tends to favor (since, how can a trait survive into subsequent generations without reproduction), it doesn't seem to be encouraged by evolution.

[Rowanwood]

Re: Choosing when to reproduce without "Protection"

and considering that the things that lead to reproduction are the things that evolution tends to favor (since, how can a trait survive into subsequent generations without reproduction), it doesn't seem to be encouraged by evolution.

You beat me to it.

[Raphaeline]

Re: Choosing when to reproduce without "Protection"

But the biological switch... there is a switch, it's just that we don't control it

Exactly. It's default position is "on" and the body doesn't want it turned off because how is that beneficial to the species? Even when overpopulation threatens the species, it's a problem with our environment - evolution doesn't have to fix overpopulation, the lack of resources takes care of that for us.

[Rae'ya]

Re: Choosing when to reproduce without "Protection"

Exactly. It's default position is "on" and the body doesn't want it turned off because how is that beneficial to the species? Even when overpopulation threatens the species, it's a problem with our environment - evolution doesn't have to fix overpopulation, the lack of resources takes care of that for us.

The problem is that first world humans now live so far outside of the natural cycle of things that the normal natural population control measures don't work. Run out of food... we'll just ship it in from elsewhere then build more farms. Disease... we'll cure it with modern medicine and then create vaccines to prevent it happening again. Predator-prey balance... pfft what predators? Second husband wants to kill and eat the children you had from your previous marriage in order to ensure only his genetics survive... well you can see the problem with that. Infertile... we'll artificially fertilise your egg inside a test tube then plant it in a surrogate mother to carry the baby for you.

Humans are effecting our own evolution, whether we realise it or not. The control that we exact over our environment changes the conditions that would otherwise force evolutionary change. There is very little natural selection in humanity anymore, and any evolutionary changes will happen in response to the way that we have engineered our human existence, not in response to anything nature tries to send our way.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know how this couldn't evolve, conversation wise, into eugenics. I will refrain from further comment with one exception and then I promise to let it go: I think that eugenics is the most horrifying aspect of human culture ever evolved, so I do not hope for anything that would ever help facilitate it. I would prefer there to be 'whoops' babies if that's the only other option.

I was forced to read Brave New World in school and that's the only thing I can ever think of now in response to 'eugenics'. It should probably be required reading for anyone who wants to support it.

/eugenics talk. No more, I promise.

That aside, I very much agree with you on all counts.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Choosing when to reproduce without "Protection"

I don't think it will be possible in the near future. Evolution is much slower than that and I can't see what kind of medical intervention would make it possible. Any medical intervention would likely be an improvement on what we have now, ie you take a medication or get an implant and stop it when you want to get pregnant.

What I think can and probably will happen in the near future is some sort of medical contraception for men.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is that first world humans now live so far outside of the natural cycle of things that the normal natural population control measures don't work. Run out of food... we'll just ship it in from elsewhere then build more farms. Disease... we'll cure it with modern medicine and then create vaccines to prevent it happening again. Predator-prey balance... pfft what predators? Second husband wants to kill and eat the children you had from your previous marriage in order to ensure only his genetics survive... well you can see the problem with that. Infertile... we'll artificially fertilise your egg inside a test tube then plant it in a surrogate mother to carry the baby for you.

Humans are effecting our own evolution, whether we realise it or not. The control that we exact over our environment changes the conditions that would otherwise force evolutionary change. There is very little natural selection in humanity anymore, and any evolutionary changes will happen in response to the way that we have engineered our human existence, not in response to anything nature tries to send our way.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree, and to be honest, most of what you describe is limited to the developed world. We control our own evolution, but we also control our own population, even if it's not conscious. I don't think population is a major issue in the developed world. The US is in the minority in its growing population. Most other countries have stable or declining populations. We may have found a way to cheat death for quite a while and ward off disease, violence, and hunger (for the most part anyway), but many of us also have fewer children and make conscious choices as to when we have those children. Although it would be nice to just "turn it on and of at will" so to speak, it's not really necessary. Although accidental pregnancy does happen, a lot of pregnancies are planned and even those that are not can be ended at will.

I think overconsumption is a bigger worry in our part of the world, but that's an entirely different topic.

[LaneyM]

Re: Choosing when to reproduce without "Protection"

We are trying to put our wants and needs onto biology, so no, there will never be a time that we can control what biology deems as the most important reason for us to be here. The female is here to produce an egg, create an internal environment for fertilization, incubate the fertilized egg, birth the fetus, feed the young until they are old enough to continue the cycle. The male is here to produce and deliver sperm. All the other traits that we have are designed to make these actions happen. While we are more than the sum of our biological parts, we can never be less than that.

Besides, even if suddenly nature stopped being about creating another generation, humans would still be controlling egg and fertilization artificially. Historically, our bodies do not waste energy doing something that we already control artificially. Like I live in a cold climate as has my ancestors for generations. One would think each generation would become more and more hairy with a thicker pelt. We do not because we protect ourselves artificially with clothing and shelter. Our bodies do not need to work harder, use more energy, to grow a protective pelt. As long as we can artificially control our breeding, why would the body put energy into going against its biological role.

[Denarius]

Re: Choosing when to reproduce without "Protection"

The female is here to produce an egg, create an internal environment for fertilization, incubate the fertilized egg, birth the fetus, feed the young until they are old enough to continue the cycle. The male is here to produce and deliver sperm.

Technically no, we are here because of those things not for those things. How else would you explain infertility? The rate of infertility is between about five and nine percent for americans, that is not an insignificant amount of people. Add to that around ten percent of women are born without uteri.

Anything that can be understood can be controlled.

[Raphaeline]

Re: Choosing when to reproduce without "Protection"

Add to that around ten percent of women are born without uteri.

Is that true?! That seems like an incredibly high percentage for that!

But seriously, + for that comment.