human nature
Posted 11-12-2008 at 04:33 AM by EnglishPaul
Today, while lying in my bed desperately trying to delay getting up, Radio 4 had a news item on sperm donation. I was still drifting in and out of sleep, but I believe the gist was that not enough people are donating sperm any more (I didn't hear if that was due to donors going down (no pun intended) or to demand for fertility assistance going up).
The issues are complex. Its not just persuading men to stand up and be counted (pun intended), but also that the law was changed in the recent past to take away anonymity from the donors.
But here's the rub (no pun intended): If man at his most basic level is programmed to pass on his gene pool, then why the problem?
The continuation of the individual's gene pool has been implicated in everything from extra-marital affairs to fundamental evolutionary principles.
But what could be easier for a man? He donates sperm, he spreads his genes without the usual consequences of needing to provide for the offspring. It is, in Darwinian terms, a perfect situation.
So is there more at play here? Does social man need, not only to father, but also to socialise his offspring? Is the drive for offspring a declining goal... and if so have we 'grown out' of evolution?
And if its more complex still, and most things with people are: If men are so worried about meeting offspring that are biologically tied to them,
is this the indication that cloning would never be individually accepted? You would never want to meet another you.
Or perhaps its more hidden than that. Perhaps it is all on a higher level. Perhaps as man is naturally declining in fertility, there is also a hidden higher sense that we must not redress what nature is doing.
The issues are complex. Its not just persuading men to stand up and be counted (pun intended), but also that the law was changed in the recent past to take away anonymity from the donors.
But here's the rub (no pun intended): If man at his most basic level is programmed to pass on his gene pool, then why the problem?
The continuation of the individual's gene pool has been implicated in everything from extra-marital affairs to fundamental evolutionary principles.
But what could be easier for a man? He donates sperm, he spreads his genes without the usual consequences of needing to provide for the offspring. It is, in Darwinian terms, a perfect situation.
So is there more at play here? Does social man need, not only to father, but also to socialise his offspring? Is the drive for offspring a declining goal... and if so have we 'grown out' of evolution?
And if its more complex still, and most things with people are: If men are so worried about meeting offspring that are biologically tied to them,
is this the indication that cloning would never be individually accepted? You would never want to meet another you.
Or perhaps its more hidden than that. Perhaps it is all on a higher level. Perhaps as man is naturally declining in fertility, there is also a hidden higher sense that we must not redress what nature is doing.
Total Comments 2
Comments
-
perhaps it is an industry in need of new methods. It is unlikely that there is any real shortage of wankles spewing sputum. Men are pitching, but there aren't enough catchers. The internet may have made this a cottage industry.Posted 11-23-2008 at 01:41 PM by Ancient Wisdom
-
Hmmm.... I believe your comment "the law was changed in the recent past to take away anonymity from the donors" is where the reason lies - no more complicated than that. Men were happy to help out, so to speak, but really didn't want to have a problem in years to come with some emotional kid(s) popping up saying "Hi DAD".........Posted 07-19-2009 at 02:43 AM by zanalan
