If I weren't interested in creating more new beings with positive lives I'd place greater priority on:
I haven't thought much about what would look good from a conservative Christian worldview.
Hi PBS, I understand where you're coming from and expect many policy folks may well be having a bigger impact than front-line doctors, because in this case prevention is probably better than treatment.
At the same time I can see why we don't clap for them in that way, because they're not taking on a particularly high risk of death and injury in the same way the hospital staff are right now. I appreciate both, but on a personal level I'm more impressed by people who continue to accept a high risk of contracting COVID-19 in order to treat patients.
I've compiled 16 fun or important points from the book for the write-up of my interview with Toby, which might well be of interest people here. :)
Hi Khorton — yes as I responded to Denise, it appears the one year thing must have been specific to the (for-profit) bank I spoke with. They pay so many up-front costs for each new donor I think they want to ensure they get a lot of samples out of each one to be able to cover them.
And perhaps they were highballing the 30+ number, so they couldn't say they didn't tell you should the most extreme thing happen, even if it's improbable.
Hmmmm, this is all what I was told at one place. Maybe some of these rules — 30 kids max, donating for a year at a minimum, or the 99% figure — are specific to that company, rather than being UK-wide norms/regulations.
Or perhaps they were rounding up to 99% to just mean 'the vast majority'.
I'd forgotten about the ten family limit, thanks for the reminder.
Like you I have the impression that they're much less selective on eggs.
In some ways the UK sperm donation process is an even more serious commitment than egg donation.
From what I was told, the rejection rate is extremely high — close to 99% of applicants are filtered out for one reason or another. If you get through that process they'll want you to go in and donate once a week or more, for at least a year. Each time you want to donate, you can't ejaculate for 48 hours beforehand.
And the place I spoke to said they'd aim to sell enough sperm to create 30 kids in the UK, and even more overseas.
The ones born in the UK can find out who you are and contact you once they turn 18. With so many children potentially resulting, there's a good chance that a number will do so. It would be worth thinking ahead of time how you'd respond, and whether that's something you'll want in your life in ~20 years' time.
I know 2 working in normal pandemic preparedness and 2-3 in EA GCBR stuff.
I can offer introductions though they are probably worked off their feet just now. DM me somewhere?
Thanks for the detailed feedback Adam. :)
Part of the issue might be the subheading "Space colonization will probably include animals".
If the heading had been 'might', then people would be less likely to object. Many things 'might' happen!
80% seems reasonable. It's hard to be confident about many things that far out, but:
i) We might be able to judge what things seem consistent with others. For example, it might be easier to say whether we'll bring pigs to Alpha Centauri if we go, than whether we'll ever go to Alpha Centauri.
ii) That we'll terraform other planets is itself fairly speculative, so it seems fair to meet speculation with other speculation. There's not much alternative.
iii) Inasmuch as we're focussing in on (what's in my opinion) a narrow part of the whole probability space — like flesh and blood humans going to colonise other stars and bringing animals with them — we can develop approaches that seem most likely to work in that particular scenario, rather than finding something that would hypothetically works across the whole space.