From a Darwinian perspective even the death penalty is insufficient, since reproducing copiously is worth dying for. The only effective punishment would involve also killing or sterilizing the resulting children ... which is entirely unacceptable from our cultural perspective.
So to a Darwinian insemination doctor this may be something like a perfect crime, in that there is no prospective punishment that outweighs the benefits.
Ghengis Khan was the world's greatest Dad, in sheer numbers.
Well, he was, 'til this creep started getting off on actual reproductive success. Sicko.
Got his jollies breaking into sperm banks. They caught him of course, but not before he had fathered over 700 children. That we could identify.
Not all of his sons felt the need. Some were really nice kids. Normal families. But some of them...
Sperm bank security improved, of course, til our present levels which are pretty much impregnable.
But those guys weren't the worst - an engineer working for a clinical DNA printer hacked the machine to randomly sprinkle some of his bases into everything that went through. Weird, huh? But it sort of made the kids equivalent of distant cousins or so. There were 11 months of births before it was discovered.
It wasn't even his own molecules that were involved, I don't know - I think it makes it worse
For example suppose you have two containers filled with elastically colliding particles. Over an arbitrarily long time you can say that each particle has surely collided with every other particle, however if each container is closed then clearly particles from one container will not have collided with those from the other container over any amount of time
Yes that's why I took the conservative estimate of 7000 years, otherwise with the panmixia hypothesis it only goes back 3000 years or so.
If an allele had made it there, wouldn't it have been selected for?
By the way, the fact that all of us share the exact same set of ancestors from a few thousand years ago isn't new, shocking or controversial, only the exact date is still subject do debate. You may find this link useful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_ancestors_point
The simulations are nice, and make a theoretical lower bound but a single remote tribe somewhere on earth would push it back tens of thousands of years.
DNA Sequence an Andaman islander and every bushman and Amazonian, then we'll see.
Evolution works in more complicated ways than the toy model of sickle-cell disease/malaria you've been taught in high school. Just having an edge in a particular situation is no guarantee for your alleles being selected. But even then, there could very well have been very little mixing while still everyone shares the same set of ancestors. Even a little mixing is enough.
>The simulations are nice, and make a theoretical lower bound but a single remote tribe somewhere on earth would push it back tens of thousands of years.
The subject is well-refined and the results are old news so I'm going to go on a limp and assume that the researchers who did the simulations know how to do their jobs and accounted for that possibility you described.
>DNA Sequence an Andaman islander and every bushman and Amazonian, then we'll see.
Ignoring the fact that the various peoples in the Amazon have not been isolated at all, or that the Adamans have been settled approximately in the time range of the estimated IAP and have known a few exchanges since, that's not how genealogy works. See, if a single outsider gets into the Adamans or Australia and starts having children with locals, and assuming the line doesn't die out, there's a statistical certainty that eventually every current living person in that territory will be descended from that outsider. Just one is enough. It doesn't matter that their genetic contribution is diluted to the point of being barely detectable. I invite you to read the link about IAP in more detail and do some rudimentary math on why it has to be the case (or more accurately, why the opposite is so statistically improbable as to be pretty much impossible).
Darwinism has no bearing on legal matters. In fact the entirety of laws are opposed to darwinism
Plus we re probably the last generations that care for darwinism? It won't take long before it becomes normal to engineer your children.
The OP describes a system where darwinism is used to determine how to punish people. i.e. darwinism is the source of law. That's not happening.
In fact I think it’s slightly more likely that you’ve been suckered into a scam perpetrated by Danish men for reasons that are plainly obvious from a Darwinist perspective ;) Seems like more of a crackpot Nordic eugenic superman theory to me.
Whatever scam the danism men are running , it's working
To a Darwinian rapist / insemination fraudster / seduction fraudster, this is a kind of loophole that he can slip through. Modern law doesn't sufficiently incentivise him to desist.
While some laws are created to protect the weakest; a lot of inheritance, marriage and family laws follow their rationale directly from Darwinism.
I don't see how this is true. Can you explain this position?
That's not to say people always understood this or even that today it is the way most people think about it, but at least according to a mechanistic/biological view of behavior, that is the basis.
Note that natural selection did NOT necessarily put a desire to pass on our genes into us, since that wasn't necessary. It simply put such things as a desire to continue living, a drive to care for children (which can easily be transferred to non-biological children, and we can easily ignore that drive for biological children that we don't bond to), and a drive to have sex.
So should we punish 90% of men?
Or if the child finds out when it is still small, or a teenager, will the child be entitled for child support payments from the doctor?
The man currently considered the father could also sue to challenge paternity.
But not all countries let you disinherit your children.
I find it a fair middle ground.
For me it is very weird that some countries do allow it. I did not ask to be born.
I guess it depends what you are used to anyway. For me it seems weird as I am born in a country where it is illegal to cut your spouse and kids, for you it does not.
I suppose if your standpoint is “I’m due their assets because they made me” that’s fine. I’m not sure I agree, but it’s a valid view. My own perspective, I’m a functional adult. Inheriting my parents estate would be nice, but if society decided tomorrow that estates all went to solving childhood hunger, I wouldn’t lose any sleep.
Edit: I’m only talking about inheritance. Child support exists for a reason and should continue to do so. In the case of illegal, anonymous sperm donors, they should pay it like everybody else.
Have you seriously sought counseling ?
Or you could just quit your belly-aching and find a way to appreciate being given the opportunity to live at all instead of demanding fiscal compensation!
Also DNA sequencing is one of those areas which experienced incredible cost reduction, much faster than for example general computing power under Moore's law. I.e. it used to be very very expensive. Heck, the first complete human genome sequencing was completed just 16 years ago, and the project took 13 years.
Between that story and TFA, maybe it's time for regulators to step in and force DNA testing as early as possible in the process to positively confirm the match. It already costs an arm and a leg, what's another few hundred dollars to avoid creating black mirror situations.
What if their own children become sperm donors, etc. If two persons are born from sperm donors I imagine they have to check in case they are siblings or closely related.
Doesn't sound very anonymized to me.
Disclaimer: Interviewed at 23andme a decade ago. Good folks.
I believe this is how they caught Joseph Deangelo
I am worried about future ethics of DNA sequencing. Esp if lab techs are corrupted. That will prob be the future - bastard children at scale.
You have misidentified the problem.
I can't believe they call it sexual assault. It's as if it was beyond the realm of possibility to create new lexicon and they had to use only existing terms.
1. Husband's sperm(low count)
2. Healthy stranger's sperm (Stranger was chosen)
3. Random donor's sperm
For 1 & 2 Doctor ought to be stripped from IVR practice, children should get 20y alimony.
Additionally, in case of 1 children should also get inheritance.
I differ with the previous poster in that I don't think that many men are unknowingly raising children that are not theirs. I've seen estimates that vary between .6% and 5%.
I do think that a man ought to have the right to know if he's the biological father and I think it's understandable if he wants to leave if he isn't. Yes, familial bonds are important but what kind of family do you have if the lies run that deep?
Yes, but I've always assume reasonable people want to know this because it would prove infidelity by their spouse, not because they specifically care that their child shares their genes.
I don't think that most people distinguish between a child from their own genes with an adopted child, unless there's some falsehood in play. At least I hope not.
Why are you not running in your primal forest instead of posting here? Genuine question.
I would rather hunt a bear, then eat it for a week with my tribe, and then dance around the fire while drinking some psychedelic drink in the warm night, seeing all the stars and milky way without all the light pollution. Oh wouldn't that be just stress-free life?
You will likely gain a new appreciation for modern society. That or be bear food.
Typically you dont hunt bears either, you want to hunt things that cant hunt you back. The real thought of being eaten alive is a tad bit stressful.
Even boar hunting is a bit dangerous.
It's fraud, certainly, but the system you're describing (I'm not familiar with it) seems to be open to abuses that are almost as unethical. Surely genetic health is the only thing it really makes sense to take into account when choosing a donor. Some choices (race?) seem particularly icky.