Would the world be better off if...

What is the answer to Terry's question?

If all the men alive are infected and become unable to father children, even for 1 generation, humanity would be in danger of extinction.

A. This topic is a satire.

B. Artificial insemination is how we get around impotence currently. It's already pretty cheap. If the demand for it explodes, the means to do it will as well and the price will drop to a fraction of what it is now. If people still can't afford it, they probably couldn't afford to support a family anyways.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe artifical insemination neccesarily needs motile sperm. It can use sperm without cilia. The only purpose of the cilia is to move the sperm to the egg. A virus that prevents this would not inhibit artificial insemination.

Well, this wouldn't have to prevent all sperm production, just render men impotent.

All impotent means is that you don't produce ENOUGH sperm, or the sperm you produce are not very motile and thus you have a very very very low chance of conceiving naturally. The virus could cause that.

But as long as people produce some sperm, nonmotile or not, artificial insemination is completely possible.

wealth is relative, poverty isn't. poverty by definition means you don't have enough income for the bare essentials such as food and shelter.

look, you can see it's discriminatory to say it but the bulk of crime (especially the kind involving weapons and that gets people killed) and terrorism do stem from poverty.

it's human psychology demonstrated best by ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

middle class and richer people are far more likely to have the bottom two needs met, and are usually more likely to have the other needs met too.

also consider that this would eliminate unplanned pregnancies, and thus essentially ensure that most kids are born into stable loving homes (those are who want kids and can afford to pay for art. inseminateion.)

forced slavery is more rampant now than it was at any other time in history, and it stems from the extreme impoverishment of certain parts of the world. the same with genocide etc. etc. and even war for the most part. a big chunk of the world is currently in the middle of conflict. yet the only one we hear about is iraq. why? because the other parts involve two really poor groups fighting and the west couldn't care less about that.

if you consider all the facts, this really is the only humane thing to do- tongue in cheek.

The very idea is sick. It would take me waaaay too much time to point out every sick thing in this idea. It's gruesome and monstrous.

Poverty creates poverty, although many poor individuals may be poor for a good reason, many others are simply poor because thats where they exist in this world. If you were to remove everyone who couldn't afford health care the nitch would be filled. How many middle class individuals would choose to do nothing rather then perform low class jobs? Many of us are no different then those in a varied life situation and given these circumstances the same percentage; if not higher, would drop into poverty as the situations that make up our daily world create the life we live. Is a gangbanger sitting on the outside of a white picket fence looking in knowing he will never be able to climb this fence filled with any less potential then the teenager sitting in front of his computer all day? One could say the gangbanger isn't very intelligent and would certainly score much lower on any given paper exam as the coddled teen however this is a function of the world and not the individual. One has been created with the want to proceed in life the other with the will to do nothing. Knowing your going somewhere has quite the effect, knowing your going nowhere has just as drastic of an effect.

How could you cut out this section if it were even possible, aren't those who overcome such adversity the executives of poverty? Aren't those who can enjoy the life they live in many ways fulfilling a better being than those who are never satisfied?

Centroles dear,
And what exactly would the world be better off for if you take away something so crucial to human happiness? I mean if you've already made the world so sad, then what kind of happiness could you bring by saying that you made 100 sad but made 10 happy. I know there is poverty in the world which is the root cause of most unhappiness, so why not ask the rich instead to make just one person's life and pretty soon the world will turn around. Don't you think so? Don't you think that's a better way to go about making the world a better place to live in and it is also the most natural way to do it?

poor people can only provide miserable life for their children? did i read that correctly? quality life is a function of wealth? that is so blatantly wrong, on so many levels.

Actually "quality life is a function of wealth." When we talk about poor here, we talk about REAL poverty and that brings misery. If the poor could have quality of life despite their poverty then no poor would complain but they all do complain and that means they are miserable. And by the way I think you are assuming if I read correctly in between the lines that some poor child cannot be brought up right, yes he can because most are good but they have still lived a miserable life.

P.S. I'll be back on this forum once I'm back in Canada which is on the 22nd of December.

you just want a virus that stops natural reproduction, like make them loose their tails? isnt that a nice idea? so then, like an egg, you could still get the sperm, but they would just need to be internally inseminated...love the idea. it would help the world out completely. if i ever make a film ill bear it in mind

but then again...you need poor people to make this world go round, economy would collapse without them

Who needs an economy that ensures that poverty remain in the world! No one!