Click Here!

  eMJA     The Medical Journal of Australia

Home | Issues | eMJA shop | Classifieds | Contact | More... | Topics | Search | Login | Buy full access   
Sex, Science & Society

Will sex survive to 2099?

We stand on the threshold of a brave new world

Embryo

MJA 1999; 171: 659

Will we be having sex in 2099? Woody Allen's answer is "Yes" -- but only with the aid of the "orgasmatron" booth, as depicted in his futuristic film Sleeper (MGM/UA, 1973). In Aldous Huxley's Brave new world, "everyone belongs to everyone else" -- sexual promiscuity is integral to the mindless conformity of a society under totalitarian control.1 Some biologists believe sexual reproduction evolved because genetic diversity is necessary to protect against diverse parasitic threats.2

Yet one could conceivably argue "No" to the question above -- today's technological advances may render sexual reproduction redundant tomorrow. For many years now, we have been able to control whether we reproduce. The potential now exists to control how (in vivo v in vitro, sexually v asexually), when (eg, post-menopause, posthumous, post-"glass ceiling"), and with what genetic material (from donor, self, and/or partner) we reproduce. It would also appear that humans have been programmed to be subfertile,3 this being the trade-off for longevity.4

Of course, much of this is tongue-in-cheek, especially when a decline in fertility rates in some low- and middle- income countries may be a welcome herald of declining mortality.5 However, the reality is that reproductive technology is available and expanding in Australia, and the ethical and social ramifications require airing in the medical forum.

As we stand on the brink of a new millennium, mapping of the human genome is near completion,6 and the pluripotent human embryonic stem cell can now be grown in culture.7 While it is unlikely that society wants the dystopia depicted by Huxley, it is nonetheless true that we are on the threshold of a brave new world. Nature and science each have their risks and benefits. In the case of sex -- which is doubtless cheaper, easier and more fun than in-vitro fertilisation procedures -- sexual reproduction shuffles the deck of genomes and occasionally a hand is dealt which leads to disease. Technology is, or may become, available to counter or prevent this. But it must be harnessed, as Huxley advocates in his foreword to Brave new world: "Science and technology would be used as though, like the Sabbath, they had been made for man, not . . . as though man were to be adapted and enslaved to them."1 Each human is more than the mere expression of his/her genotype, and we must be a society which places emphasis on nurturing children as well as on their nucleic acid blueprint. For,

"Births have brought us richness and variety, And other births will bring us richness and variety."8

But what do those who move in the high-tech circles of assisted reproduction think? We invited four pundits to predict the future for sex . . .
Embryo image

Wood chronicles the great changes in sexual behaviour this century, and predicts an even greater future for sex in the next.9 Trounson outlines the progress of assisted reproductive and genetic technology, and wonders whether males may become not only redundant but extinct.10 Jansen asks us not to confuse sex with impregnation or reproduction, articulating the benefits and risks of "natural" and "artificial" methods.11 Savulescu's analysis of the ethical arguments leads him not only to reframe the original question, but to compare sex and technology with that other great Australian pastime, football.12

Mabel Chew
 Kincaid-Smith Editorial Fellow
The Medical Journal of Australia

  1. Huxley, A. Brave new world. London: Penguin Books, 1955.
  2. Ridley, M. The Red Queen: sex and the evolution of human nature. London: Penguin Books, 1994.
  3. Cummins J. Evolutionary forces behind human infertility. Nature 1998; 397: 557-558.
  4. Westendorp RGJ, Kirkwood TBL. Human longevity at the cost of reproductive success. Nature 1998; 396: 743-746.
  5. World Health Organization. The world health report 1999: making a difference. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1999.
  6. Patenting the human genome [editorial]. Lancet 1999; 354: 1135.
  7. Thomson JA, Iskovitz-Eldor J, Shapiro SS, et al. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science 1998; 282: 1145-1147.
  8. Whitman W. Leaves of grass [song of myself]. New York: Penguin Books, 1976.
  9. Wood C. Future change in sexual behaviour? Med J Aust 1999; 171: 662-664.
  10. Trounson AO. What if there is a "sunset clause" on the Y chromosome? Med J Aust 1999; 171: 660-662.
  11. Jansen RPS. Sex, reproduction and impregnation: by 2099 we won't confuse them. Med J Aust 1999; 171: 666-667.
  12. Savulescu J. Reproductive technology, efficiency and equality. Med J Aust 1999; 171: 668-670.

©MJA 1999
Make a comment

Home | Issues | eMJA shop | Terms of use | Classifieds | More... | Contact | Topics | Search

The Medical Journal of Australia    eMJA  


Readers may print a single copy for personal use. No further reproduction or distribution of the articles should proceed without the permission of the publisher. For permission, contact the Australasian Medical Publishing Company.
Journalists are welcome to write news stories based on what they read here, but should acknowledge their source as "an article published on the Internet by The Medical Journal of Australia <http://www.mja.com.au>".
<URL: http://www.mja.com.au/> © 1999 Medical Journal of Australia.
We appreciate your comments.