Max Frisch once said, ‘Technology is a way of organizing the universe so man doesn’t have to experience it.’

Let me get one thing out of the way. I’m more than OK with technology. I’m not some old guy screaming at the brand new printer he can’t figure out how to hook up to his newfangled computer. I sincerely think that most of the luxuries of living in a modern industrial country are, for lack of a better word, awesome.

But ‘- and this is a big but ‘- technology, like anything, is something that I believe is best applied in moderation. Is there a point where technology goes too far? I think when technology fundamentally (and suddenly, no less) alters the scope of human social activity for the worse that it has indeed stepped over the line.

Of course some might ask, ‘Has it crossed that boundary?’ Is it now changing social interaction for the worse right in front of our eyes? Well, I’m pretty sure it is, and here was my first clue.

Recently, I was skimming a few news headlines and one of them caught my eye. The headline, from the U.K.‘s Daily Mail, said, ‘Death of the Father: British scientists discover how to turn women’s bone marrow into sperm.’ Now, at first glance, this did seem like a relatively positive scientific breakthrough. One of the first things the article mentioned was that ‘the breakthrough paves the way for lesbian couples to have children that are biologically their own.’ Obviously, there are no problems with that. But it was one of the later lines that got me thinking. The article went on to say, ‘But critics warn that it sidelines men and raises the possibility of babies being born through entirely artificial means.’

The artificial part didn’t really bother me. To be honest, it was the whole sidelining men thing that got me.

Sure, I’m biased, but it runs a bit deeper than that. This particular breakthrough could potentially put a large burden on human social interaction for two major reasons.

First of all, it completely takes the aspect of sexuality out of reproduction. When I first read that women can now have children without the need for a male counterpart, the first thing I thought was women no longer have to ‘go through’ men to have a baby. By ‘go through,’ I am obviously referring to sex. This whole procedure completely takes the sexuality out of human reproduction. I’ll skip the part where I explain why sex is generally considered to be a pretty fun activity.

However, most people don’t realize that there are other purposes for sex in between reproduction and fun. For example, any anthropologist could tell you that in primates, sex is used as a mechanism to reduce tension between individuals and aid in smoother interaction, as primates rely heavily upon social connections more so than other animals.

Even though, as humans, we are the most advanced primates, we still ultimately operate as primates. Thus, this usage of sex as a d’eacute;tente mechanism applies to human social capacities as well. But since the primary function for sex in humanity, and in reproduction, would be made obsolete by this new advancement, sex would most likely become obsolete as well. Thus, it would be ridding the human world of not only a great extracurricular activity, but also an effective tool for easing social interaction and tensions between individuals.

Second of all, and more importantly, this new way of producing children through one person instead of two essentially robs humanity of its, well, humanity. As I said before, humans, as all other primates, rely heavily upon social interaction and social learning. But in a world where someone can reproduce individually, there is no inherent need for interaction for the human race to continue.

Ideally, the way it works with good old-fashioned sexual reproduction is you produce offspring with someone you’re in some sort of relationship with. I realize that this is simply an ideal version of reality. But still, this is how many children are born: their biological mother and father were two people who interacted both socially and physically to make them.

But when you can just construct sperm out of your own tissue and use it to impregnate yourself, you essentially don’t need another individual to reproduce. You lose the need for interaction ‘- of any kind really ‘- for the human race to continue.

But, in simplest terms, isn’t it that interaction which makes life the way we want it? Not only can basically all of human culture be attributed to some sort of social interaction, but we as a human species crave that interaction, because we thrive on social connection and social learning, things which this technological ‘advancement’ would more likely discourage and make seemingly unnecessary.

So is this an example of technology running rampant? Could this possibly be the technological straw that could break the proverbial human back? I certainly think so.

But I’m sure there are a few people out there who can think of a reason or two why sexual reproduction is worth keeping around, even if technology has made it ‘outdated.’

Dave Coffey is a Collegian colum
nist. He can be reached at [email protected].