The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Humans can create humans in some distant future

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 539 times Debate No: 78956
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)




I believe that with current human intelligence, humans can create humans in future. I know it is a long shot, but i do not see any reason why we can't.
English is a foreign language for me, so ignore grammatical mistakes.
Best of luck.


Hello UsamaAslam3, welcome to the site. I'm really interested in what you have to say on this subject so I want to debate you on whether or not humans can "create" humans in the far future through technology - not sexual interaction (since we can and have been doing that for ages!).

I know it is kind of unnecessary, but if we define the terms we will use throughout the debate, it will lead to a lot less confusion on the subject matter - for the debaters as well as the reader. Here are some definitions or some more in-depth explanations that I have gathered that will provide some clarity for these terms;
Human - any living organism that is of the species Homo Sapiens or is a species under the genus Homo that is ancestrally close to modern-day Homo Sapiens [1][2]
create - to bring into being [3]

Thank you for creating (heh) this debate, I am looking forward to intelligent discussion.

[2]. (an interesting read on what makes a human different from other living things - warning for tasteful nudity (art) in the heading)
Debate Round No. 1


I am well aware of the fact that humans are creating humans almost artificially using male sperm and female egg. I am aware of the fact that, not only humans but the structure of the simplest organisms is quite complex to understand even. Here I mention a few things that I will use to support my arguments.

Here are few reasons why it is entirely possible for us to create humans using inorganic matter even.

1. My first argument is based on the the age of universe and our solar system and earth. We all are aware of the fact that earth is 4.5 billion years old and life began on earth about 3.5 billion years ago. And if we compress the time since bigbang in one year, our solar system came into existance in last 5 months, life began 3 months ago, first humans came in the last our of cosmic year, and most of the scientific revolution we see around us happened in last 15 seconds of the cosmic year. And look at the world around us, we are already synthesizing organic compounds. We have gotten deep understanding of many of the processes in human body, we are exploring genes, artificial mutation is now possible, all in a few seconds of this cosmic year. What makes you think that we can't create humans in another month.

2. Now life, what is life? A self sustainaing body is called alive, so life is simply a set of chemical and biological reactions that support each other or acts as a catalyst to each other. No matter how complicated they might be, but that is how life works. Start from a small set of reactions, bind them to a cycle, and there ladies and gentlemen you have created life. How is it not possible?

3. Till date we know that all our feelings and emotions are mere chemical reactions, happiness, sadness, love, pain everything is controlled by chemicals that react inside us. So we do not need a soul, we do not need any vital force, all we need to do is create a sperm and a female egg afterall.

We humans are yet newly born babies in this cosmic year, nature took billions of years to evolve us to what we are today, give humans a few hours, and the will give you humans, that will be better than us.


I'll respond to your points in the order that they were created.

1. Age of the Universe and Inevitability.
What you are saying here is that it is inevitable for humans to synthesise humans via technology in another "month" of the cosmic year (around one gigayear is one month on the cosmic year), but this has two underlying assumptions that prove deadly: humanity is not likely to survive an entire month of the cosmic year AND that there is not a technological barrier that we are able to overcome within the next gigayear.

First, humanity is not likely to exist for an entire cosmic month for the creation of human synthesis to occur. As the Doomsday Argument goes, we are extremely lucky to have survived for so long on earth, and we will be lucky to make it more than a few more seconds on the cosmic year. The DA has said that there is a 95% chance that humanity will become extinct within the next 10,000 years from (likely) anthropogenic causes - some even go so far as to dispute these numbers and say that the odds are higher than this.

Next, you assume that there isn't a technological barrier of some kind that we have that prevents us from the complete sythesis of humanity. The synthesis of simple organic molecules, while a bit difficult sometimes, is completely possible. The complete sythesis and use of DNA, not used from any outside sources - just from the lab, is not so easy and not so guaranteed at any point in humanity's existence. I argue that there is a limit in place that would exist that would prevent the complete creation of complex organic molecules on the simple fact that we simply cannot create a molecule with over 3 billion bases in the next 9000 years.

What my refutation boils down to is: we won't live long enough for us to reach the technological barrier that exists to prevent us from creating humanity.

2. Ease of Life.
You say that life is something that supports actions as a catalyst to other actions in a cycle. While the nitty-gritty ideas hold false (like that life is actually the creation of offspring, able to metabolise, etc), the general idea is completely true, I do not refute this at all. However, that doesn't mean that the creation of human life in a lab without sexual reproductive cells is possible - it just means that life is pretty easy to create in general, not in the minute details.

3. Chemical Reactions.
Happiness, sadness, love, etc. may all be chemical reactions, that is true, but that doesn't mean we are able to create a human that is able of producing these chemicals on their own via technology. I disagree with you saying that we only need a sperm and a female egg to completely create humanity - this is not the use of technology to pave way for the creation of life, it is the use of sexual reproduction to create life, something that you swore off in the beginning of this very round.

I think your ending is extremely poetic but I do not believe that giving a few more seconds of chance to an already doomed race of life will do anything for us in terms of creating humanity from a vial.
Debate Round No. 2


I think that all my arguments still stand, i will refute your points in same order.

1. In your argument, you have taken for granted that humans cannot exist for more than a few thousand years, that is will refute. Firstly, we won't require a billion years to create man, and lets say it does, we would have colonized an entire galaxy till then. In my opinion, a few million years might do.I mistakenly forgot to mention the assumption that we survive long enough, but that assumption is not based on mere optimism. The Doomsday argument is simply based on a probabilistic model, that itself is based on assumptions that number of humans to be born ought to be constant and we are random individuals, while we are off springs of our ancestors with long genetic history. I will take a different approach to argue that humans can exist much longer that a few thousand years. Below are the few reasons that can cause mass extinctions that are a threat to humans.

i. Impact events: Asteroids, comets and meteorites striking the earth can cause mass extinctions at grand scale. But with our current technology we can foresee them years before they enter our atmosphere. We are edging towards technology that will help us deviate their path. Most of the mass extinctions are thought to be caused by these events, and we are on verge of eradicating this threat.
ii. A nearby star going super-nova or gamma-ray bursts: The life on earth could be effected by a nearby star going supernova or its gamma-ray burst, but thanks to large interstellar distances, our solar system is safe for next few billion years. Sun itself will take at least 5 billion years before it goes supernova. Even Anderoma colliding milkyway in another 4 billion years is unlikely to cause any effect to our solar system.
iii. Large volcanic eruptions: Volcanic eruptions can also cause mass extinctions, but till that we are well aware of the causes behind such events, those can be controlled as technology improves. Furthermore, those are a threat to civilizations not entice species,
iv. Greenhouse effect and global warming: Greenhouse effect and global warming is one of the greatest threat to our existence. But that is something that is in our own hands, and we are already on it, reducing carbon footprint and moving towards green energy.
So my point is that our extinction is not inevitable, we are the most dominant species here on earth, and with our superior survival instincts and intelligence we can survive longer than expectations.

Yes there are technological barriers today, that is why we aren't creating life today, but this is what we do with time, improve technology, remove barriers. Size is a barrier, and we are moving towards nano technology. Like you said, we cannot create a molecule with over 3 billion bases in 9000 years, but in 15000 years maybe we can, and there is a possibility of this happening much sooner. That means the technology after that many years would have improved significantly, and we would have removed many other barriers.

2. You agree that "Life is pretty easy to create in general". Though it is still pretty complicated but you agree that it is entirely possible. You also said that in minute details its not easy, that i do not object. But i will go on to say that its not easy but with rapidly evolving technology it is entirely possible. We always start of with the simplest of model, take computers it used to be a mechanical device, think about telecommunication, electricity. All of them evolved rapidly once we had their basic model. Because once we have the basic understanding of process, we can keep on improving it as we acquire superior technologies. Now this was the while point of my argument, we understand life, we know the basics, we know most of the hidden phenomena in human body, and we need is technology, that is improving quite rapidly.

3. My statement " all we need to do is create a sperm and a female egg after all." is totally misinterpreted here. There is a difference between using sperm cells and egg and creating them in laboratory. Now creating them means, encoding all the genetic information, information of reproduction, all the processes that happen inside us, in a cell. Now this is pretty different from using a cell produced by living bodies. Now its like a robot we create, of course that is on a far inferior level but just for the sake of understanding. We program them to do things for us, in the same way we ought to program that living cell we will create on a micro level, we can program it to produce such chemicals, we can program it to do replication. So yeah, in the end all we need is technology, more superior technology, and we are already on it.


What this contention is about is the inevitability of humanity creating other humanity with technology, to which I argued against saying: a. humans probably won't live long enough to create other humanity and b. there is probably an upper limit on the technology required to create DNA and humanity.

My opponent says that humans will of COURSE never die in the next 10,000 years (as the doomsday argument suggests) because we will probably have created technology to prevent doomsday from happening. But that's not really what the Doomsday argument is about - it is about the probability that we are of the last 5% of humans that will ever be born. I won't go into specifics about the DA (it's not really topical here), but what it is essentially saying is that it is much more likely that doomsday will hapen sooner than later, because the oods of us being the first 5% are lower than us being the last 95% of humans to ever have lived.

Therefore, pro's refutation isn't even related - technology doesn't prevent us from knowing that it is much more likely for us to be the last of humanity rather than the first. This argument is essentially dropped by pro because it was never actually attacked for what it is.

Next, my opponent responds to my refutation of technological barriers by saying that there are current technological barriers in place that prevent us from creating life right now, but that these barriers will be lifted as time goes on. He also says, and I quote verbatim, "we cannot create a molecule with over 3 billion bases in 9000 years, but in 15000 years maybe we can".

If humanity is 95% sure to die sometime in the next 10000 years (the number is actually around 9600), then how are we supposed to create life in the future that we most likely won't live to see? Pro admits that we cannot create life within most of the span that we are given by the DA, and if we aren't likely to reach outside of that span, it isn't likely that we will create life - but not only life, HUMAN life. Basically, it is much more likely for us to NOT create human life because we will all be dead by the time that we are able to - as pro concedes.

This contention is about the ease of creating life. I said that it is easy to create very simple organic molecules, but not things with 3 billion base pairs. Pro doesn't really address this refutation, he just says that once we understand the basics of something (organic molecules), our understanding will RAPIDLY evolve to a state of higher-being and we will be able to create life very soon because we already understand the basics. What he doesn't note here is that he concedes that it isn't likely for us to even live to the advent of technology that would allow us to create humanity in a vial - this alone makes this argument not worth its weight in salt.

With his concession aside, just because our understanding evolves doesn't give us a high likelihood of us being able to create life. It just says that maybe we will perhaps one day, just maybe, create something that might be perhaps human life?

No comment necessary, anything that I would say wouldn't really be topical. (Sorry for the misrepresentation of what you meant by sperm and egg, I didn't know that you meant that these would be synthesised in a lab).

This debate should be about the probablity that we will create life. We cannot speak in absolutes, so we must have this debate have some sort of criteria for being judged, and I think that the probability for humans to create life is a fine one. If we are over 50% likely to create life, pro ought to win. If we are exactly or under 50% likely to create life, I ought to win (the reason for inclusion of 50% is because pro needs to prove that it is probable for us to create life and I have to go against his claim, not proving that we can't, just saying that it is improbable or exactly equally likely as not).
Debate Round No. 3


1. Once again the con addresses DA as a fact or something certain when it isn't, the argument isn't even scientific. Doomsday argument is a seperate debate in itself but since my opponent's rebuttal is now totally based on DA, I would state some points about what it is and what it isn't:
i. It purely is a probabilistic model.
ii. Completely void of scientific observations or facts.
iii. It does not predict how human spece will become extinct or how will it occur.
iv. Does not take into account self-indication assumption.

To begin with, an argument so void of science can never be taken as granted, secondly it can not even roughly estimate the generations of humans that have passed as there is a large grey patch in our form between humans and apes. It is based on assumption that there is a bag full of humans, that is going to get empty any time soon. Scientifically this is vague.
Again my opponent says, "if humanity is 95% sure to die in the next 10000 years" How can we be 95% sure on the basis of argument so void of scientific data? I won't comment on technological barriers further as I have explained how my opponent's rebuttal is weak.

2. My opponent says, "but not things with 3 billion base pairs. Pro doesn't really address this refutation". Con is clearly misleading here, this point was part of the rebutal against my first argument that I did address. Con again uses DA to refute my argument, therefore any further comment is unnecessary.
Also, it isn't just about our evolving understanding but our rapidly improving technology that will help us create humans. As i have already elaborated how it is entirely possible, about which my opponent has no objection but that we won't survive long enough, no further comments are necessary.

To conclude with, as my contender said that we can't speak in absolutes, we must see what is more likely. Con agrees to most of the part about how we can create humans, and as i have shown that provided enough time how it is entirely possible. The whole debate reduces to whether we can survive long enough. Con uses DA to support its argument, that however has no scientific value. So before we discuss what are our odds of surviving more than a few thousand years by DA, we must know the odds of DA being even valid. I however have shown how it is entirely possible for us to eradicate threats to our survival.


This is what the debate boils down to:

  • is it more likely that we can create humans with technology that we haven't even thought of, relying on a date and time that we most likely will not live to see, overcoming technological and physical barriers, than to not be able to do this?

I have already provided reasons why this is not likely - 95% unlikely, and all that I need to do is secure a greater than or equal to 50% chance of unlikelihood. My opponent says that it's inevitable that we will reach the ability to create humans - I say that this belief is not held rationally. I think it is clear that we probably won't ever be able to create humans with technology - I ask you to vote on the side of reason, rather than the side of falsely-held optimism.

Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by roguetech 1 year ago
My original vote text.

>Luckily for Con, Pro didn't just say "people are born all the time". Seriously, Pro picked an untenable position, of demonstrating something undemonstratable. Taking that into account (somewhat), I have to give victory to Pro for the opposite reason. Pro managed to rebut all of Cons objections, while suggesting it is a technological inevitability. Con could have pointed out that there is a reasonable time barrier of potentially a few tens of thousands of years for us to remain "human". They also could have asserted a potential for legal/social barriers that won't change as long as humans are humans. These would be hard to demonstrate are true, but they'd also be difficult to falsify - since the burden of evidence is technically Pro's. So, in short, I give victory to Pro due to Con's failure to provide any single *possible* hard barrier.

Fair notice, Con suggested I review the debate. Pro is invited to friend me, and discuss the reconsideration.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
Ugh, those spammers that want you to join a "rebell[ion] against Lol101."
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
I am sorry for a late reply (I had less than 30 minutes remaining), I usually reply the day that you do.
Posted by gokuFNAF2 1 year ago
No. Don't listen to lol101. Lexus, join me and attack lol101.
Posted by robertacollier 1 year ago
Humans can also create other humans without that. It's called procreation, dumbass.
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
Lexus, don't listen to this guy. He's just an ignorant troll who for someone reason spray painted a bullseye on my back and wants to team up with people against me.
Posted by gokuFNAF2 1 year ago
Lexus, join me and help me rebell against lol101.
Posted by Greg4586 1 year ago
I mean, sex is technically creating humans so we already can, but I'm sure you mean without sex. Which we also can also do by having a sperm cell injected into an egg and implanted into a woman, but I think that's also not what you mean.

So lastly I believe we have the technology to clone animals, but such technology is illegal to use on humans
Posted by usi_debsoc 1 year ago
You mean by technology not through sexual interaction
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
just imagine humans
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to capitalize certain words. "but i do not see any reason why we can't." Pro tells us to ignore his grammatical mistakes however as a voter I am no obliged to do what Pro says. Since spelling and grammar is part of the voting criteria I am will analyse the debate and vote accordingly so Spelling and grammar is awarded to Con.
Vote Placed by roguetech 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Tie. Con accepted the debate that humans couldn't "create" humans without sex. Oddly, Pro then determined the insane requirement of "using inorganic matter". Con stated (with no support) that it would require 9,000 years to make 3 billion base pairs (while ignoring duplication and/or inactive base pairs). Pro then said basically, "sure, it's impossible in 9,000 years"! (The rest of the debate was largely irrelevant.) This was a travesty of errors. Why the Pro self-imposed such a standard, and admitted humans would need to work on ONE SINGLE DNA STRAND for 9,000+ years, and why Con wouldn't point out mankind would not spend 9,000 years on... well, anything, when we could... you know, get off, turn off the porn and join a dating site (while using debate skills to create a compelling profile).... I just don't get it. You both deserve to loose. :-P [Disclaimer: This is revised vote following review request from Con. See comments for original explanation.]