Last week we heard of a complaint against a sperm donor with at least 550 “children”. Apparently, a Dutch man named Jonathan M. has done his bit in most of the clinics he has had at his disposal, both in the country of the tulips and abroad; and, of course, what the odds laws say: a lot of Dutch women have taken advantage of his stroke, thinking that these things would be well regulated so that the seeds of a donor were not doctrinally used. But the old shit, there in the insemination clinic guild there's too much laissez faire, and one day you give too familiar a look to that other kid who has started playing in the park with his little Frenkie de Jong.

Little katxondeo. Think about the implications that it can have, when these people who are still children enter adulthood: they may be at risk of touching leather with a biological relative at a distance of a Tinder match. And as for affective sex, fortunately in recent decades, despite the proliferation of opportunities, no one has begun to question exogamy in general. It's for something. In view of the results of this practice on the Bourbon lineage, it is clear that everyone should look to follow that path.

Curiosity, you will say. Yes, it is possible. But I say it leaves a lot of questions in the air. For example, why did Jonathan M. do so? Two years ago, when his policy of “donating and spreading” began to appear in the media – it was still suspected that the “father” of about 100 children was “alone” – he explained to the New York Times newspaper that his participation in “something very big with little help” motivated. And of course, the “gratitude” you feel for the recipients of your sperm, the “warm feelings” and the “memories you share with children and recipients”.

I don't know if Rick seemed false: when people begin to overcome a few degrees of generosity, altruism and love for humanity, I begin to think about whether he's a psychopath. In addition, despite being the most striking case known so far in number, Jonathan M. is not the only man who has denounced for his multi-insemination. The anti-donorkind association also denounced last year ten doctors from the reproductive treatment sector, who replaced donors with their sperm with patients. And the feeling that this kind of news is just the tip of the iceberg, I can't stop thinking, turning around the possibilities that fragile ego men have that can compete to extend their genes to the fullest.

I have to confess to Jonathan M., therefore, that he has given me another reason to look to the future in such a way: in the 20th century we were frightened by serial killers; XXI.ean, it may be serial insemination that becomes the new reason for fear. The fear of death is an already very torn topic, while life, at the time of its technical reproducibility, leads us to questions that can shake.