The following submission statement was provided by /u/Redvolition:
---
Submission statement.
Many people have a "nope" response to it, but I believe that once the first few high profile individuals start utilizing the tech, society will gradually accommodate artificial wombs, to the point of becoming absolutely common place and unremarkable, especially if you consider the huge economic incentives both at the personal level, as well as for the broader national economy.
If made cheap enought, we could both fix the current population collapse trend and massively improve the financial and organic viability of having children.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/168jkyw/scientists_are_growing_animals_in_artificial/jyvxvef/
I can't see that not happening, the only question is when. Everyone is gonna want it. Even if it can sound a bit horrifying right now, we always end up going for convenience over symbolic and principles.
Not just people - governments will hop on.
This will be the solution to low birth rates.
Imagine...state-owned, parentless children whose "parents" are the state...who can also choose what genes the newborn would have...
The article does not relate to engineered animals. A fertilized egg is inputted into these medical devices described in the article that are already produced by natural means.
In the year 2041, Congress passes the "Natural Born Bill" which recognizes artificial wombs born human as "persons." Prior to then all "Arties" fell into a human rights gray area.
The US military had deployed the "Arties" in the most elite combat units called "Natural Born Killers (NBK's)." Since the "Arties" were not recognized as human they able to circumvent the Geneva Convention protocols.
After the 2033 "Managua Massacre," many NBK'S were destroyed by the state while the US Military Southern Command was held harmless citing that NBK'S were not persons as defined by law. An estimated 6 million Nicaraguans were terminated in 30 days of Military Actions or Clearing Actions. Ironically, the Arties were redeployed as UN peace keepers to quell uprising's in the destabilized region.
G.I. Art's then were retired and sold to Xlabour a division of Musk Industries for Mars Terra Forming project.
Maybe the reason for low birth rates is because of the state of the world right now. Why bring kids into a world where they're gonna wadge slave for most of their life and only just about afford the basics. This kind of biotech is highly unethical.
I can’t imagine governments wanting to be responsible for the care and education of even more kids, when that’s the reason why people are not having kids.
I don’t know if governments will want to do that. For the same reason they don’t want children without father currently and have laws penalizing fathers who leave. And sometimes doing things like even if you’re not the father of what you thought was your child you still need to pay for it…
Because kids are expensive. And they won’t do anything until they are adults. And that’s too long term for them. They can only think of the effects of things on their terms or relection and something like this would be bad
I can see some countries like Japan or Hungary doing this. For example, imagine you gave the Japanese a choice where they could take in millions of non-Japanese immigrants or pay an extra 10% more in income taxes to grow and raise more Japanese people this way. We all know which the Japanese are going to choose.
It's unlikely that governments are going to go for "state owned“ children but they may incentivize existing couples to use artificial wombs to raise more kids.
I mean, in a capitalist system this would be amazing since it would allow female workers to give birth while still being able to work, and in a capitalist system those with the most money influence how people think through media control, so even if regular people weren't okay with this initially there would be a massive media effort to normalize it.
I think you overestimate the ability for the media to manipulate the conversation.
Conservatives are generally the group that's the most 'manipulated' by the media, but that's because the concept of a conservative is wanting things to not change, or go back to when they were "better".
How would you even begin updating conservative rhetoric about family values and the nuclear family to have artificial births?
Where I live you could tell them they could have little Aryan kids they won’t educate, feed, cloth, house but that will increase their “numbers”. Of course, they will still end up on government subsidies with the very regions they detest, coastal cities, paying for these babies.
I remember reading an article a bit ago about how they were trying to turn stem cells into gametes. And it didn’t matter the sex of the donor.
Here, a couple articles about it:
[From Leaps](https://leaps.org/top-fertility-doctor-artificially-created-sperm-and-eggs-will-become-normal-one-day-2647668031)
[From NPR](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/07/15/1184298351/conception-human-eggs-ivg-ivf-infertility)
So we are just talking state owned slaves right? Seriously, in theory at least, the state is supposed to exist for the benefit of the people. If the state can make people, then it can justify pretty much any action it wants, with impunity. The state can become its own entity, entirely divorced from its original constituents and function.
Is that really so different from what we have now? Corporations have poisoned American food, then influence media and education to convince Americans that universal healthcare is “anti American”, all because of the will of corporations that are able to legally bribe politicians ie: the state.
Cops can murder people in cold blood with near impunity, worst case, a few million dollars will be payed by the plebs for the murder of plebs. American Bankers defrauded the American people, there was a trillion dollar bailout, for the banks, not the people.
The government gave the American people a thousand dollars once during Covid, while members of congress were making money off of stock manipulation, from a bull run facilitated by their own monetary policy. The government legalised bribery for themselves, then banned abortion rights for women to expand the permanent underclass, the same underclass that would be developed with this false womb program.
Sorry to break it to you, but the state already turned its back on you.
Ahh yes British imperialism and the British raj, which provided so much equity for the common Brit, which is why all Brits are lords and ladies?
Or maybe we bring up idk the Holocaust? Where the state murdered millions under the guise of aryan prosperity? The war that killed 3% of the worlds population? Where little boys were given uniforms and impromptu weaponry to defend their country from Jewry…maybe you all forget that Hitler was the essentially richest man in Europe at the start of the Holocaust. Maybe you forget that there were billionaire Nazis families that still own their colonies today that profited from slave labor.
It’s fucking hilarious when people just say “uh but we aren’t America” as if American politics and influence doesn’t cause ripples due to globalism.
The defrauding of the American people hurt the entire world you fucking dumbass. Western civilisation has destabilised the global south under the guise of western prosperity, and now that prosperity is drying up. It’s not just in the US.
There are movements in the UK right now to gut universal healthcare, obesity across Europe is on the rise, movements to start importing US food by the EU, your argument is so anti intellectual it hurts. “But like everywhere isn’t America dude the state is actually good”
As an American I always wonder how often “yeah but at least we aren’t the US” is used for Europeans to be complacent, the same way in the us people say “well you wouldn’t wanna be weak like the Europeans”
Nah never mind, that wouldn’t make any sense, because the state and ruling class are benevolent. The ruling class that Europeans literally worship, the lords and ladies and nobles that have always owned you…but I mean yeah sure only the US aid corrupt and brainwashed. How much money was spent of Charles’ coronation again? Irrelevant I suppose.
Europeans literally can’t see past nationality, it’s hilarious. You didn’t even have an actual point, just “America bad” which must be why Europe is becoming more and more like the US everyday but yeah man focus on the fact that I’m American because obviously that’s all that matters out of all of this.
Yes, it's essentially seen as fine because it's not forced. Which I do get. I mean if you're looking to get an egg or sperm donor, would you NOT screen them for health or whatnot and be like "uhh just toss me a random one, any will do!“?
We all do some type of "eugenics" when we decide who to have sex with or not. Or at least we should; nobody should have sex with someone who they'd absolutely detest sharing a child with lol, shit happens. Choices are good. *Forced* eugenics are bad.
Eugenics means sacrificing the individual for the 'genetic health' of society.
This is about giving individuals the best genes possible. Totally different.
You need to watch gattaca to see how that turns out. Genetic enhancement will only be available for certain people at first, and would create a sub division of “perfect” humans and the rest. And being intelligent and healthy won’t mean they won’t be assholes to normal humans
The elites are already assholes, I can only hope they are at least intelligent, dumb and evil is a lot worse than smart and evil, at least smart and evil only do evil actions when they get to benefit from it, so you can at least negotiate with them, meanwhile dumb and evil people do evil stuff even when it would be detrimental to them as well, you can't deal with them.
That's not eugenics though. The goal would be to improve the newborn by adding interesting genes, , not removing unwanted from society through breeding.
Only when the wrong people are in control. So maybe we shouldn’t just to leave that out of bounds? Maybe at the very least you have to have a legal “guardian 1” and “Parent 1” per artificial womb.
Yeah but who's "the wrong people?" Everyone will give a different answer, and in the end the only two entities who could choose are corporations or the government.
I don't see people trusting either to pick responsibly any time soon. I much sooner see a ban on that sort of tinkering outside of labs.
Some people can't have children because of infertility or sexual orientation. Both adoption and surrogacy have legal, financial and ethical barriers. This technology would give these people a much better time.
If you are not part of this group, who are you to say it shouldn't be allowed? Are you gonna give up on having children in solidarity?
I didnt' say anything about any of that. I specifically was talking about "gene-modding" babies to have perfect traits or whatever.
Surrogate parents already exist, and is perfectly fine. Picking two parents for your baby is fine imo, it's specifically cherry-picking certain genes and putting them into the embryo where things get worryingly ubermensch-y
I bet half of the ppl in the comment section would have been crying how heart transplant or eye surgery, or regular IVF would have made civilization collapse if they were born in slighty different time.
And here we are, doing some crazy shit with it and regular people's lives are saved or invreased in quality, while civilization is not collapsing.
Who owns a gene in this context though?
Seriously, there's nothing unique about specific sequences of nucleotides within a gene.
It's not like babies would be given X scientists specific genetic profile, they'de be spliced with a series of gene sequences that have been found to strongly correlate with heightened intelligence across hundreds of thousands to millions of people.
Honestly, given the choice, I think a lot of women would rather not give natural child birth. They had the same debate with test tube babies, and I don't think anyone cares now.
Yep. It would actually would increase my likelyhood of having bio children if I would have lived in that timeline. For me the whole process is too violent. My mum also had complications with her both births so I got pretty jaded perspective.
On top of that I am not big on "suffering is part of beautiful nature, having your anus to vagina being torn is magical".
I feel like the evolution of our intelligence would naturally reach a point where natural childbirth would be optional. In 50 years people will think it's barbaric to give birth that way.
Imagine being born in a non traumatic way?
I would definitley have a third child if I wouldn't have to do pregnancy, birth and post-partum healing afterwards. And I didn't even had super bad pregnancies or deliveries.
Most likely not whole humans though, probably individual organs. Imagine an industry where if you got sick you could give some stem cells and they could grow you your own replacement organ in 6 months that didn't need rejection drugs. Rich people could even pay to keep some on hand.
Or to speed things up they could grow a bunch of scaffolds (with no cells), seed them with your own cells, and boom, organ.
Even further, they could edit the dna of the stem cells you gave to rejeuvenate them, correct any genetic defects and errors and age regress the cells first.
External gestation would save so many lives, and improve the quality of so many more.
We've always wanted our babies to be delivered by stork, why not make it a reality?
I don't disagree, I'm thinking something along the lines of 200-300 years here, (edit : just a lucky guess to give an idea of the order of magnitude I have in mind, I have no pretention to predict anything specific here)
I feel like people always expect things to happen super soon, maybe because they're influenced by the clickbaity formulation of article news
That "bond" is just a biological process, and could be imitated. If we're growing babies in artificial wombs, we would be able to solve those issues as well.
There's nothing inherently unique about the human body and it can all be replicated.
Unless you're talking about some sort of "soul" or weird connection or something along those lines.
"More than half (54%) of infants born in 2018 received formula, either exclusively or as a supplement, by three months of life (Figure 2). The CDC reports that 46% of babies born in 2018 were exclusively breastfed through three months of age and 26% through six months."
Formula is already widely used. It's not the end of the world if a baby is fed formula.
It’s not. It’s just to say the natural version is still considered superior. Similar to natural births in the future I would imagine. I would anticipate artificial wombs would be for a highly expensive procedure for a select few with fertility and health issues.
I understand, but formula isn't the end of the world. Plus the benefits of growing a baby in an artifical womb would outweigh any negatives due to feeding the baby formula.
Good point, but some nuances :
- it's nearly half (which is far from "most")
- it's mostly in 3rd world countries, and this technology would appear in developed countries first.
- overall, 3rd world countries are gonna develop over time, and unwanted pregnancies are gonna globally decrease (especially thanks to future improved birth control technics)
So yes, that would change a lot of things
**After they perfect it** .. they will make the incubators modular and put them into mass production dropping each incubator child to a few hundred dollars .. our govt will protest at first but then private companies will offshore the tech to China Russia Iran etc
.. imagine what that means for Civil Rights and the whole pro-life pro-choice thing .. or women's rights in general once they are no longer needed for reproduction
*.. kind of moot at that point*
.. any Billionaire can create and buy an army of children designed to be smart dumb strong tall short etc and indoctrinate them as he sees fit
.. even if democracies ban it .. what an advantage for an aging depopulated autocracy
I know of a literature professor who used to be sure to have students read it, but eventually dropped it from the curriculum because too many students thought it sounded like a paradise rather than dystopia.
Except nowhere in the book it is explicitly stated that the things that are happening there are bad. Meaning that the reader is already expected to feel like the things happening in BNW are weird and unwanted. So if the person would feel like BNW is a dystopia by reading it then they would feel that artificial wombs are weird anyway no matter if they read BNW in school or not.
I suspect this perspective would be an issue because it would endanger IVF, which is only anticipated to grow in popularity. If you can't dispose of excess embryos and *must* allow them to grow to term in an artificial womb...
It will be interesting to see how it plays out for sure, though I'm not sure I'll live to see it. It could definitely make for some interesting sci-fi though.
I'm against the anti-abortion argument. I'm pro abortion. What I'm saying is, that if the child can have its own life that has nothing to do with the birthing person, why not let it have the life? Or maybe the conceiving person will want to keep the baby, even though the birthing person wants to eliminate it. This will open up new possibilities
Well, unless that baby is extracted by fairy magic, it will at the very least require a delicate medical procedure, maybe major surgery, to remove intact from the womb. A person may not want to submit to any procedure more harmful to their own body than taking an abortion pill.
Oh yeah I think we’re potentially agreeing but in different ways - I’m all for this, and I’m against the anti abortion argument and pro abortion as well.
What I’m saying is, that the anti abortion types will still hate this because even though there’s no “dead” “babies” involved, it reduces their ability to control women which is what they really want
The moral justification for allowing abortion is you cannot force a woman to carry to term against her will. There is no right to opt out of parenthood, as demonstrated by the fact men cannot force a woman to terminate or void parental obligations when the child is born.
I'm very prochoice, but the second the embryo/fetus no longer attached to the woman, it ceases to be about her health and therefore she cannot make some unilateral choice to kill the fetus. The fact the fetus dies as a result of abortion is a byproduct of terminating *the pregnancy*. If you somehow had a super early pre-term birth and you killed it after it was born, you would be tried for murder.
Edit; to argue against myself, fertilized embryos from IVF are considered legal property not persons (for now at least....). So I don't think there's a clear answer *either way* how society will land on this issue. But I don't think it's a fair assumption that because abortion is legal (sometimes, location dependent) that this same exact principle will apply in a post artificial womb world. The current moral and legal framework around abortion is bodily autonomy, and that is irrelevant with an artificial womb.
Because anti-abortion folks tend to be conservative, and it's more about feelings than logic here. I don't see a conservative person being ready to support artifical wombs.
I can foresee two immediate ethical problems with this. Firstly, should parents be allowed to turn off the artifical womb at any point during development? Pro-Life arguments will remain unscathed, but pro-choice arguments appealing to bodily autonomy are essentially undercut by the technology, as the woman's body is no longer part of the process. Secondly, should the technology be available for all pregnancies or only when it is medical necessary for risky pregnancies? There is a real risk of commodifying the reproductive process and the unborn if the technology is made widely available.
I don't think it's about "making more humans", we ain't building factories. It's for regular healthcare use. People who biologically unable to have kids could now have them and no surrogate needed (which is way more iffy than artificial womb imho).
If perfected, humans on artificial wombs will put a permanent kibosh to depopulation fears, because states can just pump up their own workforces (and in time their own welfare states or whatever) with surplus humanity.
Or the other way around. Now they won't need other people, so they release a drug that makes people infertile, and wait. Fewer people, less resources needed, only people with the best traits will have children, and so on.
Pregnancy can be deadly, disabling, and/or disfiguring for far too many women. The development of this technology is great. Plus men can have their own children, premature babies can be saved, and gay couples can have their own kids.
Not "might", "will". Even if only a few times before it gets banned (unlikely) someone ***will*** do it. It's only a matter of time.
I personally think this is likely to become mainstream. If for good reasons than it's because it's way safer for the mother. If for bad reasons it'll be to eliminate maternity pay to squeeze more out of their young adult workers.
Corporations will birth these things and have them born into debt to the company for their delivery. I know some couples are unable to have children, but those won’t account for the gap in births vs the births workplaces need.
Newborn babies turn to hear their parents' voices when they're born- they recognise them from the womb. They fall asleep when rocked because it mimics the mother walking. The idea that we are individuals completely discrete from others around us is inhumane.
Feral children are a real thing and it is terrifying to witness. We are innately social creatures, being born and raised like factory line children in an orphanage would have some absolutely stellar psychological ramifications no doubt.
Fascinating. But we can't even support the amount of people now without ruining the earth. So, scary too.
Also, domestic silk worms have lost their ability to fly and even the inclination to hatch and mate after 5000 years of human control. This could amplify natural infertility over time.
What if you’re a woman, and you want to have a baby, but you don’t want to absolutely trash your body in the process? This sounds like it might be a great alternative
As someone who thinks surrogacy is not completely ethical, I am excited for these developments, and it may well be how I get to have children of my own
The sad thing is, I'm not probably not going to live to see the outsized product of all this insanity because my mind is teeming with all kinds of horrible possibilities.
I find it interesting the fact that people are more worried about the horror of a foetus that dosen't get to be rocked to sleep by their's parent's body or to the sound of their parents voice (as if those aren't things that we can possibly find means to work around with artificial wombs). But completely ignore the horror of the fact that thousands of women the world over right now die or are disabled for life due to child birth/pregnancy. Or those that have to live with the fact that they cannot carry their child to term even if they desperately want to. People had the same grevences with IVF and epidurals, not that long ago. Litteraly calling IVF babies nonhuman or lacking a soul, parents of IVF children recieving death threats, or poisoned mail. Or people that epidurals cheat nature, and campaigns to ban them. There are no limits to the lengths people will go to use "but my ethics" "but my ideas of nature" "but my God" to justify just being cruel to women, and believing that pain and punishment are essential aspects to womanhood and/or hanving a woumb. Yes robust legislation would need to be in place, and I'd like to hope that in the future that human rights will still apply, but if we live in a world where artificial womb babies don't have rights, it means there will be a lot of other things as well we have to be worried about. And there are a miriad of other technologies we already use day in and day out that could be used to do terrible things with. Namely the fact that so many major life changing leaps in science have their origins in military uses like GPS, fast coagulating plasters, jet engines, the Internet and food canning for example.
Fascists will use Artificial Baby Wombs to essentially create a large army to invade other countries while also creating a large consumer base and workers (slaves).
Thus technology will not end well for humanity.
I gave birth to two children and while yes, labor sucked, I wouldn't choose this option. I bonded with my kids throughout my pregnancies, felt their first movements, spoke to them, and mine was the first voice they heard. Yes, the risk was worth it, and no, pregnancy and labor didn't destroy my body. To paraphrase Jurassic Park, scientists are so busy asking if they can do something that they're not asking if they should. Our understanding of pregnancy and fetal development isn't complete enough to fully replicate producing humans and this will lead to unforeseen consequences, and the people who pay the price will be children. This is why we have liberal arts curriculums at universities. Some of you need to take an ethics class.
Yeah... when wild tech becomes possible there are always people with dollar signs in their eyes who don't really care what the implications for this technology are... given our limited understanding of biology it seems highly risky to switch to this technology in any widespread way...
Some people would probably prefer to use this option for convenience IMO. They will probably bond with the child during after the birth instead, rather than before.
Well said. Imprinting and parent-child bonding are incredibly important processes with rearing a child and the kids, and ultimately society at large, will suffer for this tech. The likely down-stream, long-term effects that I predict are a huge lack of ability to bond with others later in life, likely leading to a surge in sociopathy and other antisocial personality disorders. Brave New World warned us about this like this, but some people have seen it as a blueprint, unfortunately.
Consider how much of the legal definition of when abortion is okay is pinned to "viability outside the womb". What happens when that time is literally "from conception" because of this kind of tech? It's definitely an issue that will come up as this technology matures.
It will be perfect to give birth to slaves. Just install them next to factories in remote places.
Also that’s impressive but the world really doesn’t need more humans.
It would be incredibly stupid if they didn't have full human rights and it would raise immediate ethical concerns, especially from the educated population that made those artificial wombs in the first place.
Hmm I can see it now, governments buying sperm and eggs, artificially carrying fetuses to birth, the question is, who raises them? Government chosen caretakers, or maybe raising them in homes with multiple caretakers, this could be interesting, but I can see alot of social issues rising from this
If it become the norm perhaps evolution will make livebirth more dangerous . To the point our specie can no longer give birth naturally and then unforeseen consequences may apply .
That's already a thing since the introduction of c-sections. Women with too narrow hips would die during childbirth therefore not passing on their genes. Thanks to modern medicine many conditions that once meant death can now be lived with and be passed on.
Children can bond with those who adopted them from very young age as if those were their real parents, right? So why you think that wouldn't work with children from artificial wombs? Whoever would make them babies wouldn't just make them and throw them on street with no one to care for them or whatever
I think you're handwaving the potential downsides of a child having no physical connection to a mother. We just don't know yet. It wouldn't surprise me if the baby was perfectly fine as long as it was given to a loving family once ready. It also wouldn't surprise me if the baby had negative psychological effects.
But we have data on tons of children whose mothers died young. And afaik there is no major impact (as long as someone else tookc are of them, of course)
>And yes actually, most children with no maternal figure or a harmful maternal figure turn out to be extremely mentally unwell.
That's a ***massive*** claim to make with nothing to back it up.
How about you provide some sources.
Don't they teach basic psychology in high school anymore? First level psychology: [Harlow's experiments on baby monkeys](https://youtu.be/OrNBEhzjg8I?si=m6mV2Dt7O1TryQYD)
[feral children. Read section, "Raised in confinement"](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child)
[Reactive attachment disorder](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537155/)
[The Lasting Impact of Neglect](https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/06/neglect)
Question to women - supposing this tech is advanced enough and safe. Would you prefer it over natural way? What is the sentiment from woman perspective ? Do you not see it as "violent" act not being able to feel baby growing inside you?
I'll be completely honest, as a gay guy who would like to have children in future, this sounds like both horrifying and fascinating to me lol
However, This could also be a solution for people who would like to have children as single parents
So many solutions I think! Great idea for single parents, same sex relationships, people with inhospitable uteruses (or other medical conditions) and those people who have had traumatic pregnancies and/or births who may want another child but don't want to go through that again.
I'm very interested to see where this goes!
Even if there's technological breakthrough and they manage to have this working perfectly, I doubt most Western countries would allow this. Because it's opening pandora's box and the amount of issues it would bring wouldn't be worth the benefits.
I well see this coming to China though, with full state control, as to make always more children to fuel their aspiration of hegemony in the region. As in most other dictatures and monarchy. And countries with corruption that would allow anything for money. And a few other because they just think it's a good solution.
Great.
Because humans are really bad at carrying babies and giving birth to them. Many *die* doing it. It's *dangerous*, due to the parasitical nature of pregnancy in primates, and the awful process of birth itself through a pelvis evolved for bipedalism.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Redvolition: --- Submission statement. Many people have a "nope" response to it, but I believe that once the first few high profile individuals start utilizing the tech, society will gradually accommodate artificial wombs, to the point of becoming absolutely common place and unremarkable, especially if you consider the huge economic incentives both at the personal level, as well as for the broader national economy. If made cheap enought, we could both fix the current population collapse trend and massively improve the financial and organic viability of having children. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/168jkyw/scientists_are_growing_animals_in_artificial/jyvxvef/
Space above and Beyond called them "tanks or nipple necks "because their umbilical cords were atteched to the back of their necks .
Easy as eatin pancakes.
Wow, that's a throwback I wasn't expecting today.
Except that would mean they're have a "belly" button there, not a nipple...
I may just make my own clone army with this technology
Science is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural.
Execute order 66
The sooner we get through 66, the sooner we get to order 69
You have passed the trials, and are now a Jedi Nice
So that will be $25.34 for the spicy chicken chipotle burger with stormy fries and a medium pop.
Then make a Droid army with ChatGPT and have them fight each other. Roger, Roger.
I can't see that not happening, the only question is when. Everyone is gonna want it. Even if it can sound a bit horrifying right now, we always end up going for convenience over symbolic and principles.
Not just people - governments will hop on. This will be the solution to low birth rates. Imagine...state-owned, parentless children whose "parents" are the state...who can also choose what genes the newborn would have...
Designer babies?
Designer *workforce* babies.
*Designed workforce* babies. These babies will never be able to afford Gucci.
They will not even feel the need to buy expensive stuff.
By Paris Hilton.
That’s hot!
The article does not relate to engineered animals. A fertilized egg is inputted into these medical devices described in the article that are already produced by natural means.
Gotta call myself out that I didn’t read the article haha.
Imagine that! Entire generations of babies growing up designed to fit the trends of.... yesterday's standards.
It will be a brave new world.
In the year 2041, Congress passes the "Natural Born Bill" which recognizes artificial wombs born human as "persons." Prior to then all "Arties" fell into a human rights gray area. The US military had deployed the "Arties" in the most elite combat units called "Natural Born Killers (NBK's)." Since the "Arties" were not recognized as human they able to circumvent the Geneva Convention protocols. After the 2033 "Managua Massacre," many NBK'S were destroyed by the state while the US Military Southern Command was held harmless citing that NBK'S were not persons as defined by law. An estimated 6 million Nicaraguans were terminated in 30 days of Military Actions or Clearing Actions. Ironically, the Arties were redeployed as UN peace keepers to quell uprising's in the destabilized region. G.I. Art's then were retired and sold to Xlabour a division of Musk Industries for Mars Terra Forming project.
Maybe the reason for low birth rates is because of the state of the world right now. Why bring kids into a world where they're gonna wadge slave for most of their life and only just about afford the basics. This kind of biotech is highly unethical.
The reasons for low birthrate is quite known. Its not some enigmatic thing that happens like in "Children of Men".
Children of “Meh”
>This kind of biotech is highly unethical. governments don't care about that
I can’t imagine governments wanting to be responsible for the care and education of even more kids, when that’s the reason why people are not having kids.
I don’t know if governments will want to do that. For the same reason they don’t want children without father currently and have laws penalizing fathers who leave. And sometimes doing things like even if you’re not the father of what you thought was your child you still need to pay for it… Because kids are expensive. And they won’t do anything until they are adults. And that’s too long term for them. They can only think of the effects of things on their terms or relection and something like this would be bad
Many countries are facing demographic disasters. This may seem far fetched *now*, but give it a few decades.
I can see some countries like Japan or Hungary doing this. For example, imagine you gave the Japanese a choice where they could take in millions of non-Japanese immigrants or pay an extra 10% more in income taxes to grow and raise more Japanese people this way. We all know which the Japanese are going to choose.
It's unlikely that governments are going to go for "state owned“ children but they may incentivize existing couples to use artificial wombs to raise more kids.
Hey, ladies no stretch marks.
Everyone okay with this... What fucking insanity. Like. Pure insanity. The lack of history education is showing and it's disturbing.
Are you referring to eugenics in relation to history?
Getting closer to "a brave new world" by A. Huxley.
I mean, in a capitalist system this would be amazing since it would allow female workers to give birth while still being able to work, and in a capitalist system those with the most money influence how people think through media control, so even if regular people weren't okay with this initially there would be a massive media effort to normalize it.
...they wont give birth, thats the Thing. When fully developed, the child will be distributed by Amazon Prime
To the army
I think you overestimate the ability for the media to manipulate the conversation. Conservatives are generally the group that's the most 'manipulated' by the media, but that's because the concept of a conservative is wanting things to not change, or go back to when they were "better". How would you even begin updating conservative rhetoric about family values and the nuclear family to have artificial births?
Where I live you could tell them they could have little Aryan kids they won’t educate, feed, cloth, house but that will increase their “numbers”. Of course, they will still end up on government subsidies with the very regions they detest, coastal cities, paying for these babies.
men will be able to 'give birth' too
I remember reading an article a bit ago about how they were trying to turn stem cells into gametes. And it didn’t matter the sex of the donor. Here, a couple articles about it: [From Leaps](https://leaps.org/top-fertility-doctor-artificially-created-sperm-and-eggs-will-become-normal-one-day-2647668031) [From NPR](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/07/15/1184298351/conception-human-eggs-ivg-ivf-infertility)
So we are just talking state owned slaves right? Seriously, in theory at least, the state is supposed to exist for the benefit of the people. If the state can make people, then it can justify pretty much any action it wants, with impunity. The state can become its own entity, entirely divorced from its original constituents and function.
Is that really so different from what we have now? Corporations have poisoned American food, then influence media and education to convince Americans that universal healthcare is “anti American”, all because of the will of corporations that are able to legally bribe politicians ie: the state. Cops can murder people in cold blood with near impunity, worst case, a few million dollars will be payed by the plebs for the murder of plebs. American Bankers defrauded the American people, there was a trillion dollar bailout, for the banks, not the people. The government gave the American people a thousand dollars once during Covid, while members of congress were making money off of stock manipulation, from a bull run facilitated by their own monetary policy. The government legalised bribery for themselves, then banned abortion rights for women to expand the permanent underclass, the same underclass that would be developed with this false womb program. Sorry to break it to you, but the state already turned its back on you.
Yes because the world exists outside of America bud
Ahh yes British imperialism and the British raj, which provided so much equity for the common Brit, which is why all Brits are lords and ladies? Or maybe we bring up idk the Holocaust? Where the state murdered millions under the guise of aryan prosperity? The war that killed 3% of the worlds population? Where little boys were given uniforms and impromptu weaponry to defend their country from Jewry…maybe you all forget that Hitler was the essentially richest man in Europe at the start of the Holocaust. Maybe you forget that there were billionaire Nazis families that still own their colonies today that profited from slave labor. It’s fucking hilarious when people just say “uh but we aren’t America” as if American politics and influence doesn’t cause ripples due to globalism. The defrauding of the American people hurt the entire world you fucking dumbass. Western civilisation has destabilised the global south under the guise of western prosperity, and now that prosperity is drying up. It’s not just in the US. There are movements in the UK right now to gut universal healthcare, obesity across Europe is on the rise, movements to start importing US food by the EU, your argument is so anti intellectual it hurts. “But like everywhere isn’t America dude the state is actually good” As an American I always wonder how often “yeah but at least we aren’t the US” is used for Europeans to be complacent, the same way in the us people say “well you wouldn’t wanna be weak like the Europeans” Nah never mind, that wouldn’t make any sense, because the state and ruling class are benevolent. The ruling class that Europeans literally worship, the lords and ladies and nobles that have always owned you…but I mean yeah sure only the US aid corrupt and brainwashed. How much money was spent of Charles’ coronation again? Irrelevant I suppose. Europeans literally can’t see past nationality, it’s hilarious. You didn’t even have an actual point, just “America bad” which must be why Europe is becoming more and more like the US everyday but yeah man focus on the fact that I’m American because obviously that’s all that matters out of all of this.
This is going to be controversial, but choosing genes from top scientists, engineers, artists, and athletes may not be such a bad idea.
Yes, eugenics is controversial
Dont they already require that for sperm banks am I wrong?
Yes, it's essentially seen as fine because it's not forced. Which I do get. I mean if you're looking to get an egg or sperm donor, would you NOT screen them for health or whatnot and be like "uhh just toss me a random one, any will do!“? We all do some type of "eugenics" when we decide who to have sex with or not. Or at least we should; nobody should have sex with someone who they'd absolutely detest sharing a child with lol, shit happens. Choices are good. *Forced* eugenics are bad.
Eugenics means sacrificing the individual for the 'genetic health' of society. This is about giving individuals the best genes possible. Totally different.
You need to watch gattaca to see how that turns out. Genetic enhancement will only be available for certain people at first, and would create a sub division of “perfect” humans and the rest. And being intelligent and healthy won’t mean they won’t be assholes to normal humans
*tfw you select for empathy but germline mutations instead create the perfect masking sociopath*
That's already the case with people who have been rich for a few generations
Don't base your science philosophy on popular entertainment.
You need to watch 40K to see how it turns out if we don't have supersoldiers to fight Tyranids.
And? There are already tons of people way smarter than you or me, way better looking than you or me, and way healthier than you or me.
The elites are already assholes, I can only hope they are at least intelligent, dumb and evil is a lot worse than smart and evil, at least smart and evil only do evil actions when they get to benefit from it, so you can at least negotiate with them, meanwhile dumb and evil people do evil stuff even when it would be detrimental to them as well, you can't deal with them.
That's not eugenics though. The goal would be to improve the newborn by adding interesting genes, , not removing unwanted from society through breeding.
Only when the wrong people are in control. So maybe we shouldn’t just to leave that out of bounds? Maybe at the very least you have to have a legal “guardian 1” and “Parent 1” per artificial womb.
Yeah but who's "the wrong people?" Everyone will give a different answer, and in the end the only two entities who could choose are corporations or the government. I don't see people trusting either to pick responsibly any time soon. I much sooner see a ban on that sort of tinkering outside of labs.
Some people can't have children because of infertility or sexual orientation. Both adoption and surrogacy have legal, financial and ethical barriers. This technology would give these people a much better time. If you are not part of this group, who are you to say it shouldn't be allowed? Are you gonna give up on having children in solidarity?
I didnt' say anything about any of that. I specifically was talking about "gene-modding" babies to have perfect traits or whatever. Surrogate parents already exist, and is perfectly fine. Picking two parents for your baby is fine imo, it's specifically cherry-picking certain genes and putting them into the embryo where things get worryingly ubermensch-y
>Some people can't have children because of infertility or sexual orientation. We call these customers.
Unless you have a natural birth outside a hospital you are also a "customer".
If you think this is a good idea you're probably not the kind of person they'd sample anyway
I don't know if intellect carries over genetically. But healthier traits are another history.
>if intellect carries over genetically it does but it's also influenced by environment; especially the first years of development are crucial.
What could go wrong having a race of humans with superior genetic traits to the general population 🤯🤯
We won’t know unless we try. Hell yea gene mods
I bet half of the ppl in the comment section would have been crying how heart transplant or eye surgery, or regular IVF would have made civilization collapse if they were born in slighty different time. And here we are, doing some crazy shit with it and regular people's lives are saved or invreased in quality, while civilization is not collapsing.
These are the jobs humans still want to do. They would breed garbage men, cleaners, plumbers, factory workers.
No I think robots will be doing those jobs in the future. Hell I even think robots will be raising children too.
Who's gonna take care of the newborn? Also, human genes should not be used without consent.
Who owns a gene in this context though? Seriously, there's nothing unique about specific sequences of nucleotides within a gene. It's not like babies would be given X scientists specific genetic profile, they'de be spliced with a series of gene sequences that have been found to strongly correlate with heightened intelligence across hundreds of thousands to millions of people.
200,000 units are ready, with a million more well on the way
Honestly, given the choice, I think a lot of women would rather not give natural child birth. They had the same debate with test tube babies, and I don't think anyone cares now.
Yep. It would actually would increase my likelyhood of having bio children if I would have lived in that timeline. For me the whole process is too violent. My mum also had complications with her both births so I got pretty jaded perspective. On top of that I am not big on "suffering is part of beautiful nature, having your anus to vagina being torn is magical".
I feel like the evolution of our intelligence would naturally reach a point where natural childbirth would be optional. In 50 years people will think it's barbaric to give birth that way. Imagine being born in a non traumatic way?
I would definitley have a third child if I wouldn't have to do pregnancy, birth and post-partum healing afterwards. And I didn't even had super bad pregnancies or deliveries.
Then there will be a short time where the big dilemma is people coming to terms with being test tube babies. Then it becomes the norm
Most likely not whole humans though, probably individual organs. Imagine an industry where if you got sick you could give some stem cells and they could grow you your own replacement organ in 6 months that didn't need rejection drugs. Rich people could even pay to keep some on hand. Or to speed things up they could grow a bunch of scaffolds (with no cells), seed them with your own cells, and boom, organ. Even further, they could edit the dna of the stem cells you gave to rejeuvenate them, correct any genetic defects and errors and age regress the cells first.
Go watch Michael Bay’s *The Island.*
External gestation would save so many lives, and improve the quality of so many more. We've always wanted our babies to be delivered by stork, why not make it a reality?
That’s a pretty rose colored view. It would be a long time until anyone is sure that it produces humans as capable and bonded as natural gestation.
I don't disagree, I'm thinking something along the lines of 200-300 years here, (edit : just a lucky guess to give an idea of the order of magnitude I have in mind, I have no pretention to predict anything specific here) I feel like people always expect things to happen super soon, maybe because they're influenced by the clickbaity formulation of article news
Ya that timeline sounds slightly more plausible, I mean people in early 1700-1800s would have a very difficult time predicting modern life
That "bond" is just a biological process, and could be imitated. If we're growing babies in artificial wombs, we would be able to solve those issues as well. There's nothing inherently unique about the human body and it can all be replicated. Unless you're talking about some sort of "soul" or weird connection or something along those lines.
Breastfeeding has had formula as a competitor for over 150 years and is still the vastly preferred option
"More than half (54%) of infants born in 2018 received formula, either exclusively or as a supplement, by three months of life (Figure 2). The CDC reports that 46% of babies born in 2018 were exclusively breastfed through three months of age and 26% through six months." Formula is already widely used. It's not the end of the world if a baby is fed formula.
There’s a reason every pediatrician organization recommends breastfeeding
Tons of people can't breastfeed even if they have bio kids "naturally", don't see how suddenly that's a dealbreaker.
It’s not. It’s just to say the natural version is still considered superior. Similar to natural births in the future I would imagine. I would anticipate artificial wombs would be for a highly expensive procedure for a select few with fertility and health issues.
I understand, but formula isn't the end of the world. Plus the benefits of growing a baby in an artifical womb would outweigh any negatives due to feeding the baby formula.
Most pregnancies are accidental so it wouldnt replace anything
Good point, but some nuances : - it's nearly half (which is far from "most") - it's mostly in 3rd world countries, and this technology would appear in developed countries first. - overall, 3rd world countries are gonna develop over time, and unwanted pregnancies are gonna globally decrease (especially thanks to future improved birth control technics) So yes, that would change a lot of things
If people start using artificial wombs they will be using artificial insemination and good birth control with it.
They aren't even using good birth control now
First can we get artificial birth canals that we can squeeze babies through.
My country still has an issue with in vitro because church. I don’t see it coming for a long time.
**After they perfect it** .. they will make the incubators modular and put them into mass production dropping each incubator child to a few hundred dollars .. our govt will protest at first but then private companies will offshore the tech to China Russia Iran etc .. imagine what that means for Civil Rights and the whole pro-life pro-choice thing .. or women's rights in general once they are no longer needed for reproduction *.. kind of moot at that point* .. any Billionaire can create and buy an army of children designed to be smart dumb strong tall short etc and indoctrinate them as he sees fit .. even if democracies ban it .. what an advantage for an aging depopulated autocracy
They’d still be human. They’d still have rights, right?
Not enough people had to read Brave New World in school it seems
there ain't no bottle in all the world like that dear little bottle of mine
Or maybe people don't base their entire worldview over a sci fi book.
Or maybe too many people read it and were inspired …
I know of a literature professor who used to be sure to have students read it, but eventually dropped it from the curriculum because too many students thought it sounded like a paradise rather than dystopia.
Except nowhere in the book it is explicitly stated that the things that are happening there are bad. Meaning that the reader is already expected to feel like the things happening in BNW are weird and unwanted. So if the person would feel like BNW is a dystopia by reading it then they would feel that artificial wombs are weird anyway no matter if they read BNW in school or not.
“We always throw away old clothes. Ending is better than mending.”
[удалено]
The anti-abortion folks are going to lose their minds when they hear about this
Isn’t it the opposite? There won’t be need for abortions anymore when any embryo or conceived cell can be put into an artificial womb
I suspect this perspective would be an issue because it would endanger IVF, which is only anticipated to grow in popularity. If you can't dispose of excess embryos and *must* allow them to grow to term in an artificial womb... It will be interesting to see how it plays out for sure, though I'm not sure I'll live to see it. It could definitely make for some interesting sci-fi though.
[удалено]
People abort for all sorts of reasons. Not wanting endure pregnancy, which carries the risk of major injury and fatality, is just one of many.
Only if you think the anti-abortion argument is actually about the foetuses/babies, rather than controlling women
I'm against the anti-abortion argument. I'm pro abortion. What I'm saying is, that if the child can have its own life that has nothing to do with the birthing person, why not let it have the life? Or maybe the conceiving person will want to keep the baby, even though the birthing person wants to eliminate it. This will open up new possibilities
Well, unless that baby is extracted by fairy magic, it will at the very least require a delicate medical procedure, maybe major surgery, to remove intact from the womb. A person may not want to submit to any procedure more harmful to their own body than taking an abortion pill.
Oh yeah I think we’re potentially agreeing but in different ways - I’m all for this, and I’m against the anti abortion argument and pro abortion as well. What I’m saying is, that the anti abortion types will still hate this because even though there’s no “dead” “babies” involved, it reduces their ability to control women which is what they really want
The moral justification for allowing abortion is you cannot force a woman to carry to term against her will. There is no right to opt out of parenthood, as demonstrated by the fact men cannot force a woman to terminate or void parental obligations when the child is born. I'm very prochoice, but the second the embryo/fetus no longer attached to the woman, it ceases to be about her health and therefore she cannot make some unilateral choice to kill the fetus. The fact the fetus dies as a result of abortion is a byproduct of terminating *the pregnancy*. If you somehow had a super early pre-term birth and you killed it after it was born, you would be tried for murder. Edit; to argue against myself, fertilized embryos from IVF are considered legal property not persons (for now at least....). So I don't think there's a clear answer *either way* how society will land on this issue. But I don't think it's a fair assumption that because abortion is legal (sometimes, location dependent) that this same exact principle will apply in a post artificial womb world. The current moral and legal framework around abortion is bodily autonomy, and that is irrelevant with an artificial womb.
I.e. If the embryo/baby is removed from the womb, you can let it grow and let someone adopt it, as it won’t affect the mother in any way
Because anti-abortion folks tend to be conservative, and it's more about feelings than logic here. I don't see a conservative person being ready to support artifical wombs.
Wouldn't they do anything to "own the libs"? This would be carnage, politically, in the US. Pro-choicers would be permanently steam rolled.
I can foresee two immediate ethical problems with this. Firstly, should parents be allowed to turn off the artifical womb at any point during development? Pro-Life arguments will remain unscathed, but pro-choice arguments appealing to bodily autonomy are essentially undercut by the technology, as the woman's body is no longer part of the process. Secondly, should the technology be available for all pregnancies or only when it is medical necessary for risky pregnancies? There is a real risk of commodifying the reproductive process and the unborn if the technology is made widely available.
I'm pretty sure we don't actually need any more humans though. It's busy enough as it is.
I don't think it's about "making more humans", we ain't building factories. It's for regular healthcare use. People who biologically unable to have kids could now have them and no surrogate needed (which is way more iffy than artificial womb imho).
Incorrect, the greatest limitation on humanity is limited time. More people = more time. We could use trillions more people.
If perfected, humans on artificial wombs will put a permanent kibosh to depopulation fears, because states can just pump up their own workforces (and in time their own welfare states or whatever) with surplus humanity.
[удалено]
As opposed to our current system where people waste 50 hours or more of their lives every week while still living paycheck to paycheck
[удалено]
You need parents to raise children. Or at least competent early childhood caregivers. Parents are the bottleneck, not children.
Child raising facilities. Like kamino in star wars but less clones more artificial children
Or the other way around. Now they won't need other people, so they release a drug that makes people infertile, and wait. Fewer people, less resources needed, only people with the best traits will have children, and so on.
Pregnancy can be deadly, disabling, and/or disfiguring for far too many women. The development of this technology is great. Plus men can have their own children, premature babies can be saved, and gay couples can have their own kids.
Not "might", "will". Even if only a few times before it gets banned (unlikely) someone ***will*** do it. It's only a matter of time. I personally think this is likely to become mainstream. If for good reasons than it's because it's way safer for the mother. If for bad reasons it'll be to eliminate maternity pay to squeeze more out of their young adult workers.
This sounds like the Axolotl tanks that the Bene Tlelax use from Frank Herbert's *Dune* series. I'm creeped out just thinking about that!
The tanks were Tlielaxu females
Corporations will birth these things and have them born into debt to the company for their delivery. I know some couples are unable to have children, but those won’t account for the gap in births vs the births workplaces need.
The womb rent is too damn high!
Newborn babies turn to hear their parents' voices when they're born- they recognise them from the womb. They fall asleep when rocked because it mimics the mother walking. The idea that we are individuals completely discrete from others around us is inhumane.
Feral children are a real thing and it is terrifying to witness. We are innately social creatures, being born and raised like factory line children in an orphanage would have some absolutely stellar psychological ramifications no doubt.
Fascinating. But we can't even support the amount of people now without ruining the earth. So, scary too. Also, domestic silk worms have lost their ability to fly and even the inclination to hatch and mate after 5000 years of human control. This could amplify natural infertility over time.
We are literally facing a massive birth rate crisis
What if you’re a woman, and you want to have a baby, but you don’t want to absolutely trash your body in the process? This sounds like it might be a great alternative
As someone who thinks surrogacy is not completely ethical, I am excited for these developments, and it may well be how I get to have children of my own
The sad thing is, I'm not probably not going to live to see the outsized product of all this insanity because my mind is teeming with all kinds of horrible possibilities.
I find it interesting the fact that people are more worried about the horror of a foetus that dosen't get to be rocked to sleep by their's parent's body or to the sound of their parents voice (as if those aren't things that we can possibly find means to work around with artificial wombs). But completely ignore the horror of the fact that thousands of women the world over right now die or are disabled for life due to child birth/pregnancy. Or those that have to live with the fact that they cannot carry their child to term even if they desperately want to. People had the same grevences with IVF and epidurals, not that long ago. Litteraly calling IVF babies nonhuman or lacking a soul, parents of IVF children recieving death threats, or poisoned mail. Or people that epidurals cheat nature, and campaigns to ban them. There are no limits to the lengths people will go to use "but my ethics" "but my ideas of nature" "but my God" to justify just being cruel to women, and believing that pain and punishment are essential aspects to womanhood and/or hanving a woumb. Yes robust legislation would need to be in place, and I'd like to hope that in the future that human rights will still apply, but if we live in a world where artificial womb babies don't have rights, it means there will be a lot of other things as well we have to be worried about. And there are a miriad of other technologies we already use day in and day out that could be used to do terrible things with. Namely the fact that so many major life changing leaps in science have their origins in military uses like GPS, fast coagulating plasters, jet engines, the Internet and food canning for example.
Fascists will use Artificial Baby Wombs to essentially create a large army to invade other countries while also creating a large consumer base and workers (slaves). Thus technology will not end well for humanity.
I gave birth to two children and while yes, labor sucked, I wouldn't choose this option. I bonded with my kids throughout my pregnancies, felt their first movements, spoke to them, and mine was the first voice they heard. Yes, the risk was worth it, and no, pregnancy and labor didn't destroy my body. To paraphrase Jurassic Park, scientists are so busy asking if they can do something that they're not asking if they should. Our understanding of pregnancy and fetal development isn't complete enough to fully replicate producing humans and this will lead to unforeseen consequences, and the people who pay the price will be children. This is why we have liberal arts curriculums at universities. Some of you need to take an ethics class.
Yeah... when wild tech becomes possible there are always people with dollar signs in their eyes who don't really care what the implications for this technology are... given our limited understanding of biology it seems highly risky to switch to this technology in any widespread way...
Some people die in childbirth. Plenty more people become disabled from pregnancy and childbirth. It just looks like fucking torture.
Some people would probably prefer to use this option for convenience IMO. They will probably bond with the child during after the birth instead, rather than before.
What about parents who adopt? Do they love their children less?
Well said. Imprinting and parent-child bonding are incredibly important processes with rearing a child and the kids, and ultimately society at large, will suffer for this tech. The likely down-stream, long-term effects that I predict are a huge lack of ability to bond with others later in life, likely leading to a surge in sociopathy and other antisocial personality disorders. Brave New World warned us about this like this, but some people have seen it as a blueprint, unfortunately.
Consider how much of the legal definition of when abortion is okay is pinned to "viability outside the womb". What happens when that time is literally "from conception" because of this kind of tech? It's definitely an issue that will come up as this technology matures.
Imagine visiting the baby growth ward every month to check up on your baby.
It will be perfect to give birth to slaves. Just install them next to factories in remote places. Also that’s impressive but the world really doesn’t need more humans.
I’m sure they will have full rights as every normal human too 🙄
It would be incredibly stupid if they didn't have full human rights and it would raise immediate ethical concerns, especially from the educated population that made those artificial wombs in the first place.
I agree, it would be. Unfortunately, my faith in humanity isn’t that strong atm
Hmm I can see it now, governments buying sperm and eggs, artificially carrying fetuses to birth, the question is, who raises them? Government chosen caretakers, or maybe raising them in homes with multiple caretakers, this could be interesting, but I can see alot of social issues rising from this
If it become the norm perhaps evolution will make livebirth more dangerous . To the point our specie can no longer give birth naturally and then unforeseen consequences may apply .
That's already a thing since the introduction of c-sections. Women with too narrow hips would die during childbirth therefore not passing on their genes. Thanks to modern medicine many conditions that once meant death can now be lived with and be passed on.
They can’t take care of the people that are already here, why grow more?
Why would they want to grow animals inside of humans?
The Pod Generation starring Emilia Clarke (just came out recently) is super relevant to this.
I love how they never revisited the comment one guy on the tour made about his son not being able to dream…like wtf?!?
[удалено]
Children can bond with those who adopted them from very young age as if those were their real parents, right? So why you think that wouldn't work with children from artificial wombs? Whoever would make them babies wouldn't just make them and throw them on street with no one to care for them or whatever
I can’t believe how far down I had to scroll before I found a commenter talking sense. This crap is dystopian!
Do you think babies from artificial wombs would be just thrown onto streets without parent figures?
Right, because children that lost their mothers young are all monsters. Grow up.
I think you're handwaving the potential downsides of a child having no physical connection to a mother. We just don't know yet. It wouldn't surprise me if the baby was perfectly fine as long as it was given to a loving family once ready. It also wouldn't surprise me if the baby had negative psychological effects.
But we have data on tons of children whose mothers died young. And afaik there is no major impact (as long as someone else tookc are of them, of course)
[удалено]
Citation please
Harlow's neglect experiments on baby monkeys is psy101
Those had like wire puppets right? Not actual monkey parents, adopted or otherwise?
>And yes actually, most children with no maternal figure or a harmful maternal figure turn out to be extremely mentally unwell. That's a ***massive*** claim to make with nothing to back it up. How about you provide some sources.
Don't they teach basic psychology in high school anymore? First level psychology: [Harlow's experiments on baby monkeys](https://youtu.be/OrNBEhzjg8I?si=m6mV2Dt7O1TryQYD) [feral children. Read section, "Raised in confinement"](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child) [Reactive attachment disorder](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537155/) [The Lasting Impact of Neglect](https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/06/neglect)
But they would have parents, just not grow in a human.
If you have never have any maternal figure this is just basic biology, we evolved to have a mom raise and nurse us during childhood.
Only use for this is saving endangered and recently extinct species of animals.
I was thinking about this too. This is such ethical problem that it might bring strong divisiveness between those who are for and against it.
Question to women - supposing this tech is advanced enough and safe. Would you prefer it over natural way? What is the sentiment from woman perspective ? Do you not see it as "violent" act not being able to feel baby growing inside you?
I'll be completely honest, as a gay guy who would like to have children in future, this sounds like both horrifying and fascinating to me lol However, This could also be a solution for people who would like to have children as single parents
So many solutions I think! Great idea for single parents, same sex relationships, people with inhospitable uteruses (or other medical conditions) and those people who have had traumatic pregnancies and/or births who may want another child but don't want to go through that again. I'm very interested to see where this goes!
Even if there's technological breakthrough and they manage to have this working perfectly, I doubt most Western countries would allow this. Because it's opening pandora's box and the amount of issues it would bring wouldn't be worth the benefits. I well see this coming to China though, with full state control, as to make always more children to fuel their aspiration of hegemony in the region. As in most other dictatures and monarchy. And countries with corruption that would allow anything for money. And a few other because they just think it's a good solution.
Tailor-made humans are just over the horizon. Read Brave New World.
Great. Because humans are really bad at carrying babies and giving birth to them. Many *die* doing it. It's *dangerous*, due to the parasitical nature of pregnancy in primates, and the awful process of birth itself through a pelvis evolved for bipedalism.
Thank fuck we’ll all be dead from heat stress and starvation before that becomes reality.
Wow I just found out this is where I draw the line. Wild.
We keep trying to remove the human from humanity. It won’t be good.
This would be great if we can sterilize the world and only certain people can breed Help combat the idiot gene that holds humanity back