We just recently discovered, that during childbrith, vaginal microbiota is transferred to the child and this transfer is quite beneficial for the development of the immune system of the child. It's called vaginal microbiota transfer (VMT). It's so beneficial that babies being born via c-section are now artificially covered in their mother's vaginal microbiota.
Now imagine the thousands of factors that happen during pregnancy that probably influence the neurodevelopment of a human and which artifical womb doesn't take into account. Simple things such as: hearing and feeling the heartbeat of the mother, feeling the environment, heat, cold, being carried through life and so on.
Apart from the nutrients from breastfeeding, I recall that it is part of an immune system feedback loop. If the child is fighting off something, it is transferred to the nipple during breastfeeding. The mother's immune system develops a response and provides help to the child in the breast milk next feeding.
As far as I know, there's no (direct, retrograde) transfer of pathogens from the child to the mother through the breast. But if the child has an infection, there is often a higher chance for the mother to get ill as well (due to close body contact, aerosol particles, etc.) and to develop a "mature immune response", which could lead to a (delayed) positive secondary effect on the child through passive immunity.
Well, they provided something and it’s from a reputable publication. You can wait around for more people to chime in or you can dig in yourself until then.
Laypeople are much more likely to learn something useful and solid from a good podcast on a topic, run by someone (or with a guest) who has read the literature broadly and can distinguish solid papers from publish-or-perish drivel. Doing your own research, unless you dedicate an inordinate amount of time or energy to it, is very likely to lead you completely astray.
It’s problematic in some ways. Many new mothers torture themselves unnecessarily about nursing vs formula because they want the best for their baby. The benefits of nursing are real, and if you can do it, great. But if you don’t have the time, biology or even just inclination to breastfeed, your baby will be fine.
There’s no evidence that says formula is detrimental, especially compared to not eating enough at all.
I agree with you, there’s probably a lot of epigenetic activity going on in response to environmental factors.
On the other hand, these things can probably be studied and identified. There is an organ shortage for transplantation, which historically peaks in times of peace. One idea is to genetically modify animals to make them more immunologically compatible. I could see a world where being able to control every aspect of the development process allows for more suitable organs (less risk of infection, etc).
E.g., IIRC there's research into how certain stressors on the mother during pregnancy increase the likelihood of things like anxiety and depression for their offspring.
Yes, I think people who haven't studied this at all have a very naive view of the end-to-end complexities of pregnancy. It's currently very infeasible to simulate this environment, we don't have the knowledge or the technology, or even a path of how to get there.
What's more likely to come first is artificially created sperm, from a sample of any cells - first by converting them to stem cells, then differentiating those to sperm-producing cells. It's already been trialed in the lab. I expect it's only a matter of time before this becomes a widely available reproductive technology, like IVF is now. Perhaps a few decades, if that.
The most interesting thing about this is it can be done with female cells to make "female sperm", both in the sense that it comes from a female individual and that every sperm cell will be X chromosomed (thus producing only daughters).
At that point, men will be effectively obsolete, and will gradually diminish in population, as each successive generation will be skewed more towards female.
It will be interesting to see how society adapts to being female-centered instead of male-dominated.
> It will be interesting to see how society adapts to being female-centered instead of male-dominated.
See Nursing for the dynamics of a female-dominated world. As a cis-male who was able to pierce into this space, it has its moments.
There’s a lot of clique-ines, eating of the young and crabs-in-a-bucket mentality. I don’t know if this is because Nursing is historically subservient to medicine, and horizontal trauma is a manifestation of being unable to act out on higher ranking members of the hierarchy. Also, career stagnation - many nurses are lifers in one clinical area and are secretly unsatisfied.
Fortunately, there is hope in pockets of the profession, typically in more cognitively-demanding areas with more “ownership” of patients (intensive care, NPs in primary care).
However, it’s hard to transfer culture between clinical areas, as the ones who are capable have already left toxic areas. The ones that don’t leave are the ones on power trips and don’t want to lose their little fiefdom.
This is one of the reasons I am not an organ donor. Think of all the specific things that a body has for a kidney. Should it be taken out, experience completely different conditions, and then be placed into an entirely different body that wasn’t grown around it organically? This could have horrific consequences for the recipient and I cannot, in good conscience, participate. It is unethical.
Yes, the consequences of not getting a kidney transplant for someone with kidney failure is a painful death. The transplant is a much better alternative even if it isn’t ideal.
Preferring to offer death rather than your straw-man argument is probably more unethical.
My father received a heart transplant that gave him many years of extended life. please reconsider being a donor. Something, even if it's not perfect, is better than nothing.
Let me ease your conscience. If you become an organ donor it's not your decision whether any of your organs are actually transplanted. And you'd be dead. So you wouldn't be participating.
Once you’re dead it’s not your decision. So if you suicide bomb, you’re dead and none of the other deaths can be blamed on you. You’ll die first because stuff is strapped to you.
You decided to blow yourself up around other people. They didn't choose to be near you. So it's like organ donation in exactly no way. No one is forced to accept organs you opt to donate. It's a choice made freely.
If you don't want to donate organs, just say so it's fine. Don't make up some BS ethical dilemma.
Ethics is very important. People will just cut up other people and make another Frankenstein's monster of a creature. The scientists never stopped to ask if they should. In moments where ethics discussions are most warranted there are always folks like you trying to shut them down.
> This could have horrific consequences for the recipient
Have you thought through the consequences of NOT receiving an organ? They're pretty horrific as well.
To be clear, what you're outlining is: "For my conscience, I'd prefer people die outright than live to potentially reject an organ." I think you analysis of the ethics here could use a more thorough review.
Organ waiting lists require the informed consent of the recipient. As in, the people on the list have expressed a preference towards not dying. A premature child cannot express such a preference.
So you say. But no one has proven to me that they want to live. Government databases notoriously have errors. Besides I can match my knowledge of the child’s preference with the adult’s preference by just not paying attention.
> But no one has proven to me that they want to live.
I think I see where you're coming from, but this is a mighty perverse thing to say about people currently dying of organ failure who have expressed a desire to not die of organ failure. This isn't hypothetical, you can reach out to them and ask them how they feel directly. Not paying attention to that is a lack of diligence on your part, not a lack of expression on theirs.
Contrast that with an unborn child who literally cannot express a preference. Proving a desire to be born is a very different problem.
Sure, but the guy who would conceive and execute on this idea was never going to be a guy who would stop there.
Folks like this don’t aim at some point and then achieve it and stay there. They aim higher, land where they do, and continue to target the higher point. It’s how it is.
You can tell because how many of the rest of the people who would have stopped and not have lab-grown the child? Precisely zero.
It seems to me most of the big ethical challenges would involve acts which would already be atrocity-proximate even involving regular wombs. Weird experiments, clone armies, etc.
The common case seem much more straightforward, such as laws to prevent a hospital/creche from early-terminating a 9-month lease on Uterine Replicator #123 for non-payment, different fields on "birth certificate", some case-law around, er, "miscarriage" events, etc.
It's possible to have a non-functioning womb while still having functioning ovaries. I don't see any philosophical or ethical problems with artificial wombs as an alternative to surrogacy.
Artificial wombs are fascinating and I hope they eventually become a viable alternative for mothers.
But I see them as being perhaps a somewhat more distant future possibility to fully replace a real womb due to the all of challenges.
When I think about the long term future of humanity and human development, I can't help but assume that things like artificial intelligence and simulation will have a significant role. In other words, trans-human and post-humanism.
Many techno-optimists like myself already anticipate superhuman artificial intelligence in less than 10 years. We might eventually (some decades further down the road) arrive at the point where it is easier to produce a "son" or "daughter" with the exact qualities we desire by 3d printing and model/knowledge configuration.
Your idea of optimism is literally replacing the entire human race (the lineage of all humans on the planet) with a simulation of humans? That's pretty bleak.
I wasn't trying to connect all those ideas like that. I was just trying to bring up concepts like artificial "offspring" etc. because I think they are relevant to the discussion and interesting.
I think you can look at the potential trajectories for technology and humanity in different ways depending on your perspective. The most dramatic changes are totally speculative. Of course I am not hoping for real humans to become extinct.
> I hope they eventually become a viable alternative for mothers.
Sadly it seems that modern liberal societies that don’t enslave their women seem to not achieve sufficient fertility rates to avoid going extinct. Artificial wombs would be a huge advance toward fixing that problem.
Which modern liberal societies do you know? Only societies I know in the western world are the ones that enslave men and women for resource extraction by the ultra wealthy, leaving them poor and tired and helpless and hopeless in the process. Taking their hard earned money and shoving propaganda at them every waking moment. Which is the fundamental reason as to why people aren’t having children. Has nothing to do with “not enslaving women.”
This is probably wrong because nearly every country is experiencing the trend. When you account for that, the reason is simple, the wealthier people are the more expensive children are.
Well in "Brave New World", they replaced parents with institutions where children grew up and were raised by the (basically) teachers. Similar to how schoolchildren are handled today, with one teacher leading a class of 15-30 kids.
Looking at the average state of parenting in the US today, it seems like a potentially huge improvement.
I always figured a kibbutz-style scheme might be something to encourage. Let's try to make spaces where families raising children can live together and cooperate.
From a sheer economic standpoint, sharing the breadwinning and parenting duties might allow the children to get more hours of hands-on parent time. There might be economies of scale in sharing and handing down equipment, clothing, toys, or even provisioning services (if you have 10 families loving together, maybe at that point keeping a pediatrician or tutors on retainer might work?)
There might also be benefits in a more diverse set of ideas in the shared house-- when the kid reaches an age where they develop more complex interests and questions, more "parents" means a better chance they have someone with the appropriate knowledge or skills to help their development.
Are you aware that the Kibbutzim have largely stopped doing that? Among other things it was found to be mentally damaging to the children. Even the ones that remained communal no longer have communal childrearing anymore.
"Collective education can be regarded as a failure. The family as the basic social unit has not been abolished in kibbutzim. On the contrary, familistic trends have become stronger than ever, and kibbutz parents have reclaimed their rights to care for their own children. Collective education has not produced a new type of human being, and any differences found between adults raised on and off the kibbutz have been minimal."
With the shrinking availability of resources (esp. housing) in many places, I have wondered if, in the near future, more people will create these ad-hoc extended families rather than sticking to the normal 2-person couples. It'll require people to let go of the idea of monogamy though; arrangements like these probably won't work if monogamy is expected, because with so many adults living closely together, it's inevitable that attractions would happen, so the whole thing would only work I think if people are allowed to explore those without everything blowing up. But on the other hand, finding just one person you like to live with is very challenging; throw in just 1 or 2 more and it seems almost impossible (i.e., the extra people have to get along well not just with you, but with your current partner, and any other new people as well).
So yeah, theoretically having 6-20 adults all living together and sleeping with each other sounds fantastic when looking at resource-sharing and time management, but when you think about potential personality clashes it seems impossible to me unfortunately.
Artificial wombs would be a huge advance toward creating far more problems than would be encouraging couples (couples, not just women) to breed, such as economic incentives.
Bottle of mine, it's you I've always wanted!
Bottle of mine, why was I ever decanted?
Skies are blue inside of you
The weather's always fine;
For
There ain't no Bottle in all the world
Like that dear little Bottle of mine.
> Complicating this further is the fact that outcomes differ significantly across the U.S., with some leading hospitals able to keep twice as many 22-week-old babies alive as the national average, and occasionally able to keep babies born as early as 21 weeks alive.
The hard truth that many don’t want to face about prematurity is that the odds of survival at 24 or even 23 weeks are actually quite high, IF the baby is lucky enough to be born in the right facility. The odds at 22 weeks and even 21 weeks are not a lock but actually much better than you’d think.
We don’t actually need new science to radically improve prematurity outcomes. We just need to invest money in equipping and training more NICUs.
My son was born at 26 weeks, luckily in New York City where the standard of care is excellent (level 3 on a scale of 1-4) at even the second-tier NICUs, and where the highest possible standard of care is never more than a short ambulance ride away.
To put it bluntly: in NYC, a 26-weeker is 90% likely to survive to term. In some areas of the country a 26-weeker is 90% likely to die. The averages cited here flatten out this reality and make the problem seem more scientific and less social than it actually is.
>To put it bluntly: in NYC, a 26-weeker is 90% likely to survive to term. In some areas of the country a 26-weeker is 90% likely to die
This is probably because of a shortage of highly competent medical personnel, especially in rural areas where no top medical school graduate in her right mind would want to work, just like they probably wouldn't want to live and work in someplace like Iran.
I don't really see any way to fix this. Getting excellent medical care means having excellent medical professionals living and working in proximity to you, and since they're humans with free choice, they tend to move to places that are nice for them to live in, which not surprisingly usually doesn't include economic backwaters.
A lot of people, including myself, prefer living in rural areas. They have more natural beauty, more solitude, tighter knit communities, cultures that prioritize family. Not everyone shares your own personal preferences.
It is true that there are fewer economic opportunities in the country. Cities are a labor market, after all. But there are hospitals everywhere, so if you work in medicine, you have the opportunity to work in the country and still earn good pay.
In the US, rural areas have cultures that prioritize guns, meth, and eschewing advanced education. It should be no surprise that doctors (i.e., people with advanced education) wouldn't want to live among such people, and the only way they can get doctors to work in rural hospitals is to offer huge financial incentives such as medical school loan forgiveness.
They do, and those particular urban areas also tend to be "healthcare deserts" for similar reasons. However, many times the bad urban areas aren't geographically very far from more economically prosperous areas, so it's not that hard to transport patients with more acute needs from the bad parts to hospitals and doctors that can treat them well. This isn't true for rural areas: the distances are just too great.
Maybe genetically modifying some organism to have multiple sack-like wombs would be more promising and energy/nutrient-efficient approach. Something like a tree with many such wombs, that are able to grow mammals (why limit ourselves only to particular species? Likely it's possible to make a "generic" solution). Though it's harder from the technological point of view since our biotechnology and genetics is not there yet.
What worries me though, we still don't know so much about the intricacies of the baby development and birth process itself. For example, there is ongoing scientific discussion of (possible) negative consequences of C-section vs natural childbirth. And seeding human microbiome during that process. And many other aspects. To fully achieve artificial wombs all those unknown spots in medicine should be researched well and in depth.
> why limit ourselves only to particular species? Likely it's possible to make a "generic" solution
I dunno, at least for primates and mice, pregnancy is a carefully balanced fight between rejection by the mother and cancerous parasitism by the embryo [0], complete with mind control drugs.
I realize many take your comment as naive, but it may be that such a process won't be possible with non-biological solutions (ECMO, dialysis, etc) but will need to wait for fully bio-engineered solutions.
The most impactful outcome of this would be the removal of another evolutionary pressure point. If fetuses don't have to be carried they can be grown to be larger. This means they can be left on life support to mature more before "birth", which would reduce postnatal risks. But perhaps more importantly, a newborn brain could be almost arbitrarily large. Come to think of it, childhood could be skipped altogether: simply leave the child dreaming in a vat and train their brain to know everything immediately after birth.
Perhaps you could skip the birth and spend an entire life happily suspended in the vat imagining a wondrous life unconstrained by physical limits. Perhaps you are.
Perhaps, but the idea makes absolutely no sense at all, which is why it would only work in a Hollywood movie. In reality, if the world had little sunlight, the easiest way to make power on a large scale would be with nuclear reactors.
I read an anecdote once that the original idea was the AIs using humans as compute nodes. When a human was doing active computational work for the machines, they'd go to sleep within the Matrix. In the real world, sleep doesn't exist. Apparently studio execs thought this would be too confusing for audiences, so it was reworked into the thermodynamics-violating version in the final film. (Perhaps, though, physics aren't quite the same outside the Matrix?)
>When a human was doing active computational work for the machines, they'd go to sleep within the Matrix. In the real world, sleep doesn't exist.
That's an interesting idea, but it would also mean that all we know about human history is either made-up, or happened within the Matrix, because a world of humans that never sleep would look very different. It would also mean everything we know about other mammals is wrong too, since they all sleep too. Still, this seems more interesting than the idea that humanity peaked in 1999 and then sometime after that the machines took over and built the matrix and humans are somehow energy producers. But looking back, the idea that humanity peaked around 1999 doesn't seem too far-fetched...
The main idea behind the popular book _The Happiest Baby on the Block_ is that true cause of colic (inconsolable crying by newborns) is "The Missing Fourth Trimester". During the first 3-4 months after full term, the best methods for soothing an infant are recreating the conditions it experienced in the uterus. Humans evolved to "evict" their babies earlier due to the species' growing head sizes necessary for larger brains. After the infant's first 100 days, they are better able to self-sooth and can explore their environment (with help and supervision) to best continue brain development.
I think I read that colic has to do with formula feeding? Apparently this sort of crying is not present in breastfed babies, it has to do with discomfort due to excessive gas generated when digesting the infant formula.
Babies certainly did not evolve to waste valuable time and resources on crying nonstop for no good reason, they likely do so only because something is not quite right. A more optimistic take is that they do it to develop the pipes, and the nonstop crying will pay off later with a great voice.
Total nonsense, there are no studies that link colic to formula feeding. Some newborns have digestive problems with formula; some newborns have digestive problems with breast milk. Formula digestive problems can sometimes be helped by switching to a different formulation, while breast milk digestive problems can sometimes be helped by changing the diet of the breastfeeding parent.
And there are sources of colic that have nothing to do with digestion - a quick perusal of WebMD lists noise/light sensitivity, nervous system misfires, and baby migraines (poor babies)!
Colic certainly might be an indicator that something is not quite right, but that doesn't mean there's always something you can do about it. As I write this with my exhausted newborn son sleeping in my arms, sometimes you just have to wait for them to grow out of it.
EDIT: I looked into this a little more since I'm pinned by a sleepy baby and as with everything with babies it's complicated. Here's a study that shows that formula-fed babies cry more at 2 weeks than breast-fed babies, but less at 6 weeks: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10193923/
This is probably also hindered by the fact that "colic" is an imprecise term - all babies cry, but at a certain point if they cry enough you call it "colic".
I read somewhere (and I can't find it now because google is so bad at searching non-mainstream topics) that labor is triggered when the placenta can no longer supply enough oxygen to the growing fetus, not because of head size.
It would be truely impactful, but I don't think in a positive way.
It's equivalent to moving to eggs, and getting morally immature individuals immediately get a full grown body. I might be mistaken, but it feels like reversing the whole evolutionary process that brought humans, when as a species we're currently pretty well adjusted to our earth environment. I don't think "nature" or evolution should be seen in a positive way just for the sake of it, but our whole history has consistently extended the childhood period, and we're still pointing at young adults as immature.
It's of course a different story if you're planning on dominating earth with an army of clones, or dominating space with a fleet of soldiers.
Is there reason to believe that the human genome would produce almost arbitrarily large brains, solely as a consequence of removing the space and time constraints imposed by in utero development? An extra arm might come in handy, but I don't suppose that would just happen.
Maybe not yet. But if someone were to plant in popular culture the idea that a large head circumference is desirable, and then dating apps would introduce a corresponding filter...
Non-avian reptiles have poor metabolism, they can't compete with mammals on endurance. And you need that if you want to be a large herbivore, otherwise mammals will just hunt you to extinction. A reptile also can't be an endurance hunter because mammals will just outrun it.
So non-avian reptiles are forced into the niche of ambush predators (snakes, crocodiles), or they have to stay small and rely on stealth (lizards).
It is not certain that the slow metabolism of reptiles is primitive and that birds and mammals have developed homeothermy independently.
Because there are certain similarities between the homeothermy of birds and that of mammals that seem less likely to be coincidences, there exists an alternative hypothesis, that homeothermy and fast metabolism has already evolved in the ancestor of all amniotes.
Later, in the ancestors of crocodyles, of turtles and in that of lizards and snakes (both etymologically and cladistically, it would be better to apply the term "reptiles" only to lizards and snakes), poikilothermy and slow metabolism have evolved as an adaptation that allows the reptiles to live using much less food than needed by birds and mammals.
This reversal appears especially likely for crocodiles, whose ancestors were terrestrial and agile.
Such a reversal is also consistent with the fact that reptiles need a high body temperature for a normal activity, unlike the amphibians, for which there is no doubt that they did not have an ancestor with homeothermy. To reach their required body temperature, reptiles need to use external sources, e.g. basking in sun light. Because of their dependence on external sources of heat, reptiles become rare or completely absent in colder climates, where amphibians are still abundant.
> It is not certain that the slow metabolism of reptiles is primitive and that birds and mammals have developed homeothermy independently.
Reptiles are just as evolved as mammals. So their metabolism is not primitive, it's just not high-intensive.
> Because there are certain similarities between the homeothermy of birds and that of mammals that seem less likely to be coincidences, there exists an alternative hypothesis, that homeothermy and fast metabolism has already evolved in the ancestor of all amniotes.
Nope. Warm-blooded metabolism is not that hard to evolve, it's just that the intermediate stages are not viable in the presence of very adapted mammals with which you'll have to compete.
For example, tegu lizards are optionally endothermic. They can raise their body temperature by more than 10C, they use that during the mating season.
> Later, in the ancestors of crocodyles, of turtles and in that of lizards and snakes
Crocodiles and snakes are just as [un]related as birds and mammals. If you want to separate birds from crocodiles, then you need to include mammals into reptiles.
given that only 2 branches of montremes exist in the present day. Its kind of a miracle we get to come on the scene as a species in time to see them because they are really not positioned to survive much longer wether or not we are around.
Over the very long term, using this method of bringing babies to term might result in babies with larger heads, and therefore larger brains (because the baby wouldn't have to pass through the birth canal).
There is a political aspect to this. Part of the abortion debate is the concept of viability. Some, not all but some, of those backing this research want to push back the date of viability to as early as possible as doing so will be ammunition in the personhood debate. So while some describe this as an attempt to keep premature babies alive, other see this as a fight to define viable personhood as early as possible in order to place further limits on abortion.
If a person can have a fetus removed from their body without invasive or dangerous surgery and still have it survive, I don't see too many ethical issues with limits on abortion where it's more than just a small clump of cells.
The whole issue with restricting abortion is no one is entitled to the use of my body, even if they need it to live. However if they don't require another person's body and could instead survive outside the body, I think abortion becomes morally worse than allowing it to come to term in an artificial womb.
Suddenly babies can be born without parents to advocate for and protect them, opening them up to exploitation. Persons can be born en mass, in factories, genetically engineered, as in Brave New World. Men and women no longer have families as anchoring purposes with some sort of corporate overlord as 'parent'. That's not a human life. I think this should be obvious to people and obvious why premature care is not the same thing.
not long after the pods worked, scientists found out we never needed to leave the bags in the first place... cuts to matrix scene of towers of human battery/pods
One of the wilder long-term ideas I've had is this as a third alternative to abortion: give the baby up for adoption before they are born.
Of course nobody would like it and nobody would want to pay for it. The pro-choice people don't think it's necessary and the anti-abortion people would react to it in a knee-jerk aesthetic way because it's weird and artificial. (I also don't think the anti-abortion people really care about what they say they care about, but that's another matter.)
I think you model Pro-Lifers incorrect. Do you know any dedicated catholics in real life? And yes, while it is a weird/artificial sci-fi tech, per definition unnatural, even people opposed seem to agree that the unborn child is innocent and did nothing wrong.
Anyway, I see more cautious interest for artificial wombs by anti-abortion advocates than by pro-abortion advocates.
> “The term ‘artificial wombs’ is misleading about this technology,” Catholic policy expert Leah Libresco Sargeant told the Washington Examiner. “A [neonatial intensive care unit] incubator is already a kind of artificial womb, trying to provide some of the support the baby would have otherwise gotten from his or her mother. If we’re able to provide better support to extremely premature babies, I’m all for it.”
While my feeling currently is that pro-phoicers see it as a “threat to abortion rights”, because it challenges the viability standard. That alone makes pro-lifers want to embrace it! See a typical discussion here among pro-lifers:
> Artificial wombs are the easiest way to test if someone actually views abortion as simply ending a pregnancy or ending a life. Most of the time, PC don’t want to admit they support the ending a life because it contradicts all their arguments that abortion is simply ending a pregnancy.
> It’s the most pro-choice thing ever for us to give them a solution that should be a compromise between our viewpoints, and them to still whine about wanting to kill their babies instead.
I presume you mean some new technology to transfer the fetus?
As it is now, people ‘adopt’ babies before they’re born, all the time.
Mother wants to give baby up for adoption. Couple is matched up with the mother and they help the mother during the pregnancy, physically, emotionally and financially. I’ve known several people involved in adoption.
Some countries effectively have exactly that: There are "baby boxes" on the public facing walls of hospitals where you can put a newborn (sometimes older children too) and walk away, no questions asked. The child is assigned a name and put into social care together with other people who have no parents or other guardians.
Realistically, what will happen is once this technology becomes cheaper than a natural birth, you won't be able to have a natural pregnancy paid for by insurance.
Probably through the form of "discounts" for having vasectomies or tubal litigation. We'll probably develop better extraction methods so having physical BC becomes less of a stigma because you'll still be able to get the gametes.
> And to go further: I don't recall anything from before I was 2 years old. What difference would it have made…
You’re putting forward the idea that your personal memory is the thing that makes you valuable. Why should we think that’s true? Memory is frail, too. How much do you have to be able to remember before your life is worth protecting?
Besides, one day you won’t remember anything anyway. Is it OK to jump forward just a bit and have you killed today? You won’t remember it.
I would encourage you to change your mind! The vast, vast majority of humanity would consider you a moral monster for believing such a thing. Many awful, awful things "used to be normal", and many things we take for granted today, future societies will (hopefully) see as awful as well! Why should we care about fetuses? Instead of the standard argument, I will appeal to "The Human Experience". I think we should care because at one point, you were a 20 week old fetus, with a mother who loved you. And you were knit in the womb in the Image of God, and when you were born your parents had dreams and hopes for you that you are likely living out now. And hopefully one day you will have children of your own, to love and care for, and you will try to give them everything you didn't have and fail to do so, but when your kids grow up, they will know that you have tried. That is why we should care, not for child mortality rates or cultural customs or anything, but because you are part of an unbroken chain of shattered dreams and undying hopes.
edit: (fixed some typos) And eulgro? I hope you read this. I promise you from the bottom of my heart, you are loved.
We just recently discovered, that during childbrith, vaginal microbiota is transferred to the child and this transfer is quite beneficial for the development of the immune system of the child. It's called vaginal microbiota transfer (VMT). It's so beneficial that babies being born via c-section are now artificially covered in their mother's vaginal microbiota.
Now imagine the thousands of factors that happen during pregnancy that probably influence the neurodevelopment of a human and which artifical womb doesn't take into account. Simple things such as: hearing and feeling the heartbeat of the mother, feeling the environment, heat, cold, being carried through life and so on.
I totally agree. Even "mere" breast feeding is still full of mysteries that developed during the millions of years of mammal evolution.
Apart from the nutrients from breastfeeding, I recall that it is part of an immune system feedback loop. If the child is fighting off something, it is transferred to the nipple during breastfeeding. The mother's immune system develops a response and provides help to the child in the breast milk next feeding.
The main factor at play here is maternal passive immunity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_immunity#Maternal_pass...
As far as I know, there's no (direct, retrograde) transfer of pathogens from the child to the mother through the breast. But if the child has an infection, there is often a higher chance for the mother to get ill as well (due to close body contact, aerosol particles, etc.) and to develop a "mature immune response", which could lead to a (delayed) positive secondary effect on the child through passive immunity.
Interesting. Do you have a source for that?
Babbage podcast from the Economist had a great episode recently on it.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/2LCTSD4k9bNDn6i8DzLv9r?si=D...
I'm sorry to be direct but I mean this in the best and most genuine way possible: how is a podcast a source?
Well, they provided something and it’s from a reputable publication. You can wait around for more people to chime in or you can dig in yourself until then.
We are in casual conversation here.
Laypeople are much more likely to learn something useful and solid from a good podcast on a topic, run by someone (or with a guest) who has read the literature broadly and can distinguish solid papers from publish-or-perish drivel. Doing your own research, unless you dedicate an inordinate amount of time or energy to it, is very likely to lead you completely astray.
Yes, interestingly some of the signal comes from kissing the baby.
sure, but take a survey of any group of five year olds - can you tell which ones were born by c-section? which ones were breastfed?
yes but you can measure various effects on the macro scale, which is why we think breast feeding is a little more beneficial than formula
It’s problematic in some ways. Many new mothers torture themselves unnecessarily about nursing vs formula because they want the best for their baby. The benefits of nursing are real, and if you can do it, great. But if you don’t have the time, biology or even just inclination to breastfeed, your baby will be fine.
There’s no evidence that says formula is detrimental, especially compared to not eating enough at all.
yes, always a risk... it's one way science reporting fails people I feel, they don't really explain the scale
I agree with you, there’s probably a lot of epigenetic activity going on in response to environmental factors.
On the other hand, these things can probably be studied and identified. There is an organ shortage for transplantation, which historically peaks in times of peace. One idea is to genetically modify animals to make them more immunologically compatible. I could see a world where being able to control every aspect of the development process allows for more suitable organs (less risk of infection, etc).
> There is an organ shortage for transplantation, which historically peaks in times of peace.
That sounds unlikely to be true. I’m curious where you’re getting that from?
sorry I don't remember the source. not super critical to the argument though
> thousands of factors
But this includes risk factors, too.
E.g., IIRC there's research into how certain stressors on the mother during pregnancy increase the likelihood of things like anxiety and depression for their offspring.
Yes, I think people who haven't studied this at all have a very naive view of the end-to-end complexities of pregnancy. It's currently very infeasible to simulate this environment, we don't have the knowledge or the technology, or even a path of how to get there.
What's more likely to come first is artificially created sperm, from a sample of any cells - first by converting them to stem cells, then differentiating those to sperm-producing cells. It's already been trialed in the lab. I expect it's only a matter of time before this becomes a widely available reproductive technology, like IVF is now. Perhaps a few decades, if that.
The most interesting thing about this is it can be done with female cells to make "female sperm", both in the sense that it comes from a female individual and that every sperm cell will be X chromosomed (thus producing only daughters).
At that point, men will be effectively obsolete, and will gradually diminish in population, as each successive generation will be skewed more towards female.
It will be interesting to see how society adapts to being female-centered instead of male-dominated.
> It will be interesting to see how society adapts to being female-centered instead of male-dominated.
See Nursing for the dynamics of a female-dominated world. As a cis-male who was able to pierce into this space, it has its moments.
There’s a lot of clique-ines, eating of the young and crabs-in-a-bucket mentality. I don’t know if this is because Nursing is historically subservient to medicine, and horizontal trauma is a manifestation of being unable to act out on higher ranking members of the hierarchy. Also, career stagnation - many nurses are lifers in one clinical area and are secretly unsatisfied.
Fortunately, there is hope in pockets of the profession, typically in more cognitively-demanding areas with more “ownership” of patients (intensive care, NPs in primary care).
However, it’s hard to transfer culture between clinical areas, as the ones who are capable have already left toxic areas. The ones that don’t leave are the ones on power trips and don’t want to lose their little fiefdom.
Like the vast majority of medical research, this aims at solving problematic cases where intervening reduces critical risks.
The stated case for this is premature birth, were the choice is between an artificial womb, the traditional setting, or letting the newborn die.
I suppose another alternative use would be for trans people and women born without uteri to have biological children.
Still better than a preterm baby dying.
Yeah the language they learn pre-birth is also a fascinating topic.
This is one of the reasons I am not an organ donor. Think of all the specific things that a body has for a kidney. Should it be taken out, experience completely different conditions, and then be placed into an entirely different body that wasn’t grown around it organically? This could have horrific consequences for the recipient and I cannot, in good conscience, participate. It is unethical.
Yes, the consequences of not getting a kidney transplant for someone with kidney failure is a painful death. The transplant is a much better alternative even if it isn’t ideal.
Preferring to offer death rather than your straw-man argument is probably more unethical.
My father received a heart transplant that gave him many years of extended life. please reconsider being a donor. Something, even if it's not perfect, is better than nothing.
Let me ease your conscience. If you become an organ donor it's not your decision whether any of your organs are actually transplanted. And you'd be dead. So you wouldn't be participating.
(Make absurd statements, get absurd replies)
Haha, a defence of suicide bombing is not what I expected.
Explain?
If you suicide bomb you ensure that your organs cannot be harvested against your consent..
Once you’re dead it’s not your decision. So if you suicide bomb, you’re dead and none of the other deaths can be blamed on you. You’ll die first because stuff is strapped to you.
You decided to blow yourself up around other people. They didn't choose to be near you. So it's like organ donation in exactly no way. No one is forced to accept organs you opt to donate. It's a choice made freely.
If you don't want to donate organs, just say so it's fine. Don't make up some BS ethical dilemma.
Ethics is very important. People will just cut up other people and make another Frankenstein's monster of a creature. The scientists never stopped to ask if they should. In moments where ethics discussions are most warranted there are always folks like you trying to shut them down.
> This could have horrific consequences for the recipient
Have you thought through the consequences of NOT receiving an organ? They're pretty horrific as well.
To be clear, what you're outlining is: "For my conscience, I'd prefer people die outright than live to potentially reject an organ." I think you analysis of the ethics here could use a more thorough review.
I don’t think it’s that different from opposing ectogenesis. You could ask the first such child if they’d rather not be born instead.
Organ waiting lists require the informed consent of the recipient. As in, the people on the list have expressed a preference towards not dying. A premature child cannot express such a preference.
So you say. But no one has proven to me that they want to live. Government databases notoriously have errors. Besides I can match my knowledge of the child’s preference with the adult’s preference by just not paying attention.
> But no one has proven to me that they want to live.
I think I see where you're coming from, but this is a mighty perverse thing to say about people currently dying of organ failure who have expressed a desire to not die of organ failure. This isn't hypothetical, you can reach out to them and ask them how they feel directly. Not paying attention to that is a lack of diligence on your part, not a lack of expression on theirs.
Contrast that with an unborn child who literally cannot express a preference. Proving a desire to be born is a very different problem.
Sure, but the guy who would conceive and execute on this idea was never going to be a guy who would stop there.
Folks like this don’t aim at some point and then achieve it and stay there. They aim higher, land where they do, and continue to target the higher point. It’s how it is.
You can tell because how many of the rest of the people who would have stopped and not have lab-grown the child? Precisely zero.
>This could have horrific consequences for the recipient Like, he could live ? The point you are trying to make is unclear.
> Despite this enthusiasm, however, a number of technological challenges remain before scientists can test such wombs on human babies.
Philosophical and ethical challenges aside
It seems to me most of the big ethical challenges would involve acts which would already be atrocity-proximate even involving regular wombs. Weird experiments, clone armies, etc.
The common case seem much more straightforward, such as laws to prevent a hospital/creche from early-terminating a 9-month lease on Uterine Replicator #123 for non-payment, different fields on "birth certificate", some case-law around, er, "miscarriage" events, etc.
It's possible to have a non-functioning womb while still having functioning ovaries. I don't see any philosophical or ethical problems with artificial wombs as an alternative to surrogacy.
They’d be ethically valid to use on babies born too early to survive.
Artificial wombs are fascinating and I hope they eventually become a viable alternative for mothers.
But I see them as being perhaps a somewhat more distant future possibility to fully replace a real womb due to the all of challenges.
When I think about the long term future of humanity and human development, I can't help but assume that things like artificial intelligence and simulation will have a significant role. In other words, trans-human and post-humanism.
Many techno-optimists like myself already anticipate superhuman artificial intelligence in less than 10 years. We might eventually (some decades further down the road) arrive at the point where it is easier to produce a "son" or "daughter" with the exact qualities we desire by 3d printing and model/knowledge configuration.
Your idea of optimism is literally replacing the entire human race (the lineage of all humans on the planet) with a simulation of humans? That's pretty bleak.
I wasn't trying to connect all those ideas like that. I was just trying to bring up concepts like artificial "offspring" etc. because I think they are relevant to the discussion and interesting.
I think you can look at the potential trajectories for technology and humanity in different ways depending on your perspective. The most dramatic changes are totally speculative. Of course I am not hoping for real humans to become extinct.
> I hope they eventually become a viable alternative for mothers.
Sadly it seems that modern liberal societies that don’t enslave their women seem to not achieve sufficient fertility rates to avoid going extinct. Artificial wombs would be a huge advance toward fixing that problem.
> modern liberal societies
Which modern liberal societies do you know? Only societies I know in the western world are the ones that enslave men and women for resource extraction by the ultra wealthy, leaving them poor and tired and helpless and hopeless in the process. Taking their hard earned money and shoving propaganda at them every waking moment. Which is the fundamental reason as to why people aren’t having children. Has nothing to do with “not enslaving women.”
This is probably wrong because nearly every country is experiencing the trend. When you account for that, the reason is simple, the wealthier people are the more expensive children are.
And while at it give them artificially simulated parents as well?
Well in "Brave New World", they replaced parents with institutions where children grew up and were raised by the (basically) teachers. Similar to how schoolchildren are handled today, with one teacher leading a class of 15-30 kids.
Looking at the average state of parenting in the US today, it seems like a potentially huge improvement.
I always figured a kibbutz-style scheme might be something to encourage. Let's try to make spaces where families raising children can live together and cooperate.
From a sheer economic standpoint, sharing the breadwinning and parenting duties might allow the children to get more hours of hands-on parent time. There might be economies of scale in sharing and handing down equipment, clothing, toys, or even provisioning services (if you have 10 families loving together, maybe at that point keeping a pediatrician or tutors on retainer might work?)
There might also be benefits in a more diverse set of ideas in the shared house-- when the kid reaches an age where they develop more complex interests and questions, more "parents" means a better chance they have someone with the appropriate knowledge or skills to help their development.
Are you aware that the Kibbutzim have largely stopped doing that? Among other things it was found to be mentally damaging to the children. Even the ones that remained communal no longer have communal childrearing anymore.
Some context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz_communal_child_rearing...
With the shrinking availability of resources (esp. housing) in many places, I have wondered if, in the near future, more people will create these ad-hoc extended families rather than sticking to the normal 2-person couples. It'll require people to let go of the idea of monogamy though; arrangements like these probably won't work if monogamy is expected, because with so many adults living closely together, it's inevitable that attractions would happen, so the whole thing would only work I think if people are allowed to explore those without everything blowing up. But on the other hand, finding just one person you like to live with is very challenging; throw in just 1 or 2 more and it seems almost impossible (i.e., the extra people have to get along well not just with you, but with your current partner, and any other new people as well).
So yeah, theoretically having 6-20 adults all living together and sleeping with each other sounds fantastic when looking at resource-sharing and time management, but when you think about potential personality clashes it seems impossible to me unfortunately.
Artificial wombs would be a huge advance toward creating far more problems than would be encouraging couples (couples, not just women) to breed, such as economic incentives.
This concept was the subject of the last episode of the 1988 TV show Max Headroom, “Baby Grobags”.
Uterine replicators were a very cool aspect of the Vorkosigan Saga by the very talented Lois McMaster Bujold.
It was extra interesting to see how the technology was adopted by different cultures and what a massive impact it had.
She touched on a lot of still topical issues in fertility and genetics. That twins/jane Austen mashup book was so entertaining, too.
Axolotl tanks in Dune might be the darkest version of this by book five.
Underrated comment.
> Despite these hurdles, it might not be very long before the first human baby is birthed from a bag.
If that baby is Japanese, they can literally refer to their mom as ofukuro, for ironic effect.
> Complicating this further is the fact that outcomes differ significantly across the U.S., with some leading hospitals able to keep twice as many 22-week-old babies alive as the national average, and occasionally able to keep babies born as early as 21 weeks alive.
The hard truth that many don’t want to face about prematurity is that the odds of survival at 24 or even 23 weeks are actually quite high, IF the baby is lucky enough to be born in the right facility. The odds at 22 weeks and even 21 weeks are not a lock but actually much better than you’d think.
We don’t actually need new science to radically improve prematurity outcomes. We just need to invest money in equipping and training more NICUs.
My son was born at 26 weeks, luckily in New York City where the standard of care is excellent (level 3 on a scale of 1-4) at even the second-tier NICUs, and where the highest possible standard of care is never more than a short ambulance ride away.
To put it bluntly: in NYC, a 26-weeker is 90% likely to survive to term. In some areas of the country a 26-weeker is 90% likely to die. The averages cited here flatten out this reality and make the problem seem more scientific and less social than it actually is.
>To put it bluntly: in NYC, a 26-weeker is 90% likely to survive to term. In some areas of the country a 26-weeker is 90% likely to die
This is probably because of a shortage of highly competent medical personnel, especially in rural areas where no top medical school graduate in her right mind would want to work, just like they probably wouldn't want to live and work in someplace like Iran.
I don't really see any way to fix this. Getting excellent medical care means having excellent medical professionals living and working in proximity to you, and since they're humans with free choice, they tend to move to places that are nice for them to live in, which not surprisingly usually doesn't include economic backwaters.
A lot of people, including myself, prefer living in rural areas. They have more natural beauty, more solitude, tighter knit communities, cultures that prioritize family. Not everyone shares your own personal preferences.
It is true that there are fewer economic opportunities in the country. Cities are a labor market, after all. But there are hospitals everywhere, so if you work in medicine, you have the opportunity to work in the country and still earn good pay.
In the US, rural areas have cultures that prioritize guns, meth, and eschewing advanced education. It should be no surprise that doctors (i.e., people with advanced education) wouldn't want to live among such people, and the only way they can get doctors to work in rural hospitals is to offer huge financial incentives such as medical school loan forgiveness.
So do some urban areas.
They do, and those particular urban areas also tend to be "healthcare deserts" for similar reasons. However, many times the bad urban areas aren't geographically very far from more economically prosperous areas, so it's not that hard to transport patients with more acute needs from the bad parts to hospitals and doctors that can treat them well. This isn't true for rural areas: the distances are just too great.
[dead]
Maybe genetically modifying some organism to have multiple sack-like wombs would be more promising and energy/nutrient-efficient approach. Something like a tree with many such wombs, that are able to grow mammals (why limit ourselves only to particular species? Likely it's possible to make a "generic" solution). Though it's harder from the technological point of view since our biotechnology and genetics is not there yet.
What worries me though, we still don't know so much about the intricacies of the baby development and birth process itself. For example, there is ongoing scientific discussion of (possible) negative consequences of C-section vs natural childbirth. And seeding human microbiome during that process. And many other aspects. To fully achieve artificial wombs all those unknown spots in medicine should be researched well and in depth.
> why limit ourselves only to particular species? Likely it's possible to make a "generic" solution
I dunno, at least for primates and mice, pregnancy is a carefully balanced fight between rejection by the mother and cancerous parasitism by the embryo [0], complete with mind control drugs.
[0] https://aeon.co/essays/why-pregnancy-is-a-biological-war-bet...
I realize many take your comment as naive, but it may be that such a process won't be possible with non-biological solutions (ECMO, dialysis, etc) but will need to wait for fully bio-engineered solutions.
This is just as promising as cell-cultured meat, and for the same reasons.
The most impactful outcome of this would be the removal of another evolutionary pressure point. If fetuses don't have to be carried they can be grown to be larger. This means they can be left on life support to mature more before "birth", which would reduce postnatal risks. But perhaps more importantly, a newborn brain could be almost arbitrarily large. Come to think of it, childhood could be skipped altogether: simply leave the child dreaming in a vat and train their brain to know everything immediately after birth.
Perhaps you could skip the birth and spend an entire life happily suspended in the vat imagining a wondrous life unconstrained by physical limits. Perhaps you are.
And while you do someone is using your body as power plant?!
Perhaps, but the idea makes absolutely no sense at all, which is why it would only work in a Hollywood movie. In reality, if the world had little sunlight, the easiest way to make power on a large scale would be with nuclear reactors.
I read an anecdote once that the original idea was the AIs using humans as compute nodes. When a human was doing active computational work for the machines, they'd go to sleep within the Matrix. In the real world, sleep doesn't exist. Apparently studio execs thought this would be too confusing for audiences, so it was reworked into the thermodynamics-violating version in the final film. (Perhaps, though, physics aren't quite the same outside the Matrix?)
>When a human was doing active computational work for the machines, they'd go to sleep within the Matrix. In the real world, sleep doesn't exist.
That's an interesting idea, but it would also mean that all we know about human history is either made-up, or happened within the Matrix, because a world of humans that never sleep would look very different. It would also mean everything we know about other mammals is wrong too, since they all sleep too. Still, this seems more interesting than the idea that humanity peaked in 1999 and then sometime after that the machines took over and built the matrix and humans are somehow energy producers. But looking back, the idea that humanity peaked around 1999 doesn't seem too far-fetched...
You‘re not a fun person to watch movies with I reckon!
great idea for a movie tbh, maybe a series
Nice idea! "The Grid" sounds like an appropriate name
Incidentally Middle English referred to the womb as the matrix iirc
The main idea behind the popular book _The Happiest Baby on the Block_ is that true cause of colic (inconsolable crying by newborns) is "The Missing Fourth Trimester". During the first 3-4 months after full term, the best methods for soothing an infant are recreating the conditions it experienced in the uterus. Humans evolved to "evict" their babies earlier due to the species' growing head sizes necessary for larger brains. After the infant's first 100 days, they are better able to self-sooth and can explore their environment (with help and supervision) to best continue brain development.
Colic is medical shorthand for “we have no idea”. Which inherently means there are many, many different & completely unrelated causes of colic.
I think I read that colic has to do with formula feeding? Apparently this sort of crying is not present in breastfed babies, it has to do with discomfort due to excessive gas generated when digesting the infant formula.
Babies certainly did not evolve to waste valuable time and resources on crying nonstop for no good reason, they likely do so only because something is not quite right. A more optimistic take is that they do it to develop the pipes, and the nonstop crying will pay off later with a great voice.
Total nonsense, there are no studies that link colic to formula feeding. Some newborns have digestive problems with formula; some newborns have digestive problems with breast milk. Formula digestive problems can sometimes be helped by switching to a different formulation, while breast milk digestive problems can sometimes be helped by changing the diet of the breastfeeding parent.
And there are sources of colic that have nothing to do with digestion - a quick perusal of WebMD lists noise/light sensitivity, nervous system misfires, and baby migraines (poor babies)!
Colic certainly might be an indicator that something is not quite right, but that doesn't mean there's always something you can do about it. As I write this with my exhausted newborn son sleeping in my arms, sometimes you just have to wait for them to grow out of it.
EDIT: I looked into this a little more since I'm pinned by a sleepy baby and as with everything with babies it's complicated. Here's a study that shows that formula-fed babies cry more at 2 weeks than breast-fed babies, but less at 6 weeks: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10193923/
This is probably also hindered by the fact that "colic" is an imprecise term - all babies cry, but at a certain point if they cry enough you call it "colic".
I read somewhere (and I can't find it now because google is so bad at searching non-mainstream topics) that labor is triggered when the placenta can no longer supply enough oxygen to the growing fetus, not because of head size.
What's the end goal of this? Why would we do this? Reducing postnatal risks sounds great but not sure about the stuff after.
Some people (me included) think that a huge population is desirable. This would allow humanity to create entire new societies.
Is the unique realistic way to conquer space.
It would be truely impactful, but I don't think in a positive way.
It's equivalent to moving to eggs, and getting morally immature individuals immediately get a full grown body. I might be mistaken, but it feels like reversing the whole evolutionary process that brought humans, when as a species we're currently pretty well adjusted to our earth environment. I don't think "nature" or evolution should be seen in a positive way just for the sake of it, but our whole history has consistently extended the childhood period, and we're still pointing at young adults as immature.
It's of course a different story if you're planning on dominating earth with an army of clones, or dominating space with a fleet of soldiers.
Is there reason to believe that the human genome would produce almost arbitrarily large brains, solely as a consequence of removing the space and time constraints imposed by in utero development? An extra arm might come in handy, but I don't suppose that would just happen.
Maybe not yet. But if someone were to plant in popular culture the idea that a large head circumference is desirable, and then dating apps would introduce a corresponding filter...
> handy
ISWYDT, nice one
Egg laying animals already grow their babies externally, yet mammals dominate. Why?
Non-avian reptiles have poor metabolism, they can't compete with mammals on endurance. And you need that if you want to be a large herbivore, otherwise mammals will just hunt you to extinction. A reptile also can't be an endurance hunter because mammals will just outrun it.
So non-avian reptiles are forced into the niche of ambush predators (snakes, crocodiles), or they have to stay small and rely on stealth (lizards).
It is not certain that the slow metabolism of reptiles is primitive and that birds and mammals have developed homeothermy independently.
Because there are certain similarities between the homeothermy of birds and that of mammals that seem less likely to be coincidences, there exists an alternative hypothesis, that homeothermy and fast metabolism has already evolved in the ancestor of all amniotes.
Later, in the ancestors of crocodyles, of turtles and in that of lizards and snakes (both etymologically and cladistically, it would be better to apply the term "reptiles" only to lizards and snakes), poikilothermy and slow metabolism have evolved as an adaptation that allows the reptiles to live using much less food than needed by birds and mammals.
This reversal appears especially likely for crocodiles, whose ancestors were terrestrial and agile.
Such a reversal is also consistent with the fact that reptiles need a high body temperature for a normal activity, unlike the amphibians, for which there is no doubt that they did not have an ancestor with homeothermy. To reach their required body temperature, reptiles need to use external sources, e.g. basking in sun light. Because of their dependence on external sources of heat, reptiles become rare or completely absent in colder climates, where amphibians are still abundant.
> It is not certain that the slow metabolism of reptiles is primitive and that birds and mammals have developed homeothermy independently.
Reptiles are just as evolved as mammals. So their metabolism is not primitive, it's just not high-intensive.
> Because there are certain similarities between the homeothermy of birds and that of mammals that seem less likely to be coincidences, there exists an alternative hypothesis, that homeothermy and fast metabolism has already evolved in the ancestor of all amniotes.
Nope. Warm-blooded metabolism is not that hard to evolve, it's just that the intermediate stages are not viable in the presence of very adapted mammals with which you'll have to compete.
For example, tegu lizards are optionally endothermic. They can raise their body temperature by more than 10C, they use that during the mating season.
> Later, in the ancestors of crocodyles, of turtles and in that of lizards and snakes
Crocodiles and snakes are just as [un]related as birds and mammals. If you want to separate birds from crocodiles, then you need to include mammals into reptiles.
>mammals will just hunt you to extinction. A reptile also can't be an endurance hunter because mammals will just outrun it.
The Gorn would like a word with you.
There are between 1 and 2 million species of beetle. Who says mammals dominate?
Egg layers definitely dominate biodiversity. "99%" of the extant species of animals are in this group. Being viviparous is an anomaly.
> Egg laying animals already grow their babies externally, yet mammals dominate. Why?
There are mammals that lay eggs, for example, the platypus [1].
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus
given that only 2 branches of montremes exist in the present day. Its kind of a miracle we get to come on the scene as a species in time to see them because they are really not positioned to survive much longer wether or not we are around.
It would be interesting to know the stats, but one reason may be that it's easier to carry a baby with you when running from a predator.
Over the very long term, using this method of bringing babies to term might result in babies with larger heads, and therefore larger brains (because the baby wouldn't have to pass through the birth canal).
There is a political aspect to this. Part of the abortion debate is the concept of viability. Some, not all but some, of those backing this research want to push back the date of viability to as early as possible as doing so will be ammunition in the personhood debate. So while some describe this as an attempt to keep premature babies alive, other see this as a fight to define viable personhood as early as possible in order to place further limits on abortion.
If a person can have a fetus removed from their body without invasive or dangerous surgery and still have it survive, I don't see too many ethical issues with limits on abortion where it's more than just a small clump of cells.
The whole issue with restricting abortion is no one is entitled to the use of my body, even if they need it to live. However if they don't require another person's body and could instead survive outside the body, I think abortion becomes morally worse than allowing it to come to term in an artificial womb.
I'm amazed it goes right so often in humans at all. During my wife's pregnancies, there is so much the check for, so much that could go wrong!
These comments are absolutely wild, and it makes me feel safe knowing dev types aren't in charge of human reproduction science and ethics.
The day the first human is born in an artificial womb is the day we cease to be humans, and become something else.
Premature infants already might only spend half the normal gestation time in the womb. This ship sailed long ago.
completely different.
To you.
From the "we cease to be humans" phrase i would assume that you have some more extra ideas on what is a "proper" human and what isn't.
Suddenly babies can be born without parents to advocate for and protect them, opening them up to exploitation. Persons can be born en mass, in factories, genetically engineered, as in Brave New World. Men and women no longer have families as anchoring purposes with some sort of corporate overlord as 'parent'. That's not a human life. I think this should be obvious to people and obvious why premature care is not the same thing.
That already can and does happen. Orphans are still human, even if they never had parents or family to care for them.
Humanity is something you are, not how you were made, or the circumstances of your birth.
an orphan is absolutely not the same thing as a 'baby on demand'. God you people are tedious to talk to.
not long after the pods worked, scientists found out we never needed to leave the bags in the first place... cuts to matrix scene of towers of human battery/pods
This is cool!
One of the wilder long-term ideas I've had is this as a third alternative to abortion: give the baby up for adoption before they are born.
Of course nobody would like it and nobody would want to pay for it. The pro-choice people don't think it's necessary and the anti-abortion people would react to it in a knee-jerk aesthetic way because it's weird and artificial. (I also don't think the anti-abortion people really care about what they say they care about, but that's another matter.)
I think you model Pro-Lifers incorrect. Do you know any dedicated catholics in real life? And yes, while it is a weird/artificial sci-fi tech, per definition unnatural, even people opposed seem to agree that the unborn child is innocent and did nothing wrong.
Anyway, I see more cautious interest for artificial wombs by anti-abortion advocates than by pro-abortion advocates.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2579952/anti-abortio...
> “The term ‘artificial wombs’ is misleading about this technology,” Catholic policy expert Leah Libresco Sargeant told the Washington Examiner. “A [neonatial intensive care unit] incubator is already a kind of artificial womb, trying to provide some of the support the baby would have otherwise gotten from his or her mother. If we’re able to provide better support to extremely premature babies, I’m all for it.”
While my feeling currently is that pro-phoicers see it as a “threat to abortion rights”, because it challenges the viability standard. That alone makes pro-lifers want to embrace it! See a typical discussion here among pro-lifers:
https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/1886k8z/abortion_i...
> Artificial wombs are the easiest way to test if someone actually views abortion as simply ending a pregnancy or ending a life. Most of the time, PC don’t want to admit they support the ending a life because it contradicts all their arguments that abortion is simply ending a pregnancy.
> It’s the most pro-choice thing ever for us to give them a solution that should be a compromise between our viewpoints, and them to still whine about wanting to kill their babies instead.
I think api may have been alluding to the potential end state, where conception is performed in the lab.
I presume you mean some new technology to transfer the fetus?
As it is now, people ‘adopt’ babies before they’re born, all the time.
Mother wants to give baby up for adoption. Couple is matched up with the mother and they help the mother during the pregnancy, physically, emotionally and financially. I’ve known several people involved in adoption.
This is the plot of the excellent movie Juno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juno_(film)
Some countries effectively have exactly that: There are "baby boxes" on the public facing walls of hospitals where you can put a newborn (sometimes older children too) and walk away, no questions asked. The child is assigned a name and put into social care together with other people who have no parents or other guardians.
> no questions asked
So what happens if one parent drops off the baby without the other parent's consent (which is technically child abduction)?
No idea, but this all happens within a larger social framework, I'm sure it's possible to reverse it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Haven_Baby_Boxes
Realistically, what will happen is once this technology becomes cheaper than a natural birth, you won't be able to have a natural pregnancy paid for by insurance.
Probably through the form of "discounts" for having vasectomies or tubal litigation. We'll probably develop better extraction methods so having physical BC becomes less of a stigma because you'll still be able to get the gametes.
In italy after birth you can just not recognise the kid as your own.
[flagged]
> And to go further: I don't recall anything from before I was 2 years old. What difference would it have made…
You’re putting forward the idea that your personal memory is the thing that makes you valuable. Why should we think that’s true? Memory is frail, too. How much do you have to be able to remember before your life is worth protecting?
Besides, one day you won’t remember anything anyway. Is it OK to jump forward just a bit and have you killed today? You won’t remember it.
You're right this was not the correct way to put it.
To be honest, much of this was influenced by Peter Singer's views, if it can help me justify myself. Here's an essay that outlines his views, and the fully rejects them: https://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singers-bold-defense-of...
I know this is a morally bankrupt view, yet something about it feels right.
I would encourage you to change your mind! The vast, vast majority of humanity would consider you a moral monster for believing such a thing. Many awful, awful things "used to be normal", and many things we take for granted today, future societies will (hopefully) see as awful as well! Why should we care about fetuses? Instead of the standard argument, I will appeal to "The Human Experience". I think we should care because at one point, you were a 20 week old fetus, with a mother who loved you. And you were knit in the womb in the Image of God, and when you were born your parents had dreams and hopes for you that you are likely living out now. And hopefully one day you will have children of your own, to love and care for, and you will try to give them everything you didn't have and fail to do so, but when your kids grow up, they will know that you have tried. That is why we should care, not for child mortality rates or cultural customs or anything, but because you are part of an unbroken chain of shattered dreams and undying hopes.
edit: (fixed some typos) And eulgro? I hope you read this. I promise you from the bottom of my heart, you are loved.
[dead]
kudos, this is a much kinder reply than I was going to write.