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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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 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.
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.
> 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.
I totally agree. Even "mere" breast feeding is still full of mysteries that developed during the millions of years of mammal evolution.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Egg laying animals already grow their babies externally, yet mammals dominate. Why?
Egg layers definitely dominate biodiversity. "99%" of the extant species of animals are in this group. Being viviparous is an anomaly.
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).
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.
This concept was the subject of the last episode of the 1988 TV show Max Headroom, “Baby Grobags”.
Underrated comment.
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 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.
> 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.
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.