Slashdot Mirror
Artificial Wombs In the Near Future?
New submitter DaemonDan writes "The first successful pregnancy by IVF was accomplished over 50 years ago, essentially creating a multi-billion dollar industry. Many scientists are trying to take it one step farther with a 100% test tube baby brought to term in an artificial womb. 'Cornell University's Dr. Hung-Ching Liu has engineered endometrial tissues by prompting cells to grow in an artificial uterus. When Liu introduced a mouse embryo into the lab-created uterine lining, "It successfully implanted and grew healthy," she said in this New Atlantis Magazine article. Scientists predict the research could produce an animal womb by 2020, and a human model by early 2030s.' The author of the article seems to believe that birth via artificial wombs could become the new norm, but is it really feasible, desirable or even affordable for the majority of Earth's population?"
As long as they don't all have the surname "Fett"...
I keep thinking of how sci-fi writers sometimes get behind the "now". In Dune they had "Axlotyl tanks" to grow clones in, and it turned out that these "tanks" were human women. And Dune was set 1000 years in the future. Are they going to call these artificial wombs Axlotyl Tanks?
Star Trek did the same thing when McCoy gave Kirk reading glasses, and the CrystaLens came out about fifteen years later.
Free Martian Whores!
"Artificial Womb" sounds so awkward. How about axlotl tank?
Get off my lawn.
Axolotl Tanks here we come!
It would be awesome if this would allow us to implant our larvae in host animals(maybe cows, those are big and common) the way parasitoid insects do...
Louise Brown, born in 1978. That would make it more than 40 years ago, not more than 50.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Oops. Bad math. *Almost 35* years ago.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
These should be kept seperate from normal medical facilities and under the same sort of scrutiny as Fort Knox. I don't trust a single one of those bastards. :D
Is there a baby shortage we should be concerned about?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Forget the artificial womb, who's working on an artificial vagina?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
My first born son has been in the hospital for the last three months. He was born a little early. Let's just say that I'm open to the idea of not going through that again.
Oh brave new world, that has such people in it.
Should we use these to decant Alphas or Epsilon semi-morons?
"Welcome to Papa John's!" (the chorus of identical looking pizza place staffers, who conveniently can be worked like slaves with no health insurance)
You're thinking of this the wrong way.
Imagine how much easier it would be for Cold Stone Creamery to field a team of stunning 16 year old boys with blonde hair that sing whenever you drop a dime in the tip jar.
If a government wants to prohibit abortion, they can just require that she give up her embryo or fetus for adoption when she terminates the pregnancy, with the state picking up the tab over and above the cost of an abortion.
This assumes, of course, that removing the embryo or fetus in a way that allows transplant to an artificial womb doesn't put the mother at a greater health risk than an abortion.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"Build me an army, worthy of Mordor"
Born in a test tube.
Nurtured in a plastic womb.
Raised by a telescreen.
Now another soldier for democracy, freedom and the American way...
Consider, female is pregnant & wants to abort her fetus, but the male sues to have custody of the fetus turned over to him since he can implant it into an artificial womb..
In a society where pregnancy can occur entirely outside of the human body, what will happen for abortion rights, custody disputes, etc.
All kinds of social, ethical and legal landmines waiting in that Pandora's box.
This will be primarily used by those who can not conceive and those who cannot carry to term. That would be a huge intervention in the evolutionary process, as those are the people we DON'T want to reproduce.
Really? Artificial wombs, FFS? Look around you, Dr. Fertility. The natural wombs are pumping out product at a terrifyingly prodigious rate with no help from you. Maybe you can work on some other organ that we maybe need to stay alive or something?
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
You, uh... never read the rest of the series did you?
Because that's a horrible way to talk about your wife. The Bene Tleilax are masters of the genome, their Axolotl tanks are women.
who's working on an artificial vagina?
Farmers use them to collect sperm for artificial insemination.
When it comes to human use though, I hear a real one is better. Of course this being "news for nerds" nobody reading this has ever seen a real one since the day we were born. From the looks of things, Slashdotters born 50 years from now will go their whole lives never seeing one.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Have gnu, will travel.
we don't know that much about early human development, though it's pretty clearly not simple (more like chaotic). without knowing which sensory inputs are important to healthy development, an artificial womb would need to attempt to replicate them all. heck, there are plenty of substances that cross the placenta, and most of them would need to be emulated too.
in other words, producing a mouse-like mouse from an artificial mouse womb is rather different from doing it with humans...
Sexconker:
If you are over 45 and tell people you think 16 year old boys are "stunning" that will give a few people the creeps.
Thank goodness this is the Internet and nobody knows or cares how old you are.
A: perhaps they each are carrying a taser
B: the guys' handle is "sexconker"
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Given that we have already over populated planet Earth, WHY THE HELL DOES ANYBODY WANT TO COME UP WITH A WAY OF MAKING MORE OF US? Are they bloody stupid? Can't they think of something useful to do with their ingenuity?
But of course, if we grow humans in an artificial womb, they wouldn't really alive until we take them out at the end of the 9-month procedure, right?
If you are referring to abortion poltics, the term you are looking for is "legal person."
There is no question that a zygote is biologically human and biologically alive.
Legal person-hood is another matter. This is granted - and taken away - by the common consensus of society or in some cases, the edict of a government or dictator that doesn't reflect the consensus of society. Even ignoring "artificial legal persons" like corporations, a society can grant legal personhood - the state of having the rights of a living person - on sufficiently-intelligent animals or non-earth-originated sentient aliens or even sentient human-created life forms (e.g. computer programs, androids, etc.) if it wants to. If it wants to, it can also take away or deny the personhood of living humans who are too young (e.g. not born yet, or not old enough to be more self-aware than non-human animals), or severely mentally retarded or severely brain-damaged. We can also take away personhood by declaring someone dead even if they are still breathing. Most Western countries do this today when they declare someone "brain dead" if their autonomic systems are working but there is no other brain function.
By the way, I am NOT advocating denying anyone who has already been born the status of "person" for reasons of mental or physical incapacity short of brain death. If the society I live in makes this a common practice, I'll probably move.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Why would you say that?
I would think though this could nearly eliminate unwanted pregnancy. Everyone can be on birth control and enter into a legal binding contract when they want to order a child.
Clearly, no. But this is beside the point. Maybe it will be one day. And in the much nearer future, it will be just the thing we will turn to because we start having ethical problems with renting the wombs of poor women in India who presently serve as surrogates for fertility-challenged rich couples.
But for me, the real sci-fi potential of this technology is in interstellar colonization. The idea is that frozen genetic material can survive a long trip much better than any living organism, especially if we're talking about slow trips that might take centuries. However, with proper shielding and error control, a lab that can produce artificial wombs and gestate babies should be much easier, technologically. I'm guessing that by the end of this century, all the pieces will be in place: An artificial womb, an AI that can operate it, correct preservation techniques, and an AI parenting program that does a more ethical job of parenting that many human parents who are still allowed to keep their kids. That, together with AI school, basically makes for a highly portable civilization reproduction package. Only the first generation would need to be raised by pure technology, although I'm sure that since they have the technology, they would want to keep using it to grow the size of the colony and add to their genetic diversity.
Nor did he see any previous comments (like mine, which noted that in Dune, 1000 years in the future, axlotyl tanks are human women). Lots of redundancy in this thread, I wonder if the mods will notice?
(clicking "no bonus buttons because I'm not exactly on-topic here. Hell, if everyone else deserves a downmod I might as well too!)
Free Martian Whores!
You need to take your medicine. Clearly it wore off.
This is the next generation in fertility treatments, not some way to eliminate the female sex.
Well he certainly never finished it!
*(Ok, so Herbert and Anderson might have made that possible).
Sexconker:
If you are over 45 and tell people you think 16 year old boys are "stunning" that will give a few people the creeps.
Thank goodness this is the Internet and nobody knows or cares how old you are.
Age is irrelevant in this case. Any adult male regardless of their age is creepy making that statement.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Would we then have to create artificial breasts to produce milk, or take hormone supplements for those women who wish to give their childeren breast milk? Or would, in a world where artificial wombs are the norm, milk mothers make a return and become an industry?
By the time you "make" the clones, raise them, educate them, train them, the cost would be astronomical for an army or any worthwhile force. Plus, new soldiers would be at least 16 years out, to be generous.
Meanwhile you can crank out robots by the truckload for a fraction of the cost. They have much simpler logistical requirements in terms of food, housing, and other amenities. More durable, better endurance, can be repaired. We're a lot closer to robot soldiers than clone soldiers too.
=Smidge=
A Womb with a view.
I hope this caused some synapses to fire.
Also, you still need eggs. Nobody is claiming to be "twenty years out" from that right now.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
From the planet Ix...
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
In that case, the real problem is the inefficiency of international adoption.
You need to take your medicine. Clearly it wore off.
This is the next generation in fertility treatments, not some way to eliminate the female sex.
This isn't about fertility treatments. IVF is about fertility treatments. Granted some woman cannot carry a pregnancy to term, but in those cases there are surrogates. This is about freeing woman from the so called bondage of having to be pregnant at all.
I can just imagine people lining up in front of all glass encased Baby Gap's full of iBabies with that new "pod" smell...and around the corner a dumpster full of last years models.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Of course rich women who want to keep their figure will want to go this route.
If they want to have children without stretchmarks and weight gain, this is perfect, cost be damned.
It will be the new status symbol.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
Tube Babies coming soon to a lab near you.
This is my second "Sci-Fi tech could become reality in the none too distant future" of the last 20 minutes. (The first one being Sundiveresque http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-11/uoi-plt111312.php). If I keep reading, I might find out someone about to make a working version of a warp drive.
Good Times!
[forgot to login in my prev. post]
I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
What landmines? It will be the same as it is now, except that the woman have to give the father a chance to keep the aborted fetus alive. Any further custody disputes will be the same as they are now.
It is pretty much true already. It's a frightening thought.
Many of us out here are former golden children who got burnt out not on our ability to succeed, but in the direction things are heading. There's a default assumption that there is no other way, and that this way is good or at least necessary.
The result is a strong cynicism, even toward most solutions.
The "something else" however is always there. I will always believe in people. Not all of them, but the good ones. I don't know if there is an objective measurement for "good" or that objective measurements exist at all beyond basic chemistry, physics and math, but there is good out there. It gets up every day fighting not just to win, but to be good.
It's a good source of inspiration for us all.
It's true. It's how we socialize: what I saw on TV last night, what I downloaded, what funny line in a movie this current situation reminds me of, etc.
It's dystopian lite.
My sympathies to you for this difficult situation. Hug that wife.
However, my post wasn't an argument against the technology. I am a futurist, and I'll always believe we should zoom forward with all sorts of technologies, including some I consider immoral (because they often lead to better things).
That being said, where my post applies is not to a specific technology, but our across-the-board use of all technologies to create a dystopian society. There are facts, and interpretations. There are technologies, and their arrangement into a civilization.
We can do better on that latter part.
Dcnjoe69 also makes a good point.
Surprisingly, most doctors recommend that you don't try to actually touch your baby before it's born. Or change their dirty diapers, or clean their muddy faces, or give them crayons. All of these things are tremendously difficult in the cramped quarters of the uterus, after all.
Nobody's suggested that these babies would be brought to term in a sterile clean room, and then dumped into a blank white room with no human contact for their first 18 years.
Has anybody, at all, anywhere, EVER cared about "is it really feasible, desirable or even affordable for the majority of Earth's population" ?
If there's even the remotest chance that The Fabulously Rich might possibly maybe want one, then IT WILL BE BUILT.
Maybe, if you're lucky, enough of the fabulously wealthy will want one that eventually the moderately-not-poor will be able to afford one.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
but is it really feasible, desirable or even affordable for the majority of Earth's population?"
No, yes, no.
The majority of the planet's population is still living near the poverty line. What they have they spend on food and shelter and other essentials. But in that same demographic, death in childbed is still very real for both mother and child, so something less risky would be desirable.
From a global perspective, hower, low population is not exactly a problem we are having. So this should not be about producing more humans.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I'd be willing to bet that pro-life groups will lobby to have laws mandating that all abortions MUST be placed in an artificial womb at the cost of the mother.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
It opens up the possibility of interstellar travel in a big, big way.
Nice take on ethics of artificial wombs
Why? Is there seriously a need to come up with new methods other than good old fashioned fucking?
On another note...when asking "why"....is it like we have some type of population problems? Not enough people being born? Are we running short of pussies to hold new kids?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
When I posted this I wasn't even thinking of the political ramifications of artificial wombs, just the scientific feasibility. While it would be nice to be able to completely control the chemical environment of the fetus to prevent any abnormalities, it will take a lot of research before scientists know each and every hormone, the levels and time at which it needs to be expressed for proper development. It would have to be so complex, that it would certainly be easier (and cheaper) to just make a baby the normal way.
Enjoy post-apocalyptic and singularity science fiction? Check out www.demonarchives.com, a new online graphic-novel.
Little creature of love
With two arms and two legs
From a shop called Ikea
Now they cover the bed
We are creatures of love, we are creatures of love
We are creatures, creatures of love
We are creatures, creatures of love
From the toaster oven, a life is born
We are creatures of love, we are creatures of love
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
There is no compelling contextual evidence for the age or gender of the original poster. For all we know, sexconker might very well be a young girl with a geeky streak who happens to like gourmet ice cream and pretty boys with good pipes. I sang baritone in school. An i've been told i clean up well. Anyone in SF bay area interested in starting an a Capella group? We can call ourselves "Super Cache", or maybe go with "Beowulf". What kind of name is likely to attract the attention of the geek girl among /.ers? I know! "The GNU Directions"!
========== "Hello World" in my programming language of choice: ATG - LET THERE BE LIFE - TAG ==========
They were just ~6500 years off:
In the year 6565
Ain't gonna need no husband,
Won't need no wife.
You'll pick your sons, pick your daughters too
From the bottom of a long glass tube.
They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
By the year 2020 eh? This has been discussed in the 1960's.... In the year 6565 You won't need no husband, won't need no wife You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too From the bottom of a long glass tube Now it's been ten thousand years, man has cried a billion tears For what, he never knew, now man's reign is through But through eternal night, the twinkling of starlight So very far away, maybe it's only yesterday
Is there seriously a need to come up with new methods other than good old fashioned fucking?
No - if you consider humanity only as a homogeneous mass of animal flesh.
On another note...when asking "why"....is it like we have some type of population problems? Not enough people being born?
No, it's because individuals have this crazy instinct to fulfil their biological urges by propagating their DNA.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Why? Is there seriously a need to come up with new methods other than good old fashioned fucking?
I don't think many people have a problem with the fucking, but rather with the subsequent 9-ish months of issues.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
This isn't something for the majority of Earth's population...it's a solution for women who are having trouble conceiving. IVF, while popular, is far from universally successful; often the problem is implantation and it's not uncommon to have a couple try as many as four or five times before successfully conceiving. An artificial uterus, on the other hand, would be free from such troubles. To that, add women who have had to undergo a hysterectomy for any number of reasons (like cervical or uterine cancer) who wish to have another child.
For the majority of Earth's population, the good old-fashioned way is plenty effective, more fun, and totally free...so it'll work for them. But there are those for whom this would be the best viable option for having a child.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
First successful *human* IVF.
The first successful IVF pregnancy & birth was in 1959 - a team at the Worcester Foundation, lead by Dr. Min Chueh Chang, successfully gave birth to a rabbit.
Well, OK, they didn't give birth to a rabbit per se - obviously another rabbit did - but they certainly had a hand in it, as it were...
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
Why? Is there seriously a need to come up with new methods other than good old fashioned fucking?
I don't think many people have a problem with the fucking, but rather with the subsequent 9-ish months of issues.
9 months? More like 18+ years. And that assumes said child moves away to college right after high school, gets a good job right out of college, etc.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Of course they had a hand in it... how do you think the egg got implanted?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
The reason abortion is considered by many to be unethical is that it results in the death of the child/fetus. Much of the time, this is done because the pregnancy is inconvenient for the mother.
If an alternative exists that removes the inconvenience without resulting in the death, it makes sense for both sides to champion it as an acceptable middle ground.
As far as custody is concerned, it should be treated like adoption. The re-implantation requires signing over custody. This shouldn't be very difficult on the mother, considering that abortion would remove not only custody, but also existence, of the child.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Sorry! That is bad math. 50 just sounds nicer than 40 I guess.
Enjoy post-apocalyptic and singularity science fiction? Check out www.demonarchives.com, a new online graphic-novel.
I'm going to make the wild assumption that you're a dude.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I've been watching reruns of Space Above and Beyond, military sci-fi from the 1990s with the usual Starship Troopers vs. aliens premise. I'll just quote the wiki article about the race of "artificial" humans in the series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Above_and_Beyond): 'The Space: Above and Beyond milieu includes an underclass race of genetically engineered and artificially gestated humans who are born at the physical age of 18, and are collectively known as In Vitroes or sometimes, derogatorily, "tanks" or "nipple-necks".' The In Vitroes are gestated in glass "tanks" and have what looks like navels in their necks, although I'm not sure if these are for nutrition or Matrix-style neural programming. Artificial wombs could become a cost-efficient proposition, even if the artificial human is grown to near adulthood and not just for the length of human pregnancy. What's needed is the ability to program human brains via dream-like states and some means to prevent muscular atrophy. This would reduce the need for infancy or adolescence, when a normal human is a net consumer rather than a producer.
After watching my friend suffer through multiple miscarriages related to her uterine lining, and the grief it caused her and her husband (also a great friend), I can say without a doubt: Yes, there will be a market for this.
Condoms.
Talking to a co-worker whose wife is pregnant, it was my observation that carrying another human being inside you for 9 months and then shooting it out your vagina seems like a terribly inefficient method of reproduction. Of course, if you can grow them in a lab then really why even use your lethal-trait-laced DNA? Amazon.com could just keep a select repository of good DNA, allow you to choose the traits you want, put in an order, wait a few months and have it delivered! Via... Fedex...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Artificial wombs....?
Why? Is there seriously a need to come up with new methods other than good old fashioned fucking?
On another note...when asking "why"....is it like we have some type of population problems? Not enough people being born? Are we running short of pussies to hold new kids?
A few short years after 1984 the orgasm shall be eradicated. How else are we going to be able to produce new party members?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Is there seriously a need to come up with new methods other than good old fashioned fucking?
No - if you consider humanity only as a homogeneous mass of animal flesh.
As someone married to a mother, let me give an alternative view : Yes, definitely. Ever witnessed a birth, even with an epidural ? Or just stood in the same building of the hospital maternity ward ? Every 10 babies or so you will hear the screams. While many young women, and most men have this romanticized notion of birth (for obvious reasons), but you'll find a much different view among women who've already given birth.
On another note...when asking "why"....is it like we have some type of population problems? Not enough people being born?
No, it's because individuals have this crazy instinct to fulfil their biological urges by propagating their DNA.
Actually yes, we do. The human birthrate is falling worldwide, right now still heading to overpopulation in the short term, as the total number of young people is still increasing (the number of babies is very close to stagnation, and will soon start to drop though). However, if the decreasing fertility trends spread around the globe (and they are), once we hit ~2055, the number of humans alive will fall off a cliff, which will not be a desirable outcome at all. A little before that, so many people will become pensioners it won't be funny at all. It won't be localized anywhere, it'll be global. Think recession, but with no cheap mexicans/asians/africans to import at all, and every country having the exact same problem.
Regardless of how far robotics will be along at the time (and there's always the chance it won't be far enough along at all), do you really think having a country's population drop by ~8% per year for 2 decades will lead to stable countries ?
So it would be very prudent to start breeding humans, which imho is only unethical if they are somehow treated as inferior to the rest of us, in 10-15 years in relatively large numbers (hundreds of thousands a year). We can still let the total population drop, but slowly, in a way that countries, nations and we ourselves might actually survive.
"but is it really feasible, desirable or even affordable for the majority of Earth's population?""
No, but That's also true about the iPhone. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That must have been an enormous rabbit!
Kneel before Zod! Now, lay down before Zod. Now using your lower abdominals, raise your legs and hold on a five count before Zod! One before Zod! Two before Zod!
Have gnu, will travel.
Men offer just a bit more to human culture than just sperm. Unfortunately modern feminism has been entwining misandry into society for the last 30 years or so under the guise of 'liberating' women. Today it's so bad that we have grown men running around with adolescent insecurities and requisite self-loathing that goes with it. We have had dozens of tv shows and countless musicians completely dedicated to ridiculing and stereotyping men. What would happen if we produced a show called 'Gals with Cars' or 'Gals with Computers'.. would that pass muster with the feminists? I doubt it, but 'Guys with Kids' is perfectly alright. It's sad and maddeningly hypocritical.
not sure what happened it only grabbed the first part of my comment..
As it is, women should have no say in the father's wallet and his choice, the same way he has no say in hers. This bit of technology won't change this inequality because it is a cornerstone in feminists' desire to control men and their access to sex.
yet the drugs and 'tape' the hellburner pilots were using weren't much different..
Consider too, now single men can "have" a kid without having to deal with the entanglements of marriage. Even better, the courts won't be able to automatically give such a child to it's mother. As the courts still refuse to award custody to men anywhere near 50% of the time, this might help pry them into at least the 20th century, maybe even the 21st.
Are there any references for this out there? I want to learn more. Also is there anything governments are doing now to protect against the cliff you speak of? Or are they just going to ignore it like climate change and try to trade carbon taxes...
NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE UP! "No limitations, no boundaries, there is no reason for them."
Let's hear it for reproduction without all the negative effects on your woman's lady parts!
Wow sugar, you had 5 kids and have a figure like you are 18, how did you do it? "ummm magic!"
Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
So, I RTFA. It's great that endometrial tissue has been grown, but it seems to me that is one of the (relatively) easier problems to solve in this process. You are going to have to build some sort of artificial placenta, and pump nutrient-filled blood through the umbillical cord (which is generated as part of the fetus), and also take waste material out in the other direction.
An artificial womb might not primarily be interesting for human reproduction, but for example in conservational biology to re-establish near extinct species, this could be a great tool! Coupled with the technologies of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS), where one can de-differentiate a mature somatic cell and then differentiate it into sperm and egg cells we could also generate a large progeny even from a limited number of individuals. Further, the same technology could theoretically be used to surpass many of the reproductive species barriers and make it possible to generate completely new hybrid species. Especially since one could do repeated cycles of embryonic stem cell to egg/sperm differentiations in vitro, one could in this way generate completely new species out of invitro hybrid breeding. I have no idea how far apart species can be with this method, but regulations probably would have to be put in place to avoid generation of new sub-species of humans generated by in vitro hybrid breeding with the other great apes. Who knows... perhaps it would even be possible to breed crocodiles and birds and get some sort of approximation of dinosaurs using this method...
Taking this question entirely seriously for a moment and assuming you were too.
IVF is popular because something like 1 in 7 couples have difficulty conceiving naturally. Even having managed to conceive something like 70-80% of conceptions fail to result in a viable pregnancy because they don't attach properly to the uterine lining. It's part of the reason that even women who aren't on birth control don't have a pregnancy every month they are 'fertile' and have sex.
Potentially the use of artificial wombs would reduce the instance of miscarriage and improve the success rates of IVF beyond what is currently normal. There are plenty of people out there who would like to have children for whom 'good old fashioned fucking' isn't a viable solution.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
That would be 2030 and 2040s. I'll need to review these estimates in ten years.
As someone married to a mother, let me give an alternative view : Yes, definitely. Ever witnessed a birth, even with an epidural ? Or just stood in the same building of the hospital maternity ward ? Every 10 babies or so you will hear the screams. While many young women, and most men have this romanticized notion of birth (for obvious reasons), but you'll find a much different view among women who've already given birth.
I'd like to chip in with my view as a fairly recent daddy too, as we probably don't live too far apart (your username puts you in Flanders or southern Netherlands, but giving birth in hospital is very uncommon in NL nowadays, so my guess is Belgium.)
Judging from many stories (that everyone suddenly has when you are expecting a baby), Flemish hospitals, even the good ones, are not to be considered the gold standard for giving birth. In most places the doctor and hospital staff decide what's going to happen, preferring to force their way for convenience (theirs) or just because Procedures Must Be Followed rather than actual care for what's happening. We did extensive research, even before conception, on where we wanted our baby to be born and quickly chose a hospital well over an hour away because they are the maternity specialists of the province (every province has one) -- there are hospitals closer by, but just looking at their maternity ward websites was enough to reject them outright (the gynecologist decides this, this is the schedule of the maternity ward, we decide that...)
Eventually we didn't even make it there because everything just happened too fast, our baby was born at home with the help of independent midwives (don't go without professional help, there are still some risks), and I was surprised at how easy it went (of course, it's still a bit messy, it's still painful, there's still some screaming, but afterwards our midwives also told us that home birthings are always much easier, cleaner and less painful than in a hospital. ) No epidural, no inducing, no vacuum extraction, no episiotomy (because no tearing); I'm not saying that these techniques should never be used, but they are definitely overused in Flemish hospitals, sometimes to the point of normal operating procedure for _all_ births. I'm also not advocating home birthing for everyone: some parts are easier, but especially the fact that you are immediately thrown back onto yourselves after birth was very hard for us (we had household help and of course the midwives come to check up regularly for a couple of weeks, but they also have to tend to other expectant mothers, mothers and babies in a fairly large region, so you don't have someone at your bedside five minutes after you push a button, it's just the two of you.. if there are two of you, which isn't as standard as it used to be.) I just wanted to make clear that Flemish hospitals are not really the desirable solution when it comes to giving birth.
As for the original issue: I indeed see serious issues with artificial wombs. When a baby is growing, is causes a lot of violent hormonal changes within its mother. Of course this causes a lot of issues and inconveniences, but it also creates a very strong hormonal bond between mother and child. It's not just something you ordered on a website somewhere with the prime advantage of being able to watch the production process. A baby actually grows inside of you, you feel it as it starts moving around, it takes much effort to 'produce' a baby long before you see the results, which is getting less and less acceptable in modern societies. This experience of long-term effort is important for the future of the baby, because it's something that won't stop for quite some years.
Another issue my wife just pointed out to me: the number of kids from an artificial womb diagnosed with autism will probably also be much higher than average. A baby doesn't start living the moment it's born, it's already experiencing and learning a lot from the outside world long before (street noises, music, arguments, stepping around, lying still, ...) It will not have those experiences in an artificial womb, so it will be less prepared for what will happen when it's born.
I can already imagine gay rights groups demanding that all gay couples should have right to a womb, just like they should have right to marry.
If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
I would think though this could nearly eliminate unwanted pregnancy. Everyone can be on birth control and enter into a legal binding contract when they want to order a child.
If only there were not for radical feminists who will still continue babbling about how they want "full control of their bodies" and insist on saying that artificial wombs are created by evil men whos only desire is to make women obsolote.
If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
+1 informative.
At least for me - I did not know of this, and find the article that is linked to very interessting.
The law as it stands would require the mother to contribute money via child support to the kid though, being a biological parent.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Now you're talking about growing fully functional organ systems without the rest of the body. That's even further away than a clone army, and you really haven't saved much on any front: Still takes time to grow, raise (a big part of it is mental development), and train these disembodied brains. You have increased your logistical load since now you need food AND fuel/energy. You decreased durability, sacrificed much of your ability to repair, decreased endurance (mental fatigue). It's actually the WORST of both worlds.
Cyborgs are going to start fully human and be augmented from there, not the other way around.
=Smidge=
Is there seriously a need to come up with new methods other than good old fashioned fucking?
Clearly not, or no one would ever use IVF. Oh, wait.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
As for the original issue: I indeed see serious issues with artificial wombs. When a baby is growing, is causes a lot of violent hormonal changes within its mother. Of course this causes a lot of issues and inconveniences, but it also creates a very strong hormonal bond between mother and child. It's not just something you ordered on a website somewhere with the prime advantage of being able to watch the production process. A baby actually grows inside of you, you feel it as it starts moving around, it takes much effort to 'produce' a baby long before you see the results, which is getting less and less acceptable in modern societies. This experience of long-term effort is important for the future of the baby, because it's something that won't stop for quite some years.
It is the emotional bond that is important, not the hormonal/physical one. Otherwise adopted mothers and all fathers would have no "real" connection with their children.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Yes, and what's wrong with that? A father has to contribute in cases where the mother decides to have the child, why not have it work both ways?
Sexconker:
If you are over 45 and tell people you think 16 year old boys are "stunning" that will give a few people the creeps.
Thank goodness this is the Internet and nobody knows or cares how old you are.
Age is irrelevant in this case. Any adult male regardless of their age is creepy making that statement.
How about if he'd said stunning 16 year old girls (in a place where the age of consent is 16 like here in the UK)?
Just curious.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
What landmines? It will be the same as it is now, except that the woman have to give the father a chance to keep the aborted fetus alive.
Well, that sounds like a bunch of fucking landmines to me, if you're a woman who gets raped, or is in an incestuous relationship, or is being abused, or simply makes a drunken mistake one night at a party.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
If an alternative exists that removes the inconvenience without resulting in the death, it makes sense for both sides to champion it as an acceptable middle ground.
No, because it would concede to the extreme religious nutjobs that a woman's body is not hers, but is just a vessel for the fertilisation of children and the creation of imaginary "souls".
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Many farm crops are bred specifically so that they can't reproduce sexually on their own. Why would it be any more wrong to do this to humans?
Because some of us would grant human beings more rights than a field of fucking corn?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Which gets us back to good old fashioned fucking, doesn't it?
Oh yeah, except there's another group of humans working hard to destroy female fertility for everybody.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Can't the rich white folk just buy more of the poor brown babies? Let the free market decide!
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You're debating somebody, but it's probably not me.
I never mentioned this at all. What I said was that we should develop technologies.
I never suggested we let the Nazis win any wars. What I suggested was that we should develop technologies.
I'm thinking more of stem cells and genetic modification technology when I speak of "immoral." I'm not even sure how I feel about animal testing.
However, if we improve our overall technological ability through these experiments, we are in a better position (eventually) to do good things.
In general, with technology has come an improvement in living standards, health and safety. I am in favor of continuing this direction.
Did you know that nowadays there are some women in senior positions of power like politicians and judges?! I hear they even let chicks become doctors and shit. The world's gone anti-man and I'm going to cry.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
And how is that different from existing laws for a man? (except the rape one perhaps). A man can already be 'forced' to become a parent in any one of those situations.
That's not entirely true. The bonding happens for a big part through skin-on-skin contact, which releases hormones. Even though you can still do that if you aren't the natural mother, it's much harder than when you get that endorphin/oxytocin/prolactin boost during pregnancy, birth and breastfeeding. Most modern advice even explicitly encourages the father to hold the baby for a couple of hours, skin-on-skin, some time after birth while the mother is being cleaned up and/or asleep. With a C-section the mother isn't available to hold the baby at all during the first hours; the advice then is to get the father half naked and get him to hold the baby during that time.
Of course I agree with you that fathers and adopting parents do bond with their children through anticipation, preparation and shared experiences, but this is definitely not the main process that normally takes place and I don't think it should be the only one if it can be avoided.
but is it really feasible
Yes
, desirable
Yes
or even affordable for the majority of Earth's population?
STFU
The human birthrate is falling worldwide ... So it would be very prudent to start breeding humans
We'll need many, many humans to fight in the coming Robot Wars.
So, right now the ratio of people who have trouble conceiving (a very delicate biological process) is 1 in 7... How do you think it will change when those 1 in 7 are now able to continue to propagate their genes into the gene pool? How many generations until natural birth will be no longer possible for most people, and we're all being born out of tubes...
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
I don't think many people have a problem with the fucking, but rather with the subsequent 9-ish months of issues.
That doesn't give them an excuse to completely avoid or ignore natural pregnancy & birth processes. The invention should not be applied to general cases and should never will be. It may help those women who will always miscarriage due to health issue. It could also apply to those who want children but cannot have one because one of the spouse is infertile. Other that these extreme issues (maybe a few others?), I don't see the usefulness of having artificial human womb.
That doesn't give them an excuse to completely avoid or ignore natural pregnancy.
Why should women need an excuse? I think it's great that women might one day be able to have children without having to go through pregnancy.
I'm not an extreme religious nutjob. But I don't agree with you that the fetus/child is completely 100% the property of the mother. That child has a father who loves the child and should have a say.
When there is a major risk to the mother's health, well, that is an encroachment into her body (which she does 100% own). I'll admit, that area is fuzzy at best, and I personally believe the mother's life and health should be considered higher than that of the unborn child. But simple inconvenience to the mother is a different thing altogether. What gives her the right to neglect and/or kill the child, regardless of the will of its father? Consider that a poor person is an inconvenience on society... do you believe society should have the right to kill that poor person, or to completely neglect them?
(And please don't use the rape strawman. The father has absolutely no legal rights in the case of rape... or, at least, he shouldn't.)
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Religious pun intentional.
But seriously, there are a lot of misconceptions in the comments on this. So much ignorance flying around it's quite scary.
We went through IVF because it just wasn't happening after 5 yrs of trying. Got one child out of it, delivered by c-section, which, I may add, is something that you really shouldn't look at, because you sort of go into a mild form of shock seeing your wife split open across the belly. It goes against what you think of as a normal sight. I wouldn't recommend looking.
I am extrmely grateful for IVF and wouldn't have children without it, but the entire process leads me to believe that there is a lot of room for corruption and immoral decisions within that industry. It doesn't surprise me that it's a massive industry to be in.
It cost the state 25,000 SEK per treatment, and we had 3 treatments. We didn't pay a penny for this because we we're referred by the doctor, but the _private_ clinic was getting that money for each try. Then if it still doesn't work, but you've got embryos left over from a previous try, you can pay 10,000 SEK to have one or perhaps two of them implanted. I think these clinics are sitting on a goldmine. Squirt in an embryo without care for the first two goes, so it misscarriages (sod the emotional distress of the couple), then you can be more careful on the third go, and get the full 75.000 SEK from the state. I'm not saying this happens, but with the amount of corruption in the world, it is certainly not an impossibility.
Some people I know weren't successful after 3 tries, and had to continue out of their own pocket for another 3 tries. 105.000 SEK total. Slightly cheaper than adopting a chinese baby girl. Which brings me onto another pet peeve: Many people can shoot out bebbies like it's going out of fashion, but you have trouble getting pregnant and it's going to cost you a small fortune for the _privilege_ of adopting. Another corrupt industry. Last time I checked, you can adopt from China for 130.000-150.000 SEK. It makes adoptive parents very happy, and im truly happy for them, but I think they subconciously wipe over the fact that what they are paying is an immoral amount of money. Anyone out there who's adpoted who wants to comment on that?
Going back to IVF; the thing that you worry about (being a true member of the tin-foil hat brigade) is that they don't destroy the left-over embryos that you don't use, and perform other research on them. But that's just the paranoia speaking. But they were quite blasé with certain things, and especially lax with sending the bills for keeping our 13 remaining embryos in the freezer for 2 years, which gave an impression of it not being a tightly run ship.
"Everyone knows that vi vi vi is the number of the beast" -- Richard Stallman