There will be a lot of controversy about the “beta” version of this technology. Still, I expect that it will be introduced in due time. The social implications are huge for everything from gender equality to gay parenthood.
Yes, I believe this technology will transform humanity; it could give us a new way of envisioning life.
Posted by pacman7331 on 11/14 at 05:06 PM
I think scientists are the disciples of Satan, they put up a pseudo-compassion front but only actually care about gaining their own power over others. These brazen intrusions into the natural course of nature are abominable. The effort to reproduce without male sperm and eradicate the male, homosexual reproduction, human cloning, and now these artificial wombs. It’s obvious humanity is no longer evolving, but devolving, as the pace of technology and cunning out run spiritual enlightenment. What a way to solve your own personality disorders, invent some demonic device that you control which you’ll unleash on the world with sadistic laughter. If there ever was God, we need him now, I’m sure however the Atheist scientist egotism will stand up in a air clawing rave to call down shame upon me. Humanity: your well is broken, you are no longer human. No true human being would attempt this sort of demonic perversion, people like you are of a different race entirely, one that is focused only on power and domination through force, a materialist soulless race of the dead who feed on destruction and perversion. Science I think your days are numbered, your accelerating curve of cunning will slow, as it does your destructiveness will catch up with you and you will fall into the pit of hell you dug for others. You think you can escape spiritual law with Transhumanism? Your fate will enforce it’s debts even in your cybernetic dulled consciousness of perversion. All you scientists who think you can cunningly surmount the order of the universe to your petty personal gains, I look forward to your downfall. No guise will be opaque enough to protect you.
Can we overcome the Grim Reaper? Positive futurists say we can
Infectious disease, accidents, starvation, and violence have kept average life expectancy at 20-to-30 years throughout most of human history. However, the quest to live longer and enjoy good health is one of the most ancient and deep-rooted hopes ingrained in our species.
It underlies religious teachings of dreams of an afterlife and up to now, people have had no alternative but to accept death as an inevitable part of existence. Even Humanists view death as not such a bad thing, and ultra-conservatives maintain that death is necessary to give life meaning.
That people should make excuses for death is understandable. Until recently, nothing could be done about it and it made sense to create comforting philosophies that dying of old age is a positive thing.
Now, stem cell, genetic engineering, and nanomedicine technologies promise to one day eliminate most diseases and even abolish human aging. It is becoming increasingly evident that research scientists are getting ever closer to making indefinite lifespan become reality.
Today many of us future watchers have accepted the challenge of keeping our bodies in shape to maneuver through the next two decades when many experts believe that science could eliminate most unwanted deaths, allowing everyone to live a technology-rich life filled with abundant resources.
The things I value most – freedom, joy, friendship and fun of discovery are all limited by my lifespan. I want more. More time to think and do all the wonderful things I can imagine. A “magical future” that could arrive in as early as 20 years promises to help me obtain these things.
I do not want these things for myself alone, which would be an empty and lonely existence. No, I want this additional time for friends, relatives – every human on Earth who might also enjoy an indefinite lifespan.
I want more time to learn, grow, and follow a path without death constantly looming its ugly head. This driving force encourages me to write weekly articles depicting a positive and optimistic future. Let us enrich ourselves by believing that an extended lifespan without fears of unwanted death will soon be ours to enjoy. Comments welcome.
Posted by contraterrine on 11/16 at 04:11 PM
If there would be no physical difference to the developing foetus, then yes, why not?
However in vivo pregnancy is a huge factor in mother/child bonding so there would have to be a biochemical and somatic ‘fix’ for this too.
To use a rather misused phrase in western culture “The best interests of the child” would have to be paramount.
I’m personally very torn here as both a parent and a futurist. Mostly so as a person who has to deal with all these adults who were not loved as children.
The technology may be nearly ready but our humanity has a long way to go before we could dream of having this technology ethically applied.
I personally don’t see working women being the driving force behind this technology, if anything other than military/ labor purposes I see the chauvinistic conquering of the female body as the catalyst for allowing such technology to become prevalent. Even if it were to be working women, the decision to base childrearing practices around the convenience of corporations or at best the selfish indulgences of ambition is ill advised.
Don’t forget the many advantages that artificial wombs offer.
Today, fetuses are 100% dependent on their mother’s health and sensible judgment. If mom falls prey to accidents, disease, or inadequate nutrition, the embryo can become traumatized.
Babies would no longer be exposed to alcohol or illegal drugs by careless mothers, and the correct body temperature would always be maintained with 100% of necessary nutrients provided.
In addition, pro-lifers should jump for joy. Choosing an abortion to protect a mother’s health would not be necessary, as artificial wombs could bring all aborted embryos to term. Unwanted pregnancies would no longer mean a death sentence for the unborn.
I see this technology as a natural part of the human evolutionary scene. Although it may take some getting used to, the benefits far outweigh the negative concerns.
First do no harm. It is easy to imagine that we understand gestation well enough to mechanize it, but we certainly do not know enough today. A thorough exploration of all biochemical and neurosensory processes involved is needed to design an artificial womb that can do as well or better than the “real thing.”
At the same time, the “real thing” can be a pretty bad proposition. In addition to the issues mentioned by Dick, there’s a biggie that has seriously affected human development. The space the birth canal occupies the pelvis of a human is significantly smaller on average than the size of the cranium of a full-term infant. This creates serious risks to the mother during delivery and produces wildly varying levels of neurological damage to the newborn. Of course, non-vaginal delivery (caesarian) carries the risks of rather significant surgery.
We have managed to make adjustments to accommodate these and many more issues, but the fact of a workable process (for the lucky) does not show that the process is as good as it might be. I think extracorporeal gestation is both inevitable and desirable; however, I do not want to see thoughtless technologists charge in to redesign a process without really understanding what they are changing. And yes, that happens all the time…
Your description of today’s birth issues is correct.
However, I do not believe that technologists are thoughtlessly redesigning a process without understanding what they are changing.
One of the more promising researchers, Dr. Hung-Ching Liu believes she can create a human model by early 2030s, and if Kurzweil is right and information technologies advance exponentially between now and the 2030s, I see no reason why a working artificial womb will not be developed during this time-frame.
Granted, it may take several years; possibly to mid-century or after, before this technology becomes accepted by mainstream society, but this is definitely an improvement that humanity needs as we trek through this century.
Why not put up a “Solve for X” prize to speed up this research?
Prizes for the first scientist to develop an artificial uterus able to bring to term an ex-situ pregnancy for 1) mouse, 2) dogs, 3) cats, 4) cows, 6) humans.
How much money is moved by this type of research? Not so much I think. So any decent prize could shake up the water a bit.
Posted by mthompsonbc on 04/04 at 10:10 PM
Interesting article, however, like a the other articles I’ve read discussing artificial birth it misses one crucial point. We live in a capitalist economy and it will be corporations (ie. biotech multinationals) who will have the resources to make this technology widely available. And it is inevitable that with artificial wombs we will also have human cloning. It seems very close to reality that in the near future a parentless child will be born and that some infertile couple with financial means will pay a biotech lab to purchase this child. Let’s name this transaction. The purchase of human life is slavery. The biotech company will be parent/owner and the new parents will be parent/owner. And while the initial artificial birth transaction might take place between a smaller biotech company/lab in some country that allows human cloning, the Pandora’s box will be opened and eventually a much larger biotech giant will step up with economies of scale and cheaper, more efficient production methods. Artificial birth factories could easily become the norm, complete with Brave New World options for gender, height and skin, eye and hair colour. And what about parents who back out of their purchases? How about orphanages for unwanted “product”. Maybe the unwanted clone babies could be sold into factories or used for military. Heck they could even become slave/workers for the biotech that gave them life.
Ah science. So hopeful, so naive.