Could you imagine something that equalizes the playing field more between men and women? This provides the ability for people to have a child without the woman having to gestate the fetus for 9 months? None of the terrible side effects of pregnancy, none of the pain. Sounds pretty idealistic to me.
Idealistic? Further erosion of our humanity for the sake of productivity and furthering of the capitalist machine sounds about as far away from idealism as you can get.
> Could you imagine something that equalizes the playing field more between men and women?
It really wouldn't because women would lose the societal benefits of being child bearers. So at best, it would be a wash.
> This provides the ability for people to have a child without the woman having to gestate the fetus for 9 months? None of the terrible side effects of pregnancy, none of the pain. Sounds pretty idealistic to me.
But most women actually want the experience of being pregnant. It's why this woman chose to transplant a uterus and become pregnant. She could have just hired a surrogate for far less time, effort and money.
But the issue of artificial wombs does offer a interesting question. How would it change humans as a species. Would it make men or women or both obsolete? Evolutionary pressure has made women child bearers and men providers. How would artificial wombs change that? Not to mention, the effects on physiology. Would women eventually lose uteri or will it become a useless vestigial organ over time?
You've not supported your conclusion that we "need" a non-human baby factory with any actual argument or facts.
Surely the simplest solution to the reproductive question during space colonization is to send along a doctor or midwife with the couples headed out from earth?
Spending extended amounts of time in zero gravity has profound effects on the human body, most of them negative. Pregnancy is already very tough, and we know literally nothing about the additional challenges associated with it (and with childbirth) in a zero G environment, or on another planet.
From this perspective, there may be some merit to the parent poster's argument that human "factories" may be less risky for everyone involved, since it might be easier to control the conditions.
Could you imagine something that equalizes the playing field more between men and women? This provides the ability for people to have a child without the woman having to gestate the fetus for 9 months? None of the terrible side effects of pregnancy, none of the pain. Sounds pretty idealistic to me.
Idealistic? Further erosion of our humanity for the sake of productivity and furthering of the capitalist machine sounds about as far away from idealism as you can get.
Sure, but I was questioning tho use in context of space travel specifically
> Could you imagine something that equalizes the playing field more between men and women?
It really wouldn't because women would lose the societal benefits of being child bearers. So at best, it would be a wash.
> This provides the ability for people to have a child without the woman having to gestate the fetus for 9 months? None of the terrible side effects of pregnancy, none of the pain. Sounds pretty idealistic to me.
But most women actually want the experience of being pregnant. It's why this woman chose to transplant a uterus and become pregnant. She could have just hired a surrogate for far less time, effort and money.
But the issue of artificial wombs does offer a interesting question. How would it change humans as a species. Would it make men or women or both obsolete? Evolutionary pressure has made women child bearers and men providers. How would artificial wombs change that? Not to mention, the effects on physiology. Would women eventually lose uteri or will it become a useless vestigial organ over time?
> most women actually want the experience of being pregnant.
I'm really curious if this is true.
1 reply →
I dunno about 'need', but I guess you could avoid the whole 'sending people' problem that way. DNA is a lot more durable.
That'd be a weird upbringing, huh?
This whole subthread might find Terraforming Earth by Jack Williamson interesting, since this is essentially part of the book's plot.
I meant without the need of having uterus inside a (living) human being. Literally growing human babies in factories.
You've not supported your conclusion that we "need" a non-human baby factory with any actual argument or facts.
Surely the simplest solution to the reproductive question during space colonization is to send along a doctor or midwife with the couples headed out from earth?
Humans are really good at making this happen.
Spending extended amounts of time in zero gravity has profound effects on the human body, most of them negative. Pregnancy is already very tough, and we know literally nothing about the additional challenges associated with it (and with childbirth) in a zero G environment, or on another planet.
From this perspective, there may be some merit to the parent poster's argument that human "factories" may be less risky for everyone involved, since it might be easier to control the conditions.
2 replies →
Generation starships!