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 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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
It amazes me how much our society values babies, or fetuses even.
Like why the hell should we care about a 20-week old fetus? Just tell the parents to compost the damn thing and try again, you only lost 5 months.
And to go further: I don't recall anything from before I was 2 years old. What difference would it have made if my parents had decided to compost me at any point before then if I had been unviable? Infanticide used to be normal in some societies after all, why should it now be considered an absolute evil?
When 3 out of 4 infants died, their life really was precious, and we valued them correctly. Does this sentiment still belong to a world where child mortality is nearly zero?
I think we need to collectively reassess our values.
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.
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.
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 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?
> 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?
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
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?!
great idea for a movie tbh, maybe a series
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.
> 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).
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.
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.
Is the unique realistic way to conquer space.
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.
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.
Underrated comment.
It amazes me how much our society values babies, or fetuses even.
Like why the hell should we care about a 20-week old fetus? Just tell the parents to compost the damn thing and try again, you only lost 5 months.
And to go further: I don't recall anything from before I was 2 years old. What difference would it have made if my parents had decided to compost me at any point before then if I had been unviable? Infanticide used to be normal in some societies after all, why should it now be considered an absolute evil?
When 3 out of 4 infants died, their life really was precious, and we valued them correctly. Does this sentiment still belong to a world where child mortality is nearly zero?
I think we need to collectively reassess our values.
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 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.
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.