Artificial Womb Facility Could Grow 30,000 Babies A Year: A Solution To Elon Musk's Fears?

Only if males to females is an even 50:50 ratio.

There is not an even 50:50 mix of male to female in our country.

In 2021, there were 3,664,292 live births. And there were 3.465 million deaths that same year. That is around 200k more births than deaths.

 

200,000 more births than deaths you say?

Interestingly, the estimate of anchor babies born in the US in 2021 was about 400,000. That's not even counting the other legal and illegal immigrants we get a year so yes, we are importing population growth and we're actually at negative population growth...of Americans.

 

True in the first part.

I wouldn't call having immigration "outsourcing".

Those people come here and become US citizens or permanent workers, contributing to American success in important ways.

It's more like we're hiring from outside as well as from inside.

When I hired tech experts from places in Canada, India, UK, Russia, etc., they came here as permanent residents and joined our effort to produce the best products in the world.

 

Actually, this comes from not what I would call credible, mainstream news. It does seem to be a popular site, though-- and a RIGHT WING one-- The Daily Mail.

<OP Snip>
Film producer and biotechnologist Hashem Al-Ghaili have created the technology which would allow women who have had their uterus removed to procreate, while also reducing premature births, and combating population declines, reports the Daily Mail.
...
<End Snip>

But I agree, that I have seen few Right wing news sites, that are credible. The Daily Mail links I've seen, have been to very superficial coverage, leaning towards sensationalism; maybe think midway between USA Today and The National Enquirer. Your comment about the growing stupidity, as far as this site goes, would apply predominantly to the political Right, which also seems to jibe with what I'm seeing.

 

200k more is growth.

And do you know what the name is for children of immigrants?

Americans.

 

Would you be so kind as to elaborate on how you feel this "sounds like a dream come true?" Though this is nothing more than speculation, it is an image that I find gravely concerning.

First off, we are facing no imminent collapse of the human population. I would be surprised if it didn't continue to grow, every year, albeit at a slower pace. But it would not hurt if we lost a billion or so in population, at this point, so all I can say is that being a financial wiz, does not mean that all of Elon Musk's opinions, on everything, are always intelligent ones.

But to the actual process of "growing" an entire human in a lab, it seems to me that would deprive that child of its gestational introduction to being human, which it gets from living inside the mother. Not only does it partake of all sorts of compounds in the mother's blood, affecting everything from immunity to mood, but it shares, to a degree, its mother's experience of life, while learning even to recognize voices, and music, as well as, of course, its mother's heartbeat. Thinking that future children would be getting some corporation's idea of what is "important," does not inspire me with hope.

I think of the "hydroponic" bell peppers, which never taste as good as the normal ones. Or the idiot vitamin makers, who consider a "B" complex that has 50 mg. of each of the B vitamins, to be "balanced," notwithstanding that there is every reason to believe that our bodies' requirements differ, for each of these-- 50 mg. is 40 times the RDA for thiamine (B-1), and less than 3 times the RDA for Niacin (B-3)-- and that there exists no natural food source, which is thusly "balanced." And how gullible would one have to be, to believe that the corporation wouldn't treat this as any other livestock, that is, that there would ever be the push to grow them as quickly, and as cheaply, as possible?

 

First of all, I know that there are a lot of gay and lesbian couples who would want children. If they can also find a way to combine their genetic code, a separate technology, they could grow their child in one of these pods.

There's also the matter of childbirth being hard, complicated, and dangerous for women. That's always bothered me.

Furthermore, looking out toward the future, it could lead to the development of the extension of life without the problems associated with it.

What am I talking about?

Age extension, the technology to live far longer or nearly forever, leads to the problem of overpopulation. Certain solutions to this involve more permanent forms of birth control (sterilization). Which lets people choose to live longer while forgoing childbearing. This could be an extinction-level event if it turns out that there are no children produced before the age-extended population finally ages out sometime in the distant future.

But with these artificial wombs, the society could pump out enough children to replace any shortfalls in the numbers of the population.

We're quickly approaching peak population. Now I don't know how that will affect the USA vs. other parts of the world, specifically the developing world vs the developed world, but the population is expected to reach the high point soon and then the population is going to shrink. By a lot. And it won't reach that high point again.

These problems are already covered in the video.

The baby will receive sounds, voices, and music. And the parents can talk directly to their baby anytime.

There's fluid, antibodies, etc fed to the artificial womb by a central tank. Or if you opt for the portable model, I'm sure that they will give the parents the appropriate fluids needed for the baby to survive and thrive in the tank.

That's a good argument. You should go with that one. Our economic system does place profit over people.

 

In that case, fertility isn't an issue for you. If no "American" ever had another child, it doesn't matter because we can import as many new" Americans" as we need for the economy.

Problem solved.

 

Then foreigners can produce all of the "Americans" we need.

 

That does not matter, as the population is still growing by birth, not shrinking. The fact that in 2021 we had over 200k more births than deaths proves this. The population is not shrinking, has never been shrinking.

And the fact is, the largest growth of the population being via birth is actually a rather recent thing. For the majority of the history of the US it was mostly through immigration.

Sorry, but you are really coming off incredibly bad here. Almost as if you are a member of the No Nothing party 160 years ago.

 

Well, since you are pretty factually inaccurate in your post, I'm not worrying much about your characterization of me.

 

I quote from page 3 of the following report.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr72/nvsr72-01.pdf

And now I quote from page 4 of the following report.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db456.pdf

The last time I checked, over 3.64 million is over 200k higher than 3.464 million. But please, show me where I am wrong as those are both figures released in 2022 that were the final reports after all data from 2021 was collected.

And not only was it more births, it noted that the rate had increased over 50k from the previous year.

 

These pods would not allow anyone to have children, who cannot currently have them. For a lesbian couple, either one of their eggs can be used, with a sperm donor, and the fertilized egg then placed w/in either of their uteruses. Not needing to go through pregnancy themself, would be the only convenience that this pod would offer. But that's not even accurate because, if they wanted to be mothers without the hassle-- which process, btw, might actually play a part in the strength of the mother's connection & commitment to her children-- they could always take the same path available to a gay male couple: a female gestation surrogate, to carry the child.

It is the most natural thing in the world. Obviously, evolution would be disposed toward making this prime biological directive, of reproducing, as easy as possible. That it involves a bit of a physical trial, then, is evidence that there is a potential benefit that comes from this, perhaps in strengthening the mother's bond to the child she had labored so hard, to bring into the world.

You are talking science fiction, here. Not that this will not necessarily, some day, be a reality, but that possibly happening at some not near point, in the future, is no reason to be excited about these speculated pods, now.

Actually the topic of life extension is a more interesting one, to me, than this one. But the picture you paint of this, is rather dystopian, itself, besides being patently unrealistic. You are contending that:
1) humans will develop technology, to allow all people to live much longer than our current lifespan; but that to prevent this from leading to world overpopulation,
2) a worldwide forced sterilization, will be undertaken. Therefore, these pods will be all we'll have to rely upon, as there would otherwise be no children.

There are so many things wrong with your scenario, but I will start with the most obvious: at present, we have thousands of people dying every day from completely preventable causes, such as starvation. We can't even get everyone the food and medicine that would save their lives, yet we are going to make them all semi-immortal, with no doubt extremely expensive, cutting edge, medical technology? Somehow you have forgotten that medicine, at its base, is not a charity, but a business.

And this enhancement of lifespan will be conditioned upon all submitting to forced sterilization? I can tell you, right now, that would not work. Many people would not forego the ability to create their own child, even for another 100 years of life. But they wouldn't even have to choose. They would simply have the kids when they were in their twenties, then take advantage of the medical fountain of youth, in their thirties, or whenever they were ready to stop having kids, & so be sterilized.

But even that does not cover all the holes in your mental narrative. If such technology were developed, it would not be freely shared with everyone. This puts me in mind of that ridiculous Bruce Willis film, Surrogates (IIRC), in which everyone in the world is given a high-tech android, which they can control with their minds, and safely "experience" all sorts of things, without leaving the comfort of home. Meanwhile, we can't, today, assure all people of having running water, electricity, or their own motor vehicles-- but a robotic surrogate, sure thing.

My point is that this would be pricey, and not covered by insurance, obviously, so would only be available to the mega rich-- one notch above those who can currently afford to pay for their own vacation, up in orbit. This is part of the ethical dilemma, of even developing any such medical advancement, if it will only allow the richest, most powerful people to live longer, and thereby further augment their power & wealth. But this is not strictly on your thread's topic.

This sounds like nothing more than a sketchy theory. Forgive me for insisting, whenever anyone tells me that the human race will be reduced to a small fraction of its current number, to see some supporting references.

 

I will have to return to the rest of your post later, but here's an article from the UN about Peak Population. Some sources put it earlier or later, and the number of people is about 10 point something billion, but it's coming. That's not in doubt.

Growing at a slower pace, world population is expected to reach 9.7 billion in 2050 and could peak at nearly 11 billion around 2100 | UN DESA | United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

 

I've already explained to you how you went wrong.



So if you didn't get it the first time, it's unlikely you'll get it multiple times.

 

I knew someone would bring up surrogate mothers, but that also has the problem of the child having the DNA of three parents as the egg has to come from somewhere, and even though the DNA is scrubbed and replaced, the egg still has trace amounts of the woman's genetic code.

False, childbirth is not the easiest thing in the world. Nature has no objective for making it as easy as possible as that's not a natural selection trait. And, hyenas, for example, have to squeeze their babies through a tiny little hole that could kill them.

 

Right-- but I was referring to your dire prognostications of a major crash, in world population. The report doesn't predict that, does it? More likely, it talks about problems coming, due to Climate Change, primarily. Other challenges are more readily addressed by technology (as desalinization plants, for fresh water).

 

It could be done for either purpose. Plenty of women want children that are their own but don't want to be pregnant. Less pregnancy would be better for their careers and bodies. Also gay couples who don't want to involve a living surrogate.

I'm really not sure if growing a baby outside of a womb is as complex as growing a liver without a body. What's being replaced is the inside of the uterus and possibly the placenta, perhaps a natural placenta would be better in terms of working with natural development but then you'd need a pretty good artificial womb for it to interact with.

 

That would be the 2030 agenda. Look it up. It's the latest boogeyman of what could be the establishment of the smaller population required for the green agendas requiring a less populated planet Earth.

 

Would you mind taking the time to make clear what scenario, you are talking about? Let's start with the simplest, first, if that's OK. That would be the case of a male & female married couple, who nevertheless choose to have someone else carry their child to term. The egg, though, is coming from the woman in the couple, and the sperm comes from the male. After in vitro fertilization, the zygote is implanted in a surrogate mother. Are you saying that this will cause changes in the child's DNA? What sorts of changes?

Please try to read more carefully. I did not say that childbirth was the easiest thing in the world. I, in fact, had speculated that the pain & difficulty, could have a psychological purpose. What my first line had said, was that childbirth is the most natural, thing in the world. And I stick to that claim, since the most important imperative of all life, is that it reproduces, that it sustains its genetic blueprint, beyond its own existence. The only real reason we eat, is to allow us to live long enough, to reproduce. That is why mayflies, which mate on the day they emerge as adults, have no organs for eating.

<Google Snip>

Mayfly larvae feed on detritus and other plant materials. Some may feed on insects. The adults do not feed. Females deposit eggs in the water.
https://www.nwf.org › Invertebrates
Mayflies - National Wildlife Federation
<End Snip>

The unquestionable first priority of Life, writ large, is to continue its line, into the future. Therefore it most definitely is a function of Natural Selection, to not make birth unnecessarily difficult. Think for a second. Natural Selection, is based on the principle of passing along the most traits, of the most successful members of any gene pool, as determined by just one factor. Do you know what it is? It is the Number of OFFSPRING, they have. Period. So how would Natural Selection not favor those who can give birth many times, and not die in the process?

So evolution, from that one perspective, has a definite reason to favor easier child birth. However, what if a greater advantage is conveyed to the offspring's chances of survival, long enough to reproduce, themselves, through childbirth's being a trial? In the same way that any person tends to more highly value something that requires a great deal of work, on their part, than things that come easily to them, I'd speculated that a mother's having to go through such an ordeal, to bring her child into the world, might well increase her feeling of having a stake, in the child's survival. So not as many children will be born, as would be the case, if childbirth were a breeze; but all those who are born, will have more attentive, caring mothers which, in the aggregate, benefits those childrens' length of survival, over what would be the case, if women only needed to lay an egg, like a hen.


Since you bring up hyenas, they are a good case in point: the stronger cubs often will kill their siblings, to free up more milk for themselves, and the mother will not stop him. This is an illustration of the strongest, being those who survive and pass along more of their own genes, to the species' gene pool. So the implication, since giving birth has not become easier, over the millennia, is that we would, as a species, be losing something valuable, if we switched over to hassle-free pregnancies & births.

 

Birthing involves a powerful natural selection set of traits. Birthweight is one very important trait selected for by the birthing process. As is pelvic size and confirmation. Then there are such lesser traits such as head shape, pain tolerance, clotting ability, smooth muscle efficiency, etc. etc.

To get back to the artificial womb and problems it would incur we must also consider the following. The birthing process is very important for populating the microbiota of the child. Babies delivered cesarean are known to have higher rates of atopic disease. Also cesarean births are 60% more likely to become obese than vaginal births.

Nature and natural selection are very difficult to mess with without serious problems resulting. We don’t even know WHAT microbiota are responsible for the above, so we could not replicate artificially.

 

In the case of a gay male couple, one or both of the men give a DNA genetic sample, and it's implanted in an egg.

In a test tube the egg gets injected with the DNA of the father(s), the mother's DNA gets removed, but there needs to be a genetic structure for the DNA of the father to take root, so some of the genetic structures of the mother remain for the DNA to grow on.

Also, the mitochondria, the egg's power plants, from the mother's egg remains, as it's separate from the DNA. And the mitochondrial DNA from the mother gets passed on to the offspring. Now the offspring are inheriting genetic code from multiple people.

And there are unresolved legal issues concerning DNA and genetic lineage. It's just one of the things that most people don't know or think about when it comes to reproductive technologies.

Nothing has been natural about human reproduction for a long time. Men control women and they are the ones who decide how reproduction works. Not women and not nature.

So, how do men do it? By creating patriarchal societies, making laws to force women into marriage and childbirth, and raising as many women as possible to be meek and submissive.

Doesn't happen today? It doesn't matter. It's been what 100-200 years since that hasn't been the case? And that's not entirely true either, since it still happens in some parts of the world.

 

Well, as I was saying, it's been a while since women and nature had a say in reproduction going back thousands of years.

But we also can't find out about things needed for an artificial womb until we actually research it, which the law forbids.

But, I'm sure we'll start with animals and work our way up.

 

What? Women have no say in reproduction? Natural selection for birthweight no longer applies? I don’t even know how to respond to that.