Comments by "Nashton" (@nashton9964) on "Cleo Abram" channel.

Yeah, once I considered this in the context of epigenetics, it made the argument about comfort seem short sighted. Also the legal battles and cost propositions around a 9 month stay in an incubator by a private enterprise may make it's own little dystopia for parents. When can you see your fetus? What if the birth fails, what happens next? Can anyone individual/entity start a fertilized egg in an artificial womb and be granted custody, or only married couples?
59
@higreentj theoretically it's more controlled, I would imagine any mechanical, electrical, or human faults from medical staff during the incubation process would lead to some serious legal problems. It's not like medical staff are inherently more careful than pregnant mom's are. I mean, hospitals and the medical industry in general in the US are no strangers to lawyers and blunders, and expecting mothers are notoriously astute if they were planning to have that baby in the first place. Here's something I thought of, if the artificial wombs become as good as natural mothers or better, could it be construed as child abuse to give birth naturally given the potential complications? And should people who are not in a marriage or even in a relationship (single people) be allowed to start a new life through this method?
20
Nobody has an "easy" time giving birth... just saying that shouldn't be the expectation. If having kids is like saving up for a new car, what does that do to the significance of an individual or the sanctity of life? Would it be easier to execute "bad" people because we could easily start over with a new life? 🤔
16
@higreentj doesn't that mean that it is a fitness for the fetuses immune system as well (there is transfer of immunity through the placenta)? I mean, the problem with increasing allergies comes to mind but perhaps I'm off track here.
13
@higreentj I find it fascinating how swept up in futurism you are. It takes one good solar flare to wipe out most of the electronic infrastructure we have, and it could happen every 150-250 years which would be a continuous long term disaster for the electronic systems that would be responsible for say, keeping an artificial womb stable. I like this idea of us doing an egg type of birth (for space travel), I think Mark Zuckerberg was born that way, but I think it might be worth considering why mammals are dominating so much (it's certainly multifaceted) and I think one of those reasons is that the children of mammals get a lot of genetic triggering and information through the umbilical cord from a creature (the mother) currently living in the environment. Im not sure being multiplanetary necessitates the use of artificial wombs, we can get to all places within our solar system within a decade and every other place is more inhospitable than Antarctica. Maybe in a couple 100 million years as the sun gets hotter it will make more sense, but other than that I think realistically it's resource extraction, space cowboys. Again, the technology is exciting, but I think like plastic surgery, I dont want to be the first baby (patient) born from an artificial womb who has some severe form of autism or something. Also, about your point with who would want to be a single dad... creeps who want a child for bad reasons, a widowed father who wants to create a child with an egg from his passed wife, or maybe a dictator daddy who want to increase soldier population. Besides, whats the point of having a wife who can take half your money if you can produce an heir, who can be raised by an elite trained nanny for cheaper than what it would cost to lose half your fortune. There may be a lot of ugly things we learn about ourselves when we don't need to comply with nature anymore, like what birth control did for women (feminist breakthroughs) and how that changes the social dynamics in society.
12
It is (epigenetics), and I'm surprised none of this was mentioned in the video, only that it would be more convenient for a certain kind of woman.
6
@SimplyMayaB1994 I am stepping ahead, you're right, and it's likely that much of this won't be affordable to most people since it's a 9 month hospital visit, but maybe it could come down in price significantly and not require hospital staff where middle income people could afford it in private institutions. To me, this makes sense for the woman who is tied to her work, but it makes me wonder if a woman that tied to her career should even have a child, or if it will always be in the background as a sort of status symbol being raised by a nanny. For the mother who is at risk for dying from childbirth complications this makes sense I suppose (and premature birth), and if this technology could be used for organ/tissue development (still need stem cells). At a certain point wouldn't a surrogate mother be just as comparable? I mean, there is the whole aspect of epigenetics in the womb and the transfer of nutrient and immune information through the placenta which shape how the fetuses Gene's are expressed. Then there is the legal problems around what happens if an artificial womb doesnt bring a baby to full development, or who owns the baby or has the right to terminate if the parents die in an accident or something. Also, if you did have a baby in an artificial womb, would you go see it before it was born? Would you play music for it outside the tank or are the caretakers expected to do that? I suppose they would probably integrate a monitoring system that has an app that could be downloaded to your phone, maybe record voice messages to your baby? I just think of so many possibilities outside of the supposed convenience of it all.
5
I just fear what this will mean when it's adopted on a mass scale, will it diminish the importance of an individual life since the risk of creation is so low?
5
@bigfishh in the same way we dont value free handouts (straws, bags, cups), or how we appreciate things more if we have to work hard for it. I think there is a tight bond created when a mother goes through the trauma of having a baby, which is why that relationship is stronger than the father-child bond. It's also why soldiers who fought together and saved each others lives become some of the tightest knit groups in society, it's why gang initiation is so tough. I think a child born from a chamber will be loved by a family, but I can also see that certain governments may want to use this technology in tandem with genetic enhancement trends to create more "worthwhile" classes of people. I also wonder if the people having a child this way, not because they cant conceive, but because its convenient, should even be having kids in the first place. If, say, a job is so important that you wouldn't want pregnancy to hinder it, how is having a child change anything? I just see neglected children being more attached to nannies than parents in that situation (gotta produce an heir I guess?).
5
I think it should be something you are screened and qualified for, like adoption. I see eugenics-like philosophies sprouting up from mass adoption of this technology which spooks me.
5
@Orinatl To some degree you are right, respecting individual life certainly does that especially after we are born, like you are saying. I never said I wouldn't allow people to use an artificial womb, it's a choice, like getting plastic surgery (but the mistakes happen with babies). There are genes that are latent in our DNA that get triggered by our environment, this is epigenetics and the most crucial time for genetic development in the womb where fetuses are exposed to the regulated cycles of the mother, immune information, and metabolism as regulated by the placenta. Hopefully it's easier than I think, but I think in this area we may see similar abnormalities that we get with premature babies. I imagine the process will also be going hand in hand with genetic enhancements/experiments and thus I think the area may develop in ways similar to the eugenics movement (lots of pregnancies were terminated because of percieved "lack of fitness" that would only slow down societies. I think it will become easier to make cases of early termination (cor various reasons and it would be easier), or start planning what sort of genetic diversity a society wants in the future through imposed regulations. I just have some genuine questions for you if you wouldn't mind... Does the sanctity of the currently living extend to senior citizens like it does for the youth, or do you think there is a divining return there? If you could have a baby through this process, would you go see it during the development? Would you bring music for it, touch your hand to its chamber? Or would you swing by the day it was supposed to pop and take it home then? Why do you think soldiers who have saved eachother lives in combat, or gangs that have tough initiations become some of the tightest knit groups of people? Do you think shared trauma brings people together in a meaningful way, do you think that shared trauma increases the "sanctity" of those individuals to eachother? Also yeah, childbirth is an ordeal, and if you watch enough nature documentaries you can see its not easy for most organisms. I dont think childbearing needs to difficult to be meaningful, this is essentially a technological egg, but I also think we appreciate things more if we had to make sacrifices to get it. Easy come, easy go. For the future it may mostly be an economic sacrifice, but that's a step removed from corporeal sacrifice. Also, I wonder if a family so tied to their careers would make good parents in the first place? I hear some of the richest kids have better relationships with their nannies than tr heir actual parents.
4
@wpyoga look up epigenetics for fetuses and you'll see you this problem is more complex than warmth. There is a placenta which regulates chemical and cellular interactions between the mother and baby, and this shared link can express or repress certain genetic expressions for the future baby so it is more adapted to it's environment.
4
@higreentj I agree that when we truly can confirm that there is another distant Earth to land on, that artificial wombs will have to come into play, becoming more cybernetic or adjusting our genetics will also come into play. Though, I'm not sure any of those solutions have anything to do with the coming population collapse within the next 20 years. That has more to do with the fact that people have less and less kids in increasingly industrialized and wealthy nations which means we will likely need to pursue automation and restructure incentives for family creation first (as these are things that can currently be implemented). I also think we are heading towards an economic collapse having to do with inflated markets, predatory capitalism (rising inequality), and dwindling job opportunities in increasingly efficient industries. The disruption caused by that will probably disrupt the "tech disruption" industries for a while, so I'm not sure how soon these futures will come. I think we may see the craziest consequences come from AI in tandem with gene therapy, where people start living way longer, and how we are going to have to deal with that.
4
@SimplyMayaB1994 Also, what do you think about the idea of a single man who wants a daughter and has the fertilized egg to do so, should he be allowed to bring that child into the world alone? (I think it should just be married couples) But what if the man was a widowed husband and it's his deceased wife's egg and he has the ability to have the child they both wanted before she died of a tragic accident or something?
3
@rabeechowdhury epigenetics is different than just genetic modification, but almost works the same way. It's if certain Gene's are turned on or off due to the environment, a lot of which is old DNA that we wouldn't dare mess with yet because we aren't that sophisticated about how the human genome unpacks itself into a new living form. We can add some stuff, but playing with DNA that encodes for our neurological and immune system is not there and those are most effected by our environment in how Gene's get expressed to deal with our environment. So yeah, moms will be important for a while until we can simulate the full exchange of a placenta and the various exchanges between mother and child. Doesn't mean we can't experiment though, there are lots of problems we can solve with genetic modification, even while the person is out of the womb.
3
@bigfishh Maybe an object was a bad analogy. Adopting a pet is a better one since generally people are looking for a certain breed or some quality that they love, plus pets are unique like kids, but they can't talk back (which has its ups and downs). I think you are right that if people want a child then they will try to do what's right for it, but intentions and actions are two different worlds and often we fail to live up to our intentions or realize a thing we believed we wanted wasn't what we thought it would be (insert tragedy). Another aspect of this is the legal and payment around this. Now I'm not sure how surrogate moms work, as they are the closest analogy to this, but if a baby doeant come to term there it's a tragedy of biology, if it happens in an incubator then is a failure of technology and the institution that runs the program and machines. Would somebody pay up front? Pay as you go? A lump sum at the end? Perhaps a little of each and the you can sue depending on where the accident happened? What happens to an incubated fetus if the family dies in a crash and there is nobody around to take it? Is it terminated to make room for the next paying customer or is the extended family supposed to pay off the debt and take ownership of the child? I just think we will see some interesting conundrums around this whole practice outside the convenience of it all.
3
@Orinatl I'm talking about interest for the child, you are talking about the self interest of the parents or yourself as a woman or for a feminist agenda. As a male, I would have kids personally but the parts I have means I would need to have it cut out of me and no man could give healthy birth since the baby has to be forced through such a narrow passage. Sorry your body has to be the one that goes through it, somebody has to do it. Society is different now, but men had to go through as much garbage to get a child on this earth by just having to compete with other men and protect their families in war (I'm sure your view of history is just one of pure exploitation, but that's just innaccurate). I know with technology the idea of men and women will probably become irrelevant as we get our genetics harvested and then we just have two dads (or two moms) around the house, maybe parents will just be specialized nannies (or robots) who know more than parents and it would actually be worse if we just let parents raise kids willy-nilly. I mean, the idea of just fertilizing a pile of eggs and then have those eggs hatched to be raised by super intelligent AI robots sounds pretty convenient, wouldn'teven have to be a good father or mother like reptiles. At that point, why even get married? I would rather choose to most intelligent, caring, and attractive woman at the egg bank and have my child to be raised by an expert than some lady who could potentially take half my money if things dont go right. The thing about getting married to the woman I'm with now is that she's taking a risk on her life and I'm willing to risk losing future earnings for the good of that child and the irreversible damage that childbirth can do to her body, so on a moral level risk/compensation pans out. I'm not saying this tech won't be a more morally sound process once all the kinks are figured out, it may eventually be illegal to biologically have kids because of the risks involved would just be too abusive to all people involved given how superior the technology would be. It's like self driving cars, once they drive better than us, it's really just an unnecessary risk to allow us to drive and insurance companies will make sure its cost prohibitive since their best customer is a driver (the car) who never gets distracted and is always following regulations. Also, there are surrogate mothers out there who will do this for people already (and they make more than double what I make in year based on the resulting adds I see on google) and it's not any more risky than catching crab up in Alaska or being a lumberjack (something men do to have a successful family).
2
What about the epigenetic effects and signals that a baby gets while in their mother's womb? None of that was talked about, or any talk about the value of a human life may change as it gets easier to make them.
2
I think the value of human life will diminish because the risk involved will be so little. The whole idea of life being sacred is linked to the ordeal it takes to generate new life, take that away and I think we can start making justifications around human life and breeding programs that seem dystopian. Maybe I'm wrong, there is love in child adoption and people who marry dolls, so maybe our plastic brains will be able to manage this nuance in life creation just fine.
1
Biology is so cruel, gotta keep those genitals looking fresh so we don't lose interest. 🙄
1
What about the epigenetic development of a fetus inside the mom, it's a super important part of healthy development? She didnt talk about that at all... just about the convenience aspect.
1
I think the babies born in artificial wombs will be like products born on an assembly line, what is the point of having parents? If the baby is only genetic material and is born from a chamber, what connection with you does it have? Babies should just be created by companies and bought by people who want to be parents. But then if your work life is crazy then you can give the baby back so it doesn't interfere with your goals.
1
I just worry about the philosophical implications if this is ever adopted on mass. The significance of the individual in society, the sacredness of life in general. Like, does a baby in an artificial womb get terminated if the parents can't pay anymore? Who is held responsible for a unsuccessful birth, can the parents sue? Can non-married people create a child, like, could a single guy create a daughter because he just wants one?
1
@trini8 Those are surrogate moms and if I remember right, usually it's because a rich couple can't conceive and dont want to adopt. I've also heard it's because the woman doesn't want to "spoil" her body with childbirth, gotta stay sexy I suppose. But yeah, it seems like an option already exists for an artificial womb in the form of another woman getting paid over a years salary that she's choosing to do as a job, there is risk but there is also risk in catching crab in Alaska. Also, I'm pretty sure there is a screening process for couples and at least the woman getting impregnated can choose. The way you pose it makes it seem more like human trafficking where women are giving little money and then some dude swoops in to take the kid. Also, there is just the horror of getting raped, but in most states a woman can get rid of the fetus before it comes to term.
1