Women want to have babies. Are you an anti-feminist? When a woman doesn't want your babies it's not usually her womb. It's usually because the man is a loser and she senses his weakness biologically. Loser man = loser offspring.
>>> artificial wombs would eliminate a crucial condition that currently ensures women’s oppression by neutralising the heavily gendered process of reproduction
Beyond the speculation regarding liberational aspects, or even the foetus-gestator divide, there are other compelling arguments why a host of "reproductive tech" should be considered
Formost is the idea that we may require at some point, a rapid re-population of the human species. Due to unforseen catastrophe. Or expansion into space colonies.
But the most urgent is that this sort of thing is still decades away from becoming viable. So if it comes to pass that we do require it. We will have the capacity at the appropriate time.
>there are other compelling arguments why a host of "reproductive tech" should be considered
...and also why it should be heavily regulated or restricted. Right now, the primary means of ensuring that no one person (political leadeer, cult leader, corporate owner, random wealthy person) can form their own personal army of followers devoted to them are the facts that followers are people and people are both independent and protected as such (or should be) by laws.
Freeing women from the "oppression" of having to bear children also means freeing men (who have a different reproductive strategy altogether) from the need to control or hire women to bear their children.
If artificial womb technology becomes available even at a high price, it becomes possible for one very wealthy man to purchase eggs from fertile women, fertilize them with his own sperm, and then produce hundreds or thousands of children in private without legal oversight. Said children can be indoctrinated in a cult, built into an army, sold as slaves, or farmed for organs.
Decoupling human reproduction from the need for two or more humans to be involved will also decouple it from the numerical limits imposed by natural reproduction. The risks of doing that are immense and far more impactful to our species than eliminating the "oppression" of women.
I appreciate the point, Accujack (and so elegantly argued)
You are wise enough to foresee the perils. So you certainly possess wisdom enough to predict all counter-arguments
There is little political or moral will extant today to stop a tyrant from enacting any such doomsday scenario with unlimited white slavery and surrogacy and pavlovian indoctrination
Truly, if democracy gives way to "technocracy". Hermit Kingdoms become the New Normal. And such "repro tech" will indeed have contributed mightily to mass misery and bondage
But discovery of this magnitude also ripples with improving after-effects.
The electric light bulb doesn't just provide light. It
renders streets safe at night. Extends hours for quiet contemplation. Projects films to magnify collective dreams (and nightmares)
Leave it to the ethicists, then. The centers for study of existential risk. To quantitatively assess whether on balance it should be abandoned or merely postponed
I for one remain eager for a dawning age of "Open Source WetWare" ;)
4 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 32.4 ms ] threadBeyond the speculation regarding liberational aspects, or even the foetus-gestator divide, there are other compelling arguments why a host of "reproductive tech" should be considered
Formost is the idea that we may require at some point, a rapid re-population of the human species. Due to unforseen catastrophe. Or expansion into space colonies.
But the most urgent is that this sort of thing is still decades away from becoming viable. So if it comes to pass that we do require it. We will have the capacity at the appropriate time.
...and also why it should be heavily regulated or restricted. Right now, the primary means of ensuring that no one person (political leadeer, cult leader, corporate owner, random wealthy person) can form their own personal army of followers devoted to them are the facts that followers are people and people are both independent and protected as such (or should be) by laws.
Freeing women from the "oppression" of having to bear children also means freeing men (who have a different reproductive strategy altogether) from the need to control or hire women to bear their children.
If artificial womb technology becomes available even at a high price, it becomes possible for one very wealthy man to purchase eggs from fertile women, fertilize them with his own sperm, and then produce hundreds or thousands of children in private without legal oversight. Said children can be indoctrinated in a cult, built into an army, sold as slaves, or farmed for organs.
Decoupling human reproduction from the need for two or more humans to be involved will also decouple it from the numerical limits imposed by natural reproduction. The risks of doing that are immense and far more impactful to our species than eliminating the "oppression" of women.
I appreciate the point, Accujack (and so elegantly argued)
You are wise enough to foresee the perils. So you certainly possess wisdom enough to predict all counter-arguments
There is little political or moral will extant today to stop a tyrant from enacting any such doomsday scenario with unlimited white slavery and surrogacy and pavlovian indoctrination
Truly, if democracy gives way to "technocracy". Hermit Kingdoms become the New Normal. And such "repro tech" will indeed have contributed mightily to mass misery and bondage
But discovery of this magnitude also ripples with improving after-effects.
The electric light bulb doesn't just provide light. It renders streets safe at night. Extends hours for quiet contemplation. Projects films to magnify collective dreams (and nightmares)
Leave it to the ethicists, then. The centers for study of existential risk. To quantitatively assess whether on balance it should be abandoned or merely postponed
I for one remain eager for a dawning age of "Open Source WetWare" ;)