3 ms·

It seems to me that our social norms – including women foremost expected to get an education and a career – are inevitable moving our societies in the direction

It seems to me that our social norms – including women foremost expected to get an education and a career – are inevitable moving our societies in the direction of artificially creating babies, if we want to survive longer term. To an extend this process have already begone with screening babies for disabilities and other invasive fertility treatments. Soon this will involve screening for a variety of hereditary diseases. And from there why not go the next logical step and improve the human body by modifying the genetics? This is currently meet with reservations in much of the Western world due to history, but it is doubtful that will China or India will show the same hesitation. On the contrary their population might view it entirely positive, who doesn't want to have a tall light-skinned son performing well in school. In such a scenario we will be forced to partake or be overtaken.

ythn 9y ago
Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and let India and China "beta test" gene editing in humans. Once they iron out the horrific wrinkles, then we can adapt the technology.
pjc50 9y ago
> It seems to me that our social norms – including women foremost expected to get an education and a career – are inevitable moving our societies in the direction of artificially creating babies, if we want to survive longer term This isn't really a technological question but a socioeconomic one. Gestation is hard enough, but the much longer work of child-rearing: who pays for that? Similarly with artificial generation: who is going to pay for it? The very rich who've already exhausted conventional infertility treatment? The fully artificial person raises a possibility from cyberpunk dystopia: corporate-owned persons. After all, if someone is built out of artificial DNA and has no direct link to human parentage, could they be made liable for their own existence? Kind of like college loans, only starting from birth.
- gruez 9y ago
  >After all, if someone is built out of artificial DNA and has no direct link to human parentage, could they be made liable for their own existence? Kind of like college loans, only starting from birth. No, because minors can't enter into a contract. Not to mention that they didn't even consent to it.
  - tnzn 9y ago
    minors can't enter into a contract as for now.
- wyager 9y ago
  > the much longer work of child-rearing: who pays for that? I've been thinking about this, and I have a thought for a stable social system with some historical precedent. Basically, the current educational/career trajectory of most first-worlders (which, in general, I think is a pretty good idea) basically rules out having kids until you've graduated college. Beyond that, most people in their 20s right now don't want to have kids until they're financially stable, which can easily take another 5-10 years. So you have a lot of women who start having children in their 30s, if at all. Basically all research indicates that there are non-negligible risks to both mother and child associated with waiting this long. Genetic defect rates and physical complications from pregnancy are vastly lower in the late teens/early 20s. So, what if instead, we did kind of a generation-skip thing where (financially stable) grandparents were the ones who actually raised their children's children? This would be a bit of a throw-back to multi-generational households where the elderly (by historical standards) assisted with child rearing. It seems like this would simplify a lot of things economically and career-wise.
EGreg 9y ago
if we want to survive longer term. Pretty sure the population went from 1 billion to 9 billion in a short time. Want to survive long term? Perhaps people having children later in life might just be the thing to do it.
- huxley 9y ago
  We're at about 7.5 billion currently and we hit 1 billion in 1804. Population growth peaked in the 1960s and has been slowing ever since, we may not hit 9 billion until sometime between 2040 and 2050.

ythn 9y ago

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and let India and China "beta test" gene editing in humans. Once they iron out the horrific wrinkles, then we can adapt the technology.

pjc50 9y ago

> It seems to me that our social norms – including women foremost expected to get an education and a career – are inevitable moving our societies in the direction of artificially creating babies, if we want to survive longer term This isn't really a technological question but a socioeconomic one. Gestation is hard enough, but the much longer work of child-rearing: who pays for that? Similarly with artificial generation: who is going to pay for it? The very rich who've already exhausted conventional infertility treatment? The fully artificial person raises a possibility from cyberpunk dystopia: corporate-owned persons. After all, if someone is built out of artificial DNA and has no direct link to human parentage, could they be made liable for their own existence? Kind of like college loans, only starting from birth.

gruez 9y ago
>After all, if someone is built out of artificial DNA and has no direct link to human parentage, could they be made liable for their own existence? Kind of like college loans, only starting from birth. No, because minors can't enter into a contract. Not to mention that they didn't even consent to it.
- tnzn 9y ago
  minors can't enter into a contract as for now.
wyager 9y ago
> the much longer work of child-rearing: who pays for that? I've been thinking about this, and I have a thought for a stable social system with some historical precedent. Basically, the current educational/career trajectory of most first-worlders (which, in general, I think is a pretty good idea) basically rules out having kids until you've graduated college. Beyond that, most people in their 20s right now don't want to have kids until they're financially stable, which can easily take another 5-10 years. So you have a lot of women who start having children in their 30s, if at all. Basically all research indicates that there are non-negligible risks to both mother and child associated with waiting this long. Genetic defect rates and physical complications from pregnancy are vastly lower in the late teens/early 20s. So, what if instead, we did kind of a generation-skip thing where (financially stable) grandparents were the ones who actually raised their children's children? This would be a bit of a throw-back to multi-generational households where the elderly (by historical standards) assisted with child rearing. It seems like this would simplify a lot of things economically and career-wise.

EGreg 9y ago

if we want to survive longer term. Pretty sure the population went from 1 billion to 9 billion in a short time. Want to survive long term? Perhaps people having children later in life might just be the thing to do it.

huxley 9y ago
We're at about 7.5 billion currently and we hit 1 billion in 1804. Population growth peaked in the 1960s and has been slowing ever since, we may not hit 9 billion until sometime between 2040 and 2050.