4 ms·

>artificial womb? Because such a thing is non-trivial to invent and does not yet exist.

• staticassertion 5y ago
  So it's not "almost certainly not" it's "we have a long way to go".
  • na85 5y ago
    >So it's not "almost certainly not" it's "we have a long way to go". Says you. Are you a subject matter expert?
    • staticassertion 5y ago
      No, says you. > non-trivial > does not yet exist
      • na85 5y ago
        The fact that artificial wombs do not currently exist should be evidence enough that they are non-trivial to invent and perfect. One cannot substitute confidence for domain expertise.
        • staticassertion 5y ago
          No idea what you're talking about. You said yourself it's non-trivial and we aren't there yet. So "some day it might be possible" seems reasonable, not "almost certainly not".
          • na85 5y ago
            >we aren't there yet. Those are your words, not mine. I think "almost certainly not" is by far the best appraisal of the situation. Unless you have domain expertise, then your confident statement of "we aren't there yet" or "we have a long way to go" is just hot air, and dramatically overstates the probability of this ever coming to pass.
            • staticassertion 5y ago
              > Those are your words Yes, sorry, your exact words: > does not yet exist. I don't know why that's semantically important, but there you are, for posterity. > when your confident statement Yeah I'm literally quoting you. So if you're saying that it will "almost certainly not" happen "some day", so be it, but you followed that up with "yet" and "non trivial" as opposed to "never" and "impossible".
            • bryanrasmussen 5y ago
              >dramatically overstates the probability of this ever coming to pass I think you two are at a philosophical impasse - staticassertion is something of an optimist about technology with the viewpoint that anything that actually exists a working replica can be built of it with enough data as to how the thing actually works (perhaps requiring extensive years of research) and enough money and time to do the replication. Your perspective seems to that the time to research, and the money and time to replicate are unknown variables of such potential size that we cannot know if we would ever make the investment to have it come to pass. I personally suppose that as time goes on an artificial womb will become a more alluring prospect because of problems like this that it would help solve and as such the money and time required would be at found. But I am also an optimist about technological progress - although a pessimist about climate change so my assumption is based on us solving something I don't think will be solved.
• oh_sigh 5y ago
  Instead of artificial womb, I'd imagine a natural womb of its closest extant relative may suffice. Sort of like how a horse can gestate a zebra embryo, but imagine the zebra was extinct.
  • na85 5y ago
    They tried to "respawn" wooly mammoths in an elephant womb but it didn't work.
    • mkl 5y ago
      Source? Where would they get the embryo? It doesn't look like this has been tried yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revival_of_the_woolly_mammoth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revival_of_the_woolly_mammoth
• xwdv 5y ago
  A lot of things were non-trivial to invent, what’s your point? From the way technology advances over time, someone will figure it out eventually, and when they do the announcement won’t be met with audible gasps, but rather a shrug of the shoulders and a passing comment of “Huh, so they figured that out.”
• drran 5y ago
  2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMhgfD-Ib7U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMhgfD-Ib7U 2017: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt7twXzNEsQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt7twXzNEsQ , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbgHbYXs3cM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbgHbYXs3cM 1990: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1pLqVyMEBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1pLqVyMEBA