12 ms·

Sure, that’s the MVP. But we all know where it’s going. I’m not saying that’s a good or bad thing, just pointing out the technology won’t stop there.

remarkEon 3y ago
Yeah, I’m willing to say it’s very bad. It’s the first step toward commoditizing human life, in a way that isn’t dependent on some Marxist analysis of capitalism. Maybe some think that’s fine, and that having designer children is “good”.
- Minor49er 3y ago
  I agree, though we're past the first step. Massachusetts has been trying this through The Bone Marrow and Organ Donation Program which would see prisoners trade jail time for body organs [1]. Probably inspired by China's forced organ harvesting [2]. Not to mention that commoditizing human life has been happening through things like human trafficking [3], or surrogacy which exploits poor women [4] [1] https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822 https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822 [2] https://brighterworld.mcmaster.ca/articles/analysis-killing-prisoners-for-transplants-forced-organ-harvesting-in-china/ https://brighterworld.mcmaster.ca/articles/analysis-killing-... [3] https://www.dhs.gov/blue-campaign/infographic https://www.dhs.gov/blue-campaign/infographic [4] https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/mar/28/cross-border-surrogacy-exploiting-low-income-women-as-biological-resources https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/mar/28/cross-b... I'm glad that the people in power have everyone's best interests at heart /s
  - slashdev 3y ago
    I think I’d support items 1 and 4. 1. Prisoners owe a debt to society, that’s certainly one way to repay it, provided it’s voluntary. Same reason I’d support voluntary prison labor. 4. You could argue being a sex worker is far more exploitive of women. I think it’s not our place to say they can’t do that, as long as it’s voluntary.
    - Minor49er 3y ago
      I hope you realize that what you are advocating for in both of those cases leads to the exploitation of the poorest classes. You may want to read the article I cited for Point 4 to see why this is a really bad idea (and also the DHS infographic I posted). Not only are you advocating for the commoditization of human life, you are asking for the creation of an organ harvesting industry. Does this not violate any ethical standards you have?
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  Designer children is good if the design is “free of oppressive afflictions”. Frankly it seems unethical to do otherwise if it’s an option.
  - swader999 3y ago
    Good luck with agreeing on oppressive afflictions. Some would argue that some affliction is even desirable.
    - Supermancho 3y ago
      There is not going to be debate over every single aspect of human suffering. eg Progeria and parietal bone defects
    - jncfhnb 3y ago
      Don’t see how that matters
      - Avicebron 3y ago
        I mean, I can see it going pretty south if some people decide that a certain skin color qualifies as an "oppressive affliction"
        jncfhnb 3y ago
        Ok, but so what? We can agree that some people will be upset if some things are genetically curated. Is that an argument for a blanket ban against genetic curation? Because I think it’s weak as hell.
        Avicebron 3y ago
        Well if we swap "genetic curation" with "eugenics" I think you'd be hard pressed to stand up in front of a group and argue that in 2023.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  I am willing to say releasing women from the burden and risks of pregnancy is good.
  - hackinthebochs 3y ago
    Why don't we just build the experience machine if features of our nature are burdens to be discarded at the earliest opportunity? It is not obvious that a life devoid of any hardship should be the ultimate goal of technology. Some of you are way too quick to discard core aspects of humanity out of some bastardized concept of the good.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      Not sure if I should respond, but are we really debating if preventing someone from experiencing the risks and pain involved in pregnancy and childbirth is a bastardized concept of “good”? Should we remove the option for women to receive epidurals, lest they get to miss out on a “core” aspect of humanity? What other kinds of pain and risk do you think people should be subject to? FYI, evolution does not care about the wellbeing of the individual, nor is there any inherent reason the mechanism that evolution comes up with should be held up as the ideal.
      - remarkEon 3y ago
        Childbirth is not just some miserable medical procedure. The entire event is a pair bonding activity for the parents and child. Deleting that because it makes you uncomfortable is unwise.
        spondylosaurus 3y ago
        I'm gonna guess that you're not someone who can personally get pregnant, or else you might be signing a different tune on this one, lol. Childbirth is remarkably dangerous, even under current medical standards. Even a successful natural birth tends to bring a whole host of complications afterwards, and it's not unreasonable to want to avoid that. Let me be uncharitable here: do you really think a mom would love her baby any less just because she rip open her entire perineum in the process of pushing that baby out? (If so, I guess I have bad news for C-section babies...)
- Supermancho 3y ago
  > It’s the first step toward commoditizing human life, It's also the first step toward other things...like solar exploration and maybe extra-solar exploration.
  - remarkEon 3y ago
    Please elaborate on the connection between AWT and FTL technology. I missed that node in the tech tree.
    - Supermancho 3y ago
      > Please elaborate on the connection between AWT and FTL technology. I don't know why you need to make things up, then try to argue about it. Seems like a waste of time.
      - remarkEon 3y ago
        You're the one that's imagining that AWT leads to leaving the solar system.
        Supermancho 3y ago
        > You're the one that's imagining that AWT leads to leaving the solar system. That's not what I said. Technology is not a singular set of advancements to the next. As usual, nothing but bad faith responses. Good luck with whatever.
    - slashdev 3y ago
      See the concept of generational starships.
- kevinventullo 3y ago
  It’s way past the first step. Contemplate the terminology “Human Resources”.
- brnt 3y ago
  Human reproduction is at or over the limits of what is possible: our heads really don't fit through our pelvii anymore. The trajectory of our species and our genus has been going in the direction of brain enlargement, so it would seem only natural we use that brain to enable evolution of the brain by changing our strenuous births. Remember, there's a ton of science and experience involved in keeping mothers alive already. It is only natural to make the next step. Designing kids and/or producing (for capitalistic purposes) them seems orthogonal to artificial wombs to me: that requires other things besides merely a couple who ask a hospital to fertilize their egg with their sperm and place it in a device.
  - pfannkuchen 3y ago
    > It is only natural to make the next step. One concern is that standardized use of this would seriously risk making humans go extinct in the future. If we completely remove the selection constraint that humans are able to reproduce, over time functionality bugs will creep into that area. If, at any point in the future, society collapses to the point where we are no longer able to build these machines, we may no longer be able to reproduce and will simply die off. Maintaining this constraint on humans seems prudent. If and when we can manipulate genetics well enough to fix the issue in the actual human organism in a way that is not fragile, then that would be fine.
  - remarkEon 3y ago
    >...our heads really don't fit through our pelvii anymore. The trajectory of our species and our genus has been going in the direction of brain enlargement ... I'm interested in reading more about this trend. But whatever the data, it does not sound "natural" to take that phenomenon and apply a mechanical solution to the problem. Taken to its logical conclusion, human reproduction becomes dependent on the availability of these mechanical interventions. That sounds like a really bad idea, at least to me. >Designing kids and/or producing (for capitalistic purposes) them seems orthogonal to artificial wombs to me: that requires other things besides merely a couple who ask a hospital to fertilize their egg with their sperm and place it in a device. It may sound that way, but needing a woman to gestate the new human is a barrier to this activity. Celebrities and the uber-wealthy, in some cases, already essentially rent the reproductive systems of ostensibly willing women for this purpose. Having an artificial means do to this would remove that barrier and significantly expand the market, so one proceeds from the other.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- WorldMaker 3y ago
  Artificial surrogacy and "designer children" are two different, somewhat orthogonal concerns. Most IVF today involves no genetics modification. It's always been a slippery slope argument that surrogacy "inevitably" leads to genetically designing children. Artificial wombs would certainly change the economics of surrogacy, but it's also a bit of a slippery slope to think it would commoditize it. It doesn't change most of what we know about IVF and likely keeps the same (relatively high) costs, it maybe just disrupts the labor market for surrogacy. (Which today from what I hear is an extremely expensive market prone to shortages.)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

remarkEon 3y ago

Yeah, I’m willing to say it’s very bad. It’s the first step toward commoditizing human life, in a way that isn’t dependent on some Marxist analysis of capitalism. Maybe some think that’s fine, and that having designer children is “good”.

Minor49er 3y ago
I agree, though we're past the first step. Massachusetts has been trying this through The Bone Marrow and Organ Donation Program which would see prisoners trade jail time for body organs [1]. Probably inspired by China's forced organ harvesting [2]. Not to mention that commoditizing human life has been happening through things like human trafficking [3], or surrogacy which exploits poor women [4] [1] https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822 https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD3822 [2] https://brighterworld.mcmaster.ca/articles/analysis-killing-prisoners-for-transplants-forced-organ-harvesting-in-china/ https://brighterworld.mcmaster.ca/articles/analysis-killing-... [3] https://www.dhs.gov/blue-campaign/infographic https://www.dhs.gov/blue-campaign/infographic [4] https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/mar/28/cross-border-surrogacy-exploiting-low-income-women-as-biological-resources https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/mar/28/cross-b... I'm glad that the people in power have everyone's best interests at heart /s
- slashdev 3y ago
  I think I’d support items 1 and 4. 1. Prisoners owe a debt to society, that’s certainly one way to repay it, provided it’s voluntary. Same reason I’d support voluntary prison labor. 4. You could argue being a sex worker is far more exploitive of women. I think it’s not our place to say they can’t do that, as long as it’s voluntary.
  - Minor49er 3y ago
    I hope you realize that what you are advocating for in both of those cases leads to the exploitation of the poorest classes. You may want to read the article I cited for Point 4 to see why this is a really bad idea (and also the DHS infographic I posted). Not only are you advocating for the commoditization of human life, you are asking for the creation of an organ harvesting industry. Does this not violate any ethical standards you have?
jncfhnb 3y ago
Designer children is good if the design is “free of oppressive afflictions”. Frankly it seems unethical to do otherwise if it’s an option.
- swader999 3y ago
  Good luck with agreeing on oppressive afflictions. Some would argue that some affliction is even desirable.
  - Supermancho 3y ago
    There is not going to be debate over every single aspect of human suffering. eg Progeria and parietal bone defects
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    Don’t see how that matters
    - Avicebron 3y ago
      I mean, I can see it going pretty south if some people decide that a certain skin color qualifies as an "oppressive affliction"
      - jncfhnb 3y ago
        Ok, but so what? We can agree that some people will be upset if some things are genetically curated. Is that an argument for a blanket ban against genetic curation? Because I think it’s weak as hell.
        Avicebron 3y ago
        Well if we swap "genetic curation" with "eugenics" I think you'd be hard pressed to stand up in front of a group and argue that in 2023.
lotsofpulp 3y ago
I am willing to say releasing women from the burden and risks of pregnancy is good.
- hackinthebochs 3y ago
  Why don't we just build the experience machine if features of our nature are burdens to be discarded at the earliest opportunity? It is not obvious that a life devoid of any hardship should be the ultimate goal of technology. Some of you are way too quick to discard core aspects of humanity out of some bastardized concept of the good.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Not sure if I should respond, but are we really debating if preventing someone from experiencing the risks and pain involved in pregnancy and childbirth is a bastardized concept of “good”? Should we remove the option for women to receive epidurals, lest they get to miss out on a “core” aspect of humanity? What other kinds of pain and risk do you think people should be subject to? FYI, evolution does not care about the wellbeing of the individual, nor is there any inherent reason the mechanism that evolution comes up with should be held up as the ideal.
    - remarkEon 3y ago
      Childbirth is not just some miserable medical procedure. The entire event is a pair bonding activity for the parents and child. Deleting that because it makes you uncomfortable is unwise.
      - spondylosaurus 3y ago
        I'm gonna guess that you're not someone who can personally get pregnant, or else you might be signing a different tune on this one, lol. Childbirth is remarkably dangerous, even under current medical standards. Even a successful natural birth tends to bring a whole host of complications afterwards, and it's not unreasonable to want to avoid that. Let me be uncharitable here: do you really think a mom would love her baby any less just because she rip open her entire perineum in the process of pushing that baby out? (If so, I guess I have bad news for C-section babies...)
Supermancho 3y ago
> It’s the first step toward commoditizing human life, It's also the first step toward other things...like solar exploration and maybe extra-solar exploration.
- remarkEon 3y ago
  Please elaborate on the connection between AWT and FTL technology. I missed that node in the tech tree.
  - Supermancho 3y ago
    > Please elaborate on the connection between AWT and FTL technology. I don't know why you need to make things up, then try to argue about it. Seems like a waste of time.
    - remarkEon 3y ago
      You're the one that's imagining that AWT leads to leaving the solar system.
      - Supermancho 3y ago
        > You're the one that's imagining that AWT leads to leaving the solar system. That's not what I said. Technology is not a singular set of advancements to the next. As usual, nothing but bad faith responses. Good luck with whatever.
  - slashdev 3y ago
    See the concept of generational starships.
kevinventullo 3y ago
It’s way past the first step. Contemplate the terminology “Human Resources”.
brnt 3y ago
Human reproduction is at or over the limits of what is possible: our heads really don't fit through our pelvii anymore. The trajectory of our species and our genus has been going in the direction of brain enlargement, so it would seem only natural we use that brain to enable evolution of the brain by changing our strenuous births. Remember, there's a ton of science and experience involved in keeping mothers alive already. It is only natural to make the next step. Designing kids and/or producing (for capitalistic purposes) them seems orthogonal to artificial wombs to me: that requires other things besides merely a couple who ask a hospital to fertilize their egg with their sperm and place it in a device.
- pfannkuchen 3y ago
  > It is only natural to make the next step. One concern is that standardized use of this would seriously risk making humans go extinct in the future. If we completely remove the selection constraint that humans are able to reproduce, over time functionality bugs will creep into that area. If, at any point in the future, society collapses to the point where we are no longer able to build these machines, we may no longer be able to reproduce and will simply die off. Maintaining this constraint on humans seems prudent. If and when we can manipulate genetics well enough to fix the issue in the actual human organism in a way that is not fragile, then that would be fine.
- remarkEon 3y ago
  >...our heads really don't fit through our pelvii anymore. The trajectory of our species and our genus has been going in the direction of brain enlargement ... I'm interested in reading more about this trend. But whatever the data, it does not sound "natural" to take that phenomenon and apply a mechanical solution to the problem. Taken to its logical conclusion, human reproduction becomes dependent on the availability of these mechanical interventions. That sounds like a really bad idea, at least to me. >Designing kids and/or producing (for capitalistic purposes) them seems orthogonal to artificial wombs to me: that requires other things besides merely a couple who ask a hospital to fertilize their egg with their sperm and place it in a device. It may sound that way, but needing a woman to gestate the new human is a barrier to this activity. Celebrities and the uber-wealthy, in some cases, already essentially rent the reproductive systems of ostensibly willing women for this purpose. Having an artificial means do to this would remove that barrier and significantly expand the market, so one proceeds from the other.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
WorldMaker 3y ago
Artificial surrogacy and "designer children" are two different, somewhat orthogonal concerns. Most IVF today involves no genetics modification. It's always been a slippery slope argument that surrogacy "inevitably" leads to genetically designing children. Artificial wombs would certainly change the economics of surrogacy, but it's also a bit of a slippery slope to think it would commoditize it. It doesn't change most of what we know about IVF and likely keeps the same (relatively high) costs, it maybe just disrupts the labor market for surrogacy. (Which today from what I hear is an extremely expensive market prone to shortages.)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]