3 ms·
I've had similar thoughts, and I think that we're gearing up to see a showdown between the populations you describe and the populations that embrace things like
by Teever 3y ago
I've had similar thoughts, and I think that we're gearing up to see a showdown between the populations you describe and the populations that embrace things like embryo selection, artificial wombs, and vaccines.
What's going to be really interesting are the intersection between these two populations -- At some point some heavy breeding religious people are going to realize that as good as their heavy birthrate strategy is a heavy birthrate strategy combined with the technological advances I describe above is even better.
Imagine a near future where some ambitious and forward thinking Mennonites/Hutterites/Doukhobors/Amish are pumping out legions of productive, obedient and consistent workers in rural North America while urban and educated urban dwellers waste their time and economic opportunities away while being terminally online and outraged to the point that the economic and political balance of power shifts to these rural groups.
- mensetmanusman 3y agoSounds like a fun sci fi!
- smeej 3y agoIt's not (just) the actual carrying of the children that people are rejecting. It's parenthood. It's the idea of committing to someone unconditionally for at least 18 years, but really for their whole life. Artificial wombs don't change this. Embryo selection doesn't change this. Vaccines will increase the chances that whatever children are produced survive to adulthood, but childhood mortality from vaccine-preventable illness isn't high enough to compensate for a worldview that doesn't want to have children. If you believe you're part of something much more significant than yourself, dedicating your life to moving it forward by producing other people who will outlive you and do the same makes sense. But if you're all that matters? If your scorecard is measures in dollars or followers or something else that dies with you? You don't have kids even if you do have access to artificial wombs.
- jlokom 3y ago>But if you're all that matters? If your scorecard is measures in dollars or followers or something else that dies with you? This sounds like a strawman. Many people don't want to have kids for different kinds of reasons (personal objectives, couple style of life, they don't like kids, etc). You seem to have a very low opinion of people that don't want to have kids and, on the other hand, a very high opinion of people that do have kids.
- smeej 3y agoAll those things you listed do sound like "you're all that matters" to me. The personal objectives, the lifestyle, or the dislike of children, are all primarily self-referential. What do I want? How do I like living? Who do I want to be around? Those do all die with you. People who prioritize any of those are highly unlikely to have children, regardless of the availability of artificial wombs. I would certainly rather people be honest about the situation if they are at the center of their own reality. Better to admit that and not have children than bring children into it to try to fool people. I don't even judge them for it. Our whole world is geared toward fostering that mentality. It would be hard not to be. I'm just saying it doesn't lead to parenting a replacement number of children like believing you're contributing to something vastly greater than yourself does.
- satvikpendem 3y agoThis all sounds quite a bit similar to a certain book about a Brave New World. I wonder if that is really where we're going in the future, but again, who would take care of all the new children growing out of their vats, if they are all artificially created with no set parents?
- Teever 3y agoThe people who aren't going to have kids in any circumstance don't matter.