Scientists grow mice embryos in a mechanical womb(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Scientists grow mice embryos in a mechanical womb
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/17/health/mice-artificial-uterus.html
205 comments
> ...this is designed for the animal agriculture industry...
I appreciate you are sort of writing a piece of dystopian science fiction, not really a statement of certain fact or even mere speculation.
The research is basic science, near term enabling a really interesting mouse model, long term advancing immunology and obstetric and reproductive endocrine therapies.
I appreciate you are sort of writing a piece of dystopian science fiction, not really a statement of certain fact or even mere speculation.
The research is basic science, near term enabling a really interesting mouse model, long term advancing immunology and obstetric and reproductive endocrine therapies.
More horrific than killing an animal on the same consciousness spectrum as us? Definitely not. It might be more the ick factor than anything. It's a good idea.
Reminds me of Frederik Pohl's "Chicken Little" from the book Space Merchants:
"""
He swung open her door. “This is her nest,” he said proudly. I looked and gulped.
It was a great concrete dome, concrete-floored. Chicken Little filled most of it. She was a gray-brown, rubbery hemisphere some fifteen yards in diameter. Dozens of pipes ran into her pulsating flesh. You could see that she was alive.
Herrera said to me: “All day I walk around her. I see a part growing fast, it looks good and tender, I slice.” His two-handed blade screamed again. This time it shaved off an inch-thick Chicken Little steak. (Ch. 9)
"""
"""
He swung open her door. “This is her nest,” he said proudly. I looked and gulped.
It was a great concrete dome, concrete-floored. Chicken Little filled most of it. She was a gray-brown, rubbery hemisphere some fifteen yards in diameter. Dozens of pipes ran into her pulsating flesh. You could see that she was alive.
Herrera said to me: “All day I walk around her. I see a part growing fast, it looks good and tender, I slice.” His two-handed blade screamed again. This time it shaved off an inch-thick Chicken Little steak. (Ch. 9)
"""
I find these arguments unsettling, but it reminds me of this:
https://we-make-money-not-art.com/farming_the_unconscious/
> As long as their brain stem is intact, the homeostatic functions of the chicken will continue to operate. By removing the cerebral cortex of the chicken, its sensory perceptions are removed. It can be produced in a denser condition while remaining alive, and oblivious.
> The feet will also be removed so the body of the chicken can be packed together in a dense volume.
> Food, water and air are delivered via an arterial network and excreta is removed in the same manner. Around 1000 chickens will be packed into each ‘leaf’, which forms part of a moving, productive system.
https://we-make-money-not-art.com/farming_the_unconscious/
> As long as their brain stem is intact, the homeostatic functions of the chicken will continue to operate. By removing the cerebral cortex of the chicken, its sensory perceptions are removed. It can be produced in a denser condition while remaining alive, and oblivious.
> The feet will also be removed so the body of the chicken can be packed together in a dense volume.
> Food, water and air are delivered via an arterial network and excreta is removed in the same manner. Around 1000 chickens will be packed into each ‘leaf’, which forms part of a moving, productive system.
"You are what you eat"
comes to mind
It also fuels the imagination for things like all-in-one lab grown clones of yourself (but without the brain) for replacement "parts".
There was a Michael Bay movie about this concept. I actually really like the movie, but it's way more entertaining if you don't know the premise ahead of time, so I'm not going to name it because it's a pretty major spoiler.
Those had brains.
But they weren't supposed to.
"supposed to" by what metric, the implications of the marketing department? At the technical/engineering/medical/logistical levels they had brains and they were supposed to have brains.
How about replacing the brain with a dog brain. Or a mosquito brain. Would it be ethical to use them as pets or slaves?
We're very far from that. The brain is extremely important for development and regular maintenance of the body.
We could, however, remove consciousness (artificially induced coma).
We could, however, remove consciousness (artificially induced coma).
Hey boss, the intern accidentally hooked a saline barrel to the anesthetic intake. We think it will take a few hours to purge the system.
That's absolutely horrifying and funny at the same time.
Life support is expensive and we're a ways away from creating cattle that aren't conscious, don't feel pain or suffer, but yet their bodies still function.
Why does the matrix come to mind.
[deleted]
> this is designed for the animal agriculture industry to compete against synthetic meat
It can be used for disease models too, I suppose. Not sure what to think of it, though.
It can be used for disease models too, I suppose. Not sure what to think of it, though.
[deleted]
What you describe sounds indeed horrific. It reminds me "Chicken Little" from science fiction novel "The Space Merchants" by Frederik Pohl.
I would much prefer Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat to... vat grown meat goo. Just sounds gross, but that's just me.
/s Next thing you know, Umbrella Corp will get involved.
/s Next thing you know, Umbrella Corp will get involved.
That's weird to me. Vat grown meat sounds much cleaner to me. Sterile environment. No or little antibiotics. No risk of weird stuff being in your meat, like abscesses or fecal matter if the butcher was not carefull.
In contrast impossible foods Just sounds like ultra processed unhealthy to me.
In contrast impossible foods Just sounds like ultra processed unhealthy to me.
To be frank, that sounds friggin’ disgusting. However, if people don’t have to see it it’ll be good for business.
We're still quite a ways for using this process for anything much bigger than a mouse - right now the nutrients are being supplied entirely via diffusion, without a working blood supply:
> At Day 11 of development — more than halfway through a mouse pregnancy — Dr. Hanna and his colleagues examined the embryos, only the size of apple seeds, and compared them to those developing in the uteruses of living mice. The lab embryos were identical, the scientists found.
> By that time, though, the lab-grown embryos had become too large to survive without a blood supply. They had a placenta and a yolk sack, but the nutrient solution that fed them through diffusion was no longer sufficient.
> Getting past that hurdle is the next goal, Dr. Hanna said in an interview. He is considering using an enriched nutrient solution or an artificial blood supply that connects to the embryos’ placentas.
> At Day 11 of development — more than halfway through a mouse pregnancy — Dr. Hanna and his colleagues examined the embryos, only the size of apple seeds, and compared them to those developing in the uteruses of living mice. The lab embryos were identical, the scientists found.
> By that time, though, the lab-grown embryos had become too large to survive without a blood supply. They had a placenta and a yolk sack, but the nutrient solution that fed them through diffusion was no longer sufficient.
> Getting past that hurdle is the next goal, Dr. Hanna said in an interview. He is considering using an enriched nutrient solution or an artificial blood supply that connects to the embryos’ placentas.
To avoid reliance on a living output, perhaps synthetic red blood cells would be used in such a fluid.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/presspacs/2020/...
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/presspacs/2020/...
Any idea how it would interface with the placenta? Normal mammals use umbilical cords.
Maybe a cannula would be attached at a certain point? I think the real difficulty would be producing nutrients and mixing them into the blood. I am clearly a nonexpert.
I brought this up thinking about the broader "chicken and egg" ethics & scaling problem of tissue growth. Currently the biotissue alternative meats are dependent on fetal bovine serum to get started. A vegan might object to these meats.
I don't personally support these methods, and am just spitballing ideas on the tech side of the aforementioned problem.
I brought this up thinking about the broader "chicken and egg" ethics & scaling problem of tissue growth. Currently the biotissue alternative meats are dependent on fetal bovine serum to get started. A vegan might object to these meats.
I don't personally support these methods, and am just spitballing ideas on the tech side of the aforementioned problem.
It’s pretty cancellable to say because many people fail to agree moral questions are in-part grounded in technological capabilities of the current era, but in a world of artificial wombs and low-risk transfer from mother into them then it seems likely that those living in that society will illegalize the choice to kill vs transfer. Seems likely to be the case in ~100 years since
there is a medical need to develop and perfect such technologies to save lives in situations where a child will die in the womb if not rescued.
So, we’re gonna make abortion illegal and expect women to undergo a substantially higher risk procedure?
Still raises question of who is raising that child... and the societal implications of true orphans.
Still raises question of who is raising that child... and the societal implications of true orphans.
Imagine a likely future of technological ease (but not post-scarcity) led by a gerontocracy imperiled by rapid depopulation and austerity. There will be immense pressure both from secular and religious sides to develop new childcare assistance and replacement systems if it means encouraging more souls to be born and to carry on society/progress. It will probably be a combination of plush parent/foster benefits, collectivization of care into academies, and robotics.
They may even develop new embryos in vitro from random (or designed) combinations, completely besides the abortion question. The looming birth rate deficit is far larger than the amount of abortions.
They may even develop new embryos in vitro from random (or designed) combinations, completely besides the abortion question. The looming birth rate deficit is far larger than the amount of abortions.
It's a little presumptive to say substantially higher risk, there's no way to know what technology will look like in 100+ years. I think it's a fairly reasonable guess to say that 100 years from now, there will be negligible to no risk in undergoing any medical procedures that are common today. I think a technical solution to abortion is more likely in that time than a cultural one.
I'm making that prediction based on current development. Factor in the likelihood of AGI, and you're potentially looking at an entirely alien reality.
Alternately, we've peaked or nearly peaked and we'll stall out in a few decades. I think this is highly unlikely but not impossible.
You can imagine a farmer in 1000AD hearing that we'll ban slavery in the future and thinking, "Awful, only the rich will be able to afford food."
I'm making that prediction based on current development. Factor in the likelihood of AGI, and you're potentially looking at an entirely alien reality.
Alternately, we've peaked or nearly peaked and we'll stall out in a few decades. I think this is highly unlikely but not impossible.
You can imagine a farmer in 1000AD hearing that we'll ban slavery in the future and thinking, "Awful, only the rich will be able to afford food."
Surgical procedure vs non surgical procedure always seems like a higher risk to me. Sure we will build systems to lower those risks but removing it entirely is currently well beyond our capabilities.
Sure I can make up miracle solutions but given the data we have today removing abortion and saying “just have it surgically removed and implanted in this tube” seems less than great.
I still ignored the obvious questions of who pays for that given it likely ends up more expensive than abortion (ongoing costs) and that it really doesn’t solve the moral issues given there’s still be the shaming that happens around abortions, the usual crap about “irresponsible women”.
I think this is all a great option but I don’t see it replacing abortion for multiple reasons.
Sure I can make up miracle solutions but given the data we have today removing abortion and saying “just have it surgically removed and implanted in this tube” seems less than great.
I still ignored the obvious questions of who pays for that given it likely ends up more expensive than abortion (ongoing costs) and that it really doesn’t solve the moral issues given there’s still be the shaming that happens around abortions, the usual crap about “irresponsible women”.
I think this is all a great option but I don’t see it replacing abortion for multiple reasons.
Can't edit from here, but wanted to add:
Birth control developments will probably be the dominant factor in this area going forward. Someone will develop a way to control your fertility on the fly, and the issue will nearly evaporate (deliberate but regretted pregnancies and whatever the failure rate of the tech is will remain). External wombs will have a place as a voluntary procedure for women who want children without going through pregnancy and for gay male couples.
Birth control developments will probably be the dominant factor in this area going forward. Someone will develop a way to control your fertility on the fly, and the issue will nearly evaporate (deliberate but regretted pregnancies and whatever the failure rate of the tech is will remain). External wombs will have a place as a voluntary procedure for women who want children without going through pregnancy and for gay male couples.
What about single men who want children?
I think that's the scenario which will get a lot of pushback from usually progressive people.
I think that's the scenario which will get a lot of pushback from usually progressive people.
Speaking as a progressive woman, that was actually the first thing I thought of. Y'all can have babies without us. More power to you.
I've been reading your comment for a while now and I honestly can't think of a reason progressives would be against single parent fathers.
Is it because he needs a egg from a woman?
I must be missing something.
Is it because he needs a egg from a woman?
I must be missing something.
Whether it be by international adoption, IVF or surrogacy, couples are willing to pay $10,000s to become parents.
Finding families for those kids would not be an issue, rather the contrary.
Finding families for those kids would not be an issue, rather the contrary.
Per https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-unite... we do over 800k abortions per year in the USA.
Per https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-myths-facts/domestic-us... we adopt around 135k babies per year in the USA.
If we introduce this technology and don't make other changes, the supply of fetuses for adoption will substantially exceed the supply of adoptive homes.
Per https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-myths-facts/domestic-us... we adopt around 135k babies per year in the USA.
If we introduce this technology and don't make other changes, the supply of fetuses for adoption will substantially exceed the supply of adoptive homes.
>exceed the supply of adoptive homes.
The number of adoptions happening per year doesn't actually tell you the supply of adoptive homes. The number of adoptive homes might be much much larger than the number of adoptions that happens. Especially if potentially adoptive parents are no longer scared away by multi-year waiting lists. If we add in government subsidization of adoption expenses, or even pay adoptive parents, the number of adoptive parents could grow a lot. Some countries are already paying parents to have biological kids[1]; paying parents to adopt seems even more likely.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_bonus
The number of adoptions happening per year doesn't actually tell you the supply of adoptive homes. The number of adoptive homes might be much much larger than the number of adoptions that happens. Especially if potentially adoptive parents are no longer scared away by multi-year waiting lists. If we add in government subsidization of adoption expenses, or even pay adoptive parents, the number of adoptive parents could grow a lot. Some countries are already paying parents to have biological kids[1]; paying parents to adopt seems even more likely.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_bonus
> Finding families for those kids would not be an issue
Having known a few people who have tried to adopt children in the US, I can say that the process seems like its full of issues.
Having known a few people who have tried to adopt children in the US, I can say that the process seems like its full of issues.
What issues? If the issue is lack of newborns, then that issue would be lessened or eliminated by banning abortion.
It’s seems to be a process a bureaucracy issue mostly. There a loads of infants going into the foster care system and loads of parents trying to adopt and waiting year only to find out they been denied for non-specific reasons. From what I’ve heard it’s far easier to adopt a child from abroad.
This could be caused by a shortage of kids. If there are a ton of parents who want to adopt but only a few kids available, then a ton of parents need to be rejected. If the government is forced to reject good parents, the government may give vague reasons. Foreign countries might not have the same shortage of kids.
Many kids who go into foster care are not up for adoption because their biological parents want them back, and may get the chance in the future.
But yes it could be mostly unnecessary bureaucracy. If abortion is banned, there will need to be very significant changes to the adoption process to streamline it and encourage more people to adopt.
Many kids who go into foster care are not up for adoption because their biological parents want them back, and may get the chance in the future.
But yes it could be mostly unnecessary bureaucracy. If abortion is banned, there will need to be very significant changes to the adoption process to streamline it and encourage more people to adopt.
If the technology can be made identical to the risk of an abortion, its questionable if a choice will be given. What would the moral argument be?
Currently the moral argument is that since women bear the risk of pregnancy, they should also have the exclusive right to decide to continue or abort. Once the child is born however the right to parents is given to the child, and thus neither the mother or father can refuse responsibility. At minimum they would both be paying child support.
If the technology would remove the risk aspect, it would give the father an equal stand in the matter, and one could imagine a future where a child would be brought forth as long as one of the parents wanted the child.
Currently the moral argument is that since women bear the risk of pregnancy, they should also have the exclusive right to decide to continue or abort. Once the child is born however the right to parents is given to the child, and thus neither the mother or father can refuse responsibility. At minimum they would both be paying child support.
If the technology would remove the risk aspect, it would give the father an equal stand in the matter, and one could imagine a future where a child would be brought forth as long as one of the parents wanted the child.
No, the assumption in this scenario is the risk to the mother between the two procedures is the same.
This is advancing a mouse model. We already kill millions of mice, if not more, in advance of science, every year, including in experiments involving pregnant mice and on mouse embryos. The questions of what would reduce mouse suffering and how this technology could or could not do that are interesting. I'm not sure if it takes a position on humans at all.
1/ I see failure as part of life. Why can't we accept death ? (which is not that hard since we've been doing that for millions of years)
2/ In the current world, machines mean capital (money, intellectual). SO the more machine, the more concentration of power (at least until these are comoditized)...
2/ In the current world, machines mean capital (money, intellectual). SO the more machine, the more concentration of power (at least until these are comoditized)...
Imagine if women would once be able to have children without getting pregnant.
On the dark side, millions of mass manufactured soldiers without families to grieve for them will undo the last seal on unrestricted warfare. And those would probably be generically tweaked supersoldiers without pain, and remorse too.
On the dark side, millions of mass manufactured soldiers without families to grieve for them will undo the last seal on unrestricted warfare. And those would probably be generically tweaked supersoldiers without pain, and remorse too.
It's at least questionable if you want your super soldier to not be able to feel pain. I've read about genetic conditions that cause reduced pain sensitivity and the effects are odd. Pain makes learning possible, we see that everyday in things like don't touch a hot stove but it goes deeper. Think about learning how to walk. Or pick things up. And that's just physical. Imagine trying to teach something to a person who felt no remorse or guilt or shame - what would motivate such a person?
I'd like my super soldier to be super sensitive. I'll get them to do the terrible things I want them to and then they can live with the consequences after the fact. It'll be harder on them (after the fact) but easier for me (getting them ready for the fact)
I'd like my super soldier to be super sensitive. I'll get them to do the terrible things I want them to and then they can live with the consequences after the fact. It'll be harder on them (after the fact) but easier for me (getting them ready for the fact)
I can imagine hacking someone's personal biology so that they, in normal situation, feel pain and remorse and guilt like anyone else, but can switch it off with simple drugs and without debilitating side effects like morphine dependency.
That said, this does not seem to be the future of the military. Robots can do things that humans cannot (e.g. fly, move around in asphyxiating gas), they do not have to be trained, can be produced much faster etc.
That said, this does not seem to be the future of the military. Robots can do things that humans cannot (e.g. fly, move around in asphyxiating gas), they do not have to be trained, can be produced much faster etc.
Maybe. I understand there are physical side effect from morphine and such but imagine if you were designed such that water would remove from your mind doubt, remorse and guilt.
I can't speak for you but for me I think they might have to lock up the water. I'm not saying that your suggestion wouldn't work but if you could turn off those things with a switch - even if you had to rely on someone else to flip the switch - I think that would create some problems.
:-) That remind me of Catch-22. Where Yossarian is arguing with a nurse about the utility of pain. Yossarian says it's stupid - "why don't we have a neon sign on our forehead that says "ouch" in big red letters." The nurse believes it has utility. As it develops they're both atheists but Yossarian doesn't believe in a cruel malevolent God while the nurse doesn't believe in a good, kind and just God.
I can't speak for you but for me I think they might have to lock up the water. I'm not saying that your suggestion wouldn't work but if you could turn off those things with a switch - even if you had to rely on someone else to flip the switch - I think that would create some problems.
:-) That remind me of Catch-22. Where Yossarian is arguing with a nurse about the utility of pain. Yossarian says it's stupid - "why don't we have a neon sign on our forehead that says "ouch" in big red letters." The nurse believes it has utility. As it develops they're both atheists but Yossarian doesn't believe in a cruel malevolent God while the nurse doesn't believe in a good, kind and just God.
Not all cases of pain insensitivity lead to these kinds of deficits: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-case-of-a-wom...
Robotic advancements are much faster than this and humans have to be trained, fed, etc.
It would be a fools gambit to try to achieve such a goal instead of just making a robotic army where they can easily be manufactured and immediately ready for combat.
It would be a fools gambit to try to achieve such a goal instead of just making a robotic army where they can easily be manufactured and immediately ready for combat.
I think you can go bigger than that for potential positives. Imagine growing clones (presumably without a [fully-]functioning brain) for use in organ donation, for example.
Um... you mean a bigger dystopian horror, right? The idea of mass manufacturing humans simply to harvest their organs, even as meat sacks, is a bit of a moral and ethical... uh... dumpster fire.
I think you missed the "without a brain" part of that sentence. Growing a headless or brainless copy of myself for spare parts seems like a great idea without ethical issues.
If replacement parts are the goal then the best course would be to learn how cells decide to develop into those specific organs and then apply that knowledge to produce the part needed without attaching a whole human to it. It would conceivably be faster, less wasteful, and perhaps easier than figuring out how to ethically produce a consciousness free human.
how about we split the difference and grow headless clones and put an electrical brain inside of them as hordes of cyborg soldiers?
Actually, if you get that electrical brain to run a simulation of my mortal biological brain, I would totally sign up for this at the age of 50 or 60 (coupled with euthanasia of the biological brain, and solving some legal questions about the humanity of the electrical simulation of my biological brain).
Nice try, Neuromancer.
Depends what you think makes someone human. It's just different first principles, same as the abortion issue.
It is literally the same thing as the abortion issue. You'd merely be aborting a cerebrum, to bring about brain-death before brain-life can begin. If abortion isn't killing, then neither is this.
If you want to support abortion but oppose this, then you need to say that a fetus is alive -- is a person with some rights -- but that those rights are superseded by a woman's absolute bodily autonomy. This would be a stronger position: Rather than saying that fetuses aren't alive, you'd be saying that women have a right to kill in certain circumstances.
We don't even need mechanical wombs to bring these clones to term. A woman could gestate her own braindead clone to provide organs for herself later in life, or a man could work with a female partner or paid surrogate. The only missing technology is that needed to allow the braindead body to develop from a baby into an adult. We already have life support technologies that seem applicable, but they've never been applied in this way. Possibly certain hormone injections would also be needed, to transition through puberty.
This is all so logically clear, and the stakes so high -- immortality? -- that I'm a little surprised nobody has been ruthless enough to attempt it yet.
There used to be Forbidden Cities with water-clocks to track the ovulation of concubines. The ancients could ruthlessly apply logic. Moderns seem not to. I guess it's about avoiding retaliation.
If you want to support abortion but oppose this, then you need to say that a fetus is alive -- is a person with some rights -- but that those rights are superseded by a woman's absolute bodily autonomy. This would be a stronger position: Rather than saying that fetuses aren't alive, you'd be saying that women have a right to kill in certain circumstances.
We don't even need mechanical wombs to bring these clones to term. A woman could gestate her own braindead clone to provide organs for herself later in life, or a man could work with a female partner or paid surrogate. The only missing technology is that needed to allow the braindead body to develop from a baby into an adult. We already have life support technologies that seem applicable, but they've never been applied in this way. Possibly certain hormone injections would also be needed, to transition through puberty.
This is all so logically clear, and the stakes so high -- immortality? -- that I'm a little surprised nobody has been ruthless enough to attempt it yet.
There used to be Forbidden Cities with water-clocks to track the ovulation of concubines. The ancients could ruthlessly apply logic. Moderns seem not to. I guess it's about avoiding retaliation.
I'm not sure it's quite immortality but yes, the stakes are pretty high. It seems likely that you'd not go public if you did this, though, so it's possible someone has already tried.
There are probably people ruthless enough and resourced enough that they might just grow a perfectly normal (i.e. full brain development) human and harvest them anyway. If you're rich through (say) organized crime already, what's the difference when it's your life at stake?
Ostensibly the only issues for those people are lead time (they'd need to plan ahead of critical illness) and sustaining a minor conspiracy (paying off the medical team and surrogate, managing trust, or just cleaning up loose ends).
There are probably people ruthless enough and resourced enough that they might just grow a perfectly normal (i.e. full brain development) human and harvest them anyway. If you're rich through (say) organized crime already, what's the difference when it's your life at stake?
Ostensibly the only issues for those people are lead time (they'd need to plan ahead of critical illness) and sustaining a minor conspiracy (paying off the medical team and surrogate, managing trust, or just cleaning up loose ends).
> just grow a perfectly normal (i.e. full brain development) human and harvest them anyway. If you're rich through (say) organized crime already, what's the difference when it's your life at stake?
True. If you throw ethics out the window and accept murder, then "immortality" may be possible with today's technology. Probably you run into problems with mutations eventually, but you could throw more bodies at the problem and use a selection process.
You'd think someone would be attempting this in mice.
True. If you throw ethics out the window and accept murder, then "immortality" may be possible with today's technology. Probably you run into problems with mutations eventually, but you could throw more bodies at the problem and use a selection process.
You'd think someone would be attempting this in mice.
You could just bribe yourself unto an organ donors list in some country. This isn't anywhere close to immortality it just conceivably makes the line shorter for some surgeries.
We’re talking about growing a clone of yourself, so significantly better outcomes than a random donor.
I've got to wonder about the level of experimentation it takes to get to the point where you can actually effectively create a genuinely braindead, but otherwise wholly functional human unit. From a genetics standpoint, I believe it's a fractaline system, meaning recursive elements, which is (and quite probably wrongly) to say that removing one piece of DNA, or favorably altering it to fit the outcome, could result in unexpected outcomes in the development of other necessary components. Like, there's a good deal of the endocrine system that's tucked away in the brain, delete the PFC and what results? We don't understand consciousness to the degree this demands for a "truly ethical" criterion anyways; and that may be a moot point, as it may be beyond comprehension. And that's discounting a lot of other things. Are organs grown in vitro adapted to actual use? What about epigenetics and possible incompatibilities generated by them? For major endocrine organs, what kind of reaction will the whole have receiving a 1:1 transplant with a 20 year old liver in an 80 year old? And so on...
Nature provides us with a really good platform to develop on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly
If we were to mass grow clones for organs we would probably start with whatever causes this and then add an engineered pituitary gland organioid that is added via surgery to develop the anencephalic clone to maturity for proper organ extraction.
You could even use this to grow bodies for eventual head transplants.
If we were to mass grow clones for organs we would probably start with whatever causes this and then add an engineered pituitary gland organioid that is added via surgery to develop the anencephalic clone to maturity for proper organ extraction.
You could even use this to grow bodies for eventual head transplants.
> From a genetics standpoint, I believe [...] removing one piece of DNA, or favorably altering it to fit the outcome, could result in unexpected outcomes in the development of other necessary components.
I wasn't suggesting that gene editing be used to prevent a cerebrum from developing, but merely that an in-utero surgical procedure be used to destroy the cerebrum at some early stage of development. That seems doable. (This whole thing does, however, disturb me.)
> Like, there's a good deal of the endocrine system that's tucked away in the brain, delete the PFC and what results?
That's why I was speculating that the external supply of certain hormones would be required, particularly to get through puberty.
> Are organs grown in vitro adapted to actual use?
Yeah, also a good question.
I was assuming that the technique I was proposing, that of using a whole body -- as different from growing organs in-vitro -- would obviate the worst problems.
(There are still concerns about making sure the body doesn't atrophy, but I think something could be worked out. You can even imagine (again disturbingly) some serious exercise regimen, administered via electrostimulation of the muscles. Or occasional stress to the pulmonary system by injecting adrenaline.)
But in-vitro growth of isolated organs might also be possible. That would immediately skip the worst ethical issues, but it requires more discoveries than the full-body method. We're already getting there for simple organs, though it requires a donor organ to be used as a scaffolding, which is a problem.
> What about epigenetics and possible incompatibilities generated by them?
There must be case studies about organ transplants between twins? Presumably immunosuppressants were not needed?
> what kind of reaction will the whole have receiving a 1:1 transplant with a 20 year old liver in an 80 year old?
What little I've seen, from pop-science releases about experiments with mice, is that some rejuvenation tends to come from that sort of thing.
I wasn't suggesting that gene editing be used to prevent a cerebrum from developing, but merely that an in-utero surgical procedure be used to destroy the cerebrum at some early stage of development. That seems doable. (This whole thing does, however, disturb me.)
> Like, there's a good deal of the endocrine system that's tucked away in the brain, delete the PFC and what results?
That's why I was speculating that the external supply of certain hormones would be required, particularly to get through puberty.
> Are organs grown in vitro adapted to actual use?
Yeah, also a good question.
I was assuming that the technique I was proposing, that of using a whole body -- as different from growing organs in-vitro -- would obviate the worst problems.
(There are still concerns about making sure the body doesn't atrophy, but I think something could be worked out. You can even imagine (again disturbingly) some serious exercise regimen, administered via electrostimulation of the muscles. Or occasional stress to the pulmonary system by injecting adrenaline.)
But in-vitro growth of isolated organs might also be possible. That would immediately skip the worst ethical issues, but it requires more discoveries than the full-body method. We're already getting there for simple organs, though it requires a donor organ to be used as a scaffolding, which is a problem.
> What about epigenetics and possible incompatibilities generated by them?
There must be case studies about organ transplants between twins? Presumably immunosuppressants were not needed?
> what kind of reaction will the whole have receiving a 1:1 transplant with a 20 year old liver in an 80 year old?
What little I've seen, from pop-science releases about experiments with mice, is that some rejuvenation tends to come from that sort of thing.
What makes someone human, or what makes them a person?
It's the mental aspects of humans which matter, not the genome; we wouldn't deny human rights to a conscious space alien, while we commonly do deny them to non-conscious (and not capable of being conscious) beings with human DNA, such as zygotes or molar pregnancies.
It's the mental aspects of humans which matter, not the genome; we wouldn't deny human rights to a conscious space alien, while we commonly do deny them to non-conscious (and not capable of being conscious) beings with human DNA, such as zygotes or molar pregnancies.
Pretty sure the, "depends what you think makes us human" line was used by quite a few folks to justify enslaving and slaughtering various ethnic groups throughout history. Since they were lesser or sub human.
Yes, and autopsy and anatomical study of cadavers was once considered immoral. Just because our lizard-brain has a "that's gross" reaction, it doesn't mean it's the right reaction. Millions and millions of people are alive because of what we learned studying dead bodies.
We are ok unplugging life support if someone is well and truly braindead because they aren't a sentient, thinking self-aware being at that point. How is this different? Show your work. :-)
We are ok unplugging life support if someone is well and truly braindead because they aren't a sentient, thinking self-aware being at that point. How is this different? Show your work. :-)
'Slippery slope' is a pretty poor argument.
I could just as well say the same arguments were made against a ton of medical progress we take for granted today. People argue that stem cells are genocide, even. So what?
I could just as well say the same arguments were made against a ton of medical progress we take for granted today. People argue that stem cells are genocide, even. So what?
We are trying to be better not worse right? I mean if there was no gain at all we wouldn't do any of it but we're willing to do things that have plausible arguments against them because of the value they bring.
I _think_ that's better then just saying we can't see any objections at all. Maybe.
I _think_ that's better then just saying we can't see any objections at all. Maybe.
And pure "logic" is a fallacy within itself. Mass starvation and pandemic deaths are extremely to justify the moment you believe human life is worth zero. Vaccines are the enemy because the planet will have a net positive with the death of millions of humans. Genocide solves climate change, diminishing land resources and unemployment.
And dont excuse my language because it is appropriate, how in the fuck do people still not understand the dangers to slippery slope? How incredibly stupid are you? The events leading up to the Holocaust are the modern textbook example of philosophies and laws that ramp to mass evil action. Pick any murderous tyrant in history and every time, they take inch by inch to erode a society into a wasteland. No, it's not a poor argument. You're ignorant.
And dont excuse my language because it is appropriate, how in the fuck do people still not understand the dangers to slippery slope? How incredibly stupid are you? The events leading up to the Holocaust are the modern textbook example of philosophies and laws that ramp to mass evil action. Pick any murderous tyrant in history and every time, they take inch by inch to erode a society into a wasteland. No, it's not a poor argument. You're ignorant.
Slippery slope is considered a fallacy because not all things vaguely similar to previous paths to X result in X, obviously. Nobody looks at a well-run public rail schedule and thinks 'uh-oh, Fascism is just around the corner' [1]. You're conflating your personal strongly held beliefs about it with imagined inevitable consequences. We don't agree that they're inevitable at all.
[1] Popular myth nature of this quip aside.
[1] Popular myth nature of this quip aside.
No, it's not true that slippery slopes are automatically fallacious, that's a misunderstanding of the fallacy.
The fallacy pertains to people who argue that a causal chain will necessarily play out, or that a particularly implausible chain will play out with high probability.
The fallacy does not assert that slippery slopes don't exist, and the mere act of arguing that a plausible slippery slope has a nontrivial chance of occurring is certainly not the Slippery Slope Fallacy as it's formally defined. Saying that slippery slopes are inherently fallacious may be aptly labelled the "Slippery Slope Fallacy Fallacy".
The fallacy pertains to people who argue that a causal chain will necessarily play out, or that a particularly implausible chain will play out with high probability.
The fallacy does not assert that slippery slopes don't exist, and the mere act of arguing that a plausible slippery slope has a nontrivial chance of occurring is certainly not the Slippery Slope Fallacy as it's formally defined. Saying that slippery slopes are inherently fallacious may be aptly labelled the "Slippery Slope Fallacy Fallacy".
> The fallacy pertains to people who argue that a causal chain will necessarily play out, or that a particularly implausible chain will play out with high probability.
Isn't this exactly what I described in that comment? I'm confused. Or maybe I was just not clear in my writing. Re-emphasized:
> not all things vaguely similar to previous paths to X result in X, obviously [=> even though some things do]
Also, I didn't really introduce slippery slope as a strict logical fallacy. I said they were making a poor argument and identified it as being of slippery slope form. They responded to that talking about logical fallacies so we went on that tangent, but really I just found their specific instance not credibly inevitable.
Isn't this exactly what I described in that comment? I'm confused. Or maybe I was just not clear in my writing. Re-emphasized:
> not all things vaguely similar to previous paths to X result in X, obviously [=> even though some things do]
Also, I didn't really introduce slippery slope as a strict logical fallacy. I said they were making a poor argument and identified it as being of slippery slope form. They responded to that talking about logical fallacies so we went on that tangent, but really I just found their specific instance not credibly inevitable.
I was just responding to the statement "Slippery slope is considered a fallacy", by saying that slippery slope arguments aren't necessarily fallacious, but it seems you largely agree with that already. I wasn't so much endorsing or commenting on the logic in the original comment.
My postulate: while the slippery slope won't necessarily find itself at the prescribed (induced) endpoint, there is a virtually unlimited timeline for the slippery slope to find itself to that endpoint. With that virtually unlimited running space, if continued attempts are made, eventually probability will necessarily yield a result.
I think this applies more to wider generalizations as opposed to very specific instances due to the nature of probability and finity of resources invested in continued attempts, but it can be applied in either scenario. Think Murphy's Law.
I think this applies more to wider generalizations as opposed to very specific instances due to the nature of probability and finity of resources invested in continued attempts, but it can be applied in either scenario. Think Murphy's Law.
Can't you make your point without the personal attacks?
Again, since you don't know the answer to this, and since I don't know, why don't we just avoid going down a path that we DO know creates pain and misery.
"Those who look/think differently than me aren't human."
Who does and doesn't count as a human/person are questions that we should avoid if at all possible. The moral costs of a false negative are tremendous.
Also, regardless of your political or moral beliefs on abortion, the unborn are certainly "human".
Who does and doesn't count as a human/person are questions that we should avoid if at all possible. The moral costs of a false negative are tremendous.
Also, regardless of your political or moral beliefs on abortion, the unborn are certainly "human".
I am pretty comfortable calling a body without a head or brain "not human" (this was what the OP suggested).
> ... the unborn are certainly "human".
You would be surprised how many people would disagree with you about that. I personally definitely would not call a freshly-fertilized egg in a womb a human. I would agree that the fetus just before birth is human. I do not have an answer for how far back you have to rewind for the unborn fetus to not be human (no one has a universal answer to this).
> ... the unborn are certainly "human".
You would be surprised how many people would disagree with you about that. I personally definitely would not call a freshly-fertilized egg in a womb a human. I would agree that the fetus just before birth is human. I do not have an answer for how far back you have to rewind for the unborn fetus to not be human (no one has a universal answer to this).
More radically, you can also go in the opposite direction. Infants have no memories for the first year or two. They see upside-down at first. Brain development is clearly continuing after birth. So you might be able to justify infanticide for some time after birth. I don't recommend this, of course.
Right, Peter Singer is good on this topic.
There's no sense in assigning value to life as a step function, where one nanosecond before it it's categorically not human and therefore disposable, yet one nanosecond afterwards it's a human and therefore killing it is immoral.
It may make practical sense to define laws that pretend that it's a step function, but it makes no moral reasoning sense.
I lean more towards the "early fetus is valuable" side of things, since I view future human life that hasn't been experienced yet as valuable. This is, after all, the main reason we care about rather nebulous existential risks - it'd be a shame if future humans never got the chance to exist. We therefore recognize that future human life has some value. Also, I'm well aware of the reductio ad absurdum that can be levied against my position, but I believe that that runs both ways.
There's no sense in assigning value to life as a step function, where one nanosecond before it it's categorically not human and therefore disposable, yet one nanosecond afterwards it's a human and therefore killing it is immoral.
It may make practical sense to define laws that pretend that it's a step function, but it makes no moral reasoning sense.
I lean more towards the "early fetus is valuable" side of things, since I view future human life that hasn't been experienced yet as valuable. This is, after all, the main reason we care about rather nebulous existential risks - it'd be a shame if future humans never got the chance to exist. We therefore recognize that future human life has some value. Also, I'm well aware of the reductio ad absurdum that can be levied against my position, but I believe that that runs both ways.
Another point in support of this (rather horrific and terrifying) view is how babies were treated 200 years ago. Names were not given at birth, important religious events were postponed, etc. Until the parents had some reason to believe the baby will survive more than a year (which was not all that certain), they were not bestowing much humanity on the kid.
Not “who”, but “what” is a legitimate question.
Is an egg fertilised by only one parent and genetically modified to lack any higher brain structures (and therefore any function of mind) still a “human being”?
Can anyone who answers that question with “yes” justify it without reference to supernatural beliefs?
Is an egg fertilised by only one parent and genetically modified to lack any higher brain structures (and therefore any function of mind) still a “human being”?
Can anyone who answers that question with “yes” justify it without reference to supernatural beliefs?
> "Those who look/think differently than me aren't human."
Sure, if by "think differently" you mean "don't think at all". There's a big difference between "eh, Jewish brains are not developed like ours" and actual rigor. I'm comfortable with the latter.
> Also, regardless of your political or moral beliefs on abortion, the unborn are certainly "human".
Well, I think you're manoeuvring around the point here. Clearly some combination of life and humanity is what matters, depending on what definitions people are glossing over at the time. Most people aren't upset by autopsies or cadaver work.
Sure, if by "think differently" you mean "don't think at all". There's a big difference between "eh, Jewish brains are not developed like ours" and actual rigor. I'm comfortable with the latter.
> Also, regardless of your political or moral beliefs on abortion, the unborn are certainly "human".
Well, I think you're manoeuvring around the point here. Clearly some combination of life and humanity is what matters, depending on what definitions people are glossing over at the time. Most people aren't upset by autopsies or cadaver work.
I think of my pet cat as a "person". Maybe you think that's crazy but I would suggest it's more person-like than a fetus, and that therefore I have a better definition of person than you are using.
At any rate the real issue is not who is a "person" but who is worthy of moral consideration.
At any rate the real issue is not who is a "person" but who is worthy of moral consideration.
You might be interested in reading about the existing practice of "Savior siblings" where Embryos are genetically selected based on their donation compatibility with other children and then then born into the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savior_sibling#:~:text=A%20sav....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savior_sibling#:~:text=A%20sav....
You mean like China is doing to the Uighers right now...
Intentional attempt to court controversy aside, I'm not sure it matches up to this discussion thread.
Even if you believe China is harvesting the organs of what they consider undesirables, the parallel accusation is that they are _reducing_ the Uyghur birth rate, not _breeding_ them for the purpose.
Also, strictly speaking, the organ harvesting conspiracy theory is more about Falun Gong than the Uyghurs.
Even if you believe China is harvesting the organs of what they consider undesirables, the parallel accusation is that they are _reducing_ the Uyghur birth rate, not _breeding_ them for the purpose.
Also, strictly speaking, the organ harvesting conspiracy theory is more about Falun Gong than the Uyghurs.
Brain is kind of critical though. Might be easier and more efficient to just grow single targeted organs.
Eh, not really.
There was a very funny old sci-fi story about scientists on some kind of space colony who just ... wanted fresh milk. And the point of the story was just how much of the actual cow they had to replicate (in semi-isolated containers) to end up making that milk.
So you want an organ, sure, but you're going to need something like blood flowing through it so it doesn't just flat up die. That means that it is going to need oxygen -- so you're stuck replicating some kind of pulmonary system, and then you're going to need to put various nutrients in it, and then you're going to need to remove waste products, so you're definitely getting a liver and a kidney out of that ... and then just making the red blood cells requires bone marrow ...
My guess is that anacephalacy would be studied and replicated to grow humans with only a minimal brainstem, with probably a nubbin of various hormonal systems tacked on. We could get to that a lot faster, I think, than single organs.
There was a very funny old sci-fi story about scientists on some kind of space colony who just ... wanted fresh milk. And the point of the story was just how much of the actual cow they had to replicate (in semi-isolated containers) to end up making that milk.
So you want an organ, sure, but you're going to need something like blood flowing through it so it doesn't just flat up die. That means that it is going to need oxygen -- so you're stuck replicating some kind of pulmonary system, and then you're going to need to put various nutrients in it, and then you're going to need to remove waste products, so you're definitely getting a liver and a kidney out of that ... and then just making the red blood cells requires bone marrow ...
My guess is that anacephalacy would be studied and replicated to grow humans with only a minimal brainstem, with probably a nubbin of various hormonal systems tacked on. We could get to that a lot faster, I think, than single organs.
All you want is a banana, but you end up getting the gorilla holding the banana and the entire jungle...
Sounds difficult if you want to replicate organs 1-1, but what makes sense for human/animal bodies isn't necessarily the best way for labs. Maybe a single large biochemical reactor can solve half of those issues? There are already well established procedures for growing cell cultures and multiple startups that want to grow muscles (meat) or other organs. I don't know details - not my field - but pretty sure a large part of those seemingly hard problems are already solved/worked around.
Sure, but presumably only the lower functions? So below some threshold that makes us feel less 'icky'.
That line moves all the time. Be careful what you start.
> That line moves all the time. Be careful what you start.
Yeah. It's probably easier and more efficient to just raise the clones with intact brains, and just indoctrinate them to believe that dying so their organs can be harvested is their purpose and is noble and right. Then the organs can take care of themselves while they grow, requiring less staff. Any moral qualms the rest of the world may have could be addressed with some lie about how the clones have had done to them to make them subhuman.
Seriously considering the idea of cloning people for organs is just inviting a nightmarish crime against humanity.
Yeah. It's probably easier and more efficient to just raise the clones with intact brains, and just indoctrinate them to believe that dying so their organs can be harvested is their purpose and is noble and right. Then the organs can take care of themselves while they grow, requiring less staff. Any moral qualms the rest of the world may have could be addressed with some lie about how the clones have had done to them to make them subhuman.
Seriously considering the idea of cloning people for organs is just inviting a nightmarish crime against humanity.
The line of what's required to make organs grow seems way lower than the level of consciousness that people are happy factory farming when it comes to animals. I'm not sure that will change much.
People find humans extra 'icky', I'll concede. But abstracted in the above terms, I don't find it really worrisome. Politically difficult, sure, but that's a different question.
People find humans extra 'icky', I'll concede. But abstracted in the above terms, I don't find it really worrisome. Politically difficult, sure, but that's a different question.
> I think you can go bigger than that for potential positives. Imagine growing clones (presumably without a [fully-]functioning brain) for use in organ donation, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Let_Me_Go_(novel)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Let_Me_Go_(novel)
Ah, I was aware it was vaguely about cloning but I haven't read it yet. Sounds like I'll enjoy it then.
All time hilarity if the most accurate prediction of the future ends up being Star Wars Episode II.
Artificial wombs are interesting to me for the colonization of space angle. It's an old trope-- the ship full of frozen embryos lumbering across space at a fraction of c-- but the idea is really exciting to me. For all I dislike about humans and human nature I'd love for our species to spread beyond our single solar system.
The ethics of that approach are as questionable as clone soldiers or slaves. Life is difficult enough when you are born into this world but at least you usually have one or two parents to care for you along with the company of the rest of human civilization. Being born on an empty world with only an AI or worse a dumb machine as your parent with only your equally orphaned siblings as companions would make fate seem cruel indeed.
They wouldn't be lonely though because they would have each other.
It seems like an amazing way to grow up!
It seems like an amazing way to grow up!
An army of super soldiers would still take somewhere around 20 years to produce, and would cost a substantial amount of money. Said army would certainly not come as a surprise to anyone.
I genuinely think that we'll have robot soldiers trained with an advancement of machine learning.
> women would once be able to have children
men too
men too
Imagine world, where a man would be free to start a family, without the need to be dependent on a woman to exercise his reproductive rights. Without the fear that a woman will use the so called “justice system” as a weapon to take his kids and possessions away anytime she find suitable
I would imagine the situation with divorces and forced child support would improve drastically.
In the not so distant future, we'll neither need sperm nor eggs from humans. We'll need is at least one person and a lab. You could grow your own sperm and eggs from pluripotent stemcells (which can be made from any cell, even skin cells).
Inseminate the egg, put it into an artificial womb, and voila, no need for sex or even a partner. You could make your own child, same sex partners could have their own kid, and it would even be possible to have kids with DNA 4 parents.
Maybe the best news for women would be, that they wouldn't have to deal with any of the evil that comes with pregnancy since that could be externalized. It would render the menstrual cycle futile and push research into its elimination without side effects to the forefront.
Inseminate the egg, put it into an artificial womb, and voila, no need for sex or even a partner. You could make your own child, same sex partners could have their own kid, and it would even be possible to have kids with DNA 4 parents.
Maybe the best news for women would be, that they wouldn't have to deal with any of the evil that comes with pregnancy since that could be externalized. It would render the menstrual cycle futile and push research into its elimination without side effects to the forefront.
It would be possible to survive through extinction events with this kind of technology. Or to populate other planets. You would need just cryopreserved embryos and a mechanical womb. And some kind of robotic mother.
The Songs of Distant Earth had this as a backstory.
Nice to see progress being made in this. I've been wondering what the next step would be after seeing the lamb in the artificial womb.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15112
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15112
Just because we can doesn't mean we should.
Why not? I'd like to live as long as possible, and I'm not squeamish about life forms with consciousness at the level of what we eat every day.
You're free not to use the outputs if you have personal objections.
You're free not to use the outputs if you have personal objections.
Well, if media is making us aware that scientists are already doing this using mices, you can be pretty sure that by now, at some random place in the world, somebody is already trying it using human fetuses. Oh boy how quickly we are running into the dystopia.
There's nothing unethical about artificial wombs if they work well, it's the whole "just because I can build it doesn't mean it will result in a healthy baby" aspect where the problem lies.
The whole issue is unethical as... For starters, to reach the "work well" status is going to require a ton of failures, at any level of the "pregnancy". Anyway, any possible concern we could express about it doesn't matter at all, somebody is going to do it. Of course it won't be shown in the news.
I'm not sure it really plays out like that. At least the 'monkeys and typewriters' scale setup is not there, I think.
Maybe if you asked me five years ago, I'd have ventured that China will try some out-there genetic stuff with some successes, but we haven't really seen much. And (not to get into politics) but China is not too concerned about traditional Western ethical boundaries, it seems.
Maybe if you asked me five years ago, I'd have ventured that China will try some out-there genetic stuff with some successes, but we haven't really seen much. And (not to get into politics) but China is not too concerned about traditional Western ethical boundaries, it seems.
The dystopia of gender equality, where a women don't have to spend 9 months being a life support system in their 20s/30s.
300 years ago: I'm not squeamish about life forms with consciousness at the level of what we enslave every day.
The cases aren't the same, but the lazy callousness is.
The cases aren't the same, but the lazy callousness is.
The difference is, we know that slaves have equally developed consciousness. So that wasn't based in fact.
Animals don't have human-level consciousness. We're not going to discover some day that they do.
Animals don't have human-level consciousness. We're not going to discover some day that they do.
We know animals are not as smart as us. That doesn't necessary tell us anything about consciousness. We have no way to measure consciousness so your claim about "human-level consciousness" (whatever that means) is just speculation.
Prove it - we do't understand consciousness enough to make such claims. Or at least have the wisdom to apply the precautionary principle when you don't know.
Proof is a Math thing. I'm comfortable with the weight of evidence from all the tests we devise for this purpose, combined with the fact we actively strive to show the consciousness of animals in a way we never did with slaves. You're free to disagree and consider it hubris, many animal rights activists do.
N.B. I don't believe we fully understand consciousness. Just that factory farm animal consciousness is categorically not at a human level.
N.B. I don't believe we fully understand consciousness. Just that factory farm animal consciousness is categorically not at a human level.
Proof is a Math and Logic thing.
If we're being pedantic, I just consider Logic a branch of Mathematics.
If it's about reason and what we can know, it belongs to epistemology. Since you're being categorical.
Isn't it the other way around?
Technically I'm not sure it's really true either way. Well, there's some debate that we could get bogged down in, but really I'm just an old Math major having fun with that comment.
and I consider mathematics a branch of logic
What are you talking about?? Only the conscious can feel pain now? Or the misery of being separated from its nursing offspring? Results of all of these things measurably correlate with human hormonal and physiological responses. Again what are you talking about???
It's a science, not a 'math thing'. Yours in an old fashioned conservative retreat into avoiding reason or ethical considerations.
BTW I don't consider myself an activist.
It's a science, not a 'math thing'. Yours in an old fashioned conservative retreat into avoiding reason or ethical considerations.
BTW I don't consider myself an activist.
Their first point is one of epistemology. You asked them to prove it but that's outside of the scope of science. Proof is deductive and certain, whereas science (outside of math) is empirical and only asymptotes on certainty as theories remain unrefuted. Scientists have theories that can at best converge on truth and don't think in terms of proof.
This notwithstanding, the ethical concerns seem premature. Shouldn't we wait for information on an actual concrete proposal? Perhaps it can be done with very little of the brain and when coupled with FMRI we can be sure enough that it isn't experiencing conscious states. But all this seems premature and subject to the actual details.
This notwithstanding, the ethical concerns seem premature. Shouldn't we wait for information on an actual concrete proposal? Perhaps it can be done with very little of the brain and when coupled with FMRI we can be sure enough that it isn't experiencing conscious states. But all this seems premature and subject to the actual details.
And other people aren’t squeamish about murder or genocide. Just because one person, or you, aren’t squeamish about something doesn’t make it right for society. That’s why we look to history and anticipate possible future consequences and make decisions about current regulations based on the future we want to bring about.
I prefer a future without harvesting humans for the members of dynasties that can afford it, while those with ethics are left behind or destroyed.
I prefer a future without harvesting humans for the members of dynasties that can afford it, while those with ethics are left behind or destroyed.
This is so trite. How do you feel about artificial legs? Hearts?
There are a lot of women who would love to have children, but have PCOS, hysterectomies, or other problems becoming pregnant naturally. Why is it totally OK for me to wear glasses, half the country to have an artificial hip, but totally 100% unnatural and terrible for women to use an artificial womb?
There are a lot of women who would love to have children, but have PCOS, hysterectomies, or other problems becoming pregnant naturally. Why is it totally OK for me to wear glasses, half the country to have an artificial hip, but totally 100% unnatural and terrible for women to use an artificial womb?
It's not if it's developed ethically. The price of this research is often paid by the suffering of countless animals. Aa externality that may be slightly less odious if it is at least there to reduce our suffering, not simply cash in on making more humans.
There’s literally a part of the article that expounds on how this could reduce or eliminate the need to sacrifice mice when studying certain domains.
And if its development requires the sacrifice of as many mice as it saves then it only breaks even. Ethically, that case hasn't been made. And what comes out shouldn't suffer.
I don't think you understand the human condition (or how to think outside your own life) if you think that infertility doesn't count as suffering.
Trying for a kid with my partner actually. It doesn't mean we're entitled to one or that my child will have more of a right to exist than 100s of some other mammals.
And I think it's clear that I am considering more than just my own life.
And I think it's clear that I am considering more than just my own life.
I personally believe your child has more right to exist than 1 mouse, 1,000 mice, or 1,000,000 mice.
People are people. It's a different bar, and I'm not going to equate people lives with animal lives.
People are people. It's a different bar, and I'm not going to equate people lives with animal lives.
A bar set by people, in the interest of people. What we personally believe is subject to biases, in this case speciesism. A human would say what you say, a monkey's claim to superiority might be branch selection skills. What makes your red line inherently stronger?
And it's not like you defined one or attempt to find a rational underpinning to check for your bias. That's the tribal, conservative basis for many of the injustices over immutable differences we see every day (racial, sexual etc.)
Rational inquiry is about transcending this.
And it's not like you defined one or attempt to find a rational underpinning to check for your bias. That's the tribal, conservative basis for many of the injustices over immutable differences we see every day (racial, sexual etc.)
Rational inquiry is about transcending this.
We really should though. If we can get this to work it would mean we could save lots of species that are endangered. Elephants and rhinos come to mind.
unless those species are dying because of human activity, why would we want to save them?
Because elephants and rhinos are cool and interesting, and their existence doesn't cause substantial harm to us or the planet. Do we really need another reason?
I don’t think there’s an ecosystem left that is free from influence from human activity so you would have to include all of them for that reason alone. Preserving genetic diversity is probably a good enough reason, you never know when that next asteroid is due.
genetic diversity for its own sake is hard to justify as a goal, or else indeed we wouldnt be fighting this virus to extinction
It's really easy to justify. A very prominent example of why would be penicillin. Who knows how many useful things we'll find and where?
"Unless"? Yes that is exactly why they are threatened. Have you been living under a rock?
There some less-ethically challenging reasons, explained well in their nature paper, namely that using controlled environment they learn a ton of things about how embryos grow
> The ability to remove a mammalian embryo from the uterine environment and grow it normally in controlled conditions constitutes a powerful tool to characterize the effect of different perturbations on development during the period from gastrulation to organogenesis, that can be combined with genetic modification, chemical screens, tissue manipulation and microscopy methods
> The ability to remove a mammalian embryo from the uterine environment and grow it normally in controlled conditions constitutes a powerful tool to characterize the effect of different perturbations on development during the period from gastrulation to organogenesis, that can be combined with genetic modification, chemical screens, tissue manipulation and microscopy methods
Humans aren't going to stop consuming meat any time soon. It makes sense to try create more efficient 'farms' to minimize waste and engineer meat without a central nervous system.
We do what we must because we can.
I'm guessing this ends with someone being offered a choice of colourful pill...
Could this be used to help save endangered species?
Tossitto(1)
alacombe(1)
Why do that when you can easily go for female-to-female cloning in woman's own womb?
Decentralization of reproductive capability.
The ethics concerns of this should be put right up there with genetic modification.
I see some concerns with using humans to incubate babies as well.
During her 2 pregnancies, my wife permanently lost most of her sense of smell, had a lower leg clot, and apparently a clot in her hip. That last one was only discovered a few years later when it turned out that the cartilage in her left hip joint was completely gone and she needed a hip replacement at a young age.
During her 2 pregnancies, my wife permanently lost most of her sense of smell, had a lower leg clot, and apparently a clot in her hip. That last one was only discovered a few years later when it turned out that the cartilage in her left hip joint was completely gone and she needed a hip replacement at a young age.
Artificial wombs would be great if they work well, but what are the odds that the initial designs will work well when actually tested on humans?
If it works well with other large mammals, what do you think would be the problem with humans? We aren’t that different.
That we aren't that different is why there's an ethical problem.
Unless the prenatal environment for a human is the same as say, for a gorilla, so that a gorilla could be a surrogate parent for a human, I wouldn't expect the animal testing to be an acceptable way to know how a human baby would turn out.
I also imagine it's pretty difficult to do mental health screening on a gorilla, let alone extrapolate to whether a human baby would turn out physically okay but mentally not so great.
I also imagine it's pretty difficult to do mental health screening on a gorilla, let alone extrapolate to whether a human baby would turn out physically okay but mentally not so great.
Who cares? We abort babies for no reason at all today if they are in a woman. We should be able to do the same if they are not in a woman.
What if the problems aren't clear until the child is born? Or a toddler, or a teen? There's still a lot we don't understand about prenatal environment and how it contributes to the attributes someone has as an adult.
The child always has the option of suicide if it really thinks it would be better off not existing. This is fine for the same reason that not aborting kids with downs is morally fine.
One of the best arguments for allowing abortion is that we do not force anyone to risk their integrity and life for another person, which is what pregnancy is. This argument won't work anymore.
Yes, it will be wonderful to have equality of the sexes again. If women don't want to pay child support they should just not have unprotected sex, like men.
Or we do the sane thing and stop treating clumps of cells like people.
Or we do the sane thing and stop treating clumps of cells like people.
You're not wrong, but I do see a lot of positives. There are a lot of people who want to have kids, but for a variety of medical, personal, or social reasons cannot have one. It would be really cool to be able to open the door to parenthood to more people that want it.
Technologically, I am excited. But the idea of using in-vitro fertilization or mechanical wombs when at the same time there are many orphans in need of a family is very unpleasant, borderline immoral to me. I know some people feel the need to have kids that share their own DNA, but I personally do not have much respect for people wanting kids but at the same time imposing such a constraint on themselves.
The beauty of a free society is that people can live life according to their values. You can adopt instead of having kids since you care so much about orphans, and people who care about the DNA thing can have their own kids. Forcing people to adopt would be as bad as forcing you to have kids via copulation.
I completely agree, please do not use phrasing suggesting otherwise. There are plenty of behaviors I am judgemental of, that does not mean I would try to infringe on people's ability to perform those behaviors. I was just trying to explain why people like me would be disappointed by certain development.
Understood, in that case it's nice to see some people can still have their strong preferences while respecting others' freedom to choose differently.
No one is stopping you from adopting if you have such a problem with it.
I think you are reading too much in my message. Me disapproving of someone's life choices does not mean I do not think they have the right to make those choices. Neither have I shared anything about my parenting plans. A knee-jerk negative quip does not help in such a conversation.
Indeed, we should start warming up to both, because we see what's happening when every other technology is accelerating and creating a dangerously overconnected world while biotech has not caught up.
Yeah, into a dumpster. These taboos will blindside us sooner or later.
It's not like animals can feel suffering right.
We have been trying to engineer plant cells to be more like animals (eg Impossible Meats) but the solution might be to engineer cattle and swine to be more like plants (eg. minimise the growth of unnecessary biological components like bones, hoofs, brains, sensory organs).
The end point could basically be a semi-conscious 'animal', with food administered by stomache tube, suspended inside a barn, with sufficient brain material only to operate the digestive, respiratory, and circulatory systems, and without eyes, reproductive organs, or ears. The lack of locomotion would also render the meat more tender.
It would be horrific, but probably more humane and efficient than our current system of factory farming and feedlots.