First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply Bio augmentation and artificial wombs
Tay01 
27232 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/17/15 , edited 10/17/15
First of, I am an antinatalist, and do not believe of the creation of human life in the first place.
However if humanity continues, I personally feel we should start advancing the species with.
Artificial wombs, people primarily see these as a method for women to have kids without getting pregnant and this has been disputed saying we should instead adopt. I agree, however if all children are created via artificial womb, this is a pointless argument. In addition artificial wombs can allow for some of the best bio augmentation. And while doing bio augmentation is scene as wrong and non consentual, creating human life naturally is not, so you must choose antinatalist or bio augmentation supporter. Also some say that this takes away the need for women, however I do not feel that is the case, we can already make people without men, women are more than just breeding machines and even if it does let men have kids without a wife isn't that a good thing?

Further bio augmentation research is just splendid, we could replace faulty or missing limbs. Eventually graft brains into other animals, like a polar bear, get muscle grafts, grow organs, mechanical attachments, etc. And yes their is the risk of corporations demanding bio augmentation and that is a huge risk and the division of the human population, I can not deny that.

So I ask you what are your thoughts, can we avoid the risks, do your hate this idea, what augmentation surgery would you want, would you have your kid in an artificial womb, would you not have kids etc?

Just to mention, I am very uncomfortable mentioning I am an antinatalist, so could we please be civil about this discussion, I am happy for you to disagree with me though.
Posted 10/17/15 , edited 10/17/15
Since human evolution has stagnated, to develop further as a species it's the only option.
That and becoming cyborgs.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/17/15
I actually believe that this kind of altercation is the next big thing for the future of mankind. After some point, we'll be using technology to advance intelligence, and then even this kind of thing will be obsolete.
27254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/17/15
We first have to get over the "sacred human body" hurdle and start viewing lab specimens more like machines, which will be tough.

I don't think artificial wombs are necessarily a bad idea. They reduce the risk that real women are exposed to when they must give birth. The embryo/fetus is much easier to regulate in a lab than in a body that has to live an active life as part of the social machine. The growing fetus can potentially be as perfectly nourished as it can be, and any problems are likely to be easier to detect and solve early on. If it fails to develop and must be discarded, nobody's body is at risk, nobody suffers, nobody cries.

I don't want kids to begin with, but it doesn't matter where they are from once they are actually kids and not just embryos. I would probably not mind augmentation surgery, especially for sharp eyesight.
3383 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / South Florida
Offline
Posted 10/17/15
Man, that's a loaded question. Also, I don't see much of an antinatalist argument (because we all species live to reproduce...) in your statement, but I digress...

Anywho, Adam Jensen has pointed out quite a few potential flaws with Transhumanism (where I think your statement stands).

Augmentation, from the prenatal to the grown adult can be quite useful. Diseases, limb loss, sensory deprivation...all things that could be potentially restored in a brighter tomorrow. But then it gets sketchy when you talk about eugenics, the potential social disruption and/or stigma between augmented and non-augmented.

But as we know, technology is neutral. The secrets of the atom gave us nuclear energy; awesome. Abundant energy that is mostly clean (excluding disasters...usually caused by Human error); but it also gave us the means to wipe all life off the face of the earth and a very efficient manner; creating the mexican standoff in the Cold War that was the MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) doctrine.

Human augmentation is the same. You can do awesome things with it, or terrible things with it.

Do the pros outweigh the cons? Potentially. We all haven't been wiped out by nuclear war, but we've come pretty close. Could we potentially get even closer to potential disaster with augmentation?


It's not the end of the world, but you can see it from here.
- Eliza Cassan
11505 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/17/15
Lol op said it takes away the need for women yet it takes two to make a baby. It takes away the need for men too.

Tay01 
27232 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/17/15 , edited 10/17/15
@lambofgenesis, an artificial womb replaces a women's organ in the production of a human, for the most part it would be easier to just get the sperm from a man rather than use cloning systems or synthesis sperm, further I said that was a flawed view other people have, you would for the most part get the eggs from a women.

@ForCom5, the antinatalist argument was only mentioned to point out how odd people are to say that bio augmentation is non consentual while in fact birth is non consentual in the first place. But it is very true that most developements are both positive and negative and in this matter it comes down to how we limit and apply it. For example I think it was stupid to not let the chicken with a dinosaurs head develop.
48603 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / AZ
Offline
Posted 10/17/15
Stuff like that would only exists in countries that can afford it
Tay01 
27232 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/17/15 , edited 10/17/15
@HuastecoOtaku, true, one of the unfortunate matters in this subject, the large scale effects and implications of applying this, is what I think is the largest problem. Though part of that problem is only the super rich in those countries could, and they may abuse it by demanding their employees get certain augmentations, however the upside is huge, we could boost immune systems, and medical treatment would become much better, maybe in the future even more affordable.
46 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/17/15
Hmm, I'd use artificial womb for immortality under one condition, that is the consciousness never develops. Things are still in the experimental stage right now but as technology progresses it should become cheaper and more affordable.
Posted 10/17/15
I want a huge robo penis.
Posted 10/17/15
Reminds me of Brave New World.
Posted 10/17/15
I don't feel the species is worth advancing artificially or otherwise. Yes I am thinking Ergo Proxy.
Posted 10/17/15

brigand554 wrote:

I want a huge robo penis.


I knew I'd see something like this here.
113 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / California
Offline
Posted 10/17/15

potentsativa wrote:

Reminds me of Brave New World.


Brave New World was first thought when I read this!

As for my opinion, it does have many pros and cons, but it has the potential for good. But only if it is put in the right hands, which only casts another question. Who would have the right to regulate this? This could take the place of having surrogate carry a child, but this could also open a world of designer babies. If we get to the point where this becomes reality, which no doubt it will, there will be no doubt that there with be a huge political and ethical debate about it.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.