There are times when having a visual imagination is a curse.
And times when it’s just plain funny. 
Maybe the Wharton’s jelly of this thread has finally seized up, but the more I think about it, the more I think you may be on to something Nullpersona. Barring the possibilities I parsed out as (1) in post 37, it may not be practical, or even possible, but it is something interesting, and something visionary. Because your thoughts are so often couched in what seems to be intentionally cryptic language, we’ve arrived there piecemeal, and I’m not even sure it this is where you meant to it to go. To be honest all that makes me wonder if, while you have clearly boned up some about the placenta, you may be lacking some foundational knowledge in biology. Then again, maybe you have learned and gone so far beyond that foundational knowledge that it is more a hindrance than a help to think and speak in terms of it - kinda like “The Traveler” from Star Trek TNG. I don’t know. Nevertheless, this notion of a life-long placenta-in-a-box is growing on me. (Figuratively, of course. I’m not a prototype. My placenta was amputated long ago - and, yes, I forgive those who perpetrated the deed for thinking it was a good idea at the time.)
Does anyone remember Biosphere 2? I went to AZ and looked at it from a distance while it was being constructed. It was - still is, it turns out - a complex of domes and multifaceted window paned structures wherein are housed different areas that represent the various environments of present day planet earth. The idea as I recall it was that the only thing entering the system would be sunlight. Other than that it was completely closed. The Grand Vision was to create a system in which humans and selected other organisms could live and, perhaps, even thrive with the only thing asked of the outside universe being an adequate input of ambient energy. The plants would consume the CO2 made by the animals and make oxygen, which would be breathed in by the animals, who would then make more CO2 for the plants. Other foodstuffs and nutrients would cycle through the inhabitants and mini climate systems in symbiotic self-perpetuity. With dome intact, humans and the other life forms along for the ride could persist insulated from any outside environment from which energy could be harvested - a harsher earth, another planet, empty space. In its day this was touted as the possible salvation of the human species, and selected other earth species, similar to the domes defended to the death by the space hippy played by Bruce Dern in the movie Silent Running. I’ve always thought the project pretty much petered out and had modest mixed results (you can say the same thing for Silent Running). But it turns out, after being motivated by this thread to look into it again, it’s still going, but with a somewhat revised focus.Nevertheless, the Grand Vision that I recall was and remains fascinating and laudable.
Now imagine the whole Biosphere 2 facility shrunk down to the size of a box. The contents of the box, rather than trying to duplicate the various environments of present day earth, are recapitulating something more akin to primordial earth. The box contains a liquid medium in which are sloshing around photosynthetic autotrophic organisms that, like the chloroplasts in plants, take in CO2 and excrete molecular oxygen. These organisms further use the materials in the medium to cycle material into nutrients that can be absorbed and used by humans, who then secrete their waste back into the box, which then regenerates the raw materials for the autotrophs to again convert into human sustenance. The organisms in the medium could be calibrated and fine tuned by genetic engineering so as to maximize their recycling capabilities to best fit human requirements. All that is needed is a way for the human to plug into the system. What better organ to mediate this exchange than one whose natural purpose is, more or less, already to do so? The placenta is perfect. Rather then stuck in the bubble of a biosphere, these placenta bearing future humans would be free to roam.
Maybe the placenta, redeployed in that capacity, could be the salvation of the human species.
I’d like to add, to OP (nullperson, that being teased is par for the course here, and people (including me) like to pile on, especially with many novel/off the wall/ proposals or points of view–most obviously the perennial conspiracy theories (9/11, JFK eg), but people who post truly out-there topics, but not insane (like you, to most of us after the facts have been discussed) are ordinarily not as polite and engaged in civil discussion as you are.
Even with the more spiritual/cosmic sidenotes in your posts, which if too liberally supplied (I know from my own experience) just invites the cold prosaic fuddy duddies here to let off steam, or, as above, to be creative in new directions.
Placentas & umbilical cords* can* live on–as sources of hematopoietic stem cells for transplant. Learn about donating yours here! (Well, not yours.)
Experiments show other possible uses for the cells. You can bank your kid’s–but it’s expensive.
I think they used a giant placenta as The Blob.
Not well known fact that isn’t totally relevant but the placenta is mostly the father’s genetic material(this was early research years ago when I saw it, could be newer info now) which can lead to complications.
The placenta is the fetus’ genetic material, 50% of which is the father’s. It can still lead to complications, and in fact, placental cells (trophoblasts) can cross the placental/uterine unit and wander around the uterus (and even other organs) in multiple species.
The research I had seen said the percentage was around 90 something percent for only the placenta, and when experimental mice embryos were cultured with only female DNA(essentially a lab created clone) a placenta failed to develop.
But this was new research and years ago, if you want cites it will have to wait.
www.pnas.org/content/110/26/10705.full
So scratch that 90 percent, it is 67%. This is why I hate posting on half remembered stuff(maybe from an article).
Well, thanks, now I’ve got Julia Roberts voice in my head.
I read this:
and all I could think was “You know, we do have a way to provide nutrients to newborn babies”
[Erin Brockovich voice:]“They’re called boobs, Ed”[/EBv]
Yes, but if you could just hook Baby back up to the placenta overnight or when you’re away, continual nourishment would be guaranteed.
I still think my idea of a placenta tank would be workable, with suitable inputs and outgoing supply tubing (think modified guinea pig water bottle).
IIRC I recently read of a woman who ended up with something resembling cancer from fetal or placental tissue that got loose in the rest of her body.
Assuming I’m remembering anything resembling the truth, would that plausibly be an example of this?
Epigenetics and gene expression are not the same as the genomic code. The code in the cells is still the same as in the fetus (half paternal/half maternal). What the research is showing is that the genes that are expressed (ie, the phenotype) are those from the paternal side, at least more so than expected.
Remember all our genes are in duplicate, one paternal, one maternal. Ideally, either both are expressed or there is a 50-50 chance of expressing one or the other. But in real life, there are other ways to control which genes are expressed, and in the research, it seems that the cells that are part of the placenta favor expressing genes that come from the paternal (and not maternal) side. But they still have the same damn genetic code as the rest of the fetus, unique and 50-50 from both parents.
I’ve read of that yes. Tumours. Cancer. Yea, that’s not what the placenta is supposed to do. Also this is not that the woman has a complete placenta growing like crazy inside, but that cells that form part of the placenta (and there are many types of cells that form part of the placenta in order for it to work properly) are abnormal and decided to go on an unregulated path.
The cells responsible are trophoblasts, which instead of handling their normal placental duties start proliferating out of control (several kinds of malignant tumors can occur).
In all seriousness, I’ve heard that “lotus birth” can lead to sepsis.
Would there be enrichment provided, like a Habitrail for the placenta?
I don’t doubt that you’ve heard it. I doubt that it’s true. I can find lots of sites repeating the Royal Academy warning, but I can’t find any case reports or studies of complications happening. Maybe because it’s not that widespread a practice, or maybe because often they rub salt or preservative essential oils on the placenta.
I think Lotus Birth is weird, and indicates a possibly pathological misunderstanding and idolatry of “nature”, but I can’t find evidence that it’s actually harmful, except perhaps to relationships with extended family.
Thank you both.
In the case I read, the baby was delivered normally but the mother was killed by metastatic GTD within a short number of years.
The more medical wiki I read the more I recognize it’s a miracle this whole rickety Rube Goldberg system we call “biology” works at all. The list of ways for stuff to go haywire is nearly infinite. Yet somehow it works well enough to have blanketed the planet in bio-units of one flavor or another. Heck, it’s probably blanketed much of the universe.
Useless trivia: trophoblasts also go astray in species like dogs and chinchillas. Humans are not unique in this.