I thought your objection to this was due to overpopulation concerns? If it’s going to be so expensive that only ~1% of the population can access it, then it’s not going to be adding to overpopulation concerns.
Are you just fishing for a reason to oppose the concept?
I have multiple objections.
Mainly, it’s a stupid idea, IMO. Your opinion may vary. Unlimited wombs for everyone!
Spoken like someone who’s never had to go through pregnancy or giving birth. Not that I have; but just watching the process was enough.
Try mansplaining to my wife how hard the process of pregnancy and birth is. I’m sure that will go well for you.
I wouldn’t dream of it.
My wife has said that being pregnant royally sucked and that, given the option, she’d have been all in on an artificial womb.
Given this technology, women who want children without pregnancy or childbirth could do so; while women who want to experience pregnancy still could, with the added security in the knowledge that should something go wrong, this same technology could also be used to save a premature child, or one who has to be delivered before viability due to risk to the mother.
Do you have any that aren’t dumb?
No, just dumb ones. I’m just stupid I guess. Considering the ethics of artificial wombs is just something morons contemplate.
If you’d like to do so, rather than throw around content free one liners, I’m all ears.
Oh, I’m sorry. I thought this was the pit. Apparently it’s the portal to submit papers to the New England Journal of Medicine.
My apologies. I’ll get to work on an article for peer review immediatly.
If you’re consciously not putting effort into your argument because it’s just the pit, you can’t really get upset when Miller calls your arguments dumb.
Well, at least you’re aware of it.
Overlooked: “who can afford so”. This will initially be a 1%er option. And at maximum market penetration, it will probably never be available for everyone, regardless of personal desires.
That’s true, and it’s a major flaw with our medical system. But it’s not an inherent problem with the concept of an artificial womb in and of itself.
Also, one could imagine the opposite - a future where the technology is cheap and reliable enough for everyone to use, and insurance companies refuse to pay for a risky natural pregnancy, so only the rich can afford to carry their babies.
If a service is desirable, someone will put a richly profitable price on it, especially if access to it is restricted by, for instance, the structures and processes of the delivering industry. Like the medical industry.
Which means that in the United States, only rich people will have it, while in countries with modern healthcare systems (meaning much of the rest of the world), they’ll be widely available. I can live with that.
Also, your logic seems to be that unless everyone in the world can afford something, it shouldn’t exist. So no cars, no computers, no phones, no running water…
Broader than that. If a thing is not affordable to everyone from the initial introduction it is worthless. This is despite future cost decreases. So everything technology related, like PCs, telephones, etc.
Edit. I see I am reinforcing your point.
I said nothing about whether or not things should exist if capitalism puts them out of reach of the majority of a market. That’s in your head.
I’m simply pointing out the naive expectation that this will have any relevance to a lot of people.
Which is why only the uber-wealthy own cars and fridges, fly on jets, and get chemotherapy.
Do you enjoy attacking strawmen? Stop putting words In my mouth and own your own conclusions.