Robotics

[ysabetwordsmith]

China firm plans world’s first pregnancy humanoid robot using artificial womb

The innovation uses artificial amniotic fluid and nutrient delivery via hose, replicating natural gestation, now to be integrated into humanoid robots.


Artificial wombs have much potential, but this version raises some concerns. The main upside, of course, is that it provides an alternative to humans for whom it is impossible, unsafe, or unappealing to gestate a baby inside their own body. Similarly artificial wombs can help save endangered species by expanding their reproductive potential without risking female lives.

Previous technology has been used to support fetal lambs, and the next logical step would be to support prematurely born human infants so early that conventional care offers little or no chance of survival. It's ethical to try a radical and risky new treatment if that raises the odds of survival; even if it only bought them a few extra days or weeks in the "womb" that would likely improve outcomes.

One obvious drawback of this version is that it's attached to a humanoid robot. Well, bipedal motion is tricky in general and for robotics in particular; that creates a falling hazard -- as anyone who's been pregnant can tell you, adding a heavy bump to the front of a biped makes it less stable and more prone to falling. I doubt they're doing to do the sensible thing and locate the artificial womb directly on the center of balance; they're more likely to stick it on the front as happens in human women, for aesthetic similarity, prioritizing that over stability and protection.

Realistically, a static unit would be much safer, preferably in a location with neonatal and robotics experts available in case something goes wrong. As this is bleeding-edge technology, things will definitely go wrong in many or most cases. It's not rare for even long-evolved humans to have problems in pregnancy.

Now consider that it's China doing this. China has ... alternative ethics. Its previous choice to institute a one-child policy likely contributes to wanting an artificial womb, since one outcome of that choice is a serious shortage of Chinese women. And the ones they have left aren't as keen on marriage, pregnancy, and childraising as their ancestors were.

How did they get this far, this fast, with such a technology? They could simply be exaggerating; companies do that often. But if they're telling the truth, then the next thing I wonder is how many Uighur and political prisoners they raped, butchered, or murdered to make that much progress. It would certainly be a lot easier to gain ground in that field if you had a generous supply of helpless victims to test your technology on. Since we already know China practices organlegging, it's logical to suspect similar human rights violations in producing this claimed technology.


According to Qifeng, it is not merely an incubator but a life-sized humanoid equipped with an artificial womb in its abdomen, capable of replicating the entire process from conception to delivery.

I'm dubious of this. Artificial conception is very tricky and requires a lot of big, heavy, expensive equipment to combine extracted eggs and preserved or fresh sperm. At least until you get to the stage where any two random living cells can be used for their DNA alone to mix and create a zygote, and I don't think we're anywhere near that yet.

Another untested aspect, beyond the limitations of previously demonstrated or perhaps recently developed technology, is the metaphysical part. Human young, even after birth, require close parental contact to survive and thrive. Without that, they often die, and the survivors grow up with serious mental and/or physical problems. Consider it a kind of relational malnutrition that sabotages survival and health. We have some gruesome statistics on this from historic orphanages, modern ones in places like Romania, and neglected children.

What we don't know, yet, is whether a human baby can successfully grow outside of a human body without encountering similar effects. Normally a baby in the womb hears a human heartbeat and breathing, voices, etc. and experiences changing biochemistry through parental diet, hormones, etc. So gestating a baby from scratch in an artificial womb will be an experiment, and the failures can get ugly. One predictable outcome is a high rate of miscarriage or stillbirth. About a third of pregnancies naturally miscarry as the fetus proves nonviable; this will likely be higher in an artificial setting. But what if the infant survives to birth, yet is negatively impacted by the artificial gestation, such as not responding as expected to human contact? How many parents will want to keep a mentally disabled infant? It's China, the country that murdered a lot of babies for being born female or without proper paperwork. I predict a lot of parents would abandon "defective" robot-born children. That could cause another international scandal, but China doesn't care. This is a country that can't even figure out how to make safe pet food.


Dr. Zhang claimed the technology is already mature in laboratory setting

If true, that means they've already tested it by gestating human infants to birth in a lab. One wonders where those came from and where they went.


Led researchers at the Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, the team used gene editing to create male-sterile flowers, enabling the robot to produce hybrid seeds efficiently.

Creating male-sterile crops is a crime against humanity. Reason being, it spreads, and that threatens the food supply. Here is a discussion of why that is a problem. So there's another example of China being devoid of both ethics and foresight.


GEAIR has already been applied to develop a male-sterile soybean system, potentially boosting China’s hybrid breeding capacity and crop yields.

Soybeans are among the world's leading staple crops and a key source of vegetable protein for people without soy allergies. It's in most vegetarian and many other foods. Losing it would be catastrophic and cause famines. That's not a good place to prioritize speed, convenience, and profits over human need and agricultural security.


Overall, I suspect that the hype of the artificial womb robots will greatly exceed performance.

Comments

[siliconshaman]

I suspect what they've built is a static unit that, if you squint hard, looks sort of vaguely human shaped.

What concerns me is the placenta. They *easy* way to make that would be use cultured human cells grown in vitro upon an artificial mesh of supporting vessels feeding it. The concerning bit is where they're getting the supply of cells, because you can't reuse them and they'd have to tailored to each fetus to avoid rejection issues, so you'd need a steady supply of fresh cells... and the source of that is potentially disturbing.

And yes, they are exaggerating, or they've already conducted human trails, because while China is prone to over-hyping stuff, they also are known to keep advances a secret until they're sure no-one is likely to catch up.

Either way, the cat is out of the bag now. Welcome to a Brave New World.

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> I suspect what they've built is a static unit that, if you squint hard, looks sort of vaguely human shaped. <<

That would be a lot safer than a mobile one.

>> What concerns me is the placenta. They *easy* way to make that would be use cultured human cells grown in vitro upon an artificial mesh of supporting vessels feeding it. <<

The sheep experiments in artificial womb technology have used an artificial placenta, admittedly with considerable problems.

>> The concerning bit is where they're getting the supply of cells, because you can't reuse them and they'd have to tailored to each fetus to avoid rejection issues, so you'd need a steady supply of fresh cells... and the source of that is potentially disturbing.<<

It's China. For such purpose I would expect them to use Uighur, Falun Gong, or other captive victims.

>> And yes, they are exaggerating, or they've already conducted human trails, because while China is prone to over-hyping stuff, they also are known to keep advances a secret until they're sure no-one is likely to catch up. <<

Neither of these would surprise me.

Also, I doubt the ethical issues would stop desperate infertile people from seeking the technology if it works, because it hasn't stopped people from purchasing transplants from China's murder-to-order organlegging business.

>> Either way, the cat is out of the bag now.<<

If it works. They've claimed that but haven't proven it yet.

>> Welcome to a Brave New World. <<

I could see China trying exactly that. It would fit their society. And just like with the one-child policy, I see a lot of problems that would take them 30 years to figure out. *shrug* Not my circus, not my monkeys.

Re: Thoughts

[siliconshaman]

Using a *cultured* placenta short-circuits the problems with an artificial one, and yeah, I'd imagine they're using unwilling victims to supply the cells, if not simply removing the womb in it's entirety and keeping it alive using artificial means and passing it off as wholly artificial.

The problem is, it's going to become everyone's problem. There are no shortage of rich and unethical people word wide. Elon Musk has stated he intends breeding his own 'army' of kids to run his empire... I can see him using that tech to colonize Mars for example.

So far, what's stopped billionaires from consolidating their wealth and power is the same limits that plagued dynasties throughout human history. The only way to ensure you have a competent heir is have a whole lot of them and pick the best... but there's only so many children any given couple can produce. One solution is a harem, but that's rather out of fashion nowadays, plus you're taking pot-luck with the mother's side of genetics.

Using an artificial womb, or a rather a bank of them, creating 20 or 30 children at the same time isn't actually a problem. IVF routinely produces batches of a dozen or so eggs per cycle, thanks to the drugs. (assuming there's nothing wrong with the woman) and men produce plenty of sperm if they're healthy. And the cost for someone like Musk, or Bezos or Zuckerberg is not prohibitive.

This tech would allow them to secure their wealth and power for generations. And THAT is a problem that will affect everyone.

Re: Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Using a *cultured* placenta short-circuits the problems with an artificial one,<<

No, it creates a different set of challenges. One that will likely remain the same is difficulties with connection, because even if you culture a live human placenta, it's not growing in the usual manner.

>> and yeah, I'd imagine they're using unwilling victims to supply the cells, if not simply removing the womb in it's entirety and keeping it alive using artificial means and passing it off as wholly artificial.<<

Well, there's a horrid thought. *ponder* I wonder if that would work? It seems technologically difficult. Even warm perfusion of donated organs has a very short span.

>>The problem is, it's going to become everyone's problem. There are no shortage of rich and unethical people word wide. Elon Musk has stated he intends breeding his own 'army' of kids to run his empire... I can see him using that tech to colonize Mars for example.<<

LOL no. People always make that mistake. Raising a functional human being is 18+ years of assbusting effort. Just because you can make babies does not give you an "army." It gives you a lot of babies that need care. And as I mentioned in links above, shorting that care via institution has abysmal results. Also, look at how society currently treats babies that don't have parents attached; the same will likely recur.

That doesn't mean people won't try it, they probably will. But it doesn't work well.

>>This tech would allow them to secure their wealth and power for generations. And THAT is a problem that will affect everyone.<<

At most it would allow them to spread their shabby genes farther, and rich men have always done that. They can't mass-produce wealth, because wealth is produced by concentration, not dispersal. In order for one person to be rich, many others must be made poor. To transmit his wealth to the next generation, a rich man needs an heir and a spare -- more is begging for trouble.

Now they could, in theory, produce infants and then pay someone to raise those. But the quality of young adult human produced by this method is not great, as many nations have discovered with servant-raised nobles.

Re: Thoughts

[siliconshaman]

I think you kind of made my point for me... Say they can mass produce kids. They raise them in creches or whatever, all in the hope they'd get one good one to take their place. So then what happens to all the others?!

As you say, it's not going to work, or it might just by sheer random chance but either way, we've got problems.

The key point is, it can only create more problems, work or not. IF it is the sole province of the rich and powerful. (actually, as an aside, the same can be said of a lot of things)

Now, if the gestat-o-bot is everything it's cracked up to be, and it ends up being used like any other medical device, i.e on a case-by-case basis and only due to medical necessity. That is another matter.

It also wouldn't be the first medical break-though that came about via some horribly unethical short-cuts.

Re: Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Say they can mass produce kids. They raise them in creches or whatever, all in the hope they'd get one good one to take their place. So then what happens to all the others?! <<

Well, normally a despot will kill the spares.

The problem is that human children don't grow well when raised en masse by paid caretakers. It would be unlikely to get results that a rich man seeking an heir would consider acceptable. To have any chance of working, you'd have to farm them out to individual women or couples -- and then, of course, the children would attached to them instead of the sperm donor. It makes for some very weird and creepy relationship entanglements.

>> Now, if the gestat-o-bot is everything it's cracked up to be, and it ends up being used like any other medical device, i.e on a case-by-case basis and only due to medical necessity. That is another matter. <<

Well, it doesn't have to be that limited either. Women could just as well do it because they don't want the risks or misery of pregnancy and childbirth. That, along with fixing the limitations of infertility and same-sex relationships, is the best use.

[ndrosen]

This is disturbing, as you say.

This gets more disturbing if one even scratches the surface

[dialecticdreamer]

If I recall, Baby Brown, the first human IVF live birth to survive, was born in secret with her mother registered under a false name and her food smuggled out uneaten so that the nurses would not suspect that she was about to undergo a planned Caesarean section.

The mother's consent was generally not considered.

The doctors, the father, and a lawyer, crafted an agreement with the Daily Mail for exclusive news coverage. The mother was not considered.

Okay, but that was 1978, right? We've gotten much more aware and egalitarian, haven't we?

Consider the usual form of surrogacy. What happens if the surrogate's uterus is damaged during the pregnancy or delivery? What is it worth in the contract if she is, during the process of carrying the infant(s), unable to then conceive or carry her own child? Shouldn't it be valued at the same 100-150K that the surrogate parents are paying for their own child?

Nope. Sometimes, the legal clause offers as little as $2000. Total. That's maybe a month's rent now. This isn't old news, either.

https://www.heyreprotech.com/p/whats-a-uterus-worth

So, the question becomes: WHY are women in an already underpaid and under-protected class being pushed out of the role of surrogate?

Why, if wealthy Chinese can go to countries with more liberal surrogacy laws (as Thailand once had, before the Baby Gammy case in 2014, with laws changing very early in 2015), the question is again WHY aren't they. The Chinese have a similar "The elites have their own rules," subset, just like everywhere else in the world.

If this isn't proven to be "overhyped," --i.e., exaggerated, or outright lies-- then the next step is likely to be women insisting that this frees THEM up to decide whether to wreck their bodies with ten months of pregnancy and about the same length of time for the body to re-acclimatize. It'll never be the same as before carrying a child, of course.

Again, and again, and again, I keep asking WHY.

China has a terrible record of human rights abuses.

They have now unlocked the option of state-parenthood from CONCEPTION.

Brave New World was a dystopia, not an instruction manual, but we're certainly facing its inception.

Re: This gets more disturbing if one even scratches the surface

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> The mother's consent was generally not considered. <<

Nor is it today. Hell, men's consent is often ignored by doctors. They don't think the word "no" has any relevance to them.

>> Consider the usual form of surrogacy. What happens if the surrogate's uterus is damaged during the pregnancy or delivery? What is it worth in the contract if she is, during the process of carrying the infant(s), unable to then conceive or carry her own child? <<

That's actually why some areas only allow women to carry for another after they're done having their own children.

>> So, the question becomes: WHY are women in an already underpaid and under-protected class being pushed out of the role of surrogate? <<

It's probably cheaper.

>> then the next step is likely to be women insisting that this frees THEM up to decide whether to wreck their bodies with ten months of pregnancy and about the same length of time for the body to re-acclimatize. <<

Well it can. A woman shouldn't have to get pregnant if she doesn't want to. This is another tool in the box of reproductive options -- if it works.

>> They have now unlocked the option of state-parenthood from CONCEPTION. <<

They would still have to find someone to raise the babies, and they already have a woman shortage, and they're too bigoted to solve their shortage with immigration (not counting men buying wives from other Asian nations). Artificial wombs are not as helpful as some people think.

Re: This gets more disturbing if one even scratches the surface

[dialecticdreamer]

Most American parents don't have the option of having one parent (of any gender) stay home with their children, no mater how young. In China, it's much the same. State influence starts with the core curriculum, which dictates acceptable songs, nursery rhymes, et cetera. That's true here or in China, in India or England.

So, state-run creches take infants as young as two weeks old, regardless of which country one is looking at. (In America, it's conveniently timed to the end of most parental leave options.)

What, in the end, is the difference?

Who decides what the child will be exposed to, learn, value?

China is already showing its plans via the Uyghurs and other "undesirables".

Do note that one reason that pork is so popular worldwide is that it is VERY cheap to raise per pound of meat harvested. Any group who did not occasionally indulge in it was noticed, especially when chicken was more expensive than beef. Both Jewish and Muslim dietary restrictions became more and more noticeable the lower one's family income.

How does this connect to China's vast overreach into individuals' personal lives?

Because they are, much like in Brave New World, controlling the environment in hopes of standardizing the end product: Chinese laborers. Obedient, complacent citizens.

Would I be as alarmed if Thailand or Bengal or Saudia Arabia developed this technology. Yes, absolutely.

Okay, what about my own dumpster fire, I mean country? Just exactly as concerned as I am about China's claims.

Partly, yes, it's tangled up with racism. Not the Chinese attitude toward anyone who is not Han, or not ONLY so. Ours. Cops imported to DC to "clean up" are racially profiling random citizens, and skin privilege has not been so obvious within my lifetime. It's terrifying.

Give the most organized members of the Christian Right the same technology, and we'd have a generation of blond, blue-eyed babies who seem Xeroxed out of Renaissance religious paintings practically ten months to the day after somebody gets the machinery turned on.

We are no more ethical than the rest of the world, and our hands are no cleaner.

Again and again, I wonder why birth matters more than adoption.

Again and again, look behind the claims of "For Science!" and the decaying corpses of racism, absolute authority, and their grandfather, fanaticism stare back.

Re: This gets more disturbing if one even scratches the surface

[see_also_friend]

>>Because they are, much like in Brave New World, controlling the environment in hopes of standardizing the end product: Chinese laborers. Obedient, complacent citizens.<<

That isn't going to work. Just look at the complaints abut young workers in America missing social norms from the pandemic lockdowns. Look at people complaining about "kids these days," while actively keeping kids out of society until they are 18.

Yes, "kids these days" is older than dirt, but at least in antiquity a teenager could generally /function/ as well as an adult in their society, whereas some older teens in our society seem to lack functional social skills/self-confidance.

Also, look at AI. People complain about AI...which does exactly what it is told, much like human children do. We expend less effort on teaching AI than we do to teach our own children, in most cases, but still have higher expectations.

Re: This gets more disturbing if one even scratches the surface

[dialecticdreamer]

I actually wonder how the pandemic affected children by age. 0-2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-12, 13-15, 16+. I think that the patterns will be very different by age.

But the robo-incubator won't be raising the baby. If it allows sound to travel the same way that it does in utero, a mostly-steady heartbeat and the sound of human voices (not recorded), will meet most of the prenatal social needs that we know of.

That we know of.

Much like the pandemic, we're going to end up picking up after the mess for years after it actually bursts onto the world stage in reality instead of fiction and theory.

Re: This gets more disturbing if one even scratches the surface

[ysabetwordsmith]

>>Yes, "kids these days" is older than dirt, but at least in antiquity a teenager could generally /function/ as well as an adult in their society, whereas some older teens in our society seem to lack functional social skills/self-confidance.<<

That's because they were abused in ways that stunted their growth. Many children now grow up as prisoners in their own homes, and are forcibly prevented from learning many life skills, chief among them how to make good choices and manage their own time. Then they turn 18 and are given control of a car and a crotch, and society is "shocked" and "surprised" when it goes horribly wrong.

Don't blame the victims. Blame the deciders. It sure as hell wasn't the kids.

Re: This gets more disturbing if one even scratches the surface

[see_also_friend]

>>So, the question becomes: WHY are women in an already underpaid and under-protected class being pushed out of the role of surrogate?<<

I suppose they figure dealing with actual people is messy and difficult.

>>...then the next step is likely to be women insisting that this frees THEM up to decide...<<

Those will be /interesting/ court cases.

Re: This gets more disturbing if one even scratches the surface

[dialecticdreamer]

Bear in mind that I do think that women who insist on genetic parenthood but who can't carry a baby to term should have the option of surrogacy, whether the modern version or the theoretical humanoid robot surrogate.

It just seems like the plan isn't to help a very small percentage of the population, which is on par with the percentage of QUILTBAG women (13% infertile, versus the accepted 10% estimate for the QUILTBAG group).

The easiest way to support declining birth rates would be to (a) turn surrogacy into a one year employment contract, and only women with two healthy children already could apply to the program. Or, subsidize the cost of adoption. Or, subsidize corrective medical treatment.

But no, what the Chinese have claimed instead, cuts the only biological function out of the definition of "womanhood".

What will they DO with that new "freedom"? They don't have a great history of acceptance, tolerance, or equality.

Re: This gets more disturbing if one even scratches the surface

[see_also_friend]

Generally speaking, the /option/ to have an artificial womb would be awesome*! We're just in the old catch-22 of 'everything gets complicated when people are involved.'

*Ditto for stuff like vaccines, gene therapy, the internet, etc, etc.

>>It just seems like the plan isn't to help a very small percentage of the population, which is on par with the percentage of QUILTBAG women (13% infertile, versus the accepted 10% estimate for the QUILTBAG group).<<

I suspect the people doing this see 'low birth rates' or 'women aren't having enough children' as a bottleneck problem, and rather than solving the problem, they're just trying to break the bottle.

>>The easiest way to support declining birth rates would be to (a) turn surrogacy into a one year employment contract, and only women with two healthy children already could apply to the program. Or, subsidize the cost of adoption. Or, subsidize corrective medical treatment.<<

I am in favor of all of these.

However, I will point out that a lot of the falling birth rates has to do with the fact that having children is unaffordable, and also that the world is frequently not safe for children. I think a lot of fertile people would be more likely to have kids if those problems were fixed.

Re: This gets more disturbing if one even scratches the surface

[dialecticdreamer]

Honestly, if the world population suddenly cut in half (as in "the Snap" in Marvel), we'd suddenly have DIFFERENT problems, until we could adjust. It's one of the few things that might level out the absurd housing costs.

But much like Covid, five years later, people would have found a new normal.

In that new normal, however, I think that the number of fertile adults having children would NOT jump up to magically meet 3.1 averages. The social issues are huge, not easily broken into smaller, more solvable issues. Right now, we're relying on cultures that limit access to birth control to maintain our population growth as a species.

That's going to make entirely new sets of problems.

Amid ALL of this, though, there are still children who age out of foster care. There are still babies who are abandoned at birth in unsafe places.

The entire scientific experiment seems more like a vanity project writ large than a practical addition to our lives as a species.

Re: This gets more disturbing if one even scratches the surface

[ysabetwordsmith]

>>However, I will point out that a lot of the falling birth rates has to do with the fact that having children is unaffordable, and also that the world is frequently not safe for children. I think a lot of fertile people would be more likely to have kids if those problems were fixed.<<

Sustained. Two leading reasons for not having more children are cost, and the factual observation that Earth is a mess.

In fact, the top reason for abortion is inability to afford another child. Pro-lifers could cut the rate by a third if they were willing to pay medical costs and support mothers. They aren't. They just want to torture women.

Re: This gets more disturbing if one even scratches the surface

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> The easiest way to support declining birth rates would be to (a) turn surrogacy into a one year employment contract, and only women with two healthy children already could apply to the program. <<

The easiest way would be to make motherhood attractive with measures like:
* free health care
* generous maternity leave
* free child care
* a bonus to parental retirement funds for each child raised
* flexible work hours for parents.

>>What will they DO with that new "freedom"? They don't have a great history of acceptance, tolerance, or equality.<<

That's likely what started this problem. China has a woman shortage. The women are very picky about men if they want one; they can afford to be. Many Chinese women don't want to marry and have kids; or if they do, want only one child. A working woman can live a very comfortable lifestyle and doesn't need a man to do that. China's efforts to convince women to have more children have been met with disdain.

Chinese men rich enough to afford it are therefore buying women from other Asian countries.

Re: This gets more disturbing if one even scratches the surface

[dialecticdreamer]

Ah, but China has a definite problem with racism. Having a non=Chinese spouse can ABSOLUTELY derail a career.

That, too, is probably a factor behind powerful, rich men putting tons of money into research that may not have gone anywhere.

[see_also_friend]

>>One obvious drawback of this version is that it's attached to a humanoid robot.<<

The only practical reason for that design would be to get people to subconsciously protect the female-coded/pregnancy-coded 'bot the same way they would an actual pregnant woman.

>>Well, bipedal motion is tricky in general and for robotics in particular; that creates a falling hazard...<<

A walking pregancy bot would be a /stupid/ idea.

>>...they're more likely to stick it on the front as happens in human women, for aesthetic similarity, prioritizing that over stability and protection.<<

If you /must/ have a humanoid pregnancy bot, design it as non-walking. It should either be designed to be transported in a wheelchair, or designed so it /looks/ like a human in a wheelchair. The latter could be easily done by making it essentially centauroid, with functional wheels/treads, and non-fuctional ornamental legs.

>>Realistically, a static unit would be much safer, preferably in a location with neonatal and robotics experts...<<

You might want it to be slightly moveable, like a stretcher or briefcase or something, in case you need to run one to a patient.

I am reminded of the story where they had to /quickly/ improvise something to get the preemie from the OR to the incubator without dying from exposure. (They used a sandwich bag as a carrying case.)

With a mobile artificial womb, you could set it up right next to the mother, and the baby wouldn't have to be exposes for more than a few seconds.

>>China has ... alternative ethics.<<

Unfortunately those are in fashion lately.

>>And the ones they have left aren't as keen on marriage, pregnancy, and child raising as their ancestors were.<<

I find it amusing that in all these countries with dropping birth rates, I have yet to hear of someone offering to subsidize pregnancies. Even the rich guys who want to increase the population won't do it!

>>I'm dubious of this.<<

I'm kind of dubious of the claim because of the cost. Even for a baseline artificial womb incubator that /doesn't/ include conception, I'd expect the cost to be way over $20,000.

Yes, it is possible for stuff to cost differently in other countries... but then I'll be annoyed about American medical costs.

>>Human young, even after birth, require close parental contact to survive and thrive. Without that, they often die, and the survivors grow up with serious mental and/or physical problems. Consider it a kind of relational malnutrition that sabotages survival and health.<<

In order to prevent this :

1) Design the unit to mimic what 'human' 'looks like' to an unborn infant. I.e. have a sound feed of a heartbeat [recorded repeats may be too repetitive.] And have people talk around the tech! Babies do learn what voices sound like in the womb.

2) Test the tech on other social species before switching to humans. Rats or pigs might be good choices, since they are social, intelligent and fast breeders. Some species of monkey might be a good followup experiment, since their psychology is very similar to human psychology.

>> About a third of pregnancies naturally miscarry as the fetus proves nonviable...<<

Hunh. I thought it was 1-in-6. I guess the pregnancy testing got better?

>>Creating male-sterile crops is a crime against humanity. Reason being, it spreads, and that threatens the food supply.<<

Wouldn't it die off after the first generation, though? Or does it pass down the female line like, say, colorblindness? Or are plant's forms of sexual reproduction just that different from mammals?

>>Here is a discussion of why that is a problem.<<

Link did not work for me.

>>That's not a good place to prioritize speed, convenience, and profits over human need and agricultural security.<<

I guess if the male-sterile strain is not self-fertile (or endogamous-fertile) they get a near-100% rate of hybrids, rather than either a quick but fluctuating ratio or having to hand-pollinate everything?

[ysabetwordsmith]

>>Even for a baseline artificial womb incubator that /doesn't/ include conception, I'd expect the cost to be way over $20,000.<<

A quick search indicates that incubators cost $400 to $35,000.

>>Some species of monkey might be a good followup experiment, since their psychology is very similar to human psychology.<<

Ideal in theory but no longer legal in America.

>>Hunh. I thought it was 1-in-6. I guess the pregnancy testing got better? <<

Better and earlier. One third is the rate for known pregnancies. The estimated total rate is around half.

>>Wouldn't it die off after the first generation, though? <<

Hybrid crops are meant to be reproduced from separate parents each generation.

>>Or does it pass down the female line like, say, colorblindness? <<

Exactly. That's how it can contaminate other crops, destroying them.

>>Link did not work for me.<<

https://web.archive.org/web/20211016140714/https://lofthouse.com/cytoplasmic-male-sterility.phtml

[see_also_friend]

>>A quick search indicates that incubators cost $400 to $35,000.<<

So I'm conflating purchase cost and hospital-service cost.

I will however ask what the range of quality is. I could believe a $400 would work for chicken eggs, but I don't know what sort of quality you'd get for that price with a human incubator.

>>Hybrid crops are meant to be reproduced from separate parents each generation.<<
>>Exactly. That's how it can contaminate other crops, destroying them.<<

Okay that makes sense, & I agree it is a stupid thing to do.

& the link worked this time.

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> So I'm conflating purchase cost and hospital-service cost.<<

Yes. Bear in mind that hospitals can change whatever they want for goods or services, and often deny clients the right to free, informed, and prior consent. Once you're in there, they can do whatever they want to you. One might charge $500 for an incubator, another $5000 or $50,000 for the same thing.

>>I will however ask what the range of quality is. I could believe a $400 would work for chicken eggs, but I don't know what sort of quality you'd get for that price with a human incubator.<<

Sure, you can get a chicken incubator for $10-50. You get what you pay for. A $500 one will be MUCH more reliable. But human equipment? The prices are often highly inflated just because people can. *ponder* It would probably be cheaper to buy a $500 cabinet sized chicken incubator and put a baby in that. You get not just heat control but humidity and the high-end ones give you an app for tracking.

Re: Thoughts

[see_also_friend]

>>Bear in mind that hospitals can change whatever they want for goods or services, and often deny clients the right to free, informed, and prior consent.<<

We need pricing reform in healthcare. I wonder if a law about businesses needing clearly posted prices would be able to sneak by whoever is benefitting from the shell games? (Most people seem not to think of healthcare as a business in the same way that an ice-cream truck is a business.)

>>The prices are often highly inflated just because people can.<<

Probably. I recall someone once mentioning that if they needed to buy straws as a medical device (because plastic bans), the price would be much higher.

>>*ponder* It would probably be cheaper to buy a $500 cabinet sized chicken incubator and put a baby in that. <<

People these days would fuss about child abuse most likely. I do recall historical accounts of people popping babies into ovens to keep them warm (not sure of accuracy).

>>You get not just heat control but humidity and the high-end ones give you an app for tracking.<<

I am a little suspicious about leaving such an important task entirely to high-tech. That said, an app could be very convenient and beneficial. I'd just want to keep a close eye on it.