Besides cloning and artificial insemination, what would future

>>45483498
Dude, they would fuck.


Come on, /tg/.

>>45483498

Artificial wombs would potentially mean that far more embryos gestate, both due to near-optimal conditions and significantly lower opportunity cost of being pregnant for 9 months. Creche-raising and extended social "family" structures lend a degree of modularity to what is now a binary CHILD / NO CHILD in the developed world. Add in potential financial or social benefits to procreation and you can spike that birth rate; just ask Ze Chermans about Lebensborn.

File: when-it-hits-you-that-youve-ruined-a-continent-angela-merkel[1].jpg (67KB, 735x461px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 735x461px

>>45483498
(Space) Refugees

File: omw0510.jpg (83KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 400x600px

By keeping the Earth in a state of underdevelopment and squalor for use as a breeding ground for soldiers and colonists.

>>45483744
Top tier taste Anon

>>45483596
>
Artificial wombs would potentially mean that far more embryos gestate, both due to near-optimal conditions and significantly lower opportunity cost of being pregnant for 9 months

My concern for this is: isn't the 'death rate' of sperm and even early embryos in the womb sort of an active weeding out of weaker genetics?

I don't mean to sound /pol/ but wouldn't just "creating ideal conditions for embyros to thrive" potentially result in more children that grow up with birth defects and such?

You'd need to master genetics first so you can at least take the edge off the worst of these issues.

>>45483498
>the developed world has a magazine birth rate
It has a stable birth rate for the most part, even Japan is stabilizing now

>>45483744
Why don't they just make an embryo/cloning factory then?

>>45484237

It's going to be far easier to exploit CRISPR or the like to tailor babies than it is to build a self-sustaining external womb and instituting non-destructive transfer protocols. When you have the one, you've already been using the other for a while. So you genemod your slackjawed waterhead potato-lump into an ubermensch, THEN decide whether or not to skip the whole icky pregnant part.

>>45483744
>reading YA trash

You're on the wrong board. >>>/lit/

File: baitthemindkiller.png (17KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 600x600px

>>45483498
I can't tell if this is retarded bait or not. You need to establish the conditions and directives for why space immigration is even taking place.
Why would you want to send humans to live in hostile airless vacuum in the first place, or why would people go there or want to go there?

Space immigration is going to have even harsher incentives for population control and better technologies to facilitate it. Unlike Earth, you can't just start farming just anywhere in a space colony; you have very stark and very real Malthusian limits, so you're unlikely to want population explosions in a space colony.

The whole idea of "space immigration" as a method to alleviate population pressure is very antiquated for the reasons that you note - we can easily cut overpopulation problems in a generation simply by cutting the birthrate.

i don't think the problem is a fertility issue, it's that nobody wants to have kids

even with cloning & artificial insemination, if nobody wants to raise the damn kids, they'll just die

>>45484350

>doesn't read YA fiction

you might be on the wrong board newfriend ;^)

>>45484394
Companion bots?

>>45483498
>when the developed world has a negative birthrate
This is a bit of an exaggeration. Most of the developed world have birthrates that range from 2.0 - 1.6, which is on track for population drop but hardly extinction.

Even if world birthrates went down to 1.0 tomorrow, the next generation would still be 3.7 billion people. That's still a lot of people by any measure; you could easily spare 1 million or 2 million for space colonization.

File: NotSureIf.jpg (73KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 250x250px

>>45484503

>presumes birthrates must bounce back
>though teledildonics are now a thing
>a new threat to the species

Say buhbye to all your neckbear friends when the next gen realdolls hit the market. All of Asia and the West's self-loathing otaku population will be continually raped by Latex Lolis until they happily die of dehydration - and this will all happen BEFORE the bots get linked into Skynet. Population numbers will fall off a cliff. Meanwhile, fuckbot milking machines will never die, never get old. But when it becomes apparent what's happening, the world will find out what REAL feminists looks like ...

>>45483498

The developed world only has a negative birthrate because it's become expensive and inconvenient to have a large family. There are simply too many people vying for resources already. There are too many people on our planet right now to comfortably handle at a decent standard of living.

In a scenario where humanity had to expand and 'grow into' somewhere new with a population explosion, we are more than capable of fucking a lot and producing large families again, don't worry.

>>45484237
Presumably by the point that you've mastered bio-engineering and/or genetics to the level that you're capable of independently gestating a human child without a living host, you'd already have the ability to detect harmful birth/genetic defects. Either the fetus could be terminated, or the flaw could be corrected by some means.

It's entirely plausible to assume that, being imperfect beings, that we might miss something, but then that sort of thing is already happening today, with our much less sophisticated medical technology.

>>45484994
They weren't gonna reproduce anyways.
They're neckbeards

>>45484994
And this is a bad thing because...? It's like >>45485147 said, populations demographics work on cycles too. During periods where labour is in demand and people can establish steady incomes the population booms (ex. America after WWII, Europe after the Black Death). We aren't experiencing any of those booms because we haven't had any big die-offs lately and the labour market is crowded.

Now it can be argued that the demise of traditional nuclear families means the population will never pick up again, but these arguments are non-starters - those that choose not to have children won't have any children to continue those ideas. People who value families and raising children and pass on those ideals to their children will simply continue to do so. If your ideal is for a specific phenotypical expression of a complex human genome to survive, then you might be out of luck, but getting a particular phenotypical expression isn't a guarantee either.

>>45484237
>isn't the 'death rate' of sperm and even early embryos in the womb sort of an active weeding out of weaker genetics

not technically. if you want to look through that lens you could argue that anything the body does was made to weed out lesser genetics. the term "lesser" is very relative. beneficial or "superior" genetics in certain environments can be useless or harmful in others.

the truth is the high death rate of sperm is just due to how many of them there are. by spraying and praying you have a higher chance of at least one latching onto something than making the perfect sperm and having it not land anywhere. it's more about probability than it is genetics. the uterine environment is spermicidal because it just needs to whittle down the number somehow to prevent multiple fertilizations.

also, the motility of the sperm itself doesn't always mean that the sperm's genetics themselves are inferior, although it can in some cases. but motility is mostly determined by the father's genetics.

>>45484237
Less "weaker genetics" and more "non-functional genetics". Sperm and egg cells are running on half the normal chromosomes. For normal humans, we've got 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs. As long as we've got a working copy of a gene on one of each pair we're good.

However, haploid (sperm and egg) cells don't have this redundancy so if there's a major fault on one of the chromosomes the entire cell is likely to destroy it'self.

Other than that, the selection is pretty random.

>>45483570
People today fuck but they refuse to have kids. If they do, they have one, maybe two. This only doesn't apply to the third world where they're more religious, less educated (particularly the women) and have less birth control.

>>45483498

I don't know, maybe modify the economic system so that children aren't The Most Expensive Thing You Will Ever Do?

>>45484375
>I can't tell if this is retarded bait or not.

pls

FTL and the technology of space colonization/terraforming isn't the issue of the thread. Assume all that fancy shit exists if it helps you get to the point of this thread: That all those cool scifi settings where humanity spreads out from Earth into other parts of our solar system or even beyond it can't happen if we don't have enough babies. How to get from A to B is the point of the thread. With or without scifi technology.

>>45484394
Yeah. Barring immigrants and the ghetto, only the most religious people in the developed world bother having enough kids, like Mormons. There's a lot of socio-economic reasons for this.

>>45484503
>hardly extinction.

You're arguing against a point that isn't made. Re-read the OP. The thread is about humanity multiplying. <2.2 birthrate isn't multiplying. It doesn't let you have the expansive space empires.

>>45483498
>the way it is today is the way it's always going to be

Why even talk about the future

File: 1445201114894.jpg (154KB, 1016x970px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1016x970px

>>45488277
>can't happen if we don't have enough babies.
Of all the possible ways we can exterminate our species, "having too few kids" is not anywhere near the top of the list. There's 7.7 billion humans on the planet; more than most other species our size or larger.

If anything, you could argue overpopulation is equally a danger to space exploration, as it puts a strain on resources and creates social instability that aren't conducive to space exploration programs.

>It doesn't let you have the expansive space empires
The question is why would we want expansive space empires in the first place? Why bother colonizing the cold, inhospitable, and valueless void of space? If there are important resources out there, why do humans need to go up there in person? The question you're asking needs this sort of context to be established.

The reason people in the past established empires is because there were hospitable conditions that allowed for settlement and/or resources that required a permanent human presence in an era where technology couldn't replace human labour. Space offers none of these things, and the technology needed for space travel also allows us to develop robotic workers to do that for us.

>>45489552
>Of all the possible ways we can exterminate our species

Where the fuck do you keep getting this shit about extermination or extinction because of low birthrates? You're either trolling or an idiot.

>Ctrl +F rape gangs
>zero matches
You've changed, /tg/.

>>45483498

>souls are uploaded to a future net.

>new code is generated

>generated code meeting certain requirements is uploaded into corresponding machinery.

also

>I can't imagine humanity spreading across the stars when the developed world has a negative birthrate

an advanced sentient AI would gather reproductive samples and best guess conditions that would reap optimal yield.

this also includes stress-testing in different stages of fetal development. The advantage of having the AI do it, in order to strengthen aspects of the fetus, would lay in its' already established database of observed conditioning memory.

Ideal circumstances in uterus does not mean free from all negative influence.

>>45488014
>only sensible answer in this ridiculous thread

Life extension technology would be guaranteed to give the birth rate a boost over the death rate.

>>45489552
We should colonize space because we're one moron hitting the wrong button away from extinction.

>>45488014
this desu senpaitachi

>>45489552
Redundancy. There are all sorts of disasters that could strike the planet earth but leave colonies in the rest of the solar system intact, an extinction-event style asteroid impact being the first that lives to mind.

File: 1453958867379.jpg (148KB, 600x848px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 600x848px

>>45483498
Theoretically speaking, how would the invention of the artificial womb alter the course of human society?

>Would artificially born babies face social prejudice in the real world?
>Would they be raised by foster parents? Raised by the government?
>Would there be laws in place to protect these artificially raised children from child soldier recruitment programs?
>How would it be monitored? If an adult were to buy a sexdoll with a built=in womb, what if his underaged son were to somehow find it and impregnate it? Would self termination of a gestating embryo be lawfully declared as an "abortion"?
>Would this invention slowly segue into human society, or would it drastically alter rules and legislation over night?
>Would a readily pregnant gynoid (6 to 9 months pregnant) be treated as a first class citizen?

I think, personally, that the invention of an artificial womb would start off small, with a few successful/unsuccessful tests in major universities. Then, slowly, as the understanding behind this technology gets better, laws would form slowly as the technology progresses, and many of these motherhood-capable gynoids would be granted full, legal protection after they reach a certain point in their pregnancy.

Eventually, the technology would be so ingrained within modern culture that to have an artificial womb would be as prevalent in that society as it is now to have a full body pillow, or a blow up doll.

>>45491608
An artificial womb is an apparatus you put an extracorporally fertilized zygote into to grow and develop into an embryo. It doesnt let you to just create children from the thin air. Thus:

>Would artificially born babies face social prejudice in the real world?
No more that babies born from a surrogate mother do now, most likely.

>Would they be raised by foster parents? Raised by the government?
By their own parents.

>Would there be laws in place to protect these artificially raised children from child soldier recruitment programs?
The children protection laws are in place right now. Artificial womb children are like any others.

>How would it be monitored? If an adult were to buy a sexdoll with a built=in womb, what if his underaged son were to somehow find it and impregnate it? Would self termination of a gestating embryo be lawfully declared as an "abortion"?
Where would the sex doll get an egg from?
Why the hell do you need a sex doll with a womb in the first place?

>Would this invention slowly segue into human society, or would it drastically alter rules and legislation over night?
Rules and legislation lag behind the technical progress as a rule.

>Would a readily pregnant gynoid (6 to 9 months pregnant) be treated as a first class citizen?
Why would you put an artificial womb into a gynoid? Why?

>>45491608
>Eventually, the technology would be so ingrained within modern culture that to have an artificial womb would be as prevalent in that society as it is now to have a full body pillow, or a blow up doll.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but do you think a womb is just something to pander to an impregnation fetish? Really?

>>45491849
No, I'm saying that when they're first introduced in to society, there'd be a lot of the typical backlash/confusion; but then as time goes on and things start to get "normalized", the taboo against artificial wombs would go from "holy shit, this is going to destroy societies, you guys" to "Damn, that guy has an artificial womb? He must be kind of a loser."

This whole thread seriously reminds me of Chesterton and the joke he once made about future predictions.
He compared people like OP to people who see that one of three piglets born to a swine grows two times faster than the two remaining. From this, the they extrapolate, inevitably the piglet will grow into a size of a whole barn in just a month, and possibly eventually become as big as the whole planet in a few years.

Maybe, OP, just maybe the refusal to breed we face right now is a temporary state resulted from combination of stupid ideologies and value systems with specific configuration of our socio-economical organization. And maybe, just maybe, these things might CHANGE into the future. Ironically enough, there won't be any future unless they do, really.

>>45491827
>By their own parents.
But would we really make artificial-womb technology so readily consumable for the civilian market? At what point does an artificial womb go from "military tech" to "give me 20,000 bucks and I'll give you this artificial womb"? Which also brings up the question of legality.

What happens if you purchase a defective womb? Could you sue the people who made the artificial womb if your child was born with birth defects? Would manufacturers have you sign a contract that states "Alright, I know what I'm getting myself into. Give me the womb."?

What would the blackmarket for these damn things be like?

>>45491827
>Why would you put an artificial womb in a sex doll in the first place? Where would they even get the egg?

I'm thinking that at some point, consumer demand would force manufacturers to develop a model of gynoid that would be compatible with an artificial womb of some sort, and even if they didn't, the black market demand for one would be extraordinary.

As for the egg part, it'd probably have to be regular maintenance or something. I don't know. Like changing the break fluid in a car or whatever. I'm not so sure about the specifics of it.

>>45491868
>"Damn, that guy has an artificial womb? He must be kind of a loser."

What for would a guy need an artificial womb in the first place? It's a device for women to have children without going through pregnancy.

>>45491908
You do realize that artificial womb is something that would be IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE demanded by civilian market - for infertile couples, for the option to skip dangers of pregnancy etc... we don't live in a videogame, the first utilization of artificial womb is not military one for fuck sake. What the fuck would military do with them? It would require some MASSIVE transformation of the idea of humanity to for people to even start considering them a mere spare parts of army - that would mean such a DRASTIC shift in basic social value models that compared to them, developing cheap and mass-accessible artificial wombs would be a breeze.

Why would the military need an artificial womb? What society would allow military to use PEOPLE (and it's still PEOPLE) to be born and raised entirely for military purposes? What the fuck do you think human right activists would think of that?
I can assure you, if artificial wombs are ever to become a thing in society that even remotely resembles ours, it's going to be for civilian medical use first and foremost.

>Which also brings up the question of legality.
Yeah, because it's not like we haven't been tackling these issues with artificial insemination and rental wombs for decades now... Seriously, there is legislation for this kind of stuff already.

>>45491942
>As for the egg part, it'd probably have to be regular maintenance or something.
Do you realize what an egg is? Who would donate it? Where would the genetic information come from? Why would people want pregnancy-able gynoids in the first place - and why would the government allow for such thing?

>>45491942
So >>45491849 ?

>>45492048

No, but anon, don't you understand? Every invention ever was developed by the military for war purposes! War is great, war is just, why I bet we'd walking on Jupiter if WWII never ended!

>>45492072
More like all military in the world is basically just Umbrella corps and the first thing anyone with power thinks of when he sees an option to birth children without the labor risks and circumventing the problem of infertility is "More genetically engineered soldiers for our evil world-domination plan!"

>>45491908
Why would civilians purchase an artificial womb? You just visit a hospital to use one. It's like an MRI machine or a surgical robot. They still cost at least $1 million, but they're reusable. Defects are rare, and can be detected with early screening. Generally, if there's any issues they'll just purge the womb and start over. This possibility is factored into the cost.

Of course, there's probably a bunch of paperwork and a waiting list and such. The same kind of stuff you have to go through when adopting a child. The costs may or may not be government-subsidized.

There might be a black market among slavers, who want to raise armies of clones for hard labor, sex work, etc. Maybe also a paramilitary market for super-soldiers.

>>45492038
Well, just putting it out there, but the sex trade seems like a good place to start.

>>45492048
>>45492072

I'm not saying the military would USE them for child soldiers or anything. I'm not an idiot. I understand the consequences something like that would have on public relations and etc. etc. (though it IS, technically, possible).

I'm saying that it seems likely that the military would probably control and influence the mainstream population's exposure to artificial womb technology, because, you know, flooding the civilian market with artificial wombs WITHOUT any proper research would seem, kind of, I don't know, irresponsible.

>The egg thing

We're in a setting where the creation of artificial wombs are entirely understood on an industrial scale. What's to say we couldn't manufacture an egg? And even then, why would it be so hard to procure an egg from a donating female?

I'm asking what the legal consequences would be for such a thing, and I'm asking HOW legislature would limit, or react, to these new changes.

I honestly don't think the government would allow for pregnancy-able gynoids, but it's bound to happen if that technology exists.

Someone, somewhere, is going to buy an artificial womb, or someone, somewhere, is going to find a way to make one himself (maybe even one that's cheaper than the legal model), and obviously it's going to be highly illegal, but I'm willing to bet that it's GOING to happen.

And even so, it would be easy to weaponize these things. We're not talking about JUST artificial wombs. We're talking about genetic engineering on a Sims3 level. We're talking about the ability to not only "create" man, but to SHAPE him.

You honestly don't think the military wouldn't have a stake in that? You honestly think they wouldn't hoard that kind of technology, even just so that it doesn't reach the civilian market?

Damn, son. Why you gotta get all antsy-pantsy on me?

>>45492147
>I'm saying that it seems likely that the military would probably control and influence the mainstream population's exposure to artificial womb technology
WHY?! WHY WOULD MILITARY EVEN HAVE the technology? What the fuck would military have to do with a technology that is EXPLICITLY AND ONLY useful for medical needs of the civilian population?
Why the FUCK would military have anything to do with this? It's like assuming the military would limit the accessibility of cancer treatment - because the cancer treatment drugs could potentially be also harmful if not used appropriately.
Military would not develop this shit, and they would not assume control over it either. That makes literally zero sense: Military has no fucking reason to care about artificial wombs - one fucking way or another.

>What's to say we couldn't manufacture an egg?
Again: do you realize what you are saying? Do you realize what an egg is? It's a bundle of genes.

>I'm asking what the legal consequences would be for such a thing, and I'm asking HOW legislature would limit, or react, to these new changes.
You are presuming a nonsensical scenario. Why would anyone have any interest in implementing reproductive system into something that is not human? If you are saying that some guy might just want to have a child, not wanted a wife, but at the same time prefered to have a woman-like robot by his side, then the process is exactly the same as if she wasn't a robot and was an artificial womb begin with.
You need to sort out the questions.
Are you asking about what if a guy wants a child, but not a mother for that child - and wants to use an artificial labor system instead?
Or are you asking whenever robots should be granted the right to reproduce?

>You honestly don't think the military wouldn't have a stake in that?
You honestly don't think the society would not go STOMPING DOWN MAKING MASSIVE legal adjustments before that?

File: dale.jpg (15KB, 307x352px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 307x352px

>>45492147
Are you from some autocratic fascist nation where the military IS the government? In most countries the military doesn't handle regulation of medical technology. The Department of Defense or another nation's equivalent might have some ultra-classified secret emergency program or something planning for the possibility of using artificial wombs for military purposes, but beyond some file tucked away in the fourth sub-basement of the Pentagon or Kremlin and disregarded until a war kills 70% or more of the population, "the military" would have nothing to do with this technology as far as day to day life was concerned.

>>45492088
>>45492147

You miss one crucial thing anons.
Raising a child from birth is a HUGE investment. If you wand a sex-slave/soldier, you'd be much better just getting an adult or a teenager.

And don't start on genetically engineered supersoldiers. All those tons of resources poured into gene modifying and raising a kid could be sent down the drain by a single bullet. It's just horribly unprofitable.

>>45483596
Popping the kid isn't the problem. Taking care of it well enough that it doesn't become one of us for at least 16 years is. And you need to have two or more per woman/couple to reach replacement level.

>>45485147
>The developed world only has a negative birthrate because it's become expensive and inconvenient to have a large family.
This is true.
>There are simply too many people vying for resources already.
This is utterly false and people should stop spreading that idea.

>>45488014
Yep.

>>45492480
>This is true.
It's not entirely true. Technically speaking it's cheaper than ever. Hell, in most countries of the world you don't have to invest anything and the state will fucking pay for the child itself.
It's like the good old "poverty leads to criminality". It does not. "RELATIVE poverty leads to criminality". Similarly, having large family is RELATIVELY expensive to other things that you could gain.
More importantly though, I think the problem is in simple social devaluation of all kin-related aspects of life.

>>45492523
I'm firmly in the camp of economics explaining most of the social aspects of human life personally, for example, large families come either from a serious lack of old age income support, or a government having a natalist policy. Here in France, even white families are around 1.9-2 children per woman (despite claims that immigrants have all the children), because we have quite a lot of incentives (or rather a good security net) to having 3 or more children. I'm in the middle of my break working as an electrician right now, and I'm doing stuff in collective inhabitations---most people are white and have 2 to 4 children. The others are mostly single people who consequently don't have any child.

>>45492597
>I'm firmly in the camp of economics explaining most of the social aspects of human life personally
I would HEAVILY dispute that point, and I think I could even present studies (particularly on the subject of family models and economy) to support my angle. I don't deny economy has a key role in our existence, but I think it's far less straight-forward than most people assume. I think that the value systems do not overlap with economic definitions of value nearly as neatly as economists tend to think.
France, by the way, has an average of 1.74 child per couple, which is still about a half a child bellow replacement rate (better than other countries are doing, relatively speaking, but still not good). I believe that this is caused not so much by families having only one child, as it is by single people or couples deciding to not have children in the first place, but that even further supports the notion that dynamics are not created by economical unviability of child rearing, but rather a value system that encourages refusal to have children to begin with.