The reason this comes up is because I was reading Imp1 comments and replies to them and he’s mentioned multiple times before that he believes that the actual answer to a lot of this is making artificial wombs so that you can cut out women from making kids and relationships with women have to be about something else. That would mean that since women can't use their wombs as a bargaining tool, their intellect and personalities have to be what keeps a man interested, at least imo, and I can see why it would appeal to him, but are they even reasonable?
I haven't done the research myself and thought it would be more fun to have a discussion over it, but still, I’m just curious as to how the tech works if at all. I've seen things where the tech is being “suppressed” (hidden from the public like a lot of current tech we use today was during the Cold War, ala the internet), but is that true, or not? It's just genuinely an interesting topic to me.
Medical Science on the March: https://archive.ph/mUzcC
"Medical ethics" is becoming an oxymoron. This travesty is on par with Joseph Mengele's experiments or the Tuskegee syphilis horrors, only the subjects will eagerly submit.
I hope the delusional volunteers for this butchery die on the table.
Scientific curiosity pushing the limits of humane medicine is one thing but capitalizing on a mass delusion is quite another.
Ethics has been all but abandoned since Covid.
When medical ethicists are arguing to contaminate the public water supplies of nations with sedatives in order to increase vaccine acceptance, then they've lost the fucking plot.
Hadn't heard of this one. WTF?
I originally heard this from Dave Cullin during his examination of Covid policies, but I can't quickly find the piece that I originally heard it from, since it was over a year ago.
However, this isn't something that's unheard of, and there's a reason why Alex Jones was freaking out about 'puttin' chemicals in the water'
I think this was the original story
Key section:
Be sure to click on some of the links he provides.
The key philosophical danger here is:
This isn't unprecedented. Flouridation of water was the result of a propaganda campaign by Edward Bernays to justify dumping industrial waste.
Bernays should be far more notorious than he is.
"Moral enhancement." Holy shit.
I'd say legalization of Psilocybin in most of the 50 states is coming soon. What, if anything, do you think this might do to our political climate?
I have this pet hypothesis that argues the psychedelic revolution helped to liberalize many Americans and attracted them to the superficially altruistic policies of the American political left. Widespread psychedelic use also made many people sympathetic to feminism ("the women's movement") and open borders, sympathies that have bit them and everyone else in the ass.
Actually, I think it might be a bit different.
I think it might be a bit of proof that the Libertarian view on drugs might be correct. Yes, a lot of people self-medicate, but there are people that are using some of these very hard drugs recreationally, and in a mature and reasonable method.
I've noticed that there are a lot of boomers who've done very hard drugs, even to this day, but are the types that have mushrooms on their birthday, or take a hit of LSD for a once-a-year family reunion. I've noticed that long-term recreational drug users are actually quite careful with what they are doing, and how. Making sure never to even pop on piss tests, without even resorting to illegal or illegitimate nonsense.
Effectively, what you are seeing as people age is a conservative approach to drug use. Not "Conservative" but 'conservative'. Being more cautious and intentional in it's use.
I think the mass introduction of in the 60's was done because the Left-wing establishment had a fad and got high. Elites have always been high on something, and psychedelics was one specific era of that. That did promote more of what you mentioned, but as time goes on, I think those tastes begin to moderate so long as there isn't heavy institutional efforts to put it in front of kids.
I would expect the same thing to happen with any prohibited drug: a sudden fad introduction and a wave of cases and knock-off behaviors, followed by a slow trend to a more mature approach over the span of a decade or two.
Honestly, pushing corporate chemicals and drugs seems to be way more dangerous because of how much aggressive institutionalization they want to sell their products. Even if you had a dispensary for mushrooms and LSD, I don't think they'd be as much of a problem as Pfizer getting into it.
The job of people who call themselves ethictists is to justify the most unethical man-made horrors beyond comprehension.
Moderate and severed Dental Fluorosis ( permanent structural damage to the teeth from fluoride poisoning ) now affects ~25% of teens. It used to be rare.
Water fluoration sounds nice untill later, when the kids whose teeth formed with fluoride poisoning, have their adult teeth permanently fucked.
A clear example of why rushing experimental treatments on populations can have disastrous long-term consequences that could not have been forseen.
Yet the "experts" and politicians keep fucking with our lives.
No, not going to be viable for a while.
Growing a full grown human being in a highly controlled lab would be exceedingly difficult, and would require regular maintenance and changes depending on the age of the baby.
An artificial womb would have to be all that, and portable. It's just not gonna happen except maybe at a later date in this century.
We're probably going to have economic nuclear fusion or a cure for deafness before we get to a practical version of an artificial womb that doesn't at least need to be integrated with a human female.
And that's being a long way from simple viability. It's almost certainly not going to be on par with an actual human womb for even longer than that, fine tuning details on hormonal feedback loops and getting all the other minutiae right is another towering task that will take years longer.
In the interim artificial womb babies will be more prone to being sickly or have on average worse cognitive development, which almost no-one with half a clue or care will want to risk.
lol, no.
The last couple generations have been brainwashed into thinking that just because emails get delivered, that all technology miraculously just works. In reality, all tech is a poor approximation to a natural or human solution, at best.
Study one complex system, become a hobbyist expert in it, then look into tech solutions for that system. Generalize what you find.
A government committee can't plan an economy, "AI-generated" text is literally written by humans, vaccines (even the "good ones") have massively underreported injury rates, and a trans-humanist will always predict the singularity will happen about ten years before they reach the end of the average lifespan.
Technology isn't coming to save you. We have to fix this mess ourselves.
I've worked with computers all my life.
I have personally had to dissuade people from thinking computers can solve all their problems because they see it as a magical black box, and they have no idea how the sausage is made or maintained.
The vast majority of software you interact with on a daily basis is a fucking shit show that doesn't meet with basic coding etiquette or good coding standards/compliance. Vast majority is software gore, or has huge vulnerabilities.
Old analog systems can normally be trusted more and are more reliable because:
Old analog systems relied on engineers to design physical redundancy in their systems and engineered them not to allow for certain failures at all. This required higher levels of planning and higher quality materials, because most of these systems were over-designed. My cast-iron sewing machine from 1903 still works like a charm.
Modern analog systems dealt with inflation by making cheaper quality goods and planned obsolescence, removing redundancy, and making specific product life-time analysis for a period of a few years so that it can serve it's purpose for a short time, due to the lack of value being given up by the consumer. My sewing machine from 1993 has broken several times, and it's cheap plastic has broken as well.
Modern digital systems are typically built by communists in China who have no regard for quality whatsoever, and the digital systems involved are made as quickly and cheaply as possible by scavenging both materials and code to produce billions of the same garbage so that massive Chinese conglomerates can make money off of the economy of scale. Why would I buy a modern sewing machine at this point?
Even if they manage to actually perfect this technology, you'd still need ova from actual women to make it work.
Make no mistake, as soon as a functioning artificial womb was released onto the market, anonymity and decision-making powers over the donation of reproductive material would suddenly become a major concern in a way that it's never been for sperm donations for some reason.
If a man actually managed to secure an ovum for an artificial womb to give himself a child, as soon as the woman who donated that egg started to have second thoughts, the legal precedent would immediately be set allowing her to take that child off his hands with no recourse left to him.
Bottom line: it's a fantasy.
It wouldn't remove women at all, only cut down on their participation. You still need a sperm AND an egg to make a baby. Feminism would just switch from "My body my choice" to "My egg my choice".
Closest I've seen is this sheep grown in a bag.
Here is their publication with a couple more pictures.
It was not grown from fertilization but born extremely prematurely and put into the bag.
It's all almost entirely irrelevant. Average men don't support women politically over their own best interests because of some calculated position on how that will increase their likelihood to reproduce, they support women because it's instinctual and because feminist-controlled society tells them to. An instinct that was bred into males to protect and care for females over other males or even themselves for thousands of generations. If we had artificial wombs and a few million years to wait, yeah, maybe that would be enough time for that instinctual trait to go away, but until then, the average man's desire to protect women, and belief that women are wonderful, isn't something he reasoned into, and it won't be something he's reasoned out of either, artificial wombs or not.
I don't know what to say except God won't be mocked. This isn't going to end well.
The erasure of women continues.
All of this lacks one fundamental understanding of fetal development. The most important part outside of nutrition and water the fetus requires the elements of the human body such as heartbeat, warmth, electrical stimuli, and many other intrinsic parts of being human in order to thrive and develop properly. We cannot with the most advanced technology even cover the most basic of these needs. Yet even if we could it still wouldn't work it requires more than just an artificial womb to develop a human fetus. With the real thing and a woman it still has a high probability outcome of failure or mutation most pregnancies end in self-termination without even the woman realizing she was ever pregnant. It would more likely be that we genetically engineer a more sterile style of DNA and people, more generic model with less variation among genetics in order for this technology to be viable.
A bit off topic, but there's a comedy-horror manga called Franken Fran that delved into this topic of artificial wombs. It's morbidly hilarious though the problems they introduced could be solved through an actual laboratory to keep the wombs safe.
Link: https://mangakakalot.com/chapter/franken_fran/chapter_29
Why you stalking me? :O
Artificial wombs are just part of the answer - it's that slight push off the fence for all the birth rate shilling tradcucks who will keep pumping out kids to live miserable lives under the feminist system or else "muh blacks" will take over.
The tradcuck answer to low birth rates is effectively to try and re-link sex with pregnancy by banning abortion, and I bet they'd have porn banned if they could, just to really manipulate those base instincts. Why fix the system when you can just manipulate naive young adults who barely grew up into misery all their lives?
I'm not pro-choice, obviously. Supporting women in anything is against all of what I stand for. But I can't help but think this is the solution of the tradcon right for the crashing birth rates.
The true answer to ending our feminist hell is a difficult one, with a lot of permutations based on things we don't yet know, as well as how severely we punish those involved in it. There's way too much complexity in the issues, so many motives that can be implied but never confirmed.
A personal favorite theory of mine that can probably never be proven - feminist teachers psychologically abuse boys to make them the perfect slaves/subordinates to women as adults, which is why fake relationships like OnlyFans exist.
Ah yes, procreation is the manipulation of natural instincts, not pornography.
It's interesting that you think this argument makes sense.
The definition of manipulation literally includes making people make stupid decisions for your benefit. Procreation in the current legal climate is the very definition of that.
It does make sense. The porn industry doesn't rake in billions annually by being scrupulous.
No, they rake in billions by being a way to suppress base desires without ruining your life.
OnlyFans is porn, and I assume you think it has ruined many lives.
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater comes to mind with this argument.
Just because women manipulated it into yet another way to exploit the broken products of the feminist education system, doesn't make the basic idea bad.
It's like getting rid of game streaming because women ruined that to make it a way to exploit broken people.
It's what they do. You let them run the church and they'd turn that into a man-hating extortion racket.
Porn was always exploiting men. That's why your arbitrary line between OF and the rest of porn makes little sense.
I mentioned this before, artificial wombs sounds nice until they figure out how to make girls only. It will be the feminists that will use those artificial wombs, not men. After that it will be state sponsored artificial wombs, just basic healthcare for women, it will become the general rule and watch how many of them will be girls.
https://scored.co/c/KotakuInAction2/p/140vevOwwo/the-more-feminine-way-has-found-/c
They're way ahead of us on that.
If they show such obvious malevolence, won't it be a win for us? Our only true win condition is for the mask to fall so obviously that even normies hate them. I don't see any other way to end this non-violently than women's social status collapsing harder than Terra.