Anonymous
9/23/2025, 6:56:22 AM
No.11382364
>>11381419
>What's the take on use of stuff like artificial wombs instead of having women carry offspring to term naturally?
You start to see a divide between freeborn humans and 'tube humans. On the one hand it does produce a truly post-scarcity civilization because you now have a near-endless supply of cheap labor. On the other hand, a single 'producer' will produce a cohort of roughly 500 near-identical human women trained from birth to be perfect slaves on the month, every month. Raising women in an environment where they share 99% of their time with a class of women who are all identical to her has significant psychological effects and tends to drive extreme submissive tendencies and a borderline personality that skirts obsession and devotion. Companies emphasize that these slaves are 99% mentally stable but more telling is the fact that many buyers specifically want that 1% who are certifiably insane.
On the other, freeborn slaves find themselves in a very unique kind of hell where even their genetic sequencing isn't their property, and they'll typically find themselves raising the first generation of their own off-spring (bare minimum) and surrounded by hundreds of their own children without ever having been pregnant.
Society broadly goes along with it too- those who don't participate can't hope to compete and those who do are rewarded with a lifestyle even kings could scarcely hope to indulge in. You don't work, your money does that for you, and the people that money buys are so mind broken or so indoctrinated from birth that they can't even conceive of opposing you. Working to make their master money is their virtue.
Likewise conventional pregnancies become venerated and heavily scrutinized. Artificial wombs and cloning technology also lend a degree of mastery over human genome and understandably the mathematically ideal mate can be found. But this is typically done to produce perfect heirs or high-value slaves.
>What's the take on use of stuff like artificial wombs instead of having women carry offspring to term naturally?
You start to see a divide between freeborn humans and 'tube humans. On the one hand it does produce a truly post-scarcity civilization because you now have a near-endless supply of cheap labor. On the other hand, a single 'producer' will produce a cohort of roughly 500 near-identical human women trained from birth to be perfect slaves on the month, every month. Raising women in an environment where they share 99% of their time with a class of women who are all identical to her has significant psychological effects and tends to drive extreme submissive tendencies and a borderline personality that skirts obsession and devotion. Companies emphasize that these slaves are 99% mentally stable but more telling is the fact that many buyers specifically want that 1% who are certifiably insane.
On the other, freeborn slaves find themselves in a very unique kind of hell where even their genetic sequencing isn't their property, and they'll typically find themselves raising the first generation of their own off-spring (bare minimum) and surrounded by hundreds of their own children without ever having been pregnant.
Society broadly goes along with it too- those who don't participate can't hope to compete and those who do are rewarded with a lifestyle even kings could scarcely hope to indulge in. You don't work, your money does that for you, and the people that money buys are so mind broken or so indoctrinated from birth that they can't even conceive of opposing you. Working to make their master money is their virtue.
Likewise conventional pregnancies become venerated and heavily scrutinized. Artificial wombs and cloning technology also lend a degree of mastery over human genome and understandably the mathematically ideal mate can be found. But this is typically done to produce perfect heirs or high-value slaves.