Links in bold.
While I’m figuring out how to use the new “Notes” feature that’s caused such an uproar, here is a quickie.
I stumbled across this breathless article in Wired about “ectogenesis” — silly neologism meaning fetal gestation in artificial wombs. Apparently it’s moving right along.
This is one of those situations where my innate skepticism (“it can’t happen” is my default reaction) may be a bar to grasping the magnitude of the problem. Being sensible is no help when your world is run by lunatics.
Sensible skepticism, otherwise known as moderation, was a barrier to my understanding the true nature of Covidianism. In my ignorance, I thought that even if I disagreed with the people running the show, we were after the same thing: saving lives, public health. They meant well.
How wrong I was.
Please read the article. And gasp at the stupidity—never mind the “people with wombs.” (Well, do mind that, but not now.)
The stupid writers don’t to realize that ectogenesis might result in “people with wombs” being rendered superfluous. That it might benefit a caste of hyper-masculine men who are salivating over the prospect of mass-producing cannon fodder without all those gushy emotional creatures (otherwise known as mothers) objecting to their son’s slaughter.
I tried to warn you.
I wrote about it here, and here. (And for Amazon haters, here and here.)
But nobody listened. Well, I’m just going to have to make you listen. Because, crazy as replacing women in reproduction sounds, this shit is real.
Even if scientists can overcome all of the technical barriers, it won't be so easy to remove women from the reproductive equation. After all, even the mice with two fathers aren't precisely motherless.
"You need a uterus," Behringer said, adding dryly, "People always forget this."
All knowledge is eventually weaponized.
Are you listening to me now?