Think about it. You could make as many humans as you need and adjust production so your country would never be overpopulated or lacking workforce.
muh satanic or something
Go kiss nigger feet. I feel like I would have more in common with a vat-grown human than with a jeet.
they're gonna put this shit in trannies and the world as we know it will never be the same
doesn't matter what i want, if it happens it happens
I'm surprised these ideas aren't discussed much. It's pretty clear developed nations are shrinking, and someone has to pay our pensions
Think about it.
I did. The demographic collapse and the desperate need for more immigrants, quite literally every "person currently in politics or has some kind of company" is objectively and quantifiably: fake and gay.
They just want more people who'll work for nothing, won't ask for labor protections/rights, and smart people they can conveniently deport if they get too opinionated.
So vat-grown humans would solve the issue altogether and they can finally ban immigration.
Yes, they also need to be 220cm 150iq chads with massive cocks, and be directly raised by the French army with nationalist indoctrination programs. Ideally we skip ages 0-12 with accelerated growth in the tube. We should also manipulate the genes to increase aggression towards enemies but remove all rebellion and questioning of authority, a bit like attack dogs. Then we could send them to attack everyone ese.
In the other vats we should breed women with giant tits and ass and select the genes for submission, another great modification would be to remove the ability to speak, only let them understand a language and answer in sounds like barks or purrs. They could be traded and sold, and eventually those would be meant to replace regular women.
After that sheep, Doris, that was cloned in the '90s, any subject regarding the science has been whispered out of existence.
No because presumably the vat grown people would be citizens with rights, they want inmigrants that wont demmand for their rights.
Unless you suggest lab grown slaves.
Unless you suggest lab grown slaves.
Technically, we can have that already.
I have this fringe dystopian hypothesis on my mind... The reason feudalism fell out of vogue so hard was because the aristocracies, nobility, refused to engage in "people management", so that they'd enslave any excess people born in peasant families, while promising the same families to have better conditions if they just relied on only one kid in the family. Legal enslavement after one kid, right? If they die, sure, they're allowed to do it again, and sole inheritor as well.
And any more kids born won't bring punishments to the families themselves but, instead, they'd be confiscated automatically for actual feudal slavery. This also could've solved the Salian problem of inheritance if nobles themselves applied the rule, and ditched the spares entirely.
The only reason we don't have this is because of optics alone and self-reinforced "social constructs" enshrined in law. Feudalism fell out of vogue before this experiment could ever really be conceptualized.
Imagine two categories of humans: legal and alegal.
Legals have all the rights & privileges that exist today, the alegals are the excess humans that were secretly stolen/declared dead/confiscated for modern slavery and all other stuff.
Where do they come from? From the existing legal people.
Imagine the breeder fetishists in this dynamic, the government's own self-perpetuating springhead of slaves. Breeders don't care about all children.
It's dystopian but how doable is depends on the willingness of the parents, women especially, to keep the one kid they want, and ditch the excess. The "family unit" was invented when people didn't knew what microbes & viruses were.
This wouldn't even be cloning. They'd still be made from real donors just grown in artificial wombs then raised by the state.
Born in families or grown in labs?
You need citizens with rights, not slaves, to support modern economies. You need them to spend money.
It's an open secret that human clones exist. You don't really need any groundbreaking technology. I'm willing to bet on my life that quite a few countries have done it by now.
The first few weeks after a baby’s birth is crucial for their mental development. Being nurtured by the mum in that period ensures they will be able to form healthy attachments to people and social relationships for the rest of their life. Fuck something up during those vital few weeks after birth and you end up with a person with lifelong attachment issues.
The point I’m trying to make, is that vat-grown humans without a mother involved at all will probably lead to seriously psychologically damaged kids in ways we can’t even imagine yet. That is so far beyond how we evolved. It being physically possible is one thing, but is it psychologically possible?
but is it psychologically possible?
Yes. Historically a lot of mothers died to childbirth.
They'll be fine, stop being such a pussy.
The Chinese obviously did it, didn't you notice something was off about them?
Have you ever wondered why you’re autistic?
It’s just an example I used how the presence and behaviour of the mother influences the kid’s development. This already happens in the womb. If there’s no womb in a mother but a sterile plastic bag with sensors attached, what kind of artificial Elliot Rodgers are you creating?
There are already methods that exists to clone mammals, and they've turned out fine.
How does the presence of the mother objectively affect the kid in the womb? Even if the kid grows in a sterile plastic bag, provided proper nutrients are provided and waste material is removed, there's no real biological difference. The embryo doesn't even have a brain developed enough to acknowledge, let alone be influenced by the mothers presence.
Both, it's a question of economics of scale & time output. Correct?
There were loads of conspiracy theories back in the day why our demented Communist leader Ceaușescu was so obsessed with having so many children, despite difficulties on the country's limited output (energy, foodstuffs etc).
One conspiracy was that he wanted to raise orphaned children as his family's personal loyal army/secret police when they grew up and indoctrinated sufficiently. A planned organic inner party muscle; something that not even Orwell, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Kim, Saddam, Kony etc. could've imagine in their worst fever dreams.
Another conspiracy was that he wanted, eventually, to turn them into human harvests: organs, blood, hair, marrow bone, anything exploitive out of a human body essentially.
This is where my fringe dystopian hypothesis was inspired.
When China did their one-child policy, I remember vividly some very old people commenting: "Why would they do that? They could just lie to the family, declare it dead, steal it, raise it in some isolated human farm/orphanage for x, y, z purposes."
I didn't knew what those "x, y, z purposes" meant until much later... and wondering who were those old SOBs that talked & thought like that, creeped me the fuck out...
Why have artificial wombs when you could have natural wombs?
It's just a question of gaslighting and re-inventing the universal human rights, separating legal humans and alegal humanoids.
The reason we see it as dystopian is because we've chosen to see it that way. Otherwise... feudal law is retarded, once you look at it this way.
I genuinely don't believe it because, mechanically, it's too input-output exhaustive. It's too sci-fi for me to accept it as reality.
If there’s no womb in a mother but a sterile plastic bag with sensors attached, what kind of artificial Elliot Rodgers are you creating?
Let's find out lol
what kind of broken family and society can produce such major loser like you?
It's not sci-fi. If a mammal was cloned, that means humans can be cloned too. There's nothing science fiction about it, it's proven.
That's conspiracy theorist thinking
Of course. We could also only allow the best warriors to pass on their genes. We can then raise the gene siblings in creches and make them fight each other in giant mechs.
So essentially, you need organic slaves for the state. Why bother with all this when AI and robots will be far superior to any meatbag you can grow?
my man green japan
Not unfeasible, all things considered.
It's not the mammal cloning itself.
The energy sources, the materials, the structural/organigram aspect, the chemistry and... all deus ex machina. Too overcomplicated for a – seemingly – [very] low yield of human batches.
The ergonomics aren't working in my mind, it's what I'm saying.
Haven't they cloned goats in plastic bags? Also, you're talking about artificial wombs, not cloning. Cloning doesn't require an artificial womb.
just replace normal humans with cyber punk sheeple to make the GDP go up
Anyone supporting this crap has to have monkey tier IQ
I want a Swedish slave, so that I can take a bank loan, and offload all my debt (+interest) onto that Swedish slave.
I get my homes, businesses, cars, vacations etc., the Swedish slave goes to its doom together with my debt(s).
Next level fractional-reserve banking...
Why have artificial wombs when you could have natural wombs?
Because it's 100x more efficient? Breeding camps are extremely impractical.
The womb babies are gonna be mentally ill as fuck. Imagine knowing no one loves you, and the only reason you were born was to be a worker slave, a cog in the machine. Incredibly grim
Who said anything about breeding camps? Why is it complicated or why are you overcomplicating it?
???
You said
Why have artificial wombs when you could have natural wombs?
It will never happen, children are a 20 year investment and no "democratic" government would be able to claim the benefits.
Artificial wombs are a bigger investment than just banning all contraceptive methods and investing on state orphanages anyway, and no government does that.
Find a way to grow fully developed adults in a vat and that's a different story.
Brb ordering qt clone gf
I want droids and robots and shit
Artificial womb humans sound weird, people need parents and a family to grow up in as babies
Populations don't decline because there aren't enough wombs, they decline because people can't or don't want to raise children. You'd have to import immigrants to raise them.
boy you exist solely for the purpose of wiping my soon to be geriatric ass once you hit 18.
Instant mind destroyer.
no "democratic" government would be able to claim the benefits.
Are you kidding? Why do you think they're willing to bear the huge costs and social unrest that comes from importing millions of browns?
Demographics are extremely important. And having a huge wave of young people entering the workforce means you can keep the welfare state going.
I want droids and robots and shit
Droids and robots don't go to Lidl supermarket to spend money.
Yes so the easiest solution is simply to not put the burden of raising children on the population and instead have the state shoulder it.
Children for millions of years existed because their boomer parents needed someone to take care of them when they were old. It's really no different.
They had other parental figures. A community was usually involved in raising those children.
Why do you think they're willing to bear the huge costs and social unrest that comes from importing millions of browns?
Browns can get in and consume immediately, therefore the line goes up immediately and governments can take credit for that.
Babies don't do that, and unlike browns, they're ALL a net drain, not just most, all of them. They would be a 20 year investment, and for a 4 year government that is unacceptable because it would benefit whoever is in power 20 years later.
I don't think so. Consider all the climate change policies that did nothing but hurt parties popularity.