CopyRight @ 1996
Obsolete 03/10/2004 - moved to m_artwombs.htm
This is the first time that I will write about a specific
topic in morality. It relates both to an immediate issue, an
important genetic issue, a long term moral issue and also about
the human condition. It is birth.
This is supposed to be a test case of how a particular
moral issue can be evaluated with the techniques of science,
within the context of human ecology that was layed out in the
first part of the book. This then is to consider this traite in
the context of survival in a relatively stable ecology using the
potential for artificial selection.
It is not hard to say that birth is important to human
survival. The reason that birth is more important than many
other issues, is that it constitutes a specie limiting factor.
Limiting factors are discussed in chapter 4 as being limitations
on resources critical to any species survival, such as water.
Here it is not a resource that is limited, the problem is an
unusual limit on adaptation. The development of the human brain,
bipedalism and other factors have caused a problem that babies
are often too big for the females birth canal. Giving birth can
be traumatic for the mother and the child. In times of limited
medical services, up to a quarter of of all women just don't
survive child birth. If they make it past the first one, they
were more to be alright.
This is an incredibly important moral issue. If one is
trying to evaluate genetic wealth, the ability to more easily
give birth must be considered invaluable.
In reality, some of this problem is being mitigated by the
fact that women are tending to be larger than they used to be,
but so are the babies. While this is considered to be part of
the solution to this problem, it is not complete and has other
drawbacks. It also fails to illustrate the methodology of
analysis that should be used.
In this method of examination, the best solution would be
if it were found that certain fairly common genetic
characteristics were recent adaptations to this problem and their
frequency could be increased by artificial selection. This could
be interpreted to say that if a woman was missing this traite or
it was not expressed properly, the woman would have trouble
giving birth. Using artificial selection to increase the
frequency of this traite would probably be the best solution.
The more likely situation is that a genetic based ability to
more easily give birth is genetically rare. In this case there are
a number of possible situations.
One is where the traite exists in a one or a few different
tribes. In this case, the traite would be recognized and
carefully protected. In a biological time frame, it could become
widely spread.
It might be that there are a number of traites or forms of a
traite that would allow easier childbirth. These could be
different like skin color differs. Some would hybridize well, some
would not.
Some of the traites would have drawbacks. A simple
evolutionary solution to this problem might seem to be to enlarge
the pelvic passage. The problem is that that interferes with
bipedalism. It also seems like a brute force solution. If we
even consider prodding evolution, we had better use a bit of
subtlty. A traite that makes childbirth easier, may be common to
two very different tribes. One form may be more prone to cancer
than the other or there may be some other drawback. Then that
must be examined for if that drawback can be mitigated and so on.
This may even be one of the extremely rare cases where there
is a traite that was benificial before and now is a hazard in this
situation.
Now this can take us further in illustrating how this
analysis must be done to be complete enough to be applied to
something as important as morality.
Here is another consideration about birth. At best, it is
difficult. What about artificial wombs. The way science is
moving, the technical capability to create artificial wombs,
should be available relatively soon. This is not just a
technical problem though , it is a huge moral issue, because so
much of our social nature is dictated by the demands of pregnancy
and childraising. Cloning has been acomplished and artificial
wombs may not be far away. In a biological time frame, they are
very near. They have the potential to change the family
radically. They offer the potential for disaster and extinction,
as well as the potential to make life much easier.
Human nature is largely dictated by the huge investment
necessary to raise children. Artificial selection does not
qualitatively change this. Artificial wombs or an "education
pill" could do this. Either one could change the basic equation
of human ecology.
First, the down side arguements of an artificial womb.
In ecology, two contrasting situations often occur. There
is the plant that makes numerous seeds with a small supply of
energy for each. If one of the seeds gets real lucky, it
survives. Another strategy of a plant is to make only a few
seeds, but devote more resources to each one. Each seed has more
protection and food and a better chance to survive. this would
be called a quality strategy as opposed to a quantity strategy of
survival.
Right now, humans must concentrate primarily on a quality
strategy, because of the large investment necessary to raise
each child. Disease has also demanded the balance of some of a
quantity strategy as well, but not overly. Well, artificial
wombs could change the equation to a situation where the
investment to create an infant would be quite low. This would
put humans in a radically new ecological situation. That is not
something to be done carelessly. Changes of that magnitude
should be comtemplated with trepidation.
Another consideration about artificial wombs relates to the
issue that humans are a single population and therefore very
suseptable to catastrophe. If there was a wide spread
catastrophe on earth, that limited technology, and humans had
become dependent on artificial wombs, the result could be
disaster. It is always better if humans can adapt themselves to
change evolutionarily, rather than using artifacts. Tools are
important, but we got here with our minds and bodies.
Another consideration is that the nature of our society is
cooperative. Cooperation may sometimes come from dependencys,
but that is not necessarily a drawback. Weaknesses often lead to
strengths. Having artificial wombs could remove some of the basic
interdependencies that have formed the human family. The basic
nature of the needs of family have forced men and women to
compromise greatly. This is a good thing. People would be forced
to compromise less. While that may not seem like such a good
thing, it is fundemental to how we have survived.
On the positive side.
Argueing for the use of artificial wombs to make childbirth
more convenient, is difficult to do in terms of biology. Making
it safer for the mother or child is easy, but convenient is not
that important in biological terms. Sometimes, easy means "of
low value". Already it has been mentioned that reducing the
value of human life is potentially dangerous to the basis of
human morality, the family. So it might be better to ask what
broader potentials it might make available. After investigationg
that though, the arguement for artificial wombs will be examined
from a less biological and more human view. Pregnancy sucks.
Imagine, a couple (in most terms, what is considered normal
in terms of human ecology, is more than one parent raising
children - see chapter 2) who want to have a family. There are a
lot of decisions and plans to be made. Biology dictates that it
is much easier for women to bear children when young. Socially
and economically, it is easier and perhaps better, to have a
family when older. An artificial womb would better allow this.
An interesting thought would be if a couple decided it was time
to have their family and have it all at one time. Plan delivery
of two or three babies at one time. Instant family. Yes, yes,
there are tons of considerations, but that is what this is about.
Now, consider artificial wombs in human terms.
Pregnancy sucks. I am sure that many people disagree, just
because the topic seems to generate more strong opinions and
disinformation than anything else that I have examined. I am
also sure though, that many women would do a great deal to avoid
the exeperience. It is a difficult task and usually quite
uncomfortable at times. Given the choice, many people are going
to select to use an artificial womb when they want to have a
family. It is that simple. The implications are far more complex
though. While there are risks to the basis of our presently
available moral systems, artificial wombs may well be something
that could be used not only such that they would not endanger
the family, but could enhance it. The facts dictated by
biological survival do not take into account human desire.
Humans can though, when examining how to direct their own
biological survival.
Biological survival, for humans, dictates that families are
the purpose of living. At the same time, families are expensive,
disruptive, stressful and limiting. Artificial wombs may be able
to mitigate that without endangering moral success. They may
just constitute another factor that humans must develop the
knowledge to adjust to such as wealth or medicine.
Another section on morality. I think that this is written
elsewhere, but it is an excellent illustration of how moral
issues really must be examined. Some things that look imortant
are really less so than some things that look more trivial.
Birth control is a situation when an instinct that is
important to morality is effected. Humans have far more instinct
to have sex than they do to have a family. Instincts and
behaviors to nurture a family develop greatly in responce to
having children. Artificial birth control circumvents the normal
result of this instinct. That is the importance to consider in
moral terms.
Back