A few years back I endorsed an unfairly-neglected tech to extend life: cryonics. Yesterday, Amara Graps reminded me of a related unfairly-neglected fertility-promoting tech: egg freezing. Slate in March
Yes, I'm using hospital statistics. Also, some of it is anecdotal. For example, women who get gestational diebetes, and how you see all of those TV ads for incontinence products, which is also due to child birth. The fact that there are TV ads for this stuff suggests to me that the problems are common and widespread.
As for exowomb technology, I think this is going to take 50 years. The reason is that not all of the nutrients and hormones that are in the mothers blood (and pass on to the developing baby) have not be identified and this will take some time. Experimental procedure is also bioethically problematic, to say the least (even though I consider bioethicists scum with regards to radical life extension, they are spot on on this issue). There are going to be some horrific mistakes in the development of effective exowomb technology, such that even I (the wild-eye transhumanist) have ethical reservations about what its development will involve. The liability and bioethical issues make exowomb development essentially impossible in Western countries.
It might even be problematic in Japan, South Korea, and Singapore. If it is developed, it will be done in either China or India.
Abelard: Your childbirth statistics reference? It sounds to me like US hospital statistics, which give a skewed perspective. The numbers are in sharp contrast to other western countries. In addition, once intervention begins in a hospital (for example, inducing labor) there's often a cascade of then more interventions because the normal muscular functioning of the uterus is broken. If you talk to the midwives they tell a different story. Unfortunately there are not as many hard numbers coming out of homebirths and birthing centers so what you hear are numbers like what you are quoting. The documentary: The Business of Being Born describes some of this.
There is no cryonics technology with evidence of working.
There is a prospect of it working, of course. Revival requires not only as-yet uninvented technology, but as-yet unrealised scientific breakthroughs, and the assumption that the scientific breakthroughs we would need will in fact work out the way we would need them to. This is a profoundly slim chance to pin one's hopes on, but it does not provably violate physics as we currently know it.
However, that it is not impossible that cryonics will work in the future is not in any way the same as it working now.
The exowomb will likely fall out of better and better NICUs, rather than being developed by some rogue scientist in a basement. We'll creep up to it with incremental improvements to the technology that deals with premature birth.
Right now, 25 week old babies have a 50 percent survival rate in a modern NICU. That's four months early, and a good bit of the way to an exowomb.
No. I don't expect egg freezing to become popular. Both eggs and sperm can be manufactured from stem cells which, in turn, can now be manufactured and rejuvenated from regular somatic cells. This means that a cell can be harvested from your body, at any age, be converted into a stem cell, then rejuvenated (See: http://www.biotimeinc.com/o.... These rejuvenated cells can then be converted into both the sperm and the egg to make a baby. I think a microfluidics device can be developed that will automate this entire process and make it cheap.
There is no cloning involved. There is also no harvesting of eggs from young women, which is a medically risky procedure.
The only missing puzzle piece is the exowomb, which will be a long time in coming. Development of effective exowombs will be quite difficult involving considerable risk and liability. It is likely that exowombs will be developed in East Asia (China, Japan) for a variety of cultural and legal liability reasons.
BTW, natural child birth, in and of itself, is a medically risky process, a fact that many men and even some women are not aware of. 40% of all childbirth involve medical complications and 15% of all childbirth result in long term medical complications for the birth mother. This is the reason why I believe exowomb technology will eventually be developed and will largely replace natural childbirth once it is proven safe and effective.
Thanks for a great article, one which I believe to be fair and accurate. They say that there isn't enough proof to substantiate the removal of the experimental label but the only way to improve those numbers is to offer egg freezing for social reasons.
There is presently no working cryonics technology. There is a working egg-freezing technology, and that it works is what is controversial about it.
That both cryonics and egg-freezing involve cold is not a sufficient justification for declaring them comparable technologies. The cold is not controversial; it's that the technology in the second case works that's controversial.
There are many technologies that don't (as yet) work would be widely controversial if they worked. However, that doesn't mean that a technology that is controversial precisely because it does work is an excuse to bring up one of the technologies that doesn't work.
It's like reading K. Eric Drexler's blog: the good stuff is not original and the original stuff is not good.
For egg freezing, there is the egg extraction part and the freezing part. The egg extraction part is identical to the procedure for IVF, whether the woman uses her own eggs or that of a donor's.
In my opinion, for egg freezing to appeal to young women, the medical community will not only need to reduce costs, but will need to offer a more comfortable alternative to the daily hormone injections.
Presently she must carefully guide and prepare herself at each stage of her monthly cycle with hormones, first to suppress the follicles and egg production, then to stimulate them for surgical extraction. The hormone preparation requires daily injections, because the hormones don't stay in the body more than 24 hours, up to the time of egg extraction, for between one and two months. It's unavoidable to exit those phases without bruises. This info is not well-advertised for women undergoing IVF or egg freezing because it would probably scare many of them off! You can find, however, an abundance of YouTube videos of the injection procedures by the women themselves if you want to learn about it.
IVF's success rate for one cycle is between 10 and 20%. (Costs in the US for one cycle are between 20K and 30K).
That is an important observation, but I think I think it is not the effect on fertility that is important, but just the difference between "fixing a problem" and "augmentation" that drives medical opinion.
Egg-freezing is different from all the other techniques in that it does not treat infertility. The other techniques are used for couples have have already had trouble with unassisted reproduction. Egg-freezing is for delaying attempts at reproduction, which will produce a substantially worse outcome than trying right away (IVF does not have a great success rate). So while other techniques will improve fertility, egg-freezing might well decrease it and hence the reluctance of fertility doctors to approve it.
Yes, I'm using hospital statistics. Also, some of it is anecdotal. For example, women who get gestational diebetes, and how you see all of those TV ads for incontinence products, which is also due to child birth. The fact that there are TV ads for this stuff suggests to me that the problems are common and widespread.
As for exowomb technology, I think this is going to take 50 years. The reason is that not all of the nutrients and hormones that are in the mothers blood (and pass on to the developing baby) have not be identified and this will take some time. Experimental procedure is also bioethically problematic, to say the least (even though I consider bioethicists scum with regards to radical life extension, they are spot on on this issue). There are going to be some horrific mistakes in the development of effective exowomb technology, such that even I (the wild-eye transhumanist) have ethical reservations about what its development will involve. The liability and bioethical issues make exowomb development essentially impossible in Western countries.
It might even be problematic in Japan, South Korea, and Singapore. If it is developed, it will be done in either China or India.
Abelard: Your childbirth statistics reference? It sounds to me like US hospital statistics, which give a skewed perspective. The numbers are in sharp contrast to other western countries. In addition, once intervention begins in a hospital (for example, inducing labor) there's often a cascade of then more interventions because the normal muscular functioning of the uterus is broken. If you talk to the midwives they tell a different story. Unfortunately there are not as many hard numbers coming out of homebirths and birthing centers so what you hear are numbers like what you are quoting. The documentary: The Business of Being Born describes some of this.
> There is no cryonics technology with evidence of working.
Excellent structural preservation of vitrified brain tissue slices.
There is no cryonics technology with evidence of working.
There is a prospect of it working, of course. Revival requires not only as-yet uninvented technology, but as-yet unrealised scientific breakthroughs, and the assumption that the scientific breakthroughs we would need will in fact work out the way we would need them to. This is a profoundly slim chance to pin one's hopes on, but it does not provably violate physics as we currently know it.
However, that it is not impossible that cryonics will work in the future is not in any way the same as it working now.
The exowomb will likely fall out of better and better NICUs, rather than being developed by some rogue scientist in a basement. We'll creep up to it with incremental improvements to the technology that deals with premature birth.
Right now, 25 week old babies have a 50 percent survival rate in a modern NICU. That's four months early, and a good bit of the way to an exowomb.
Do you have an estimate of how long it will take to develop an exowomb?
David Gerard nailed it.
What, with his sweeping pronouncement that cryonics doesn't work?
I would think the real difference is that cryonics is uncertain to work.
David Gerard nailed it.
No. I don't expect egg freezing to become popular. Both eggs and sperm can be manufactured from stem cells which, in turn, can now be manufactured and rejuvenated from regular somatic cells. This means that a cell can be harvested from your body, at any age, be converted into a stem cell, then rejuvenated (See: http://www.biotimeinc.com/o.... These rejuvenated cells can then be converted into both the sperm and the egg to make a baby. I think a microfluidics device can be developed that will automate this entire process and make it cheap.
There is no cloning involved. There is also no harvesting of eggs from young women, which is a medically risky procedure.
The only missing puzzle piece is the exowomb, which will be a long time in coming. Development of effective exowombs will be quite difficult involving considerable risk and liability. It is likely that exowombs will be developed in East Asia (China, Japan) for a variety of cultural and legal liability reasons.
BTW, natural child birth, in and of itself, is a medically risky process, a fact that many men and even some women are not aware of. 40% of all childbirth involve medical complications and 15% of all childbirth result in long term medical complications for the birth mother. This is the reason why I believe exowomb technology will eventually be developed and will largely replace natural childbirth once it is proven safe and effective.
There is presently no working cryonics technology.
For a weasel definition of "working" you might say that.
Thanks for a great article, one which I believe to be fair and accurate. They say that there isn't enough proof to substantiate the removal of the experimental label but the only way to improve those numbers is to offer egg freezing for social reasons.
There is presently no working cryonics technology. There is a working egg-freezing technology, and that it works is what is controversial about it.
That both cryonics and egg-freezing involve cold is not a sufficient justification for declaring them comparable technologies. The cold is not controversial; it's that the technology in the second case works that's controversial.
There are many technologies that don't (as yet) work would be widely controversial if they worked. However, that doesn't mean that a technology that is controversial precisely because it does work is an excuse to bring up one of the technologies that doesn't work.
It's like reading K. Eric Drexler's blog: the good stuff is not original and the original stuff is not good.
Dear Curt:
For egg freezing, there is the egg extraction part and the freezing part. The egg extraction part is identical to the procedure for IVF, whether the woman uses her own eggs or that of a donor's.
In my opinion, for egg freezing to appeal to young women, the medical community will not only need to reduce costs, but will need to offer a more comfortable alternative to the daily hormone injections.
Presently she must carefully guide and prepare herself at each stage of her monthly cycle with hormones, first to suppress the follicles and egg production, then to stimulate them for surgical extraction. The hormone preparation requires daily injections, because the hormones don't stay in the body more than 24 hours, up to the time of egg extraction, for between one and two months. It's unavoidable to exit those phases without bruises. This info is not well-advertised for women undergoing IVF or egg freezing because it would probably scare many of them off! You can find, however, an abundance of YouTube videos of the injection procedures by the women themselves if you want to learn about it.
IVF's success rate for one cycle is between 10 and 20%. (Costs in the US for one cycle are between 20K and 30K).
Your definition of "work" is obviously suspect.
That is an important observation, but I think I think it is not the effect on fertility that is important, but just the difference between "fixing a problem" and "augmentation" that drives medical opinion.
Egg-freezing is different from all the other techniques in that it does not treat infertility. The other techniques are used for couples have have already had trouble with unassisted reproduction. Egg-freezing is for delaying attempts at reproduction, which will produce a substantially worse outcome than trying right away (IVF does not have a great success rate). So while other techniques will improve fertility, egg-freezing might well decrease it and hence the reluctance of fertility doctors to approve it.