Surely the simplest solution to the reproductive question during space colonization is to send along a doctor or midwife with the couples headed out from earth?
Humans are really good at making this happen.
From this perspective, there may be some merit to the parent poster's argument that human "factories" may be less risky for everyone involved, since it might be easier to control the conditions.
That'd be a weird upbringing, huh?
Which is very, very different than sending pregnant humans into space.
>>Long term more serious issues are space radiation effects.
Not just that. Muscular degeneration is a real problem, especially (in this case) for humans who have to carry a child inside them.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2128851-artificial-womb...
It really wouldn't because women would lose the societal benefits of being child bearers. So at best, it would be a wash.
> This provides the ability for people to have a child without the woman having to gestate the fetus for 9 months? None of the terrible side effects of pregnancy, none of the pain. Sounds pretty idealistic to me.
But most women actually want the experience of being pregnant. It's why this woman chose to transplant a uterus and become pregnant. She could have just hired a surrogate for far less time, effort and money.
But the issue of artificial wombs does offer a interesting question. How would it change humans as a species. Would it make men or women or both obsolete? Evolutionary pressure has made women child bearers and men providers. How would artificial wombs change that? Not to mention, the effects on physiology. Would women eventually lose uteri or will it become a useless vestigial organ over time?
I'm really curious if this is true.