Womb/Uterus Transplants

Can biologic man have ovary and womb transplant that works?

they can, but I assume in future, artificial womb will be more popular than transplant womb.

At some point, scientists will figure out how to make basic human body parts. Its not really any difficult technology. It was already done in some cases.

Scientists grew a human ear, actual human ear, on a mouse. I assume same can be done for womb and maybe using a different animal because mouse is too small.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacanti_mouse

You will not be able to enforce abortions on artificial wombs.

Yep an absolute waste of time and resources, but a must have for some.

If men could have ovary and womb transplants. It will being men closer to their children having given birth to them instead of just watching them being born.

Yep an absolute waste of time and resources, but a must have for some.

I think there is much greater wastes of time and energy going on with humanity.

So in theory a biological man X y, is said to be able have ovaries and uterus implant, even tho dangerous complications there are much higher.

Men with ovaries and uterus implants will be desired more than women. It will bridge the productive gap.

No gap bridging necessary.

The Planet is currently well stocked with humans.

Anyway, might as well remove the responsibility of reproduction altogether from ordinary folk.

Perhaps an AI will demand it.

Too many useless people demanding too much.

Too many useless people demanding too much.

Agreed to whatever degree we define as useless.

Sarge, another way to envision it is that Universe/God is perfect in its current state of evolutionary unfolding --all the way from most recent Big WOW!-- i.e. Action/Cause > Reaction/Response > Resultant/Consequences > repeat eternally = >

..exactly how it is supposed to be. It is allowed follows the above path. We dont know and most likely never will know how each recycling { unfolding event } of the Big WOW! will occur, i.e. each may be have differrent evolutionary unfoldings --tho not breaking any inviolate physical laws or cosmic principles-- just variations of what is possible and the choices humans in such a Universe { if they exist } will seemingly choose.

Whats that old saying, ..its not over til its over....Recently saw and interview { 1970 } with David Bohm physicist math person, who stated, ...each for all and all for each..., and Im like, yeah, that is what I say except I use the Musketeers version ...all for one and one for all... as the top of spiritual path of hope.

Here is the link to David Bohm interview. Go to 19:02 or so and shortly he states his each for all and all for one... ergo hope

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7VKGcmWVCw

The word ambiguous was used over twenty times to describe the state of the science from relativity to quantum science.

Disrespect is a form of constant incessant lack of integrity on various forums including Debatecraft.

Old saying..Those who know dont speak, those who dont know speak.

When and where --if ever-- does respect come into play in regards to what is presented by person who starts a thread?

When and where --if ever-- does integrity come into play in regards to what is presented by person who starts a thread?

I respect and care for info from people like David Bohm has presented. Integrity of a greater whole, inter-connectedness and knowledge base from his presumed formal education and experiences from which he derives his thinking and feelings of hope, a pathway forward to aid in our understanding > comprehension > resultants for humanity and the ecological systems that sustain us.

Yep.

The emergence and evolution of an intellectual species within the context of a greater Universal process unfolds as it does, and every decision and consequent variation unfolds accordingly and appropriately.

I'm guessing that the same rules will apply to an AI, when it takes over...Takes over in terms of intellectual ability and material development. Though perhaps an AI's progress will be more logical and less culturally stupid....No religion or sexuality for starters.

People will still have to turn to religion for those answers that AI is not capable of dealing with.

By then, what humans do will be mostly outdated and irrelevant in terms of Universal progression and achieving the GOD principle.

I'm guessing that the same rules will apply to an AI, when it takes over...Takes over in terms of intellectual ability and material development. Though perhaps an AI's progress will be more logical and less culturally stupid

I mention David Bohm and link to inteview with him and he states that thinking and feeling both need are essential to humanities longer term existence rather than shorter term, in regards to considerations. Nuclear war and ecological concerns. I think the vid is from 1984.

AI has whatever degree of conscious-like thinking, tho it has no feeling.

So just as humans have agreed that cloning was not a good idea and pass universal laws that in agreement with that, there is hope that, humans can act to put in place the proper guidelines in place AI outsmarts us do something that does not involve feelings for humanities existence or the ecological systems that sustain us.

As B Fuller has said, it is a race to see if humanity can do those things it needs to before it does those things that may end it for most if not all of humanity and unnecessary suffering for the many. I dunno and not sure anyone else knows either. Good Luck! Good Karma! Good Beer!? LoL

I would suggest that we have no idea how an AI will behave, nor how it will evolve emotionally or thoughtfully.

In terms of a transition of outright responsibility and control to an AI, how long such a process will take will be relative to it's evolution.

But I think that it's fair to say that techno-evolution is somewhat more rapid than species evolution was.

The assumption that our organic systems will somehow remain superior to that of an AI's technological systems, is perhaps a tad fearfully arrogant.

Can biologic man have ovary and womb transplant that works?

SatanLucy has it wrong. Currently, no known successful surgery on a man has occurred anywhere in the world. First, it would require cesarean birth because the male pelvis is too small to accommodate natural childbirth. Did anyone bother to look up that one? Second, while the implant of a uterus and ovaries appears simple, there have only been such transplants in about 90 known women, worldwide, with 50 successful births; just more than half, which is not a suggested procedure even for women, given current tech. However, for a man, there must also be associated blood supply [vessels] and nervous system transplants, because they currently are lacking in the male before such organ tissue transplants would produce and give birth to a child. Hormonal treatment up the wazoo before any pregnancy occurs; much more than just mimicking a woman. The tech is just way too complex so far. Haven't we already learned well enough not to screw with nature, because we seem more adept at screwing it up than being successful. Hell, Newsom, in ten years of trying, can't even build a decent rail system in CA, let alone get pregnant. He can't even f**k himself, though I'm sure he's tried.

I would suggest that we have no idea how an AI will behave, nor how it will evolve emotionally or thoughtfully.

No emotion, as I stated i.e no feeling no empathy.

In terms of a transition of outright responsibility and control to an AI, how long such a process will take will be relative to it's evolution.

Agreed, no one knows the future of humanities relationship to AI will unfold. Tho some humans know policies have to be put in place, just as beging done with algorythms on various platfoms to protect children etc.

But I think that it's fair to say that techno-evolution is somewhat more rapid than species evolution was.

Yes, exponetial change is happening is happening with technology since invention of digital age.

The assumption that our organic systems will somehow remain superior to that of an AI's technological systems, is perhaps a tad fearfully arrogant.

No need to rule it out that humans can control AI. Mind { the will } over matter { algorythm automation }. AI is double edged sword.

Which way it cuts can be directed by humans, if we have the will { thinking } and feeling { rational fear } of AI potential bring apocalypse to humanity and ecology.

Again, I dont think its too late, and I think AI can be aid in many ways to lead us away from humanity bringing on apocalypse to itself irrespective of AI.

1990's the START treaty was a start to less chance of nuclear apocalypse, yet there still is a chance that can happen.

Then put erratic climate change into the formula of factors with given values, to arrive at various scenarios to avoid apocalypse, is what humanity needs to do, using AI's huge capacity to process huge amounts of relevant data to most dangerous issues facing humanity.

AI has done good stuff. Now humanity needs to hold on the reins of the AI horse, to make sure we are in control of where we want it to be directed.

SatanLucy has it wrong. Currently, no known successful surgery on a man has occurred anywhere in the world

they will get there eventually. If they can figure out how to grow human ear on mouse, and grow ear to transplant it to human, similar can be probably done with other body parts somehow.

While the original experiment was for research, subsequent advancements in tissue engineering, such as those in China, have successfully used a patient's own cartilage cells to grow a new ear and transplant it, inspired by the original "ear mouse" concept.

Will America allow Chinese technology to be used on Americans as Guinea pigs?

there is a saying about technology.

USA makes technology, China makes technology affordable.

That is why Americans buy Chinese technology because it is affordable.

China tech? Since when? "China tech" is purloined tech. That has nothing to do with cats.

Emotion, feeling empathy is simply electro chemical signalling.

I see no reason why AI couldn't produce similar effects.

Though perhaps AI will see more benefit in remaining pragmatic and logical.

Though perhaps AI will see more benefit in remaining pragmatic and logical.

Being biological is not a choice AI gets to make. AI is not God/Universe Sarge.

God/Universe @ says to AI { smart alec dork } ..stick out your fiber octa nerve and touch my hand/quasar and you will a become a biologic in 3 days time.....

I would suggest that:

Universe is, and GOD principle is concurrent...And computing devices are either essential to the process or they are not...Organic devices have taken millennia to evolve but are fragile...Techno AI systems are more robust and can withstand time space and duration...Structurally and unemotionally.

Universe is, and GOD principle is concurrent...

Optional ways to interprate:

Universe = inviolate cosmic physical laws

God principle = inviolate cosmic principles

And computing devices are either essential to the process or they are not...

Human AI tech is localized, not Universal/Cosmic

Organic devices have taken millennia to evolve but are fragile...

Agreed, lack of oxygen, lack of sunlight, toxins, EMRadiation etc not conducive to more complex life, yet bacteria found to live in radio-active cooling pools, in outer space { survived on moon and brought back to Earth }, exist in extreme sulphur pools etc..

Techno AI systems are more robust and can withstand time space and duration...Structurally and unemotionally.

Structurally currently depends on Humans. Know one knows the future of AI's non-biologic existence.

thinking { biologically induced concepts } and feeling { biologic emotions } is the balance that David Bohm speaks of as being important for humanities long term existence on Earth.

AI lacks any such balance currently and in no way does any see any such biologic balancing act in algorithmic future.

? < AI < silicon based tech < algorthithmic code writing < complex biologic

? > human X x- X y < less complex < least complex bacteria { RNA-DNA } < viruses { RNA or DNA never both } < mineral and water { comets and asteroids, stars etc }