I've a question, suppose in the next 20-30 years we not only successfully manage to get artificial wombs down to a T but refine the process so much that it becomes quite cheap and easy to do and we can create babies from stem cells (meaning both men and women can have any number of **** they can physically support or want), d'you think this could reverse the trend in steadily increasing infertility and *****lessness? Or will governments actually start stepping in and mass producing infants for state run orphanges to make up population declines, just like out of 'Do The Evolution'?

The decrease in fertility rates are arguably more to do with lifestyle choices instead of factors somewhat outside of our control, aka. environmental and health impacts. Women are no longer raised for the sole purpose of starting a family. Some people would rather long and ambitious careers instead of being a stay at home mum.

I think it's more likely that incentives to have the best of both worlds will increase - tax breaks for more ****, reduction in school fees or *****minding costs for multiple *****ren households. Things like that.

Genetic modification of babies will likely become more accessible, but used for personal reasons rather than population control.

30 minutes ago, ParadiseLost said:

The decrease in fertility rates are arguably more to do with lifestyle choices instead of factors somewhat outside of our control, aka. environmental and health impacts. Women are no longer raised for the sole purpose of starting a family. Some people would rather long and ambitious careers instead of being a stay at home mum.

I think it's more likely that incentives to have the best of both worlds will increase - tax breaks for more ****, reduction in school fees or *****minding costs for multiple *****ren households. Things like that.

Genetic modification of babies will likely become more accessible, but used for personal reasons rather than population control.

And about about the potential impact of artifical wombs? D'you think alot more men might decide to try being single dads?

Women and men are shamed for having age gaps, therefore, more 20 year old women are seeking 20 year old men - those 20 year old men, according to Judge Judy, have the mind of a 10 year old (10 years younger) and therefore are not mature enough to process many adult concepts.

So women go out, expecting a mature man to date them, and they keep winding up with mental-boys, those same boys want the woman to pay for half of everything.

Mix the forced age closeness, regardless of pure legal authority - with the current housing interest rates and incredibly available (rightfully so) birth control - and you have our current society.

Bring a 40 year old man dating a 30 year old woman back, and much of the problem will be solved.

Instead, we have 30 year old women, dating 30 year old men, expecting them want to settle down and do the right thing (take care of the women so they can give birth) and find those men are 10 years behind them, still in party mode.

"Society did this to themselves"

8 hours ago, Red Robert said:

And about about the potential impact of artifical wombs? D'you think alot more men might decide to try being single dads?

It's an interesting concept. I'd maybe say no? I feel societal gender normal still lean towards single parenthood being more chosen by a woman and forced upon a man. Not saying that's how it always happens, but that's definitely the stereotype.

Artificial wombs may go some way to reverse that concept, but I think the inherent need to be a father for many men is less common than the feeling many woman have of needing to be a mother.

That makes sense? Conscious my argument is based on stereotypes, but it's the current reality as I see it.

No because it'd be easier/cheaper for them to just do like russia did back in the 40s and force women to have them. They've already gutted woman's rights with overturning Roe V Wade. Our government is too stupid to realize no one is having **** cause we're all too poor or work too much, and women's health might as well be non existent right now, especially in the disgustingly tragic birth/pregnancy department.

I like the scifi ass idea tho, it'd be especially cool for women who can't carry their own **** or are scared too

I think fertility crisis is largely due to how everyone is so broke, we are deep in hookup culture, men arnt men and woman arnt woman, woman are having **** too late in life, and woman are realizing they can do stuff outside of the house and would rather have a career. Also families aren’t as close as they used to be anymore. In the 70s-90s when you had a ***** your family would help you and also you were involved with your neighbors and whatnot. There was more of a village to help with ****. Now having **** is very isolating. I think government funding towards family’s would help. I think housing being more affordable would help.

Let me clear this up, if someone doesn’t want ****. Do not have them they are harder than you could ever imagine. I think everyone should have a choice. But in my ideal world would be more of a traditional one. Men work and provide. Woman stay back to do all the housework and *****care. But in my traditional world men are more helpful with the **** like they are these days. Millennial fathers are statistically more involved with their *****ren compared to past generations. If I were to have more *****ren I don’t even know how I would find a suitable partner to do that with. But I know it’s similar for men too, it’s hard to find a woman suitable to marry. Fertility will continue to decrease if we don’t fix our government and society. It’s really sad but I don’t blame people for not wanting to have ****… it’s hard

17 minutes ago, mary said:

would rather have a career

I think most women would rather stay at home and raise **** than have a career if their husbands were successful.

Fathers would probably rather do that too.

I think if you don't want to hang out with your own family, and would rather be at work, you're probably a sociopath.

So the real issue here is not personal preference, it's that people probably don't have the option, due to the middle class disappearing.

The origin was the tax breaks given to the rich decades ago, that never really went back to the "great" time in America, where the rich were taxed out of almost all their money. Because no one needs more than a few million dollars.

No one.

43 minutes ago, Onision said:

I think most women would rather stay at home and raise **** than have a career if their husbands were successful.

Fathers would probably rather do that too.

I think if you don't want to hang out with your own family, and would rather be at work, you're probably a sociopath.

So the real issue here is not personal preference, it's that people probably don't have the option, due to the middle class disappearing.

The origin was the tax breaks given to the rich decades ago, that never really went back to the "great" time in America, where the rich were taxed out of almost all their money. Because no one needs more than a few million dollars.

No one.

I think most women would rather stay at home and raise **** than have a career if their husbands were successful.

Fathers would probably rather do that too.

I think if you don't want to hang out with your own family, and would rather be at work, you're probably a sociopath.

So the real issue here is not personal preference, it's that people probably don't have the option, due to the middle class disappearing.

The origin was the tax breaks given to the rich decades ago, that never really went back to the "great" time in America, where the rich were taxed out of almost all their money. Because no one needs more than a few million dollars.

No one.

I’m talking about woman before *****ren. After you have *****ren of course you’d prefer to stay home with them bc you know and love them. But if you don’t have **** then woman are more hesitant bc of the reasons I stated. And also a *****free lifestyle is being pushed

Edited July 19, 2025Jul 19 by mary

On 7/18/2025 at 3:37 PM, Rylent said:

No because it'd be easier/cheaper for them to just do like russia did back in the 40s and force women to have them. They've already gutted woman's rights with overturning Roe V Wade. Our government is too stupid to realize no one is having **** cause we're all too poor or work too much, and women's health might as well be non existent right now, especially in the disgustingly tragic birth/pregnancy department.

I like the scifi ass idea tho, it'd be especially cool for women who can't carry their own **** or are scared too

I don't think russia did "force" force them to have them. At least no more than the Chinese at present are. It obviously didn't work then and its not working for the CCP now and clearly would work if we stooped so low as to do it.

1 minute ago, Red Robert said:

I don't think russia did "force" force them to have them. At least no more than the Chinese at present are. It obviously didn't work then and its not working for the CCP now and clearly would work if we stooped so low as to do it.

Correction, "clearly WOULDN'T work if we stooped so low as to do it."

On 7/18/2025 at 9:16 AM, ParadiseLost said:

It's an interesting concept. I'd maybe say no? I feel societal gender normal still lean towards single parenthood being more chosen by a woman and forced upon a man. Not saying that's how it always happens, but that's definitely the stereotype.

Artificial wombs may go some way to reverse that concept, but I think the inherent need to be a father for many men is less common than the feeling many woman have of needing to be a mother.

That makes sense? Conscious my argument is based on stereotypes, but it's the current reality as I see it.

My hypothesis is maybe advanced artificial wombs could change that stereotype. This is gonna sound kinda cynical but I increasingly hear (at least just on youtube) couples being scared away from having more **** or even having **** at all isn't so much down to it being unaffordable so much as it being to expensive to be in a way modern society idealizes it should be done. AKA giving them *****care that to someone in the 2nd world would look like a luxury only millionaires do, affording a place at a desired private school instead of regular public school. Spending all holiday and date money on ensuring the *** or **** are cleaned, clothed, fed and entertained. It sorta sounds more and more like the attitude Onision mentioned, of being immature 20 yr olds in the head, is possibly shared across the sexes and is apparent in alot of would-be parental couples. But thats not necessarily the case with the loners or Omega male types out their. They haven't always the temptations available to them as the more stereotypically socially successful people that become couples have. Perhaps that lack of temptation and that lack of living up to societies sometimes unnecessary standards is what artificial wombs could appeal to?

If artificial wombs ever get cheap, safe, and reliable, humanity won’t “solve” infertility — we’ll basically unlock the DLC where biology throws up its hands and says, “Fine, clearly you people are going to do whatever you want anyway.”

You’d see a weird mix of miracle and absolute chaos. Couples who’ve wanted **** forever finally get them. People who should never be trusted with aquarium fish suddenly thinking, “Yeah, I’m ready to manufacture a whole person in a box.” Corporations trying to slap a subscription plan on babies like they’re Netflix, and some government committee arguing about whether a *** grown in a machine counts as a “line item.”

And no — there’s zero chance governments start running baby factories like dystopian Costco. Governments can’t even fix potholes. The idea they’re going to run mass-production human nurseries is hilarious. Someone would unplug the whole system trying to charge their phone.

What it would actually do is shift power. Pregnancy stops being biologically expensive. Sex becomes officially disconnected from reproduction. People who biologically couldn’t have ****… suddenly can. And the moral panic would be biblical. You’d see arguments about “natural” vs “engineered” while half the population quietly appreciates not shredding their spine to meet a newborn.

So yeah — tech could curb infertility trends, but it wouldn’t reverse anything magically. It would just replace one complicated mess with a different, extremely futuristic mess. Less “Do the Evolution,” more “Congratulations, you unlocked Humanity on Hard Mode.”

And honestly, knowing humans, we’d still find a way to screw it up.