When reading about ectogenesis, one of the first things that sprang to my mind was Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, a sci-fi novel about a utopian/dystopian future in which the process of ectogenesis allows complete governmental control of the process of reproduction. Women do not act as mothers and men do not act as fathers. Instead, large groups of children are raised by only a few adults who act more as instructors rather than caretakers. Human beings care little for one another on an emotional level and operate only as tools of the reigning oligarchy known as the Controllers. However, because the Controllers have complete dominion over birth and development, human beings are conditioned to love their servitude. Obviously, this is the very, very extreme version of what could result from the technology of ectogenesis, but I wish to use it to ponder the question of how humanity might change – if at all – were this technology to become widely available.
In extensively pondering the question of whether ectogenesis is right or wrong, I must conclude that I have not idea what the correct answer might be, or if there even is a correct answer. However, I do believe that the most important question for feminist scholars and activists to answer will be: what does one gain through the ability to give birth, and what does one loose? Though there are many purely scientific and medical reasons for pursuing ectogenesis, the idea that it would be preferable to pregnancy of course assumes that it is mainly a disadvantage. The most obvious disadvantages include the burden on time and resources and general risk to health. This seems to be backed by studies that show that women without children generally earn higher positions and salary in their professional fields (even more than men!) and more studies showing that woman with children earn far less. And, if you’re really, really into reading about this, here’s a far more scholarly article (I only skimmed it). So, if you highly value your professional life, you probably won’t want to have kids.
However, this all comes at the risk of loosing motherhood. Suddenly, I’m having this terrifying vision of the future where couples walk to the baby store to pick up their new baby. Or maybe people will get so busy succeeding in their profession lives, there won’t even be families anymore and child rearing itself will be just another profession (just like Brave New World!) I doubt it. Personally, I believe in different strokes. Some people value their professional lives more, some people value their families more, some people value both equally, and I’m not trying to say that any one of those is right or wrong. As long as we keep control of the birthing and rearing process in the hands of the individual and not some hegemonic government system, I think we’ll be ok.
Personally, I do think that having some form of familial unit or tight knit community is important for human growth. However, I think ectogenesis is like all forms of technology; it’s not inherently right or wrong. Instead, right or wrong depends much more on how we use it. Ectogenesis could, like in Brave New World, completely disconnect us from caring, or it could help us connect in new ways. Instead of a baby store, I’m now imagining an artificial womb right inside someone’s home where, unburdened by the difficulties of pregnancy, a happy couple smile as they watch their unborn child squirm on a monitor. Or a career woman feeling her baby kick through her pregnant husband’s stomach. Who knows? In the end, I think that ectogenesis could be a very empowering tool not only for women, but for people of all genders and sexualities.
Class Blog for Feminism, Technology, and Culture 