Medical science sometimes moves in strange and not always wonderful ways.
The New York Times reported on November 12 that (some) women who now can’t soon may be able to co-create a child via a ‘temporary uterus’ — which, once progeny is produced and delivered, will be removed.
Excuse me? You’re going to implant a sort of fake body part then, um, de-plant it? ‘Makes me think of the deal with asparagus: You plant it one year, then ignore whatever it produces the first year, so you can enjoy what it produces for the second and a few more years — but sort of not. (Truly, I can’t imagine an analogy for fitting a person out with a ‘new’ part that, in time, will be removed. Even Ripley’s ‘Believe or Not’ would have a problem with that.)
Note: I happen to have a strong bias against people producing more people for the sake of doing so — because “they love each other”, because “We’re going to be old, someday, and we’ll need someone to take care of us” . . . or whatever.
The world’s population is, and has for a couple of decades, at least, been growing at a level that’s unsustainable. China’s recent recent decision to do away with it’s ‘one child only’ policy is going to exacerbate the situation — as the deforesting of millions of hectares (each being 2.4 acres) of land in Africa and elsewhere is contributing to the destruction of wildlife habitat and, ultimately, species that might, if there were a grand plan. have some place in it.
Humankind — which, truth be told, is hardly kind to itself — has long since woven the hand-basket in which it will advance to its next home. (The operative phrase is ‘going to hell in a hand basket’, as we most certainly seem to be.)
There are few advantages to growing old, as I rather rapidly am (with the wrap-up of my 73rd year merely two months and two days, as I write this, in the future). But one is that it’s no longer necessary to read reports of long-range local or federal plans for whatever, or to be concerned about federal budgets with effects kicking in 20 years down the road.
People born in generations with names (X, Y, Millennials ) will have to sort all that out — or, as their predecessors have done, kick problems down the road . . .to one or more future generations.
But if something isn’t done to halt global warming and the damage it’s doing, generation-namers could be put out of work within the next few A’s, B;s, C’s or whatever. (Where do you go when you’ve identified an age group as ‘Generation X’? Start over, alphabetically?) Wouldn’t it be nice it there could be a ‘Post-Global-Warming’ generation?
I think I’ll heat up some water for a cup of tea.