The pronatalism of Silicon Valley

Emma Waters

August 20, 2024 4 Reactions

In 2016, two researchers in Japan announced that they had genetically modified skin cells from a mouse into viable egg cells using an induced pluripotent stem cell method. Researchers were able to fertilise these genetically modified gametes to produce “grossly normal” pups who went on to have their own pups. Such technology circumvents the need for human gametes by allowing scientists to create eggs or sperm from any DNA. Now, researchers in Japan and at the California-based company Conception have turned their attention to applying this technology to human gametes, although neither have reported success.

Similarly, scientists have already begun working to develop artificial wombs. Dystopian projects such as EctoLife — an untested model — depict a warehouse of artificial wombs that gestate children from conception to birth. Though this technology is still far from becoming a reality, many in Silicon Valley would like to see the development of complete ectogenesis, outsourcing the entirety of pregnancy to these artificial wombs.

Practically, scientists are working to develop partial-ectogenesis wombs that would serve as a life-saving technology from twenty-one weeks’ gestation. The infamous “lamb in a bag” artificial womb is an example of this form of womb development. In 2023, researchers applied to the Food and Drug Administration to begin testing such wombs on severely premature infants around twenty-one to twenty-five weeks’ gestation who would otherwise die in the womb. This technology, while restorative, represents a step toward complete ectogenesis, or childbearing devoid of a maternal womb.

The Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Selection of Human Life

Scientists have begun to apply artificial intelligence (AI) to fertility technology to streamline the entire process. Such technology assesses each aspect of the patient’s well-being to recommend medications, dosage amounts, optimal cycle development, and even which embryos have the highest likelihood of resulting in healthy children.

Alife, the leading program that offers AI-empowered tools, relies on a machine-learning algorithm to comparatively assess a woman’s health data. Alife raised $22 million in 2022 alone and infuses artificial intelligence into the process of human reproduction. Many doctors and researchers have begun to integrate this technology across the United States as part of their standard process.

While 54 percent of respondents in a 2024 American Medical Association study claimed they were “very or extremely concerned” about the potential for eugenic practices in embryo selection, an increasing percentage of Americans say that they would be more likely than not (40 percent likely) to use such technology to select for intellectual aptitude.

The misguided philosophy of Silicon Valley pronatalism

Silicon Valley’s pronatalism is distinctive in its approach to childbearing for one crucial reason: like many, Silicon Valley elites desire to control the process and outcome of childbearing, from the kind of children they create to the way their children are born. Unlike most people, however, these elites have the funds and tools necessary to act on these desires in unprecedented ways.

Such a worldview encourages these elite leaders in their use of technology to insulate themselves — in the name of their future children — from the risk, uncertainty, and vulnerability inherent in childbearing. By removing childbearing from its natural context and placing it in a tightly monitored environment, such parents receive a misleading, false promise of safety. In their effort to overcome the unpredictability of childbearing, many may increase suffering.

It is here that we see the most pernicious examples of Silicon Valley’s genuine, but misguided, compassion. Noor Siddiqui recounts her own mother’s experience as part of her inspiration for launching Orchid’s advanced genetic analysis operation.

When Siddiqui was only in high school, she watched as a rare degenerative retinal disease slowly destroyed her mother’s eyesight. This condition, while not life-threatening, altered Noor’s life and left a lasting impact on her. Her solution? The creation of advanced polygenic technology that allows parents to weed out embryos who may develop similar, or worse, conditions.

The irony of this, of course, is that this technology does not heal the unhealthy embryos — it destroys them. If such technology had been available and desirable to Siddiqui’s grandparents, it is very possible that neither she nor her mother would have been born. At the end of the day, is the desire for the healthiest child worth the cost of all those whose lives will be deemed unworthy?

In the name of their children living their healthiest life, this technological worldview has trained many in Silicon Valley to view the human person as individual parts or raw material whose genetic makeup predetermines their values, beliefs, capabilities, and identity. Nurture plays a secondary, or unimportant, role in the development of each child. Such conclusions, which ignore both religious insights and sociological findings, enable parents to free themselves from the personal responsibility of stewarding their child’s development. At the same time, it heightens their self-imposed responsibility to create and select genetically superior children.

Does Silicon Valley pronatalism worsen the birth dearth?

In this sense, Silicon Valley elites — and all those who are inevitably influenced by their lifestyle and technology — encourage people to view children as a luxury good or a commodity they can adapt to their lifestyle. And, in a materialistic age when survey respondents in the United States cite a desire for personal independence or leisure as their primary reason for delaying or forgoing childbearing, this materialistic view of childbearing may be more likely to worsen, rather than cure, the birth dearth.

If children are just another luxury good — and an increasingly expensive one — that adults may invest in, it should be little surprise if such pronatalist movements depress birth rates in the long run. Moreover, the high cost of Silicon Valley’s pronatalism is likely to exclude most people, exacerbating the inequality that already exists among certain classes and families.

Of course, some may be tempted to ask, “So what? You can pursue a pro-family natalism over there while we pursue our own ends here.” While appealing at face value, this approach is unlikely to reverse our birth dearth. It could even make matters worse. If ever more Americans come to see children — especially with the aid of technology — as just another product or experience to consider alongside other goods (longevity, travel, career, or comfort), then even more of them may decide that children are just not worth the cost.

What may result in more children, of a certain kind, in the short run, will ultimately shatter the worldview necessary for childbearing to flourish among all persons, and not just a select few. Civilisation, in a very real sense, only survives if people view family formation and childbearing as a fundamental, pre-market element of the human experience. Childbearing, in the long run, requires a proper moral obligation to protect it from inappropriate intrusions of technology.

The pro-family ethic and a better way forward

Still, a demographic crisis is upon us. We should encourage people to have more children — and not simply as a means of mitigating this greater crisis.

This is where pro-family natalism comes in. The pro-family approach recognises that marriage and family formation are the basis for overcoming the birth dearth in the United States. By encouraging family formation, we ensure that children are born into environments where they are most likely to thrive and nurture their own love for children.

Moreover, this approach encourages people to view children as an extension of marriage in which children may be received as a gift and not merely attained as an act of the will. This shift, as merely rhetorical as it may sound, is one of the most powerful forces pushing against the materialistic pronatalism of Silicon Valley, which prefers the creation of a certain kind of child.

Preferential treatment in the selection of genetically superior children, which ultimately discourages parental involvement and the widespread conception of children, is not worth it. We need a cultural revolution that promotes a sustainable and life-giving pronatalism that asks men and women, in the words of Dr Catherine Pakaluk, “Why not have one more child?”

What do you think of the Silicon Valley mindset? Comment below.

This article is reproduced from The Public Discourse with permission from The Witherspoon Institute. 

Emma Waters is a Senior Research Associate in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family at the Heritage Foundation.

Image credit: Pexels