Humans occupy a unique position in the natural world, largely due to our ability to understand, manipulate, and ultimately domesticate natural processes. This mastery is perhaps most evident in humanity's apparent escape from evolutionary dynamics, achieved by taking control of the two extremes of the life cycle: birth and death.
As we noted in a previous post of this series, death plays a more instrumental role than reproduction in shaping evolutionary dynamics – without it, natural "selection" would be impossible. While humans have designed countless machines to postpone death (a topic we'll explore in another post), we haven't yet succeeded in averting it entirely1. Even the significant resources allocated by billionaires pursuing immortality seem minuscule - if not misdirected- when faced with the fundamental nature of disorder. Our species remains bound to manage natural death and, naturally, we build machines to do so.
The End of Life: Managing Natural Death
The physical consequences of an organism gradually yielding to Nature's relentless assault are evident to all. As chaos infiltrates organs, the body's carefully maintained order begins to unravel. This decline is often accompanied by a degeneration of cognitive functions, meaning that the affected individuals can lose awareness of their own decay. But their loved ones cannot ignore the inexorable descent into dependency. Here lies a cruel irony of the "human exception": in natural death, dignity invariably surrenders before life does.
Beyond personal anguish, dependence presents numerous societal challenges. Primary among these is the need to arrange long-term care and accommodation for an ever-growing number of dependent individuals, a population that is becoming increasingly costly to support2. Demographic shifts in developed countries compound this issue. Aging population pyramids indicate that many nations will not be able to rely solely on their working-age population to directly provide care for -or indirectly finance the support of- this dependent demographic.
The potential responses to this challenge are manifold, each carrying distinct ethical implications. As societies grapple with these questions, euthanasia will likely become central to political debates. New machines designed to make life's end more predictable, a stage where chaos traditionally reigned supreme, will likely emerge.
This shift is already underway in some countries. In Canada, for instance, over 4% of deaths were medically assisted in 2022. This figure is not the result of chance, but rather the outcome of a complex machinic process involving meticulous planning, widespread public communication, extensive training of medical professionals, and intricate logistics. When talking about assisted suicide, the machine is not merely metaphorical : at the end of September 2024, Swiss authorities arrested several people for allowing a woman to end her life in a "suicide pod" – a capsule causing death when its occupant releases nitrogen gas, reducing oxygen to lethal levels.
Demographic dynamics – themselves a side effect of humanity's extraordinary machines – do not only present us with a maturity wall. They also expand the attack surface of chaos which, in turn, creates a need for more specialized machines. Germline mutations illustrate this perfectly: mutation rates correlate with parental age, and this isn't solely attributable to increasing DNA replication errors as Nature's reproductive machine becomes less efficient. If it were, only men, who produce sperm throughout their lives, would be affected. A 2017 study on the Icelandic population revealed that maternal de novo mutations increase by 0.37 per year of age – significantly lower than paternal rates (1.51 per year) but far from zero.
Humanity didn't wait to witness the effects of delayed procreation to begin exerting control over Nature's chaotic reproductive machine. This process of circumvention began thousands – perhaps hundreds of thousands – of years ago, emerging as one of our species' most distinctive traits. The transformation occurred in two phases: first by dissociating mating from reproduction, then by substituting Nature's machines with our own, more predictable ones.
The Evolutionary Exception
The dissociation of sexual activity from reproduction is not unique to humans. Several species engage in sexual activity for purposes beyond reproduction – dolphins and pigs for pleasure, bonobos for social bonding. However, humans stand apart in having largely escaped the influence of Nature's reproductive synchronization machine.
In most mammals, this machine manifests as a complex set of phenomena collectively known as "estrus" or "heat" in females, which males can detect. Some species, like rabbits, domestic cats, and camelids have evolved mechanisms where ovulation is induced by the sexual act itself. Humans, however, inherited none of these natural synchronization mechanisms between the sexes. Had we been required to inherit one, humanity would likely have preferred the first option, given the enormous energy invested throughout history in preventing conception.
Evidence of preventive contraceptive techniques dates back almost as far as writing itself (between 1850 and 1500 BCE). While the contraceptive machine represents one of the finest examples of emancipation from natural processes, we must acknowledge its dark history. For millennia, when not purely behavioral, contraception relied on technical methods that often involved significant physical pain – primarily endured by women.
The condom, in its primitive form, appears to have existed for centuries, though initially aimed at disease prevention – at least in Europe3. However, the true emergence of contraceptive tools (condoms, diaphragms) as dual-purpose devices for disease prevention and pregnancy control dates to the 19th century. Despite ecclesiastical resistance, Malthusian influence drove this development, particularly among wealthy classes.
The democratization of contraception in the West didn't occur until the second third of the 20th century, with accessibility expanding dramatically in the final third through hormonal contraception. These tools continue to be refined, driven by commercial interests, and hormonal contraception remains the subject of ongoing research to address long-ignored side effects. Many of our machines' flaws stem from inappropriate tools or scales to measure performance. Progress in contraceptive technologies should be measured not just by effectiveness, but by this reduction in women suffering, a dimension that has long been ignored and a bias that has also existed historically in medical research.
The Dark Side of Reproductive Control
The 20th century marked humanity's attempt to move away from contraception's crueler aspects – at least at the individual level. However, this same century witnessed mass sterilization campaigns across the United States, Europe, Latin America, and Asia. These programs either targeted specific populations based on origin or disability or aimed to prevent global overpopulation according to Neo-Malthusian doctrine. Paul Ehrlich, a prominent neo-Malthusian, predicted in his 1968 "Population Bomb" that hundreds of millions would die of famines in the 1970s due to resource scarcity – predictions that helped justify sterilization campaigns in some of the world's most populous nations. These policies are now regarded as highly controversial.
The sterilization campaigns of the early 20th century had different motivations than later population control efforts. These early programs, aimed at "filtering" populations, were rooted in the eugenics movement introduced by Francis Galton in 1880s England. While eugenics reached its horrific apex in Nazi Germany, the movement first found fertile ground in the United States, backed by the era's greatest industrial fortunes and wielding global influence. This historical pattern resonates today in Silicon Valley, where some Tech moguls openly promote eugenic-adjacent reproductive control. While the broader appeal of New Eugenics4 remains difficult to gauge, the significant investments made by a select few wealthy individuals reveal that power and wealth can act as a magnifying glass for humanity's attraction to determinism.
New Eugenics provides an unfortunate transition to the machines that humans developed in the 20th century to take complete control over reproduction. Humans have achieved something unprecedented: independence from sexual reproduction, a process essential to all other mammals' survival. By mastering artificial insemination5 and in vitro fertilization techniques, humans established themselves as gods, who previously held an exclusive domain over immaculate conception.
Fertility and Tech
The challenge of fertility, like elderly dependence, does not only affect individuals personally but also carries broader societal implications given developed nations' demographic structures. While technology offers remarkable solutions for fertility issues, we must question why fewer people consider building a family and why couples increasingly delay childbirth, leading to reduced fertility and fecundity. If a consensus is reached on the fact that fertility is a societal issue, perhaps the solution lies more in adjusting our social machinery than in advancing technical capabilities.
This is especially relevant because over-relying on technology can have unintended consequences. When market forces and technology converge to optimize for scale, they tend to target easily measurable surface characteristics rather than deeper substantive qualities. We’ll have many opportunities to observe this appearance-over-substance phenomenon as we explore other specific machines developed by humans to address the mass market, from tasteless fruits with uniform colors and shapes to fast-fashion. But what are the implications when this dynamic extends to emotional connections?
A decade into the era of dating apps, which both commodified and commoditized dating, their societal impact remains difficult to assess as downstream consequences can’t be easily isolated from unrelated social trends. While 10% of partnered adults in the US met through these platforms, the apps haven't reversed existing patterns: the share of unpartnered adults continues to increase, and interest in committed relationships declines. Dating apps effectively commoditize both casual encounters and opportunities for deeper connection, irrespective of whether this connection is the primary objective of the users. And we are now entering an era where these very romantic bonds can be convincingly simulated.
In the early days of Large Language Models, building “waifus” -a term used in anime and otaku culture to describe a fictional character that a person views as a romantic partner-, emerged as an important use-case. If you believe that this is marginal today, consider that the AI companion start-up Character AI processes 20,000 queries per second—approximately 20% of Google Search's volume. Substituting romantic bonds with simulated bonds may not equate to actual commoditization but the effects on human behavior could prove similar.
Commoditization typically reduces the effort required to access a resource to a minimal level, making it less worth fighting for, neither to obtain it nor to retain it. Commoditization also alleviates most of the burdensome aspects as the resource can be more easily disposed of. Finally, when users can access something at will and in precise quantities, its marginal utility declines more sharply, and thus its price drops regardless of how vital this resource is ; it is the essence of Adam Smith's Diamond-Water paradox. Should we worry that readily available substitutes might diminish the perceived value of human connection?
A parallel could probably be drawn with the increased accessibility of porn while the share of the population reporting an interest in sexual activity decreases, though we must avoid assuming causation from correlation. In any case, do not start panicking at the idea that the $100bn porn industry 6 could indirectly lead humanity to its end because humans stop having sex: human technology has already made sexual encounters optional for reproduction, as evidenced by the 5 million IVF births worldwide.
The Future of Reproductive Control
While current technologies cannot guarantee pregnancy for all women, it can provide genetic children to virtually anyone… with sufficient resources. This raises profound ethical concerns as the specter of eugenics continues to loom over these developments.
The democratization of genetic technology has accelerated dramatically: genome sequencing costs plummeted from one billion dollars in 2003 to under $1,000 in 20227– outpacing Moore's Law in semiconductors8 by three orders of magnitude. Combined with the commoditization of genome editing through CRISPR, this creates unprecedented possibilities for reproductive control.
The birth of genetically modified twins in China in 2018 sparked immediate controversy and the scientific community was generally aligned in their responses to this event. But this is just the tip of the iceberg: genetic enhancement encompasses a broad spectrum of activities united by an objective of minimizing the role of chance in human reproduction. When a genetic disease is the risk that's minimized, it is hard to argue against an intervention. But what should be considered a step too far? is there even a limit?
Consider embryo selection, which garners more diverse opinions than genetic modification. Following prominent examples of embryo selection beyond mere disease-checking, the topic is no longer taboo and a number of start-ups are currently lining-up in “stealth mode” to tap this emerging market. A recent story about one of these startups promising a selection between 100 embryos based on “IQ and the other naughty traits that everybody wants” did not only highlight the clients' ignorance but also regulatory divergences reminiscent of euthanasia debates. This time with far deeper ethical implications. These discussions will inevitably intersect with abortion rights—a domain where recent events9 evidence ongoing societal tensions. In other words, an ethical minefield.
We must be cautious about drawing definitive conclusions regarding the ethical dimensions of various approaches based on today's ethical norms. Demographic trends, as revealed by population age pyramids, suggest that artificial wombs may become a technology of the future, potentially operating outside of a decision of biological parents. And in scenarios without biological parents, what would constrain genetic selection? This seems unthinkable today—and rightfully so— but humanity's exceptional track record at aligning means with ends demands that we expect scenarios where ethical norms are adapted to our future needs.
It is almost certain, however, that humans will continue to try to replace much of Nature's solutions with their own technology. Going beyond the mere domestication of Nature's machines is what constitutes the "human exception". It is unique but, in terms of life cycle control, we may not be the most remarkable species. This title likely belongs to the hydrozoan species Turritopsis dohrnii, known as the immortal jellyfish, which can reverse its life cycle. But these organisms are defenceless against predation by animals such as sea slugs and crustaceans. Evading predation - surviving - remains crucial to avoid extinction. In our next post, we'll explore the essential natural machines for survival and examine how humans have outperformed Nature at its own game.
