What happens when creating a child becomes a consumer choice? In this provocative episode of Brave New Us, bioethics commentator Emma Waters joins host Samantha Stephenson to break down the rising trend of embryo screening, designer genetics, and artificial wombs. From Elon Musk's child-maxxing to CRISPR enhancements and Build-a-Baby startups like Nucleus Genomics and Orchid, we explore how reproductive technologies are reshaping what it means to become a parent—and what’s at stake for the children created through these tools.
If you've ever asked yourself:
• Is embryo selection a form of modern eugenics?
• Can we separate desire from design in the future of family building?
• Are children becoming products instead of persons?
• What's the difference between healing and enhancement in genetic medicine?
Topics Covered:
Why "have healthy babies" is a deceptive marketing slogan
The ethics of picking embryos based on IQ, personality, or sex
The rise of child-maxxing among elites like Elon Musk
Why "designer babies" deepen inequality and threaten parent-child love
What three-parent embryos and artificial gametes mean for the future of family
The philosophy behind eugenics—and why it's rebranded, not gone
When CRISPR gene editing might cross the line from healing to hubris
Why strong families—not just birthrates—should be the goal of pronatalism
Mentioned in the Episode
Leave a Review + Share the Show
If this conversation made you think differently about the future of family, science, and ethics, please:
Rate and review Brave New Us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify
Share this episode with a friend or on social media
Keep the conversation going at bravenewus.substack.com
Transcript
[00:00:00]
Samantha: Welcome to Brave Us, where we explore what it means to be human in the age of biotechnology. I'm here today with Emma Waters, a research associate at the Heritage Foundation, and sharp cultural commentator on emerging biotech trends. In a recent article, Emma explores how Silicon Valley Elite, once known for pushing depopulation and reproductive control, are now leading a curious pronatalist movement.
Samantha: But behind the talk of baby bonuses and tech enhanced families lies a deeper question. What kind of people are we trying to create and who gets to decide? We discuss how this new wave of tism intersects with genetic screening, embryo selection, three parent children, and the quiet rebranding of eugenics for a 21st century audience.
Samantha: Is this really about saving humanity or [00:01:00] redesigning it? Emma, welcome to Brave New Us.
Emma: Hi. Thanks so much for having me today.
Samantha: Absolutely. So can you tell us about your work and how you came to be doing what you're doing?
Emma: Yeah, absolutely. So I started off in the family policy space in college studying everything related to marriage and family structure, studies and policies that could encourage or hinder the development of intact families. And from there I became increasingly interested in the role of technology as it was sort of re-imagining every aspect of our life, from digital technology to our understanding of sex with the gender ideology, movement. And then ultimately landing in this space of reproductive technology, uh, realizing that in many ways our technology is re-imagining how we think of conception and what it means to be human at that most fundamental level. Um, and so over the years I've. Worked for a number of scholars who have primarily been at the Heritage Foundation, building out our platform on reproductive [00:02:00] technology and emerging biotechnology. Always with the question of what does it mean to be human, and how do we promote family flourishing through the technologies we promote?
Samantha: Excellent. So in your recent article for public discourse, you distinguish between Tism and pro-family. What do you mean by that and why do you think this distinction is important?
Emma: This is a great question. So it's been a really exciting development in the last couple of years to see the topic of declining birth rates and tism really come into the mainstream discussion for many years. It was something that floated around academia and niche circles, but hadn't really entered into mainstream discourse.
Emma: And so in many ways we have Elon Musk and a few very prominent figures like that to thank for the awareness that's been, um, that that's been garnered over the last few years about declining birth rates. So a little bit on that. Birth rates in the United. States as of 2023. Um, so it's a bit dated now, but it takes a while to get the [00:03:00] information in, have declined to 1.62 births on average per woman. Um, and typically scholars say that in order for a nation to maintain its population levels, you need to have about an average of 2.1 children born per woman. Um, and even more than that if you want to grow your nation. And so, uh, uh, in some levels, um, it may just seem like a numbers game. What's the big deal?
Emma: We have fewer children now. We'll have more children later. Um, but a lot of folks in the prenatal. Space have recognized the continued downward trend and have been very alarmed by it. Because declining birth rates mean we have fewer people to support the nation, which means we have fewer people. Um, in our military, in our education, in research and development. it affects things like our social security, um, our, um, unemployment, our elder care, uh, and it really begins to impact multiple levels where you have countries like China or Japan, for example, whose birth [00:04:00] rates have declined to such a degree that they're concerned that the nation may not be able to sustain itself in coming years.
Emma: So not destroyed by the enemy outside, but destroyed by the enemy within. Um, and, and like to put this in perspective, South Korea, which has the lowest birth rates in the world, uh, I think their birth birth rates are at 0.7 for every 100 South Koreans that are alive today. They will only have on average, about seven grandchildren because of how low birth rates are. Um, so it's an incredibly, uh, I think, heartbreaking conversation when you start thinking about the real personal impact. But Tism, um, is a movement that's risen in response to that. Who's promoting, as the name implies, more babies being born. Um, and so at face value, right? Like we support more babies being born to families, um, who, who want to have them.
Emma: But it's that distinction, uh, right there that I think is so key. Tism is strictly concerned with more babies being born, but many [00:05:00] in the movement don't actually, uh, care whether those babies are being born to married, mothers and fathers. Whereas the distinction that I would make, which is the pro-family movement, where I really orient myself says that we're not simply concerned about having more babies, but we're concerned with more families being formed in the United States, and we want to see more healthy marriages as.
Emma: Established between men and women, and from those healthy marriages, couples having the children that they desire. Because ultimately, if we have a nation where artificial wombs are used just to create literally more babies, um, or in the case of Elon Musk, who has, uh, multiple women who have had multiple children either as surrogates or in these sort of like financial agreements.
Emma: While every child is a gift that's conceived and born, we have to be very honest about the quality of life that we're giving to those children. Um, and so if we're just having children who have no natural connection to their mother and father, we're actually setting those children up to have a much harder life, [00:06:00] um, based on a number of studies and research that's been done on child wellbeing and family formation. Um, and so that's why I make that distinction between, uh, TISM proper and then the pro-family movement, which I think is maybe, which I think is the better response to, um, our current cultural problems around birth and the decline in healthy marriages.
Samantha: So I obviously, I agree with you, but just to play this out, what, what is the problem with somebody like. Elon Musk, you know, reproducing with his harem or, uh, with an artificial womb. What, as long as the, uh, he might say, I have the means to take care of these children. I obviously have fam fabulous genetics.
Samantha: Look at what I have accomplished and look at my intellect. And why would I, if we need more babies, should, aren't I the best candidate? I can fund as many as we can put out there in the world? What would be the problem with that as, and why would we [00:07:00] necessarily want more families who are ill equipped or certainly less equipped financially speaking than somebody like Musk to reproduce their babies?
Emma: Yeah, and this is a fantastic question and pushback. So I think there are two, there are two things that come to mind. Two things we've already seen play out in response to this. Um, the first is materialism, and the second is the impact on the child. So taking the materialism angle. I think when it comes to this conversation, Elon Musk, literally, who is literally one of the richest men in the world, without a doubt, right, has the means to have many, many children and provide financially whatever they need. Um, the problem however, is that unfortunately, I don't have nearly as much money as Elon Musk. You probably don't, and the average American doesn't either, right? Our average median income is. I think somewhere between like 50, $60,000. Um, and so when we have these expectations, um, set by an elite class, and elite classes are very good for setting the [00:08:00] moral standards for a nation. Um, and if you have individuals like Elon Musk saying it's really not about the families, it's about the money, can you provide for them? Um, and why shouldn't I? Then I think we run into a problem where the cultural expectation that he sets is that you need to be able to provide your children the best life possible with as much money possible and everything they could want or need. Um, and he can do that, but the average American can't. And so they'll look at figures like Elon Musk, who certainly do have enough money to, um, procreate at that level and say, well, I can't do the same thing. Why should I even bother to have children if he's going to take care of it, if others with enough money are going to take care of it? Um, and whether. know, Elon Musk likes it or not, he won't literally be able to have enough children to address the declining birth rate problem. And this overemphasis on having certain kinds of children and giving them every possible material, um, thing that they need, I think could actually end up suppressing birth rates for everyone else, which is what we've actually [00:09:00] seen, um, with the rise of materialism in, in years past. And the second thing I would say is then you have to ask, what about the children who are being formed in this arrangement? So on average, non-resident fathers only spend about 30 minutes per week with their children. And even like the best fathers with the best of intentions. There's just natural barriers that come into play when you're not in the home.
Emma: And take someone like Elon Musk, who has many, many children living in many cities with different women, um, he's actually proposed the idea of a commune where they all have individual houses, um, to try to solve this problem. Right? But he, he travels a lot. And so there's this question of like, how much time does Elon even get with his children, especially if he was. A child maxing on a larger scale. Um, and so I think when we think about this issue of like, just have tons of kids, it doesn't matter or say artificial wombs, right? Say you say, well, what if we just create the babies through in future fertilization? We then implant those embryos in an artificial womb.
Emma: They raise the kids and then whomever wants the child, a single person, a couple, a throuple, [00:10:00] a same sex relationship or not can come pick them up. Well, we are actually conferring massive, um, harms and risks onto that child just to fulfill the desires of adults. And this is something Katie Falta said, um, very elegantly when she says that we can't let the, um, desires of adults come before the needs of children. Um, and I think Case in point is looking again at Elon Musk, his oldest son, um, in recent years has really rebelled against Elon Musk because of this technology and this, um, tism detached from the family that he's promoted. So Elon Musk oldest is. Son now goes by Vivian and is very openly talked about how incredibly angry he is and how frustrated he is with how his father chose to create him in a lab, select him for his sex, um, and really engineer every part of his life for the purpose of having more babies, but not really providing him with a home, with [00:11:00] unconditional love with a family to raise him. Um, and there are other articles that have, that have started coming out with children, um, sort of raised in this prenatal list mindset that have, I, I think really started to suffer the harms of that. And then just by and large, um, we know that children who are raised. An intact married mother, father, like biological mother, father, family, do the best when it comes to their psychological, their emotional, their, um, behavioral educational, and in some ways their financial outcomes.
Emma: And so if we're simply encouraging a more baby's movement detached from that married, mother and father, then we are placing children in situations where they are less likely to thrive. This doesn't mean that they will all do horribly or be unhappy, right? But we are setting them in a situation where we're, we're, we're intentionally putting them in a, a situation where it will be harder for them to do so. Um, and, and I think a lot of this really does come down to these sort of like. Big picture ideals versus like the lived experience of what is good for children. Um, and the last thing I'll say on this is there is [00:12:00] a, there was an article in the Washington Post written by a woman last year where she basically said, okay, fine, we have declining birth rates.
Emma: I'll grant you that it's a problem for our national health and security and unemployment and you know, elder care, et cetera, but what does this have to do with me? Why should I as a woman bear the responsibility of this broader issue? And so she basically, um, somewhat crassly says, um, sure if you think there's a problem with declining birth rates, then figure out a solution that doesn't involve women having babies. Um, she was like, 'cause I don't care. And I think the thing that her article most, uh, uh, really pointed out to me is that if we make this about increasing birth rates simply then it does become a bit of, um, I, I think we hit a situation where women start to opt out and they say, that's great. You want increased birth rates. Yeah, basically like, what, what's in it for me? And if I don't want kids, then why should I be engaged? And we've removed the human element, um, the family element from [00:13:00] it, that it really, I, I think, the appeal societally. Um, and this is something they've, we've actually seen in China where China's now throwing tons of money and, uh, messaging incentives, um, and cultural status to women who have babies. And women in China are literally saying, yeah, I think we're good. We're just gonna pursue our career. We really don't care about your national crisis. Figure it out yourself. Um, and, and so you detach children from the family, from married, mothers and fathers. I, I think you inevitably hit moments like that and long term that actually is going to decrease birth rates even further and sort of undermine the initial goal of tism to begin with.
Samantha: Yeah, absolutely. And something you said, and you were talking about defining the best life possible and how we are defining, uh oh, I can give the child the best life possible in purely materialistic terms, but the best life possible, I think for a child includes a mother and a father who loved them. [00:14:00] And, and I think most people who have had good parents, especially thinking about it, would say, yeah, I wouldn't trade my good parents for more stuff or more vacations.
Samantha: I that, that is completely beyond value. Um, and looking at the birth rate as just purely a number or a term to increase, totally ignores. The point of looking at what is the best life, what is the purpose of family, which are deeper cultural problems that we have to address when we think about these things?
Samantha: Um, which I think provides a good segue into the next question when we talk about what makes a good family and parenthood and child. So Nucleus genomics and IVF, genetic selection startup builds itself as a catalyst for a world without heritable diseases. Sounds great. You responded on X and in articles calling out the inherent eugenic drive in startups like [00:15:00] nucleus genomics, orchid, helio, spect.
Samantha: My own genomic prediction, I think it's very clear that these are eugenics companies. What's less clear is how to respond to someone who receives that accusation and says. So what, um, in other words, the eugenics movement spurred by Charles Darwin and promulgated with almost religious fervor in this country by Charles Davenport, Harry Loughlin Madison Grant was inhumane in its targeting of vulnerable communities and the four sterilization laws that became Hitler's inspiration.
Samantha: But that those are really problems of application and that ultimately the core of eugenic philosophy of purifying our genetic pool of humanity, that is an aspirational goal. And that now with the sequencing of the human genome and the ability to use genetic editing with crispr, we finally have the means to execute a eugenic program that is ethical and even praiseworthy.[00:16:00]
Samantha: Is there a flaw embedded in the philosophy of eugenics itself that exists apart from the practical implementation that led to past atrocities?
Emma: Yeah, it's a really good question. I think it, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that that final part of the question in particular is in like the 20th century of eugenics we were dealing with. People who were already born, right? People who were walking among us, they were disabled, they were maybe the wrong skin color.
Emma: They had the wrong intellectual capability. Um, but today with Nucleus genomics and Orchid and a number of these other companies, we're dealing with human beings at the embryonic stage, um, at a stage where it's, uh, one hotly contested if, if we should even attribute any personhood or value to that embryo. Um, and two, that even if we do contribute some value to the embryo, if it should really matter what happens to the embryo, right? Because that, that small, very tiny, uh, embryo right at the earliest stages of human development looks nothing like you and I do today, even though if allowed to develop normally it, it [00:17:00] would, he or she would eventually do so. Um, and so I think one of the things that. Has been so, uh, intentionally or unintentionally deceptive in that movement is the framing of, um, orchid, for example, whose, whose tagline is, have healthy babies. Um, nucleus genomics says we should remove all heritable diseases. They, they frame the conversation around health and they say, no, no, it's not eugenics, it's just science.
Emma: We're helping you have healthy babies. And that, um, right, like at, just like at face value seems great. We all want healthy babies. It's one of the most natural and in like intuitive desires every parent person has. But what I think they're very unclear about, uh, many cases just outright deceptive about, is that we're not talking about this abstract idea of wanting to heal a child. Bryo or improve their health. But what they're really saying is, is we should test each individual embryo. And then what these companies do is they [00:18:00] assign, um, a score for every disease or condition that they test for. And say, your embryo has, say, a 90% chance of getting Alzheimer's, a 50% chance of insulin resistance, um, a 25% chance of hearing loss and so on.
Emma: And then you can look at those scorings for each of the embryos and say, what are the embryos that I want to use and what embryos do I want to destroy? And so it's picking winners and losers at this, um, be like inherent level of human life. Um, that's just far beyond anything we've seen, um, in like the 20th century eugenics movement. Um, but I would say is no less eugenics because ultimately what you're doing is you're placing a conditional value on human life. Um, and, and apart from any like moral pro-life language. scientifically speaking, an embryo is a distinct and living organism with its own unique set of DNA that if placed in the right environment will grow, into like a, a human being as you and I [00:19:00] recognize one. Um, and so there doesn't necessarily need to be moral language to recognize that. And what these companies are doing is then taking those embryos and assigning winners and losers based on their, um. Best tech, best technological guess at the content of this embryo. Um, and I think what's important to note is the ability to test for certain diseases, what we would call monogenetic diseases or like single gene diseases. Um, and to test for the sex of the embryo has been around for a very long time. I like to joke that there's no gender confusion in a fertility clinic, um, because they can tell right away if they're looking at a boy embryo or a girl embryo. And so in the United States we have about 450 fertility clinics. 75% of those clinics allow for pre-implantation genetic testing to look at single gene diseases like Down Syndrome, Tay-Sachs disease, cystic Fibrosis, something like that. About 73% of those clinics allow you to test for things like the sex of the [00:20:00] embryo. Um, and it, and it's very notable because most states don't allow abortion based on sex.
Emma: Um, even our, our most blue states, right? You can't go in and say, I want abortion 'cause it's the wrong sex. But in fertility clinics, that is in many cases just an assumed state. can go in and say, I really want to have a girl and help me pick the girl embryo from the set that's most likely to succeed and then destroy all the other human embryos.
Emma: But these companies like Nucleus genomics take it to a whole new level where they're testing for 900 to 1200 polygenic conditions, which means conditions that develop based on the interplay between multiple genes, which means it's even more unreliable or more complicated to assess that. Um, but they're going even further.
Emma: And they're not simply looking at the health or the sex of the embryo, but they're assessing things like the potential IQ of the embryo or the potential personality of the embryo. So what genetic combinations tend to create, [00:21:00] um, a more docile child, what, uh, combination tends to create a more kind or a more, um, aggressive or a more ambitious child, and they're offering parents not just the opportunity to have a healthy baby. But to have the exact kind of baby they desire, but instead of being upfront and saying, you are picking and choosing winners and losers, right? You're not increasing the intelligence. You're just trying to choose the embryo with the highest IQ based on the number of embryos you have. Um, and so that's why I've really framed it as this consumerist eugenics.
Emma: If you have enough money you can create, uh, and select the kind of child you desire. Um, but yeah, and so in many ways it is just a modern version of 20th century eugenics, but because it's dealing with embryonic life, I, I think it's a lot harder for people to, um, grapple with in the same moral terms.
Samantha: Well, and, and also that it's just to play devil's advocate. Some of them are going to make it and some of them are gonna be discarded, so why not [00:22:00] choose the one that most closely matches? I am, I am a buyer of a product. Why not choose the best product has, however, I define that.
Emma: Right? Yeah. Uh, and this is what many of them frequently say, unfortunately. Um, and so in those cases, if, if you frame it in that language, right, of like, I am, yeah, I'm the buyer. I can get whatever I want, why shouldn't I pick the best possible child? Um, I think that's where, um, one, uh, I make the distinction between intentional and unintentional.
Emma: So, um, throughout conception there are unintentional, um, times where an embryo or a child doesn't make it right. An embryo, um, doesn't continue developing. Um, or even a, an. Plant a child doesn't continue developing and you have a miscarriage or you have other complications, those are unintentional and unnatural deaths to that child at each stage of development that are incredibly heartbreaking, right? Um, and are far outside the control of [00:23:00] parents. But what we're dealing with here is the intentional selection and destruction of human life. Um, and so one intention matters and then two, I would say that our society. I, I think by and large, like many people would agree that there, well, not everyone would agree though that there are some things that ought to be beyond the scope of the market and ultimately having enough money is not a good enough justification for what you can and shouldn't do.
Emma: And we have laws governing every aspect of society that says no. There's some things that are far too intimate, far too sacred to simply be subjected to a monetary, um, transaction. Um, so prostitution is largely banned, um, even if it happens outside of the law, right? As largely banks, we recognize that sex and that's sexual intimacy, ought not be governed by the market. When it comes to reproduction, this is, I think where we have one of the last holdouts, um, of this debate, right, where we have surrogacy, where we have, um, buying egg and [00:24:00] sperm, where we have the creation of human life. Where, where there has been this permissive view that if you can buy it, you should be able to.
Emma: And I think that's where you just see a, a moral disagreement, right? Like just radically different worldviews at play with each other. Um, that should have good policy governing them. They should have, um, very clear limitations placed on what can be done to human life. Um, and a lot of that comes down to, I think, uh, a longer and larger debate in the public square to really shift think the thinking on this topic.
Samantha: Why do you think a philosophy of eugenics seems to emerge from so-called elite classes intellectually and socioeconomically? And what do you think we lose by defining those markers as the pinnacle of human achievement?
Emma: Yeah, so the, so the eugenics movement with embryonic genetic screening really comes out of a larger, um, movement towards [00:25:00] longevity and transhumanism, um, that was largely birthed in Silicon Valley, and it is sort of making waves across the United States culturally speaking. So for many years you had individuals from Brian Johnson, Peter Thiel, um. To, you know, more normal researchers who were asking how can we optimize human health to the highest degree. Um, in some ways the Maha movement is a sort of like normal, healthy version of this, right? Where it's like, how can we just like provide people with the best water, the best food, the best lifestyle so that they can thrive? but out of that movement, you had a number of individuals who started asking, we are, started saying really like, we're spending so much time and money trying to optimize the health of an individual once they're born, once they're in their twenties, thirties, or older. What if we started at the most intimate state, um, of embryonic life and actually optimized, um, the longevity, the health of the embryo from the very beginning where we have maximal control over the outcomes of the embryo. and so largely [00:26:00] an elite, and, and this is sort of, I think this philosophy is like a. Is natural among like our elite class of like, you want the best and you want to be the healthiest and the best you can be. And on like, on face value. That's great, right? We should all pursue excellence. Um, this movement though, of course, has taken it to a far different level where it's not simply pursuing excellence, right?
Emma: But it's like picking and choosing which children are even born in the first place and then can pursue excellence from there. Um, and so I think that's, like if you. Saw online like Brian Johnson was at Nucleus Genomics opening. Um, there's a really close connection between the transhumanist longevity movement and this embryonic genetic screening movement. but what's so interesting to me is that embryonic genetic screening is only looking at the genetics of the embryo. Many of the conditions that they're testing for are not primarily genetic conditions, but environmental connections, conditions. So take for example, Alzheimer's. About [00:27:00] 96% of all Alzheimer's cases are traced back not to the genetics of the person, but to the environment and lifestyle that they lived. Only 4% of cases on average are due to a person's genetics. So you may use breon genetic screening and say, wow, this embryo only, you know, barely has a chance of Alzheimer's. This is amazing. We should choose this embryo that only accounts for 4% of the possibility. Right. The other 96% will be governed by how they live their lives.
Emma: So I think there's an expectation among certain elite circles who are using this technology that they will ensure that their kids then follow through with the lifestyle and have access to the things to ensure that they're the healthiest possible that they can be throughout every stage of their life. Um, such that that 96% is not as big of a deal. Um, but it's just no guarantee. Right? And this is the case for almost all of the polygenic conditions that they're, um, testing for, is that so much of it comes down to our environment and the life that we live. Um, and even things, right? Like we can be [00:28:00] exposed to something that we don't expect, that we don't intend to be exposed to that can cause any number of conditions. So it, it, it really in some ways, like, I think doesn't fully achieve what I think they're trying to do because there's so much that could go wrong, um, go wrong, quote unquote, right in their worldview after that. but I think it's very appealing nonetheless. Um, and, and it sort of follows like our. our marriage and dating trends too, right?
Emma: Our marriage rates have been declining long before birth rates were declining, um, with hookup culture. Um, the sexual revolution, no fault divorce. And in today we've sort of reverted to this maybe somewhat dystopian approach to marriage that's reduced to dating apps with profiles and constant swiping.
Emma: And we know that that's actually continued to suppress marriage rates. Not necessarily help them, even though I know and probably, you know, people who have met and gotten married on these apps. And very similarly, I, I think we're seeing as. We will see a similar outcome here where there are stories of individuals in [00:29:00] Silicon Valley who say, well, why should we have kids now? Why not wait five years, 10 years, 15 years, when the technology is even better, when we can just use an artificial womb when we have the ability to even edit the embryo to the exact kind of child that we want. Why would we have a kid now when we have even better technology to have a kid in the future? Um, and now of course, there's a couple of levels to this one. What happens if you do have a kid in the future, but five years after that the technology is even better. Are you, are you going to have buyer's remorse for the child that you have? Like it's sort of this infinite regression of there will always be better technology promised. Um, and then two, think that also just like tends to suppress birth rates in a very real sense where if you make it about having the best possible kid who has the best possible life, then that's really, again, only possible for a certain, very small percentage of society. With that, those level of means where then the average person won't be able to use IVF, they won't be able to pay for this advanced technological screening. Um, and, [00:30:00] and so I think it will cause like this further fracture in our society of who's having kids and why they're having kids. Um, yeah, but that's a long answer. I, I think like the
Samantha: Yeah.
Emma: is just like going a couple of different directions. Um, yeah.
Samantha: Yeah. Well, I, I think it's interesting too about this kind of, uh, way of obtaining and optimizing. Children really flies in the face of what I think should be the ideal of parenthood, which is to offer unconditional love and sort of be drawn beyond yourself and stretched and become a more virtuous person by the self gift of oneself to your children.
Samantha: That's very opposite of designing a child that fits your desires. Those are two very different paradigms, and I think one tends to lend itself better to the building of virtue and generosity [00:31:00] and love and acceptance that we, I think most people would agree is ideal in parenthood. Um, still, but yeah, it's, it's a little bit, uh, it's a little bit frightening to follow that line of thinking
Emma: Yeah.
Samantha: the way to its natural ends.
Emma: 'cause
Samantha: Um.
Emma: your children to sacrifice for you rather than you, the parent, learning to sacrifice for your children, even when that means having a child with additional complications, right? That's maybe not the child you had in mind. Um, but I think there's this, uh, just hubris in the industry that's just, that's incredibly foolish. Um, assuming that we somehow know what's best for future generations to, to the point of like what kind of children are best for future generations. Um, and not recognizing that to some degree providence in nature right. Do govern it, um, for our good right. And reshape who we are as people through this self-sacrificial gift of parenthood. Um, and also open the door for new kinds of people and new personalities, um, to be born in the world that we would [00:32:00] never have imagined our guests. Um, and so I think a little beyond even what you're asking, there are two just like. Broader concerns that I have of one, we see trends in buying, uh, markets all the time, right?
Emma: Like the new iPhone comes out, everyone wants the new iPhone. Uh, this new dress comes out. Everyone has a variation of this dress. And I think there's a very, there, there's a very real concern that there will also be trends in the kinds of, um, things that people select for. Um, so I, some people actually think that autism or autism is a strength.
Emma: So there's like a swath of parents actually choosing embryos based on autism or what happens when people think like, oh, like kindness is the highest personality. We should have all the kind people, which is great, but people who were overly dispositioned to kindness for a whole generation probably don't protect your borders in a time of war very well.
Emma: Um, or if you choose a very aggressive generation, right? Like it's probably not good for like the domestic health of your nation. And so there's a real concern that like these sorts of trends in children, um. Weaken society [00:33:00] overall. And then the second thing, um, and I mean this like somewhat humorously, but I think the point stands is imagine if the boomer generation or fill in the blank generation had access to this technology. What kind of children and personalities and IQ and health would they have chosen? Is that really what you or I wanted to be created and born and lived as? Um, and based on the like pretty strong like reaction to boomers and older generations, I think most people would say absolutely not. Like we actually really like the sort of cultural generational distinctions that we have, um, that have by and large developed sort of naturally in response to, um, our own context and previous people. But how much, yeah, but like how much of that do we actually lose with embryonic genetic screening because we take away that natural variation, um, at a very fundamental level if it's adopted wide scale.
Samantha: Yeah, taking that stereotype of the former quarterback of the high school football team who wants his son to continu his footsteps, [00:34:00] but his son just wants to pursue science or musical theater and. But at a very genetic level, trying to exert control over who your child becomes rather than allowing them to flourish and unfold as as a gift.
Emma: Yeah. Yeah.
Samantha: So the inventor of CRISPR technology for gene editing, Dr. Jennifer Duna, who in good faith has been very vocal about insisting on ethical uses of this technology, has commented that one day we might regard it as unethical not to use CRISPR to edit out genetic defects. One, do you think this is a likely prediction?
Samantha: And two, what do you see as the relevant differences between making these changes in people who are already born, say to ameliorate disease or designing embryos to exhibit particular characteristics?[00:35:00]
Emma: Yes. Very good question. Um, so the first part of like, how is this technology even possible is a, it's a really good question. So I think there's, yeah. So there are a number of scientists, um, just across the board, not, you know, coded as any one set of beliefs or another who have really called into question the viability of this technology.
Emma: Um, like how well are we actually able to select or even edit a given, uh, gene? Like how accurate is our, is our effort in this space? Um, so I think right now, um. It's still very uncertain from what I've seen, like how accurate our, our attempts actually are. I think in the next five to 10 years, we potentially could see a high level of, um, in the genetic editing space.
Emma: Um, and I hesitate to see ac say accuracy because I, I think like so much of it, while we've like made incredible advances, so much of it is still uncertain. Um, that, and there's so many complications that could arise, right? Because like [00:36:00] even on a basic level, you need the tools. That make it possible to do the editing.
Emma: So like, theoretically this is all possible, but even when it comes to like, do you have a tool that's small enough to, uh, literally change a given gene, which is right, like beyond like our ability to even see with our, with our eyes, have a tool that can actually go small enough, that can inject, that can change, that can, uh, make the, yeah, like, make the changes necessary. Um, they're still working on that aspect of it, such that genetic editing is incredibly expensive and time consuming and it, and for those reasons hasn't been the first stop for people, which is why you have seen the rise in genetic selection because it's far easier technologically speaking to analyze and select than it's to actually make changes to an embryo, even just with the tools we have necessary. and then the second part of your question of would it be, uh, do we hit a point where it actually becomes unethical not to use it? Um, and I think this line of thinking. Comes [00:37:00] from a place where if you assume that just because techno technology can do something, it therefore should do something. Um, and, and this is I think a broader problem in our technological discussions is that it's all about if we can, we should not, if we can, is this actually good for humans? Um, and so, uh, yeah, so I think on that one, I think it will be very realistic that will have people who encourage the use of genetic editing because it's somehow unloving to your children not to use it. yeah. And you had, sorry, you had another part of this question that I'm now forgetting. Um, maybe about the kinds of things Oh, the enhancement versus like diseases.
Emma: So I think when it comes to genetic editing, I am actually far more open. in having a discussion about the technology because the, the, the wide array of genetic therapies is incredibly broad. So you have the sort of designer baby, what if you had an embryo and you could just change whatever you wanted to have the child you like and we'll, we'll call that like the [00:38:00] enhancement side of things.
Emma: So it's not just that I have a healthy child, but I wanna child with blue eyes, who's really good at soccer. Um, I, I think when it hits the realm of enhancement, then that becomes incredibly problematic because you are conditionally choosing the child and you're taking away. like nature's ability to give you the child that you need, right?
Emma: Or that child to develop their own interests or desires outside of the selection. But I'm far more interested in what it looks like to use genetic therapy to heal actual diseases or, um, problems within a child. Um. And so once the child is born, that seems like a really obvious and positive example. So you have baby CJ that was recently born where they were able to use genetic editing to change the proteins within his DNA so that it actually healed him of this like incredibly rare disease that he had. Um, and it didn't change the genes that he would pass down. It was just focused on that child. Um, and so that's something that I was by and large praised throughout, [00:39:00] um, all communities, right? Is a very good use of genetic therapy to actually heal a child and also limit the negative impact that can have on future generations, right?
Emma: Because if you change DNA that will be changed in your offspring, then that's a really big question of like, okay, what if we do something wrong? And now you've not only harmed one person, you've harmed every child that comes from their line. Um, but then I'm also really interested in things like. I think at the embryonic level, like what would it look like if you could heal conditions like Down syndrome? Um, I think that it doesn't change the value of right, and like the goodness of the child either way, but I think that's where people become far more, um, on edge because it's just, it's such a big question, right? And it hits the disability community of like, how do we think, are these differences in the human person or these limitations?
Emma: Are they gifts in and of themselves? Should we try to heal them if we have the opportunity? But I think that's the space where at the, either the embryonic or the born level, I'm very interested in seeing the development of [00:40:00] these genetic therapies that could actually heal a given child. Um, but I'm far more wary of like, moving into the realm of enhancement, right?
Emma: Like it's not just to have a healthy kid, but you want a healthy kid who's like six three and greater football. Um, that seems like far more problematic, but I don't think that we have the moral imagination or the moral, um. Ability to really make that distinction in our society. So part of me thinks like we, we, we don't have the wisdom to govern this technology reliably. Um, because there isn't an agreed upon, um, view of the human person that would allow us, I think to reliably say, we can agree that this is healing versus this is what's enhancement and we should be able to get there. But I, I am just not confident that we're there right now.
Samantha: Yeah, something we'll have to unravel as we go.
Emma: Yeah.
Samantha: So you have written extensively about the problems that arise when we use technology as a substitute rather than a supplement to human flourishing. [00:41:00] Can you explain the difference and why this distinction is so critical?
Emma: Yes. So that distinction of substitution versus supplement comes from Joshua Mitchell, who is a professor at Georgetown University. and he's used this, um. Many different contexts. I've applied it specifically to the question of technology. So what I mean and what Joshua Mitchell means, um, or at least my interpretation of what Joshua Mitchell means when he uses this, is that for a technology to substitute the human person, it is, it means that in some way, our use of that technology is replacing a natural human function or natural human experience. So take, um, the, the topic of IVF, for example, right? IVF, um, results in the creation of a human embryo if everything goes correct. But in order to create that human embryo, you're actually substituting the human person or the human body and creating it not through the natural intercourse between a man and a woman, but in a laboratory setting, um, with [00:42:00] technicians who are like artificially, like placing your egg and sperm in a Petri dish and hoping that it turns into an embryo. And that scenario, I would say that we're actually subs, we're using IVF to sub. A natural human function in a way that I, that at, at base value, right? Like introduces a number of complications into our understanding of what it means to be human, um, the wellbeing of the child, and so on. When we say, when I talk about technology supplementing, at that point, we're talking about ways that technology, um, can actually help, encourage, or help achieve a natural human outcome.
Emma: So a very basic example of this is like the use of glasses or a prosthetic arm, right? It's not substituting your ability to see, but those glasses are helping supplement your natural eyes so that they can see in a way, uh. they ought to, right? Without any, um, issues or like natural weaknesses that come with time and age. And so I'm very interested in the development of technologies that will further supplement the human person and human [00:43:00] flourishing. So things like, um, the development of, uh, different approaches to treating infertility, for example, um, broadly fall under the category of like restorative reproductive medicine. But this can mean everything from, um, addressing tubal blockages, um, that may prohibit a woman from, uh, naturally conceiving a child or addressing conditions like endometriosis or any number of factors, right? And it actually involves a high level of technological sophistication, not only to identify and diagnose the cause of infertility, but then to actually address all the factors contributing to it. Um, but I think any, any use of technology in that sense, right? It's just supplementing what the body naturally does. It's not necessarily substituting the body with this like outside, um, meat. Creating a child. Um, so yeah, that's the distinction at a
Samantha: Yeah, no, absolutely. And, uh, this season we will be having on, uh, Dr. Stacey Tringo to talk about IVF in a little bit more detail and Grace [00:44:00] Emily Stark, the editor at Natural Womanhood, to talk about her policy wishlists and other things about, um, restorative reproductive medicine. So keep an eye out for those episodes.
Samantha: Um, speaking of technologies that either substitute or supplement, can you explain the process and purpose behind three parent children and what are the concerns around this technology?
Emma: So this is something that, um, has, has sort of had a few different moments in our cultural conversation. Um, and most recently in like the mid 20, like before and after 2020s. And so with three parent embryos, what we're talking about here is, um, typically there's a few variations, but like typically when we talk about three pair embryos, we're talking
Samantha: I.
Emma: the replacement of a, of embryo or a cells nucleus with another embryo or cells nucleus.
Emma: And so what that means is if you have, say, a. Um, one [00:45:00] embryo that is, or say like you have like sperm, egg, egg and like the sperm and the egg of like the intended parents who want to raise the child, uh, may have like the egg for example, may have a condition where it's less likely to, um, create a viable embryo or it could convey some heritable disease to the child.
Emma: What they would do is they would actually take that woman's egg with another woman's egg that didn't have those same conditions and they would replace key parts of her egg with, um, genetic material from the other egg. And so you would end up with a child who had genetic parents in three different places, one man, two women, in order to sort of offset and piece together the healthiest possible egg to create the healthiest possible embryo, in the United States.
Emma: That technol or that process is not it. not allowed. So if you were to apply to the FDA and say, I'd like to create a three point embryo, they wouldn't even respond. It's like, it's, it's illegal. We don't pursue that route. [00:46:00] Um, but it hasn't been tested or really like pushed back on in a number of years.
Emma: So the United Kingdom is one of the most prominent countries that has developed this technology primarily for the purpose of addressing or trying to like sidestep any potential health concerns that may be present in that woman. And so it, in many ways, it's sort of trying to walk this middle ground where if you are concerned about using your own egg, your own genetic material in creating a child, but you don't just want to buy another woman's egg to create a child, right?
Emma: Such that you as the intended mother would have no biological connection to the child. This sort of provides a way, um, where you quote unquote get the best of both worlds where you're still passing down genetic material to the child. But you're removing the parts that you find problematic and supplementing it with, or substituting it really with someone else's. Um, so that's like a very basic description of three parent embryos. Um, it hasn't gained as much, um, stamina in the United States, but it is [00:47:00] certainly something, like I said, that the United Kingdom is utilizing.
Samantha: Now, as I understand it, researchers have also been able in animal models to reprogram adult stem cells into gametes eggs and sperm, thus enabling genetic conception between same sex pairings or even uh, from a single person. How far are we from human use and what are the implications of this type of technology?
Emma: Yes. So what you're describing is, um, called in vitro gametogenesis or IVG. and as you said, there are two different variations depending on if you're working with egg or sperm. But at the most basic level, you are taking, um, a stem cell, some DNA. So, um, some of my skin cells, hair, um, or blood for example, or even like your saliva, right? And you are genetically transforming that, [00:48:00] um, into. Uh, a viable egg or sperm. So this is a very, like, complex process, obviously. Um, but as you noted, this has been achieved in mice in Japan in particular, where they were able to genetically modify, um, think DNA from a mouse's tail into viable egg, and then use that in reproduction to create multiple generations of mice from it. Um, so it requires the use of IVF, right? 'cause you're then extracting egg or sperm. But because you can genetically, uh, modify or transform that given DNA into egg or sperm, it means that your biological sex is actually secondary to the process. So women naturally create eggs. Men naturally create sperm in the process of procreation. Um, but using IVGA man could contribute his own sperm and then genetically modify one of his skin cells. Into being a viable egg. That's [00:49:00] totally from his DNA. So it'd be his DNA, right, like his person, but in a genetically modified egg. And then through IVF, he could actually have his sperm, um, fertilize his egg to create an embryo that was 100% related to him. The same could also work with same sex couples where a woman could contribute her egg and her partner could then genetically modify a skin cell into sperm and then fertilize that egg, such that two women would actually be the genetic parents of a given child. Um, if you look in Japan, for example, where they're most advanced in this technology, the primary motivation that they have noted is to help women who are born without eggs. Now, this is a very rare condition, um, but it's certainly a condition that, um, women throughout the world suffer from where they physically. have any eggs to have children. Um, which is, can be incredibly heartbreaking 'cause it, it means that there, there isn't anything you can really do right. To naturally restore that.
Emma: And so their hope is that [00:50:00] this technology could then use their own DNA to create eggs so that they can have the children they desire. the context of the United States, um, the primary company, um, working on this is Biocon concepts. Biocon Conception says that their primary motivation is to allow same-sex couples to have children.
Emma: Um, and there are a number of same-sex couples working at this company in the United States and really across the world. So we know that Japan has started testing with, um, human DNA to try to, uh. Create a mature egg. In particular, they've not achieved this goal yet. Um, I think they've gotten like very rudimentary versions, but it hasn't continued developing to the point of a mature and viable egg in the United States.
Emma: Biocon concepts has claimed that they are, biocon concepts is working with human DNA. They claim that they're making proce progress on it. But even folks in the industry have said, we haven't seen the paper, we haven't seen the research. We have no [00:51:00] idea really how far they've gotten. So I think the folks in this space have said that it's anywhere, maybe around like 10, five to 10 years before we expect to see a viable human br egg created through this process or sperm. Um, but who knows, right? Like maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. Um, but the concerns with this are, I, I think very clear. Which is one, um, it, it will radically change our understanding of human conception because it will no longer require a given man and a given woman to create a child. Um, any number of children, uh, really an infinite number of children could be created from any given individual, um, with or without the support of another man or woman. Um, and, and what's even more heartbreaking is you don't even have to have a fully developed person, right? Uh, or like human being, like grown human being. You can have an embryo and you can take the genetic material from that embryo and then [00:52:00] genetically modify that into ex sperm embryo, right? And continue the process of procreating multiple generations, um, just from the embryonic stage, not even from like the born adult human stage. Um, and so there's, I think, a number of. Concerns or like a number of problems this introduces. Um, but in many ways what it's doing is it's taking our legal redefinition. And where states like California say that any person or persons can be the parents of a child, right? They have parent number one, parent number two, it doesn't matter your sex use IVF, you can be a parent and it takes that legal definition and it turns it into a biological definition where quite literally should the technology succeed, any two men could actually be the biological parents of the child. But we know that, again, when it comes to childhood wellbeing and parenthood, it's not just about, um, do you have the parts available to have a child? Do you have the financial support? Do you have two people who love you? There's an incredibly [00:53:00] important relationship of a. father, a biological mother raising a child, and what they bring to the table when it comes to the child's identity, um, their sense of self, who they are and, and the nurture and care and protection they need.
Emma: That come uniquely in some ways from a given mother and a given father. Um, it totally, um, evaporates that and says, oh, any parent will do, any genetic material will do, as long as you can create a child. It doesn't really matter. Um, and so in many ways, like the concerns that people have with surrogacy or with donor egg and sperm donation, it just magnifies those on a whole new level, um, where it, it's biologically sort of erasing the necessity of a mother and a father to a child's life.
Samantha: Yeah, sure. Mind blowing societal questions and issues. Um, to take it back to the research a little bit though, if they're using the genetic material of a single person to create a new [00:54:00] human embryo, is this a new type of cloning and reproductive cloning has been unilaterally banned, but is this something that is a clone or is it resulting in a genetically different individual using the same pool of genetics just mixed up a little bit differently, um, to create progeny from the genetics of one person instead of two?
Emma: Yeah, very, very good question. Um, you know, it's a really good question. Um, I don't actually know the answer to that. It's really good. So it could result in, in a cloning situation, I don't know if it's possible to reconfigure the genetic such a way that like you could actually have a total, because Yeah, I mean, you're a hundred percent genetically related, so there's no. variation in the child that's created, but can you emphasize a certain genetic, uh, a certain gene over another in a way that's different from that individual? [00:55:00] Um, it seems like you could, but I'm not totally sure. Um, it's a really good question actually. I'll need to like Yeah. Bug some of our researchers about this and see.
Samantha: Yeah, good to follow up on, um, do you have like a litmus test or simple way to sort out the types of technologies and research that we should pursue and fund and those that are revolutionary or incredible? Um, scientifically though they may be, are fundamentally opposed to human flourishing.
Emma: This is a great question. Um, this is something that like, going forward, I, I want to develop out even further than what we have, but a few of the litmus tests that I like to apply, um, is one at a very basic level asking, does this technology restore human life or restore human function, or does it circumvent it?
Emma: Or the question of supplement versus substitute. Um, I think it's a really important first question to ask, um, when we're assessing the goodness or potential concerns of a technology. So if you can say, know this technology clearly is restoring the [00:56:00] health or the genetic health, the, the physical health of a person, um, and doing, then that, then that's a good thing, right? Um, whereas if we're actually removing a human element, that should be a concern, but it's not a total answer, right? 'cause like prosthetic arms or prosthetic arms are technically like replacing. A human arm, right? Um, but in a way that like, we'd actually say it's a good substitution 'cause it's sort of enabling, like what would've been a natural human function. Um, the next question, um, something for me that's a non-negotiable is the, are we destroying human life in pursuit of that given goal? So the moment that a human embryo is formed, um, and is that unique, uh. Complete embryo. Any technology that destroys or harms or, um, commodifies that embryo, I think should be an absolute no when it comes to our society.
Emma: If we cannot value and protect life at that most intimate and sacred stage of development, then we will have no moral authority or ability [00:57:00] to protect life at any other stage of development. Um, whatever the situation may be, right? And so any technology that is destroying or commodifying, um, human life at any stage, including the embryonic, um, I think is across the line to begin with.
Emma: Um, so the question of does it restore circumvent and does it destroy life, are sort of the first two litmus tests that I go to. Um, and so yeah, if you can find a technology that's not destroying human life that seems to be supplementing, it's good. I think the second level of questions then I would ask come from Marshall McCluen. Um, and he has. These sorts of four. He had, he, he puts forward four questions that you can ask about any technology and Marshall McCluen is, um, a 20th century philosopher just writing about the nature of technology itself
McCluen puts forward four questions that you can ask of a given technology to assess. Merit or its consequences in the world. So he asks first, what does it enhance or intensify? Um, so what does this technology encourage? Second, um, what does it render, obsolete or displace? So what does this technology intentionally or unintentionally actually deter in our society? Third, um, what does this technology retrieve that was previously obsolete? Um, so is it bringing back something, um, right, like nucleus genomics is actually retrieving 20th century eugenics.
Emma: Um, and [00:59:00] not in a way that I think any sane person should be in favor of. And then fourth, what does it, what does this technology produce or become when it's pressed to an extreme? Um, so this question, right, is meant to say like a given technology, like at its most basic level may be fine or like morally neutral or even potentially good for society. But what happens if we were to take this technology and press it to its most extreme expression? So for example, um. chat, GPT, Hey, I am looking to create a meal with these ingredients. Uh, what can I create with these ingredients I have? That's great. I love using chat GPT to like, like brainstorm solutions to everyday problems. Um, but what happens when chat GT's ability to communicate with you isn't just helping you like brainstorm, like problems like that, but actually becomes the sort of partner that you talk to where you then have your chatbot girlfriend or boyfriend, um, or your romantic partner where they aren't just like, you know, a tool you use to solve domestic problems, but it becomes [01:00:00] a replacement, a substitute for people in your life and you're actually in love with and proposing to your chatbot romantic partner, right?
Emma: Which is already happening in the world. Um, chat, GBT pressed to the extreme in that sense is actually really, really bad for human relationships and human wellbeing. and so those four questions aren't meant to say that something is inherently good or bad, depending on where it falls, but. prompt, they allow us to ask and understand the nature of a technology, I think a little bit better.
Emma: So we can actually say, okay, like what is a, what is a responsible use of this technology? 'cause in many cases, aside from things like genetic screening that we've talked about, things like genetic therapy, I think there, like you and I said, I think versions of it that are very good for society that I think would be very good to develop.
Emma: And there's versions of it that I think are very, very bad for society. And it's going to require asking those very particular questions about the given tech, the given, um, approach or like the given technique used, um, to [01:01:00] really understand what is good and what we should avoid, um, or prohibit in that space.
Samantha: Yeah, one. One of the ways that you have. Distinguish between and those things is, uh, hacking humans through like surrogacy, gender surgery, um, euthanasia versus healing them. And I love that distinction, not just because of the alliteration, but I think it's very useful way to think about.
Emma: Yeah. Also, yeah, that was, uh, that's a new Atlantis article. Um, the Hacking of the Human Person, which is I wrote with two of my colleagues. But yes, it goes into that distinction. Um, yeah.
Samantha: I can link that in the show notes also.
Emma: Awesome.
Samantha: thank you so much for your time. I have one last question to ask you that is a standard question to ask all our guests. So, who is one person, alive or dead, real or fictional, who you believe exemplifies the very best of [01:02:00] being human?
Emma: Oh, that's such a good question. Um, yes. It's such a fun question too. Um, I, the person that comes to mind, yeah. I dunno, I've gone back and forth on this question a few times. Um, yeah. The person that comes to mind. Right now, um, is my daughter. Um, she is two years old and while she's still very young in her, you know, development and growth as a human person, she's at this incredible stage where she's learning and discovering a million new things every day from her speech, from her experiences, um, and had this a really lovely. Speak perspective on the world from her little tiny stature in her mind. Um, and so what I've loved to see is the way that, like, I, I think she like exhibits the human condition in such a raw and honest way where one second she just covers you and hugs and has this like pure joy [01:03:00] and delight when she meets another human.
Emma: Um, to the point where we have to tell her, you shouldn't actually like give a stranger a hug from behind. They might think it's a little aggressive, and she's like, I'm so excited to see you, and you're like, please don't get upset. Um, to like having these horribly selfish and like terrible moments where she just like takes a toy from her sister just because she can and she wants to. Um, and it, yeah, it's just, yeah, I think she does where it's like this desire to like be hospitable, give whatever she has in one moment. Um, and then other moments where yeah, she's a sinful toddler and it's just like terrible and meme, but is learning to really interact with the world and realize her own limitations.
Emma: Right. Um, so she. Climbed out of her crib today, um, which was a terrifying development for me. Um, and so l but seeing her like grapple with her human limitations where sometimes she overestimates them and she gets hurt, and other times you see her like rightly navigate it. Um, and it's so exciting and encouraging.
Emma: And I think those very basic lessons that we're learning that age apply on all levels, [01:04:00] right? Because ultimately with technology and with the opportunities before us, we are asking that question of what is a good human limitation? What is, um, yeah, what is the fullness of the human person? What are limitations we should respect? Um, and what is this like joy filled, cheerful way that we should interact with the world that really views life itself as a gift?
Samantha: It's beautiful, beautiful way to reflect on parenthood and a, a lovely way to close. Um, where can listeners connect with you, follow your work and read more of your work?
Emma: Yes. So you can follow me on X or Twitter at e ml waters, or you can look up My Heritage Foundation profile. Um, just the Heritage Foundation, Emma Waters, um, where most of the articles that I publish are linked, um, for yeah, your enjoyment later on.
Samantha: Excellent. I'll put all of those things in the show notes. Thank you so much for your time today. Um, especially [01:05:00] generous. We've gone a little bit over and really appreciate your time and your reflection. Um, thank you. God bless.
Emma: Thank you.