Welcome back. I’m Adeline Atlas, 11-time published author, and this is the Depopulation Series — Are We the Last Biological Humans?

Today’s video addresses a question that was once considered speculative, even fringe: What happens when reproduction no longer happens naturally? In the context of declining birth rates, advancing biotechnology, and a global push toward engineered solutions, this question is no longer hypothetical. In fact, we may be entering an era where children are not born, but built. What’s emerging is a new paradigm—one driven by AI, genetic selection, and artificial womb technology. Some are calling it a revolution in reproductive health. Others are calling it the end of natural life as we know it.

The AI Baby Boom refers to a projected surge in artificially engineered children—designed, gestated, and in some cases, raised by intelligent systems and automated environments. It’s a response to several converging pressures: the collapse of fertility, the rise of synthetic biology, and the increasing commercialization of parenthood. At the center of this shift are technologies that, just a few years ago, were theoretical—and are now entering real-world trials.

Let’s start with the artificial womb. A company called EctoLife released a concept video in 2022 that went viral. The facility depicted in the video contains up to 30,000 artificial wombs—transparent pods suspended in a grid, each housing a developing fetus. The fetus receives oxygen and nutrients via synthetic umbilical cords, monitored by AI systems that simulate optimal conditions for growth. Parents can track development via smartphone and customize the environment in real time. While this was a speculative concept, the science behind it is advancing rapidly. In 2017, researchers successfully kept premature lambs alive for weeks in artificial womb prototypes. More recently, biotech teams in Israel and Japan have made progress in growing mammalian embryos outside the womb.

Parallel to this, CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing continues to evolve. While ethical debates remain unresolved, the capability to selectively edit embryos is no longer theoretical. In 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui edited the genomes of twin embryos to confer resistance to HIV. He was condemned and jailed, but the precedent was established. Other research teams around the world are quietly exploring similar techniques—not only for disease prevention, but for enhanced traits such as intelligence, physical performance, and emotional regulation.

Combine these developments with generative AI, and the implications widen. AI systems can now model the developmental outcomes of specific gene combinations and simulate how certain edits might influence personality, behavior, or health trajectories. In effect, AI becomes the designer. Instead of rolling the genetic dice through natural reproduction, parents—or institutions—can make selections based on predictive analytics. The child becomes a curated output, not an inherited risk.

This leads to a growing question: Will governments begin mandating or incentivizing artificial reproduction?

In nations like South Korea and Japan, where birth rates are dangerously low, governments are already offering cash incentives, subsidized childcare, and housing credits to encourage reproduction. These measures have failed to meaningfully reverse the trend. If natural incentives do not work, and if cultural norms do not shift, it is plausible that future governments may promote technological solutions instead. Artificial reproduction removes biological risk, increases the predictability of outcomes, and reduces long-term health expenditures associated with traditional pregnancy and childbirth.

From a policy standpoint, the appeal is obvious. Artificial reproduction allows for population maintenance without relying on uncertain personal decisions. It also offers data-rich models of population health, enabling predictive governance. Children born through artificial systems can be registered, tracked, and analyzed from inception. For authoritarian regimes—or for bureaucracies focused on efficiency—this level of oversight may be seen as desirable.

This introduces a new form of reproductive control. If embryos are selected, gestated, and even raised in state-funded environments, who holds the rights to those children? Will parenthood become conditional on adherence to genetic guidelines? Could governments deny natural pregnancies in favor of more “stable” technological births? These are no longer philosophical questions—they are emerging legal and bioethical dilemmas.

At the private level, the fertility industry is expanding rapidly. The global assisted reproductive technology (ART) market is projected to surpass $60 billion USD by 2030. IVF clinics, genetic testing labs, and egg-freezing services are now standard in major cities worldwide. Large tech companies are offering egg-freezing benefits to female employees. Artificial wombs will be next. Once these devices are proven viable, they will enter the market as luxury services, then scale into healthcare norms.

The framing will be strategic. Artificial reproduction will be marketed as empowerment. It will be presented as a solution to the burdens of pregnancy, the biological clock, and even gender inequality. Women will no longer need to risk their health or careers to become mothers. Same-sex couples will gain access to custom-designed offspring. Individuals who want children but cannot find a partner will turn to biotech. Reproduction will become fully customizable, entirely managed, and ultimately decoupled from sex, relationships, and tradition.

But what are the consequences?

First, we lose randomness. Natural reproduction includes variation, unpredictability, and surprise. These elements are not flaws—they are foundational to human diversity. Artificial selection narrows that diversity. Even if initial choices are made with good intentions, the pressures of competition, cultural preference, and economic optimization will quickly lead to homogenization. Just as standardized beauty norms have been accelerated by filters and social media, standardized children may soon become an unspoken expectation.

Second, we introduce new hierarchies. As with all technology, access will be unequal. Wealthier individuals will afford better traits, higher-performing embryos, and optimized development environments. Over time, this could lead to a bifurcation of society—those born naturally, and those born engineered. The former may be viewed as disadvantaged, less stable, or less predictable. Discrimination could follow, not based on race or gender, but on method of birth.

Third, we face the loss of the family unit as we know it. If reproduction is handled in labs, if gestation is outsourced to pods, and if early development is managed by AI caregivers, what role remains for the biological parent? Already, parenting is strained by economic pressures, digital distraction, and cultural disintegration. In a world of synthetic birth, parenthood may become more symbolic than practical. This undermines not only relationships—it alters identity. Children raised by systems, rather than by families, may develop differently in terms of attachment, ethics, and social cohesion.

This is not an argument against innovation. Artificial reproduction could help many families. It could solve real medical issues and offer hope to people who would otherwise remain childless. But when technology becomes a default—rather than a support—we enter new territory. And in that territory, we must be clear-eyed about what is being replaced, and what cannot be replaced.

To ground this further, consider current developments in synthetic gametes. Scientists have successfully created sperm and egg-like cells from skin cells in lab mice. This process, known as in vitro gametogenesis (IVG), is now being tested with human cells. If successful, it would mean that any person, regardless of gender or reproductive history, could potentially create offspring. It also means that embryos could be mass-produced, screened, and selected with unprecedented efficiency. The barrier to entry for reproduction drops—but the control mechanisms increase.

Combine IVG with CRISPR, with artificial wombs, with AI child-raising systems, and you have a closed loop: conception, gestation, and development all handled by machines. The human element is minimized. What remains is oversight, administration, and outcome management. We move from nature to protocol.

Some ethicists suggest we should welcome this. They argue that natural reproduction is flawed, that biological parenting is inconsistent, and that the future demands more stability. But stability is not the same as humanity. And efficiency is not the same as care.

There is also a geopolitical angle. Nations facing collapse may turn to synthetic reproduction not just for population replacement, but for population engineering. In a scenario where economic survival depends on intellectual capital, countries may seek to produce “smarter” citizens. Embryos could be selected for intelligence markers, emotional resilience, or obedience. Over time, a state-managed population becomes not a fantasy—but a policy. It is important to remember that eugenics did not disappear. It was rebranded. And in the biotech age, it may be reinstated through market forces and convenience.

The depopulation crisis provides the justification. Leaders will say that society cannot function without a stable birth rate. They will say that culture must be preserved, pensions must be funded, economies must grow. And they will present synthetic birth as a practical solution. For many, it will be persuasive. Especially when framed as progress.

But what does it mean to be born in this new system?

What does it mean to be conceived by AI, gestated in plastic, and raised by code?

These questions are no longer speculative. They are immediate. And they belong to the current generation of policymakers, educators, and citizens.

In summary, the AI Baby Boom is not about reproduction—it’s about transformation. It marks the end of one era and the beginning of another. The end of the biological human as the foundation of civilization, and the rise of a curated, engineered, optimized population. It is not extinction, but replacement. Not with violence—but with design.

As we close, this is not a call for panic. It is a call for discernment. The tools being developed now will shape the next century of human life. Whether those tools are used with wisdom or with expediency is still up for debate.

But what cannot be debated is the fact that natural reproduction is being systematically replaced. And unless society pauses to ask what that means, we may soon find ourselves living in a world where birth is no longer a miracle—but a mechanism.

That change may solve one problem.

But it will introduce many more.