TL;DR just more thoughts on artificial wombs and sexbots, nothing particularly new. Feel free to skip this wall of text.

In economics there is the term "elastic good". An elastic good is one which can be replaced with another good. For instance a particular food is an elastic good; you can replace corn with wheat in some foods, or you can eat seafood instead of beef.

Women are an elastic good, and they are highly interchangeable as they tend to value conformity.

But what if women, as a whole (or as a hole), were elastic?

To some extent companionship is an elastic good because you can achieve a level of satisfaction from partaking in solitary hobbies. The degree to which you can exchange companionship with things like hobbies is dependent on many factors, but the idea is that satisfaction can come from various sources and not necessarily a single source.

So, let's look at the old "artificial wombs and sexbots" solution to friction in the sexual marketplace:

What happens when you replace women with alternatives?

As with any demand curve, a supply side increase will depress demand. You can over-saturate the sexual marketplace, and, having only one dick to utilize at a time, there is a practical limitation to the demand side of female sexual market value. However, there are ~107 boys born per 100 girls, and boys die off at a more rapid rate, ultimately making the male-to-female ratio 101:100 overall (and gives women a slight edge in developed nations with higher average ages). For instance, in the United States, women outnumber men, with males having only 97% of the number of women.

Men are highly disposable in society's eyes because supply exceeds demand. Health outcomes and healthcare spending reflects the revealed preference of society.

So, how can we change the supply and demand?

Well, not being evil, I won't suggest the radical feminist approach of killing off men... because that's evil and stupid.

So, I suggest altering demand, though artificial scarcity.

The artificial womb and sexbots are a means of changing effective supply without effecting actual supply.

By giving men more reproductive freedom from women the societal (and SMV) value of men increases.

Now, to be clear, I don't give a rat's ass about society and women, nor do I care about the sexual marketplace aside from the fact that men are suffering, entering into crappy [marriage] contracts, committing suicide, working at depressed wages (because male safety has a lower premium, compensation is lower than it otherwise would be... which is not to say that dangerous jobs don't pay well, just that they don't pay as well as they would if men were valued more... a combat soldier's pay, for instance, is lower-middle income).

The implications of men being seen as worth less are far reaching. It affects almost every aspect of our society.

An artificial scarcity of men, by removing men from traditional roles, and supplanting them into new technology-based roles (of a single father of an artificial womb, for instance), would change demand for men.

I would like men to be more valuable and I would like women to be less valuable. Therefore, I will endeavor to create technological progress which makes women more obsolete, such as reproductive technologies. The cost on men of reproduction negatively affects their value in society.

Men, I think, deserve reproductive freedom. It is holding them back, and, thus, it is holding humanity back.

How much is lost to friction in the sexual marketplace, and unmet male demand? How much of those resources could be better spent on improving ourselves as a species?

Without having to mollycoddle women, humanity would grow in leaps and bounds. Technology would be even more advanced. Art, science, and satisfaction in life would be improved.

Men are cheap... but men are valuable. I see an opportunity for arbitrage: Buying low the sexual freedom of men, and selling high the increased economic output - seems like a good strategy for my life.

Imagine how much money I could make with an artificial womb...

It's certainly worth the years of study and development that it would cost to make it.

...

This post was inspired by Barbarossa's shedding of the ego: Is It Possible to Protect Men and MGTOW, While Feminism Consumes Itself?

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” - R. Buckminster Fuller

I want to make women obsolete. I want to make them cheap due to alternatives. Women think men are obsolete, or worth exactly a squirt of cum at a sperm bank. I would like to return the sentiment. I think it's past time that technologists stop making men disproportionately obsolete, and, instead, improve the male condition and freedom. Gynocentrism has liberated women with; washing machines, female contraceptives, makeup formulations, ready-made foods, artificial insemination, dishwashers, improved female sanitation, the microwave oven, and all of the things which were created by men for women. It's not just technology but society, as well, which favors women's liberation (looking at the oft cited legal climate, academic environment, hiring quotas, etc.).

Let us focus on liberating men now, and the renaissance of masculinity which will follow.

No one will automatically favor men, so it must be artificial, and taught. So, with a cold countenance (and a healthy dose of self-deprecating humor from knowing how I'm seen), I say, "I will teach them a lesson. I'll show them all!" (like the caricature society sees of a bitter man, because they mock what they don't understand). I'm not motivated out of hate, but out of cold rational self-interest, instead. I don't give a rat's ass about society and women so much as I care about man's liberation.

I think it is the right thing to do to give men the freedom and value that women have had for so long.

I don't expect that society will understand (given the victim narrative that women spit out about never having been free, and that being the object of desire is worse than being the disposable object, and women were more oppressed than men). They'll think that I'm fighting in the wrong direction, and, thus, will think my true motives are antithetical to their concept of good. Thus, I will be an evil male oppressor, in their eyes, if they ever knew that I'm subverting their fiction by chopping at the root of the problem which is male bondage.

They think that they're right, which is why they think we are wrong. I don't care what society thinks except that they would be a hindrance to increasing male freedom, which is why it's important to tell them what they want to hear whenever I'm behind enemy lines.

Interesting times are ahead.

Sorry for the rambling, I needed to organize my thoughts into this format to clarify my vision of my goals.

Have a good day my MGTOW brothers.