I asked ChatGPT to describe a hypothetical world where parents had to each give one eye to their babies.
I asked ChatGPT to describe a hypothetical world where parents had to each give one eye to their babies.
In this hypothetical world, the act of giving birth would be far more than just a metaphorical sharing of life; it would be a literal sharing of vision. Parents would each donate one of their eyes to their newborn child, a process that has deep emotional and cultural significance. The ritual would be conducted with utmost reverence, considered not just a medical procedure but a rite of passage for both parent and child.
The immediate impact would be that every individual would walk through life with a single eye, a shared lineage of vision. This would affect society on multiple levels. First, medical technology would be far advanced in the realm of ocular surgery, regeneration, and adaptation. However, unlike our world, this advancement wouldn't be optional; it would be a necessity.
Second, the culture would have developed unique coping mechanisms and technologies to adapt to monocular vision. Jobs, sports, and daily activities would be designed differently, accounting for the limitations and advantages of having just one eye. Art and aesthetics would also evolve to cater to this unique visual perspective.
Lastly, the act of eye-giving would carry immense social and ethical implications. It would be a deeply ingrained responsibility, and the choice to opt out would likely be fraught with controversy. Family dynamics would be intensely affected, as siblings would literally see the world through eyes inherited from different parents.
Overall, this world would be bound by a unique combination of sacrifice, innovation, and tradition, all centered around the sharing of one's literal point of view.
While this sounds like an interesting idea in principle, I can't see a world like this surviving for long. You're basically capping the birthrate at 2 per couple, which in turn means the average birthrate would be lower than 2, thus below replacement level.
I think it's more likely the world would adapt itself to everyone being blind, and the practice of giving eyes to newborns would become some mythical thing that no one does anymore.
Reminds me of an old book I once read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Universe_(novel)
(and a review with some spoilers)
In such a world, the implications of this eye-giving practice would be profound and multifaceted:
Family Planning
- The number of children a couple chooses to have would be heavily influenced by the parents' willingness to sacrifice their own vision. Two-child families would likely be the norm, as a third child would have to be born without vision.
- Single parents would face significant ethical and logistical dilemmas. A single-eyed parent could only have one child and would be completely blind afterward.
Social Stigma & Inequality
- Children born with two eyes could be viewed as more privileged, potentially leading to social hierarchies based on the number of eyes one has.
- Third children born without vision could face significant discrimination and fewer opportunities in life.
Medical Advances
- Research into eye regeneration or artificial eyes would likely be a significant area of medical focus. Wealthy families might turn to these technologies as a way to circumvent the natural limitations of this world.
Legal Ramifications
- Laws might be put in place to prevent parents from having a third child unless they can secure an eye through other means (artificial, donation, etc.).
Technology
- Assistive technologies for the vision-impaired would be highly advanced. Even day-to-day gadgets like smartphones and vehicles would be designed with monocular or no vision in mind.
Economy
- An industry could emerge around "eye banks," similar to sperm or egg banks in our world, where individuals or couples who opt not to have children could donate their eyes.
- The cost of eye surgeries, along with any associated technologies, could be a significant economic burden on families, thereby exacerbating existing social inequalities.
Emotional and Psychological Impact
- The bond between parents and children could be stronger due to the tangible sacrifice made, but it could also lead to a sense of guilt or obligation in the child.
- Relationships between siblings could be strained, especially if one sibling has vision while another does not.
Cultural Shifts
- New forms of art and storytelling could emerge that focus on the experience of vision or the lack thereof.
- Spiritual and religious practices might evolve to incorporate this eye-giving ritual, attributing divine or cosmic significance to the act.
In summary, this hypothetical world would be characterized by complex social structures, technological innovations, and moral quandaries, all shaped by the unique requirements of eye-giving.
You can always fill eye banks by harvesting the "others" or less fortunate
Oh god, yeah there'd probably be a black market for organ harvesting.
Do babies born with eyes to be replaced by parents, or do they born eyeless and a given set of eyes pass from one generation to the other?
If born with no eyes, a baby get an eye from each parent, thus having two to later give one to their own. In this situation one child is the preferred option. This imply that some babies get no eyes and must spend their life as blind.
No one is born with eyes. It is culturally expected to give eyes to your baby upon its birth. So like, you'd be a social outcast if you had full vision as a bio parent. I would imagine there would be big blind communities in poorer areas where education was lacking and families were bigger (lack of sex ed, etc).
If you're passing the same eyes on generation after generation basically, don't they degrade over time and start to fail?
No because of magic eyes
Later there will be some evil scientist/wizard dude who mastered the ability to take over their children's body after the eyes have been inserted.
This, I guess. But who knows. Maybe not.