Artificial Womb Technology: Daedalus Revisited

On May 30, 2025, Japanese researchers at Juntendo University (Bunkyō, Tokyo) pulled back the curtain on their model of artificial womb technology (AWT). Dubbed the EVE therapy system, this artificial womb, after being successfully tested on goat fetuses for several weeks, proved its capacity to sustain the life (genesis) of mammalian fetuses—including premature babies—outside (ecto) a uterus.¹

The EVE system, ² an example of partial ectogenesis (p-ecto), was immediately lauded, first, for its future benefits of helping premature fetal babies survive and develop during the most precarious weeks of their extrauterine life. Second, for its prospective expansion into complete ectogenesis (c-ecto)—growing babies from their embryonic state to full term entirely in an artificial womb, that is, outside the human body.

Despite the innovative nature of EVE,³ its conceptual grounding in the context of modern reproductive technology dates back at least one hundred years. All the way back, in fact, to 1923, when scientist J.B.S. Haldane, known for his 20th-century pioneering work in genetics and biostatistics, delivered the lecture, Daedalus; or, Science and the Future, to the Heretics Society at Cambridge. ⁴

In his address, Haldane not only formalized the concept of ectogenesis in the context of modern biology—human embryos would one day be gestated entirely outside the body—but also predicted that by 2073, over 70% of children worldwide would be born from artificial wombs. Most importantly, he etched a moral warning in the public imagination: the ethos of ectogenesis should be adjudicated against the power/peril metaphor represented by the legendary figure of Greek mythology, Daedalus.

Enter Singapore-based EctoLife Sciences. In August 2025, this reproductive biotechnology firm used the article, “Surrogacy and the Rise of Artificial Wombs: How Ectogenesis Is Transforming the Industry,”⁵ to announce the first successful full-term gestation of a human infant in an artificial womb. The baby, pseudo-named “Emma,” was born at 37 weeks after developing from embryonic stage to term outside her mother’s womb. It’s important to note that because of the dearth of follow-up scientific accounts of this event (here, dubbed the EMMA system), subsequent citations of this case will use the adjective “alleged.”

First, this essay does a deep dive into the purpose and design of both the EVE and EMMA systems and, in the case of EVE, what it would entail if it were applied to human reproduction (Part One).

Second, it also measures both the EVE and EMMA systems against the moral rulers of the Genesis creation accounts and Haldane’s Daedalian power/peril metaphor (Part Two).

Part One: The purpose and design of the EVE system

Japanese researchers grew goat fetuses extracorporeally for several weeks,⁶ a duration long enough to establish “proof of concept,” signaling a real possibility for their goal of eventually applying partial mammalian ectogenesis to premature babies.

What was the procedural design of the fetal goat experiment? The Juntendo University scientists removed mid-gestation goat fetuses from the uterus of pregnant mother goats and transferred them into an artificial placenta system. They developed a method to connect the natural umbilical cord of the fetal goats to an external artificial placenta system using specialized tubing and catheters. Under sterile conditions, they inserted medical-grade catheters directly into the umbilical arteries and veins of the goat fetuses, the natural conduits for blood exchange between the fetus and the placenta.

Then the catheters were linked to an extracorporeal circuit that mimicked the placental function: of an oxygenator, providing oxygen to the fetal blood without exposing lungs to air; of a pump that maintained gentle circulation, mimicking fetal heart output and, lastly, of a nutrient deliverer, allowing infusion of glucose, amino acids, and other essentials.

The goat fetus was suspended in a biobag filled with artificial amniotic fluid, maintaining appropriate temperature, hydration, and cushioning.

The entire EVE system allowed the animal fetus to continue developing in a womb-like environment, with the umbilical cord acting as the interface between biological and mechanical systems.

External sensors monitored the goat’s vital signs like heart rate, oxygen saturation, and fluid composition in real time. AI systems and mechanical controls outside the bag regulated temperature, oxygenation, nutrient delivery, and fluid circulation with high precision. This extra-bodily setup allowed for continuous monitoring and adjustment without interfering with the fetal goat’s development inside the sterile, sealed biobag.

From the outset, Japanese scientists entertained the prospect that the EVE system would eventually help human previable neonates delivered before 28 weeks of gestation to live and flourish, where, even with conventional neonatal intensive care, survival rates are low and complications common.⁷ The EVE system would provide these neonates a second chance at life, improving both their survival and long-term health outcomes.

What would the translation of EVE to fetal babies look like? One example: to save the life of both mother and baby in an emergent pregnancy scenario like previable preeclampsia, the premature baby would, first, be surgically removed from the maternal uterus, typically around 22-24 weeks, when viability outside the womb is minimal. This step would need to preserve the baby’s umbilical cord and fetal circulation to ensure continuity of life support.

Second, the fetus would be placed in a sealed, sterile bag filled with artificial amniotic fluid mimicking its natural form to support hydration, temperature regulation, and waste dilution.

Third, the baby’s umbilical cord would be connected to a system of catheters that interface with an oxygenator that stimulates placental gas exchange, nutrient delivery systems, and waste removal systems. The fetus’s own heartbeat would maintain circulation, assisted by gentle pumps if necessary.

Fourth, the preemie’s heart rate, oxygen saturation, blood pressure, and biochemical markers would be continuously monitored externally, while internal fetal growth and organ development would be tracked with imaging.

Fifth, the fetus would continue to develop in the artificial womb until the approximate gestational age of 28 weeks.

Sixth, once the fetus is deemed ready, it would be removed from the artificial womb and transitioned to neonatal intensive care involving gradual weaning from extracorporeal support to the initiation of independent breathing and feeding.

In sum, the EVE system applied to fetal babies would recreate a woman’s intrauterine environment as closely as possible using a biobag filled with amniotic-like fluid and would connect the neonate’s umbilical cord to a catheter-based interface that mimics placental function with links to oxygenators, nutrient pumps, and waste removal units.

The EVE system, when applied to human fetuses within a decade or two, will be focused on bridging the viability gap for extremely premature infants, particularly those delivered before 28 weeks of gestation. Typically, babies born before 22-24 weeks of gestation lack the brain and lung development necessary for survival. But the EVE system would allow these infants to continue development in a safer, womb-like environment even after early delivery, dramatically reducing organ damage, infections, and mortality in neonatal intensive care units.⁸

The Japanese researchers underscore that the EVE system would not be a replacement for the entire pregnancy, but rather a tool to reduce morbidity and mortality in case of extreme prematurity.

The purpose and design of the EMMA system

An AWT like EVE, given the current advanced state of reproductive technology, necessarily implies a future trajectory where it will converge with preexisting technologies such as IVF and its ancillary techniques of genetic engineering—CRISPR⁹ and embryo screening¹⁰—to mechanize the entire arc of reproduction: fertilization, gestation, and birth. Producing a designer baby—literally taking over the reins of humanity’s evolution—will be completely ecto, or outside the human body, outside biology and, perhaps, à la Aldous Huxley, outside human rearing.

So, the EctoLife Sciences’ EMMA system should come as no surprise. While Japan’s EVE system was designed to support premature infants and preserve the scaffolding of natural reproduction, EctoLife’s achievement ostensibly pushes AWT’s frontier into full mechanization.

Nonetheless, given the lack of scientific accounts or white papers corroborating the EMMA event, it can only be presumed that the procedural plan for the latter copied EVE’s design—an artificial womb that mimicked the uterine environment using biobag-like systems, artificial placenta functions, and tightly regulated life-support mechanisms—with one exception. Emma would have to have been fertilized externally in IVF and transferred to the biobag for gestation, not at her fetal stage as she would have been with the EVE system, but as an embryo, perhaps at her blastocyst stage. Absent peer-reviewed scientific procedural descriptions, explaining how continuity of life support was established—explaining how the embryo was connected to an external artificial placenta in the absence of an umbilical cord—would merely be speculative. That being said, Emma was allegedly gestated mechanically from her embryonic stage to term rather than temporarily, as it would be with premature babies with the EVE system.

Although the culmination of 25 years of research, EMMA was singular and experimental—a one-off clinical achievement not yet scalable or commercially available. Incredulously, EctoLife currently claims it is preparing to begin limited clinical trials in select countries next year (2026).

The ecto-birth of Emma is purportedly a real-world medical milestone, but the EctoLife video¹¹ illustrating the concept of a facility that could annually gestate thousands of babies in biobags or artificial wombs is a theoretical idea, a speculative technological vision of EctoLife Sciences, a provocative thought experiment—a vision of what might be possible if complete ectogenesis becomes viable.

When real, thousands of babies produced mechanically in a facility would instantiate an en masse version of c-ecto—the annual collective gestation of some 30,000 human beings in artificial wombs from embryo to birth. The conceptual video proffers the individual or couple their elite package of AWT¹²: genetic editing of the baby (e.g., via CRISPR); automated monitoring of the baby via AI, transparent pods for visual access to the baby; exposure of the baby to parents’ voices, and other parental bonding features. Although the EctoLife video¹³ is available and looks bona fide, it’s an ersatz simulation. No such facilities exist, and c-ecto on a commercially available scale depicted in the video has not yet been achieved in humans.¹⁴

Part Two: A moral critique of the EVE & EMMA systems

The Primary Moral Ruler: Genesis creation accounts¹⁵

Donum Vitae, the Church’s Instruction on the morality of IVF—one of the technological precursors to AWT—shows us that God’s creation of the first human beings is the Template for revealing His plan for human procreation—reflected in the truth about human beings, their innate dignity, the parent-child relationship, and the parameters of human dominion. Hence, the Genesis creation stories are also the moral ruler against which AWT should be ethically evaluated.

The truth about human procreation

By picturing the creation of the woman from the side of the man in chapter tw0, Genesis signifies her equality with him. By virtue of her rational intelligence and freedom, the woman is able to join the man in exercising responsible obedience to God’s commands: “be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:28).

Just as the married spouses form an unbreakable bond in their two-in-one-flesh union, so too the unitive and procreative meanings of their marital act of love are inextricably linked.

The divine plan for human procreation, then, is this: In the same way that God brings all life into being out of his radical self-giving act of love, so ought the life of a baby come to be as the result of his parents’ bodily act of self-giving love. Human procreation, then, is much more than a biological reality—it’s a participation in divine creativity.

Only through their marital love will parents be able to conceive, gestate, and receive a child as he truly is: a gift to be loved unconditionally, that is, just because he exists.

Only in the context of their bodily act of love and union are parents able to fulfill the demands of justice: to love their child unconditionally as a person equal to them, that is, to recognize the goodness of their child independently of their desires, designs, or will.

The truth about human beings and their innate dignity

In the first creation story, God generates the entire spectrum of things in the world—oceans, sun, moon, stars, plants, and animals—all done by his command: “Let there be . . . .” But to highlight the exceptionality of the human being, God utters words saturated with his love: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen 1:26). When read in the light of the revelation in Christ, Genesis teaches that God creates every person in his own image and loves every human person unconditionally. This image and this love elevate man above all other created things.

The second creation story confirms the uniqueness of human nature by stressing God’s conferral of the powers of intellect and will on human persons. The story pictures the Creator scooping up clay from the earth and breathing life into this inert matter. A critical point. God shares the breath of his divine nature, including his wisdom and love, with man and only with man. The distinctive human powers of rationality and self-determination, the capacity to know what is true and to choose the true good, are designed to orient the human person to God and to set the human being above the rest of the universe. In this way, Genesis highlights the truth that all human beings can take delight in the birth of a baby in the fact that this new human life exists simply because God desires, causally wills, and unconditionally loves him or her.

The truth about the parent-child relationship

The Genesis creation accounts help us understand the reason why parents ought to love the children they bring into existence in the same way the Creator loves every human being to whom he gives existence: with an unconditional acceptance. Every baby must be recognized as good, independently of the desires or designs of its parents, and independently of acceptance by others. To use the Creator’s declaration, the existence of each person is very good.

The truth about the parameters of human dominion

In a gesture that underscores the uniqueness of man’s rational nature, God immediately assigns the man dominion over the various creatures of the earth. He settles him in the Garden of Eden “to cultivate and care for it” (Gen 2:15). God invites the man to name the animals and thereby makes human beings his agents. He shares his absolute dominion over the universe by assigning man a secondary dominion over the “fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth” (Gen 1:26).

Implicit in this passage are the parameters of man’s power. The way in which a human person is to exercise his primacy over things—whether in reproductive technology or any medical innovation—is by respecting the nature of each type of creature, and especially his own nature as a person. He should never consider any human being merely at the level of a thing. For this reason, a child should never be used as an object or a made-to-order product, or a mere instrument for the fulfillment of his parents’ desires/designs.

How does the p-ecto of the EVE therapy system measure up?

Any premature baby transferred to an artificial womb has been conceived within his parents’ act of love. This means the couple understood their desire for a baby was upright by the fact that, entirely independent of their desires, the baby, in and of itself, is a good. Their act of loving intercourse was the one context that helped them make sense of the act of human conception.

What this couple was intentionally doing when they conceived their baby was to exchange love—to make a complete reciprocal gift of self—and to join their embodied selves, one to the other. Their personal act of love became the occasion of procreating a new human life with God, so that the life of the baby originated from the causative act of God’s loving will and arose from within his parents’ act of love.

When this husband and wife conceived their child within a bodily act of unitive love that includes the explicit desire for a baby, they recognized that it was not they who “made” or “created” or “sustained” their baby; rather, a Power beyond theirs—God—did. Although one spouse may have quipped to the other, “let’s make a baby,” both realized that the natural processes of fertilization took place after, but independent of, their direct control. As a result, they welcomed the new life of their baby as it truly is: a pure gift. They were procreators with God by placing their act of love at the service of life, at the service of God’s desire, causative will, and love.

The couple’s intentionality exercised in the conjugal act was unconditional love for the baby. Thus, it wouldn’t make sense for the naturally-conceived child to say to his parents: “I exist because, and only because, you desired or designed me.” The parents did not will the existence of their naturally conceived child; they only hoped for it. Therefore, they accepted and loved their child unconditionally—just because he exists—and valued the goodness of his existence independently of their desires, designs, their will, or their love.

As the naturally-conceived child matures, his parents’ unconditional love provides him the perfect opportunity to relate to his parents as an equal, as someone who, like them, desires to be loved in and for himself. Thus, as the child matures, it would make perfect sense for him to say to his parents, in effect: “I exist because you desired to make a gift of yourselves within a bodily act of union that was engraved with your deep desire for a baby; I came to be as the gift of God and the fruit and the crown of your act of self-giving love.”

The child, even if only subconsciously, will feel gratitude to his parents. He will cherish his parents’ unconditional love. He possesses an existential appreciation for the fact that his parents freely provided the occasion and the gametic material so that God, according to his good design, chose to bring him into being.

The parents, in turn, will relate to their child as someone who is their equal, a rationally intelligent and self-determining person who desires to be loved in and for himself, as a gift, as an end in himself, as a person in his own right. As a result, the naturally conceived child will relate to his parents with a sense of existential independence. He will feel free to become, not primarily the person his parents desire him to be, but the person God wishes him to be.

If the intrauterine life of their previable baby would be jeopardized by one of a variety of emergent situations,¹⁶ his parents, out of respect for the dignity of their baby’s life and from the depth of their unconditional love, could opt for p-ecto—given its availability and FDA regulation¹⁷—as a way to give their baby what is its due, a second chance to live.

P-ecto also rhymes with God’s plan for the parameters of man’s technological power: as a prudential stewardship over neonatal medicine and the welfare of premature babies. The couple’s just and loving decision to place their previable baby in an artificial womb so as to better survive and thrive in a NICU would be a morally upright exercise of their stewardship over the baby’s life and that of the mother.

How would c-ecto of the EMMA system measure up?

The couple who revert to c-ecto like the EMMA system fails to conceive their baby in the one context that alone makes sense of human conception—their reciprocal self-giving act of sexual love. Reducing the complex human experience of pregnancy to its purely physical or biological dimension, the c-ecto couple denies their baby the reciprocal self-giving act of their marital love. Once separated from the interpersonal communion of spousal love, the fertilization, gestation, and birth of their baby outside its mother’s womb becomes nothing more than a rational, productive action oriented to a goal. The parents’ intention to generate a child by means of c-ecto treats the child as a product and reduces him to the object of their production. Production denies the significance of the child’s immortal soul and blinds parents to a holistic understanding of their child’s dignity.

C-ecto parents make the life of their child depend on their designs, on their will, and, therefore, on their power. Such power sets them over against their child by creating a relationship riddled by gross inequity. The c-ecto child could think and, in effect, say to his parents: “I came to be only on the condition that your designs for a baby would be satisfied.” The child, once he is old enough to reflect on his beginnings, might also think: “I exist to vicariously fulfill my parents’ designs and schemes.” But this sort of existential dependence would contradict the child’s fundamental equality with his parents and all other human beings.

By refusing to love the child in the manner in which they (and all human beings) want and need to be loved, that is, unconditionally, just because they exist, the c-ecto parents love their child only on the condition that he fulfills their desires and designs. Parental intentionality moves away from unconditional acceptance of their child into a critical scrutiny as they adjudicate their child’s fitness as an embryo to become their child. Failing the demands of the Golden Rule, the parents accept their child in a manner in which they would not want to be accepted. The will of these parents to gestate a baby completely in an artificial womb opposes reason precisely in its opposition to justice. The conditional acceptance of the baby that would necessarily characterize the attitude of c-ecto parents is fundamentally immoral because it is unjust. It’s not a faithful icon of the way in which God unconditionally loves the human being into existence.

C-ecto parents, physicians, and technicians usurp God’s dominion by over-reaching their own stewardship, all driven by the desultory notion that people have a right to a baby. Or that governments have a right to produce enough c-ecto babies to compensate for their country’s dismal total fertility rate.¹⁸

A Secondary Moral Ruler: the Daedalian power/peril metaphor

Daedalus is a legendary figure from Greek mythology, celebrated as a master inventor, architect, and craftsman. As the father of Icarus, Daedalus built wings from feathers and wax to help him and his son escape Crete. But Icarus flew too close to the sun, melting his wings and causing him to fall into the sea. Daedalus, representing both the power and the peril of human creativity and innovation, is, according to Haldane, the perfect metaphor to explore both the benefits and dangers of AWT.

How does the p-ecto of the EVE system measure up?

Very well. Given the human goods realized through the EVE system—respect for: the inextricable link between married love and procreation; the justice of unconditional love from parent to child; the innate dignity and personhood of human newborn life; the parameters of human stewardship and creativity; the weakening or invalidation of the legal construct of fetal viability as a cutoff point before which abortion is unrestricted—its power appears to be legitimate, completely beneficial, and without peril.

How does the c-ecto of the EMMA system measure up?

Not very well. One reality is undeniable—the alleged birth of baby Emma represents not just a medical milestone, but the dawn of a new era in human reproduction. One that will force society to reconsider and, perhaps, tempt them under the guise of “progress,” to reject the Genesis tradition. In short, to fall for the contemporary bait-and-switch, in which technocrats co-opt terms like motherhood, pregnancy, and birth; empty them of their original meaning, and replace them with new notions unmoored from their original. To install a technocracy that fails to respect the truth and beauty of pregnancy within marriage, the dignity of human life, a parent-child relationship built on unconditional love, and the proper boundaries of human dominion and technological advancement will usher in all peril and no power for good.

Conclusion

The EVE system, applied according to its Japanese researchers’ intent, will be a blessing first and foremost to premature babies and their pregnant mothers and then to the advancement of neonatal intensive care medicine and NICU medical professionals. It deserves our support and prayers.

The EMMA system, even if just conceptual, alerts us that a post-womb world is no longer hypothetical. It has begun. In fact, the EMMA model of AWT is a progressive juggernaut moving at an amazing speed. A kind of obstetri-topia that’s not just medical, but a philosophical and cultural reframing of the way society defines human birth, pregnancy, and humanity’s future.

The c-ecto of EMMA, if divorced from penetrating moral scrutiny, could, like Daedalus’s son, Icarus, fly too close to the sun. That truth should set us free. Free to draw a red line in the sand and say, ‘not here, not now, not ever!’ We should have no truck with revisiting the Daedalian peril of c-ecto. No association with its violation of God’s plan for technical prowess, marriage, family, and human procreation.

Endnotes:

¹ Cf. “Japan Creates First Fully Artificial Womb—A New Era of Birth Begins,” Bani Thakur, June 2, 2025; “Japan Has Created the First Artificial Womb,” Michele Gargiulo, May 25, 2025; “Japan develops world’s first artificial womb,” July 30, 2025.

² Previous research leading to the EVE therapy system was that of Dr. Alan Flake, fetal surgeon at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. His team tested different versions of the biobag on prematurely born lambs, the results of which are described in Nature Communications. In the most advanced version of the device, lambs that couldn’t live on their own outside of their mother survived for up to four weeks in the bags. After they were “delivered,” their lungs functioned well, similar to normal lambs of their age. (Ike Swetlitz, “Brave New Wool? Artificial Womb Sustains Premature Lambs for Weeks,” PBS/April 25, 2017.)

³ If the early-stage investment and speculative interest market for complete ectogenesis develops along the trajectory of IVF, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, and surrogacy, it could become a multi-billion-dollar industrial complex.

⁴ The Heretics Society was founded at the University of Cambridge in 1909 as a space for students and faculty to challenge religious orthodoxy and explore radical ideas. It attracted thinkers who questioned traditional beliefs in theology, ethics, and science. Members included Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and other prominent intellectuals. Haldane’s lecture “Daedalus; or, Science and the Future,” delivered to the Heretics on February 4, 1923, exemplified the society’s ethos. Haldane used the myth of Daedalus—the ingenious inventor of Greek legend—as a metaphor for the scientist who defies nature and tradition and develops an artificial womb. The Heretics Society provided the perfect venue for such an address.

⁵ “Surrogacy and the Rise of Artificial Wombs: How Ectogenesis Is Transforming the Industry” (Sept 8, 2025) by Ella.

⁶ Goat gestation is approximately 145 – 155 days. Mid-gestation generally refers to the halfway point, around 75 days, at which point the fetal goat has recognizable limbs, organs, and features.

⁷ Globally, over 15 million babies are born prematurely every year, and complications from premature birth are the leading cause of death in children under five.

⁸ Alex Ramirez, “Japan’s Artificial Womb: A Neonatal Medicine Breakthrough,” Engineering, June 6, 2025.

⁹ CRISPR-Cas 9 gene editing tool allows the couple to edit traits of their baby through a wide range of 300 genes.

¹⁰ These genetic engineering and screening technologies have a common goal: better children. As such, they raise “overlapping and similarly profound ethical and social issues—especially about the significance of procreation, the nature of parental responsibility, and the meaning of childhood.” [“Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Perfection,” President’s Council on Bioethics, October 2003, Chapter Two: Better Children.]

¹¹ “Who is Hashem Al-Ghaili, the man behind the Artificial Womb Facility?”

¹² From the narrative accompanying the EctoLife video: “Our goal is to provide you with an intelligent offspring that truly reflects your smart choices.” The narrative implies a subscription-based or proprietary platform that would allow the couple to genetically engineer the embryo before implanting it into the artificial womb.

¹³ “EctoLife: The World’s First Artificial Womb Facility” (YouTube).

¹⁴ Joyce Harper, professor of reproductive science at University College London, warns that concept videos like that of EctoLife can easily mislead the public into thinking artificial wombs are already in operation, distorting both public debate about AWT ethics, law, and medicine and their related policy-making.

¹⁵ Cf. Sr. Renee Mirkes, “NaProTECHNOLOGY: A Remedy for the Injustice of IVF,” Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, Fall/Winter (2016).

¹⁶ P-ecto (1) would allow both baby and mother to survive in vital conflict cases; (2) would provide for safer multiple pregnancies providing temporary gestation for one of twin or triplet fetuses who are in danger of survival; (3) would offer a life-saving solution for a premature baby and a pregnant woman with an aggressive uterine cancer, and (4) would permit a woman who wants to abort to stop gestating without killing her baby.

¹⁷ Elizabeth L. Durmowicz, MD, “FDA’s regulatory safeguards for children involved in clinical trials,” FDA, Sept 19, 2023.

¹⁸ This baby-as-product attitude bleeds over into insidious societal opinions that could (1) pathologize natural conception/gestation/birth, even making pregnancy illegal; (2) introduce discriminatory distinctions that divide society between people conceived naturally v. artificially, embodiedly v. disembodiedly, biologically v. technologically; (3) introduce Huxleyan language like: “decanting” (meaning literally to pour out) to replace “birth,” reflecting how language itself is reshaped to normalize technological reproduction—what was once sacred (birth as gift or mystery) becomes industrialized, a procedure stripped of transcendence. A movement beyond semantics into a weltanschauung.