unconventionally conceived = conceived through IVF, or another method which isn't a natural man + woman + in-body conception + implantation scheme.
i.e. there is some intervention which changes the path, location, constituency, existence, or selection of the sperm or egg such as filtering sperm, artificially selecting sperm, temporarily removing the egg or fetus, exposing either of them to foreign agents for genetic/health purposes, or similar divergence from the conventional method with significant effects.
Judging timespan: if such a condition holds for net children born over at least 6 months before the judging date.
@PatMyron The article says that in the 20 years between 1996 and 2016 the number of Assistant reproductive tech births increased from 20k to ~75k (1.7% of total births), or 3.8x.
This implies that another ~6x increase would be needed by 2030, where the actual extrapolated increase is more like 3-5x.
In other words the odds are significantly against this happening.
@jonsimon I expect this sort of extrapolation to give an overestimate. Why would one expect exponential growth here?
@Boklam agreed, in fact you can see the trend plateauing in recent years. It was meant to be a liberal estimate to drive home how unlikely this is to happen
Assuming this is a higher-priced procedure than natural pregnancy, you’d need basically every household with a pregnancy making >$175k or so in 2023 money to choose an unconventional pregnancy. Insurance won’t want to absorb that cost or risk. Also factoring in religious and societal resistance, not to mention approval processes, spinning up new companies/lines of business and making them broadly available, etc. I don’t see it happening in under 8 years. Maybe not 18.
@jonsimon as per my argument on this other market, adoption trends would need to be super-exponential to meet this 10% target, which isn't something you want to bank on