And then all of this gave birth to the terrorists known as the Naturalists™...

The real downside to artificial wombs is that we may rapidly become dependent on them. Half of pregnancies result in spontaneous abortion. With external gestation that assumedly wouldn't happen. That's a hell of a lot of evolutionary pressure which could have all kinds of consequences.

Fair. Check this out. The existing stuff is pretty cool https://youtu.be/CP3t8qMHcsM

Exceeding FTL (and breaking causality) is basically a sci fi trope at this point with about as much credibility as psychics. To have at least some credibility you need one of: a testable hypothesis, or an unexplained phenomenon. Right now we have neither. At best, we have some equations, that work below light speed, where we can extrapolate past light speed and see how the math works. The problem is: none of these equations are testable as they all contain infinities or other asymptotic features that prevent passing light speed itself. So, if there's no viable math to get from sublight to FTL, and there's no unexplained phenomena, then what we're left with is nothing.

Even quantum entanglement, which is a darling of sci fi whenever they need a plot device (hello Le Guin and the ansible), has categorically been shown to obey causality and the light speed limit in every lab test.

At some point it's like asking for negative mass, antigravity, or other things that the math would allow. Except our universe doesn't.

I've got a wormhole to sell you ;)

Basically, physics says that nothing, not even information can actually travel faster than the speed of light. It's a universal limit that shows up when you do the math on relativity. This concept is called "causality".

Because of this, FTL communication is probably impossible. Quantum entanglement seems like it could provide a loophole, but it doesn't actually work that way. To actually use quantum entanglement for communication, it actually needs a confirmation message, which would have to be delivered by a different means (every quantum message needs a non-quantum confirmation). That confirmation would be bound by the speed of light, thus preserving causality.

This is a very very rough description based on my memory, so some details may be a little off, but it should cover the gist. This article goes into more detail:

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/quantum-entanglement-faster-than-light/

Edit: After reading, the answer is more that attempting to impart information onto the entangled particles to send a message necessarily breaks the entanglement and thus does not transmit the information to the other side. Entangling the particles makes their states related to each other, but only at the time of entanglement, and anything that changes either particle (including measuring it) will break the entanglement going forward.

If you change one of the particles it just breaks the entanglement. If you measure one, then you instantly know the state the other will have when measured, but the result of your measurement - and therefore the other one also - is random. The only way to correlate the two measurements of the two particles is to send the results (at C or slower) to the same place and compare them. Otherwise each just looks like a random result.

I'm familiar with quantum entanglement. It doesn't work because you have no way of affecting which state you'll measure, and thus what state the other particle will be in.

I saw a talk on the subject about a year back. It was discussing tokamak reactors, from an engineer working on them. The small ones can't sustain a break even state, but they are affected by the inverse square law to a larger degree. I believe China is about to start/has started construction on a power station sized test reactor.

The pellet sort are a different type. They have different pros and cons.

Where I grew up, there was a town that had been intentionally flooded to make a reservoir, or so my parents told me; they claimed that when the reservoir was low, you could see the top of the church steeple. At the time, I drove past the area nearly daily and would often survey the waters, but never found anything that was likely to be more than shadows or a trick of the eye. At the time, I had barely learned of climate change and so wasn't worried about it; I just liked the idea of a structurally intact, intentionally flooded city.

I just looked it up to make sure I was remembering the details correctly. It turns out that either I misremembered or my parents exaggerated. The town apparently existed and was flooded, but at the time of flooding consisted of foundations and one very tall flagpole. Apparently it's a common pastime of kayakers and the like to look for the top of the flagpole. This is probably what my parents were referring to.

Still pretty cool, though.

New Orleans circa Hurricane Katrina...?