Slashdot Mirror
UK Report Suggests Designer Offspring
chromakey writes "Several news agencies are reporting that the UK is considering allowing parents undergoing fertility treatment to select the sex of their unborn babies." Also covered in Q&A format by the BBC. From the article: "At the moment in the UK, sex selection is only permitted if there are strict medical reasons. This could be because there is a serious sex-linked disorder in the family, such as Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy."
Reminds me of the movie "Gattaca." Which by the way, is a great movie, and describes a very interesting world could possibly result from the furthering of this kind of technology.
(And yes, I know its not nearly the same, but still, you can easy see the similarities.)
There's a very good reason for the ~ 50-50 split. 20 years from now, we're gunna have a bunch of British men looking overseas for mates. We CANNOT let this happen! Once women hear that accent, it's OVER. We don't stand a chance against their sexy sexy voices.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
Designer babies, eh?
;-)
I want an Armani.
(With apologies to Kate Charlesworth of New Scientist...)
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
EOM
Maybe there's no problem in developed countries like the uk, but I shudder at the thought of less developed countries using this and selecting male kids like crazy.
China already has a huge problem with a surplus of males, and they don't even allow you to choose.
Will code a sig generator for food
If you're doing an in vitro fertilization, your doctor likely has several viable fertilized eggs to choose from.
I don't necessarily see the problem with the parents choosing which one they want. My largest concern is this leading us down a slippery slope that ends on prospective parents going to www.amazon.com, clicking on the Baby tab and selecting every aspect of your new baby which will be shipped to you for free if you select a model over $25.
I'm a big tall mofo.
last year I had a research assignment based on modifying our dna and transgenics, and it's quite an interesting subject, i won't be so arrogant as to link to that assignment, but I will post links to some of the articles i referred to..
u mans.htm l #transgenics , 1.html
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Today-Food-Tomorrow-H
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/fdavet/1999/july.htm
http://www.ifgene.org/proscons.htm
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0317,baard,43560
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1640
and no, i did not RTFA.
Remember children, all generalizations are wrong.
This is a bad idea. Why? Because people will throw the demographic balance of the species off in their area either because of cultural reasons or just out of plain ignorance. Think the dating scene is bad now. Think about how it would be if there were one girl to every three guys or vice versa.
The more we are able to shape our world and our environment, the more god-like we become.
Does this ability make us more or less fit to survive?
Philosophically speaking, what right does one individual (the State) have to *force* another individual (me) never to choose the gender of my child?
The only justification for forced intervention in others life is self-defence. This would include the defence of the unborn child (so for example if I *wished* my child to be born without arms, the State most certainly should intervene) but the *gender* of the child? I cannot see how this can be thought of as harming the child.
If I had a child, I would, once it were born, be fully responsible for its life; I would choose whether it learned French while young, or the piano, or karate, the flute...
If it's entirely up to me what my child is given to learn while it's young, why would it be wrong then also to choose the gender of my child? especially if I were having a larger family and might, for example, want a balanced number of boys and girls?
Certainly, on a practical note, the awful harm a lot of parents inflict on their children by their incompetence as parents is a far more pressing issue. How can we be worried about gender when so many parents are so awful at parenting?
I'd much rather parents had to be qualified as parents (some sort of mandatory exam to be taken and passed) than be concerned about whether or not they could choose their child's gender.
--
Toby
It's hard enough for the average /. reader as it is, now we have to have a doctor's note?
In Soviet Russia, sex chooses you!
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
Why waste time choosing the sex? How about choosing the IQ? 'ello?!
China already has a problem with this already. Due to their one-child policy, many families had sex-based abortions. In particular, since sons were much more popular, they would abort daughters. Now, China has about 120 men for every 100 women.
This might not seem like such a serious problem on the surface, but it really is. Among other things, China now has an extremely active underground wife selling system, in comparison to other countries, at least. Since there just aren't enough Chinese women to go around, men are willing to break laws and pay high prices to get a wives.
It seems like that the difference in population also makes discrimination more likely. There's no clear evidence on how the discrimination would work out, but discrimination is usually more common in disparate populations.
Well I must say that I'm puzzled. I always believed that such selection is technically impossible. Apparently I was wrong -- it is feasible but illegal (at least in the UK). From the observation I think that there would be an enormous market for some gender determinating pill. I know many people who recently became parents, and having a daughter instead of a son was a big problem for at least couple of them. Of course, one can ponder the social implications -- if everybody decided to have a boy, then in the next generation it would be obviously convenient to be a woman.
It seems reasonable doesn't it? No reason to take issue with it, right?
You don't even notice that you are , ever so slowly, sliding down a slippery slope which you can not climb back up. Hell, you can't even see the grade.
Pretty soon there will be no more searches for the best looking baby, we'll just design them. Gap won't have to search for the cutest baby model either. Yep, I think this will save large amounts of time and effort for corporations. OOOOOoooo - I want an outtee. No, no, no. Make that an inny!!
Could one apply the logic of free choice here?
I'm thinking of the abortion debate. One of the things people say (not the only thing, of course) is "There are differing opinions on the ethics of abortion. Some of these opinions borrow from religious teachings. We should allow abortion, since doing so allows people to decide on ethics (which may depend on religion) themselves." Thus, 'Pro-Choice'.
Couldn't the same apply here? Some people may disagree with 'designer babies' (in some cases for religious reasons) while others don't have a problem with them. That is, could one be 'pro choice' on designer babies? Does that make sense here?
I'm not saying designer babies are an idea I'm completely comfortable with, but it's an interesting point to discuss nonetheless.
Michael
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
In developing countries, there is already a serious imbalance in male/female ratio, with about 800-900 females per 1000 males. Fortunately, the trend is a little bit reversed in developed countries. If the designer babies techniques come to developing countries, it will further push the female/male ratio down.
One would assume that with fewer women, the women will have additional power, but in male-dominated societies (in many developing countries), lower number of women may in fact lead to more oppression of women (they may end up viewed as "precious property").
It is very scary.
S
This is how it starts...
It ends with two dstinct races of humans, those not genetically engineered, and those that are, super-intelligent super-fit blond blue-eyed products who won't want to mix their bloodlines with the inferior 'naturals'. It will also be an indicator of economic wealth because only rich families will be able to afford designer babies.
So the awful legacy is we now have another criteria that will be used as a weapon for racial and social discrimination, just like skin colour or religion.
The worst part is that this will be the first time there will be some scientific evidence that the physical differences are actually significant, which will make colour/religion-based predjudice look like a walk in the park.
The difference is that in China, you are strictly limited to the number of children that you can have by law. In the west, we are limited by economics and culture.
On the other hand, if you could only have one child and you were looking for that child to care for you in your old age, you would choose a girl. Women do, by far, the majority of elder care.
I suspect that most people would opt for a boy and a girl. The boy carries on the family name and the girl cares for the parents in their dotage.
However, notwithstanding the above, I still think sex selection should be illegal.
http://www.cabbagepatchkids.com/
Holy shit! Are they out of their fucking minds?! I just hope the UK society is not as male dominated as other places. There are already many sex-determined abortions of females (sorry, don't know the right word) happening in many places around the world.
That said, some genetic diseases are understood and could be screened out (this embryo will have xxx for sure - don't implant it). Its a very slippery slope though. Societys that don't play correctly will naturally die off, so perhaps letting the brits go first is OK since I'm not one of them ;-)
Have we learned nothing from Star Trek?
..... Doh!
Obviously the powers that be in the UK have completely ignored the ramifications of the war between Khan and the augments and the rest of the normally conceived humans on earth (which techinically began in 1996?).
What's next? Experiments in cybornetic implant? Nanites?
Sugapablo
People have been able to shift the sex ratio for years. All you need is a centrifuge and the appropriate density gradient. Since the Y chromosome is much smaller than the X, Y sperm are significantly more buoyant than X sperm (nearly a 10% difference) and can be separated from one another and used for artificial insemination.
The only difference here is that they verify sex by PCR so that it now works 100% of the time instead of only 90.
I'm no British law expert but the old method was probably perfectly legal as it would be difficult to mandate what one can do with semen (your disgusting imagination may be inserted here).
I can hear "Every Sperm is Sacred" now....
and banning it.
"History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men."
The idea of a perfect machine is a strawman argument, as is the idea of a perfect man. Perfection is a sticky idea; who knows if we can even agree on what a perfect man or machine would be?
But replace "perfect" with "better" and suddenly your argument looks kinda ridiculous. We can build a car that eats fuel more efficiently, all other things being equal. We can build a CPU that eats less power, runs faster, and is cheaper to manufacture than its predecessor.
If we can build a better machine, why can't we built a better human?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
"Several news agencies are reporting that the UK is considering allowing parents undergoing fertility treatment to select the sex of their unborn babies."
Choices apparently include everyday, three times a week, hard 'n fast, and special occasions only.
But there are countries, or rather cultures where girl babies are given up for adoption until a son is born. Or the family just keeps getting bigger until a son is born. Or a woman who has not born any male children is divorced or disgraced. Those are societies where getting the gender you want on the first try would be a net benefit to all concerned. Aint technology wonderful? If it doesn't simply make our lives easier, it can at least make our stupidities less burdensome!
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
The upper classes have produced this Vorta-eared fellow as an example of the best breeding. They sure know good breeding there! I imagine the results of this program will look like Chuck but with Austin Powers teeth. "Fancy a shag, Camilla?"
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Ok first off this is just my opinion. ,then where does it end, what disability is an unaceptable condition . .
,given this option would have taken it and deprived the world of such a brilliant mind.
Even if it is for medical reasons , if you for some reason decide that you wish or need to ahve a child of sex A or B to avoid an illness
As a person who has a Form of disability myself I find this highly unnerving.
if you so badly fear a child with a disability then please dont have children or adopt , there are plenty of children who are suffering in underfunded, understaffed orphanages
Take pick up a cleche here , Do you think Steven Hawkins parents
Alas i belive in peoples right and freedom to decide and i dont want to be a hipocrit, so if it was to come up in a ballet i would allow it , But i would certainly avoid it like the plauge and tell anyone who asks what i thought of it (self censorship that is , take note Politicians , we dont need views forced upon us)
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
However, those nuclear dorsal spines on the baby Big G's back would warrant a Ceasarean section.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
And "sci-fi" should remind you that "fi" is short for "FICTION".
Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
It was an interesting concept, a lot of good ideas, and putting all the G,T,C, and As in the opening credits in bold was a nice touch...
But the actual execution was boring as hell
Technoli
This isn't about eugenics. This isn't about designer babies with parents choosing the colour of their offsprings' eyes, hair, etc. This is about parents who find it impossible to conceive naturally and who have limited opportunities to do so with the help of modern science being able to have some say if they child that they have is the boy or girl that they've always wanted.
We're talking about giving parents who might have dreamt about having a child of a specific gender the chance to have that dream come true. And we're not talking about giving that choice to everyone, we're talking about giving it to those who won't be able to try, try and try again until that boy or girl comes along. And, if it needs saying, most parents desperate for a kid won't care what gender their baby is, they'll be happy to let nature decide.
Remember also that IVF conceptions often result in multiple births, normally with non-identical twins or triplets, so the chances are that this sort of selection will only be necessary in a small number of cases. And, of course, IVF conceptions are a small fraction of the total number of pregnancies that occur, which means that we're definitely talking about thousands of kids every year.
Lastly, I'd like to add that IVF treatment is provided for free by the NHS. Of course, not everyone needs it but at least those people who can't conceive naturally don't have to choose between trying for a baby and having a positive bank balance.
So, any chance of cutting down on the some of the knee-jerk, distopic comments now?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Any reasons to select a gender can be nullified by selecting particular qualities in the child.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Actually, the Chinese are still fairly racist about marriage. Foreign wives are somewhat frowned upon there, so that wouldn't really help.
(My source on this is a friend who is studying Chinese language and culture in her minor and who has spent a few summers there. She looked into how dangerous is was for a woman before going there, because she was a bit worries, and this is one thing she found.)
Gattaca was based on the erroneous concept that having good genes makes you stupid/lazy/unambitious/etc. It's all just sour grapes, just like the ridiculous common belief that looks and brains are mutually exclusive.
We will get Hitler's little Aryian nations eventually. The difference will be that it will not be a single race.
The issues that arise are detectability of traits not favored by traditional parents. I can see people lining up to stop pregnacies that result in brain damaged or geneticially defective children. What happens if we find out we can determine the likelihood a child will be more inclined to violence or gay (please I am not trying to associate the two). What then? Do we allow for the screening of some traits and not others? Might be interesting to see if designer children lead to people having children whose ethnic traits differ from the parents.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
All children should be made into leather gloves.
No I don't. I get mine on a regular basis but seeing as how you are an overweight Linux geek who lives in your moms basement I can see it bothering you. Although I must admit, it intrigues me that you think this will effect you. I mean really, so you get 1/3 as much action. Lets see, 1/3 * 0 is still zero.
Keep the lotion handy (no pun intended) buddy, you're gonna need it.
And the article is about a developed country. The developing countries aren't doing this - a developed country is. Learn to focus on the topic at hand without bashing the 'third world'.
Look, suppose we end up with an excess of males in some generation. Then in that generation women will be scarcer and in effect more valuable and it will then become more desirable to have female babies. If left to choose we people probably wouldn't end up at exactly a 50-50 split but within a generation or two it would probably equilibriate at something reasonable.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
I heard about sex selection at latest back in the early 1980s. With in vitro (test tube) fertilization, you can centrifuge semen, and separate the X from the Y bearing sperm. What kind of restrictions have we worked with in that "low tech" approach, so we could spend the last generation learning how to deal with the ethics and demographics of the practice? We need to separate the Frankenstein scariness of the potent genetic engineering tech from the basic human questions. Otherwise we'll screw everything up, as we play out these species-determining issues in our media circus.
--
make install -not war
Philosphically speaking, I doubt mankind has enough insight into long term effects, meaning and purpose and evolutionary direction, to make such, in my opinion quite intrusive changes to natural selection.
We have been doing it with animals, for bio industry and crops,.. which I also find undesirable, though much less serious.
I believe in that which has stood the test of time, millions of years. I'm all for technological development and progress, but I believe everybody's definition of progress is different, and may include destructive thoughts.
Our ideas of what is better, for personal, emotional or economical reasons, are not necessarily the same as those judged within a biological and existential context.
This one person here saying "Who is anyone to have the right to say what I can and can not do" is making a huge mistake. As a member of society and mankind, your actions do not limit themselves to just you, but affect society and species as a whole. As such, you have both a responsibility towards that collective as well as a need to be limited by them. That kind of short sighted egocentric individualism is probably going to be mankind's biggest threat to survival and human dignity.
Unless there's a direct threat to human survival, trying to seek 'balance' in genders, in such fashion, is also highly questionable to say the least.. what does this balance serve? We still have gay people and single people, and people die of car accidents.. and people who will rather be alone than to be with whatever is left. It's never going to be a 1:1 thing. So what problem would it solve exactely to justify such rigorous action. Especially when we rush to 'fix' something WE understand to be a 'problem', without bothering to perhaps sufficiently understand the root causes (environmental, or perhaps biological/evolutionary reasons) of these changes.
This would not solve the problem in China either.. considering people don't WANT daughters, for practical reasons (the man still is more likely to be the main bread winner and support the parents at old age, among other things).
So it's much more likely to make the problems bigger in China of men having to kidnap women to have a chance to have a family, rather than solve them. The root causes are not biological but social/political, and thus need to be resolved on that level..
The pragmatic short sighted cosmetic approach to our problems, is a highly primitive and ignorant approach and I'm certain we'll suffer the backlash from it sooner or later.. (future generations).
It's tunnelvision to see something, a problem and solution, as an isolated thing, rather than part of a more complex network of things.
You can judge them on many levels, practical, ethical, economical, social, biological, existential. And we nearly always judge everything within a practical/economical context.
Reminds me more of the book "Brave New World" by Aldus Huxley.
I think some people here have got the idea completely wrong.
In China there is a one-child policy, there isn't one in the UK.
In China a male is prefered for social reasons, in the UK any child irrespective of sex will 'succeed'.
Therefore in China you would more likely to make that 1 child you can have a male as it is advantageous over having a female child. In the UK though because both sexes can 'succeed' and we have a large social support (not to say China doesn't) it is far less likely that the scales would be so distorted as many people here make out. In the end I would expect relatively few people to choose the sex and only those with e.g. 5 boys to do so to create a more 'complete' family environment.
It is also a long way from the designer baby scenario people are talking about - yes it is the beginning of such a future but it is highly unlikely that the various medical boards would allow such legislation or even suggest it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When you go to a fertility clinic with your wife/partner.. and they pump her full of all sorts of drugs, she ovulates like a cat. there could be 1,3, 10 or 40 eggs in there (any number). At that point you have to CHOOSE how many you want to have. I want twins. Now, I don't think you can see the sex chromasomes, but its not much different. The thing that annoyed me about those "septuplets" was that this was how she had them, she CHOSE to keep all 7 embryos, at taxpayer/consumer expense (free college, free diapers, etc). Isn't that nice?
meh
This sounds like you would like to ban all these beginnings of genetic engineering on humans.
I think it is eventually pointless to block such developments; for one, well-off families had a history of selecting some one "well-bred" as a partner for their offspring even before, so it is not like this type of activity is something completely new - and wouldn't banning it just make it so that only the super-rich would eventually be able to pay for "clandestine" genetic engineering.
Another reason why it is pointless to ban it is that it starts with small steps, all of which are quite acceptable or even seem necessary. (I won't mention these, since I would sound like the Pope's council of bishops.)
I'd rather think this technology should be open-source, and there should be a method to guarantee diversity so that the flow of normal evolution doesn't completely stop. E.g. people should be aware that e.g. simply increasing the firing rate of neurons by making several genetic modifcations at once might lead to very smart, but autistic or sociopathic people.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
So I suppose the people that invented Kamikaze (for any dim bulbs out there who aren't afraid to post I should mention that I am not implying that the Chinese did this) considered males a low valued commodity?
Having a one child law isn't just because they have too many males. They have too many people in general. They've always fought through overwelming numbers, but this hasn't made them extremely aggressive. It could be why the government that repeatedly massacred it's people is still in power (i.e. the government knows that most people will not seek violent revolution because of this because human life is less valued).
Today, numbers wouldn't make them extremely effective, either. Technology wins today's wars, and their wealth is on par with the rest of the world in what they can afford to buy for war. They have no increasing reason to be extremely aggressive.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
I would like to point out two things:
-> concerning the argument on "only self defence should allow one to intervene in another's life": it is the State self preserving when it is forbidding designer babies. Why? Because a sex-biased society *is* indeed in lots of trouble: more sex-based discrimination, a form of power given to the necessary minority, etc. In fact, when people start toying with designed babies, mutations which are a KEY factor to evolutionism will be even further reduced, effectively generating a society which doesn't evolve any more. So it is legitimate for a state to forbid designer babies if this tampers with the future of society.
-> in a society where one sex should be more often chosen than the other, and where the average number of children a person has is 1, it is mathematically obvious that the"weak sex" shall disappear (i am NOT calling any sex a weak sex!!). ie: if in China, where couples can have only one baby, let's assume there is a 15% bias for men. Then not only are you dividing the population by two over roughly two generations, there are also many men who cannot mate, causing in fact only the women to reproduce. It is a simple geometric law which means te population will reduce even faster (only 80% of every generation will have offspring. After one generation, 40% left. 2 generations: 16% left. (assuming death comes right after procreation... ok very simplistic, but you get the idea)). Putting aside factors such as the consequent sales of wives, women enslavement, etc., this contributes to drastically reducing the population.
Also, when wives start to be valuable, sold expensively, then parents will want more female babies, thus balancing the sex bias.
why do i get the feeling women are just going to love the way I describe them as objects, valuable, sold, enslaved...
Not a clear cut dicision by any stretch. I think the main problem lies in the fact that as a species we have no clear cut goals - we basically try to make life better for ourselves in the short term, without any meaningful long term plan.
This is not neccassrily wrong, depends on where you personally think we should be heading as a species. It all boils down to 'good of the many v good of the individual', though I think the impact on the demographic makeup of the population is exgarated. For one, I doubt it will be cheap, which will be severly limiting (which raises other issues, such as should this be available on the national health or reserved only for the rich), also I think many people will be quite happy to continue to let nature decide. I know that while I would like my next child to be a boy, I'm not going to go out of my way to try to stack the odds, and will be quite happy with a third girl.
Personally, I think the government should stay out of this one, and let people decide themselves if they want to go for it or not. I believe the reason that so many people act without any responsibility is that they are not given any responsibily, all the important decisions are taken out of their hands by an over zealous government (yes, you can decide it by voting, but that would require lifting heads up from the daily celeb watching to pay attention).
If you want a consiencious population who will consider the consequences of their actions, you need to give them the ability to make those decisions.
Sure if I could assure two girls to every guys. However my parents' generation gets to choose the ratio and might choose the opposite which I want nothing to do with.
This was touched upon in James Blish's SF novel And All The Stars A Stage (1971). A method of determining the gender of one's child leads to a matriarchy, as men become a glut on the market.
For the Age of Woman had indeed followed almost directly upon the Age of Power, though nobody had accurately foreseen it at the time. The relevant technique was called sperm electrophoresis, a ridiculously simple trick to perform in glassware - and the pharmaceutical manufacturers had quickly come up with a medium, an anion or cation exchange gel, which made it equally easy to perform in situ. Its purpose was sex determination of the child at conception.
By hindsight, Jom thought gloomily, it ought to have been realized that the first several generations to have the trick made available to them would respond by "starting with a boy." That preference had already existed, and indeed was so primitive that it might possibly be instinctual. The result, in any event, was the world of today, heavily overburdened with males, most of them useless - at least in the sense that neither the economy nor the society could find places for most of them.
Being a man, Jom was inclined to think that the real death blow had been struck by the release of Selektrojel to the populace as an over-the-counter or non prescription item. Possibly if its use bad been restricted to couples psychiatrically certified to need a baby of a given sex - like, say, a couple to whom unaided nature had given only a string of five daughters, or, no, better make it nine ... But that would not have worked either. The demand for the stuff had been far too great. Like alcohol, the trade in it could be regulated more or less effectively but it could never be restricted in any meaningful sense.
"At the moment in the UK, sex selection is only permitted if there are strict medical reasons. This could be because there is a serious sex-linked disorder in the family, such as Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy."
Great, a law that makes perfect sense and we're gonna screw it up. The right wing in me says that I don't trust the masses to make that sort of decision especially when some cultures (no names) have particular preferences as to which sex is born the most. The left wing part of me says its none of my business to decide how people procreate, its not likely to affect me. The problem is that we risk ending up with some stupid 'quota' system where people are told "sorry you can only have x many boys or girls".
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The next step is defining what is acceptable as a disorder. After that gets spread out what about other hardships? Financial and cultural concerns aren't as important as medical concerns? Lobbyists and special interests will start in on that.
If it wins, then you have further catering where selecting favorable characteristics that aren't gender based. If it doesn't then you have the fight over who gets to decide and on what authority.
[insert sig file here]
Sex in the City didn't fucking make it hard enough to find a good woman. That's all we need now is a 80/20 ratio of men to women.
::shudders::
Imagine all those "empowered-via-who-I-choose-to-let-mount-me" women of 2000 in a world where 30% more men are after the goods.
I think I'll be headed here in the near future:
www.fleshlight.com
If you ask folks in mainland China, I think they'd have a pretty strong opinion on which is better, male or female.
But no, by "better", I meant healthier, hardier, less likely to keel over and die from Tay-Sachs before age ten. Which, actually, is what they're talking about doing in the original article.
Unless you're implying that there's no advantage to not dying of Tay-Sachs over dying of it.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
"Philosophically speaking, what right does one individual (the State) have to *force* another individual (me) never to choose the gender of my child?"
What right do you yourself have to choose the gender of the child? Until medical developments in scanning technology, the only way you could tell a baby's sex was when it was finally born. Back then, the only "choice" you had was the choice to kill your newborn baby, try again, and hope for the other sex. Not a particularly viable option.
Even with medical advances, you'd a damn hard time getting a (legit) abortion just because your baby "was a boy/girl".
"If it's entirely up to me what my child is given to learn while it's young, why would it be wrong then also to choose the gender of my child?"
Because the gender of your child is chosen by chance, not by what you yourself consider to be appropriate. They are two compeltely different situations, and it's pretty stupid to compare the two (although I get the impression you were inviting debate, rather than subscribing to that view).
it was not gender "Selection" but gender "Preference". Male Sperms move faster than Female ones (and female ones live longer) and they tend to seperate when spun in a centrafuge.
This clinic actually had a pretty high success rate with low-tech gender selection (~90% iirc)
we did not opt for that service.
If you are able to conceive naturally you can do home gender selection based on the same principles. With a moderate success rate, sex a few days before ovulation vs during ovulation will yield a higher % chance to have a girl. Day of ovulation is most likely for a boy.
Probably this is because both are indications
of general health. Damage to the unborn, genetic
or not, can affect everything.
Getting conked on the head will affect things too.
China data: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos
Additionally, the data in the CIA world factbook states that the the ratio of men/woman in russia is 0.94, and this corresponds to (only) 1070 women for each 1000 men.
B.T.W. Normal (western) figures are equal ratio's to a slight excess of men in the ages 15-65. The 1.12 ratio in birthrate for China is very high.
Technology wins today's wars
Tell that to the guys in Iraq who have been fighting an insurgency for a couple of years. Or the Israeli solders who have been fighting for decades.
I don't deny that technology is helping them, but it certainly is not winning wars for them, they are still getting killed on a regular basis, with no end in sight.
Never underestimate the power of those willing to die for what they believe, regardless of technology available to them.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
At birth, there are 5% to 10% more males.
Historically, this would even out due to death.
Guys are violent risk takers that go hunt bears
with spears.
Now what do we do? Maybe have a draft and start
some wars just to get rid of the males? Maybe
put the stupid guys in death camps? Uhh... that
would have trouble finding support in Parliament.
Solution: require all IVF to select for girls.
Uh, no way in Hell.
Which politically-correct questions would you ask? What make you think your answers are correct?
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Now, China has about 120 men for every 100 women.
There is some imbalance but 120/100??? Do you have a source for this number?
Tor
Because nobody in a third world country would EVER discover that if you stuck sperm in a centrifuge, the X bearing semen sinks and the male-making Y semen floats.
We're not talking million dollar babies here. Jack off in a cup and give it a whirl and you too can select your offspring's gender.
So while the UK is thinking about whether or not they should ban it, third world countries are already doing it, and they very much are relevant to the topic at hand.
Neither side is exactly using the latest and greatest stuff - they can't afford it.
I would consider that a war fought mostly with 20 year old technology. Consider that computers can do a lot to aid in warefare. Think about what computers were like 20 years ago. They weren't so much help back then.
Are you talking about the war in Iraq, or the one in Israel? If you are talking about the war in Iraq, how can you make the claim that "technology wins todays wars" when the world's economic superpower can't afford the technology that would win the war? If the technology can't be afforded, then it can't be used to win a war, and it becomes largly irellivant...
If you were talking about the war in Israel, did you know that their military (particularrly their special forces), usually has newer technology than our own military?
Also, I read your reply to the other poster... I too work on a DARPA project, and have 3 years of experience working for one of the largest defence contractors in the US before my current position.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
you mean "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"?
I agree with some of the sentiments in your post; hope your girlfriend doesn't read Slashdot btw
GrimRC
Many people point out the possibility for Chinese misuse of the technology, however, they are short sighted and should look in their own back yard. In western culture people value blond hair and blue eyes; which is the current almost universal concept of beauty primarily for white folks, and ironically was the basis of superiority for one of the ugliest totalitarian regime.
So saying all Chinese people will do is breed males, and ignore the fact that most white people will probably breed bloundes and blue-eyed perfect devils is facetious.
OK, there isn't normal voting in China, but still
there is pressure from the masses. The business
leaders and party members at the very least will
grow up in the culture.
If the culture becomes more male-dominated, violent
behavior becomes more acceptable. Starting a war
will not require much justification.
Disclaimer: this post may offend some of you. I have no problems with children who have special needs and I respect their parents. However, I am willing to do anything possible to end up as one of those parents.
My girlfriend and I were talking about genetic selection of babies. She is a religious person and at first she did not approve the idea of selecting a child based on its genes. However, this changed right away after she started working some special ed. kids.
Let's call my girlfriend Ann. Ann is a therapist; she works for public schools in order to help kids with different aspects of education. Some kids need help with handwriting, some kids need assistance due to injuries, some kids need a little push when it comes to physical education. Ann helps them out. However, there is a growing number of kids with genetic disorders who need extreme help and who are in the school system. These are by-products of tobacco and alcohol companies, kids of ex-drug users or just unfortunate parents. Nobody wants them. Nobody wants to deal with them. Because our public schools are designed to accept everyone, these kids end up in an environment that can't really fit their needs. Parents drop them off and let Ann deal with all this shit. The same parents are ready to sue the living shit out of the school system if their kids do not progress. Moreover, not a single public school that I know is able to accomodate kids with special needs due to financial restraints. Would I want my kids to have a chance of living that life? Two words: fuck that.
After working with many special ed kids for years, Ann and I have concluded that we'll screen our potential babies for genetic disorders because we simply do not want to deal with a kid who has Down's Syndrome or something along those lines. If there is a possibility of a genetic disorder, why not eliminate it? I do not want to end up with a kid who acts like Timmy from South Park; the society can live without such a kid just fine as well. The school system where Ann works spends a lot of time on kids who can barely tie their shoes. Some of those kids will lose their skills and degenerate. It is so sad to see those poor souls... I would hate to have a child like that. A child that can't really understand, a child that can't be a part of the mainstream life, a child that will be always a second class citizen. As somebody who had a speech problem as a kid, I know what it feels like when everybody makes fun of you and I saw only the tip of the iceberg! I would hate to see my kid to go through numerous humiliations, classifications, doctors, special ed instructors and then endup earning minimum wage at some sweatshop or Burger King.
The bottom line is that this is up to you. I choose life, but life that is capable of living and not suffering. After what I have seen and heard from the people who do with special kids for living, I made up my mind.
There are plenty of immigrants that don't get with
the whole equality thing.
The historic values haven't completely died either.
men vs women != boys vs girls, meaning what you have produced is not a "disproof"
presumably the corrective measures in place are starting to have a small effect
GrimRC
It always amazes me that nihilists and strict deconstructionists (you know, the "saying it's better to be alive than dead is a value judgment!" folks) haven't all been used as target practice by now.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
And, of course, IVF conceptions are a small fraction of the total number of pregnancies that occur, which means that we're definitely talking about thousands of kids every year.
Should have read:
And, of course, IVF conceptions are a small fraction of the total number of pregnancies that occur, which means that we're definitely not talking about thousands of kids every year.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Selecting the sex of your child may wind up being a problem because of the uneven split you might get. However, being able to breed out genetic abnormalities is a great thing. Imagine what will happen when we're able to manipulate the chromosomes deterministically. We could get rid of a lot of the neurological diseases, genetic mutations, etc. Society will be better off not having to waste resources on inferior people.
As a female with MD in the family, I'd jump at the chance for this.
My father has severe MD, my brother is mild at only 23. I get tested next month to see if I carry/have it. When my husband and I decide to have a kid, if there's a chance that I could pass MD on, I would seriously consider the choice. Since it is supposed to pass from mother to son easier than to a daughter, I'd probably try for a girl. I've seen how it can eat away at a person's body, and I wouldn't want my child to suffer like that.
This is nothing like the 'one child' law. There will be no over burden of too many of one gender. This is for people who already have problems conceiving (it's using IVF) to lower the chance of a desperately desired baby of being getting sick.
What right do you yourself have to choose the gender of the child?
That fact that you're going to carry it for ~9 months, and (assumedly) care for it for ~18 years?
The fact that this option didn't exist in the past really isn't relevant, imo. It exists now.
Even with medical advances, you'd a damn hard time getting a (legit) abortion just because your baby "was a boy/girl".
It's my understanding, and belief, that abortion is a woman's personal decision. If a woman wants to have an abortion because the child was conceived under a full moon, or something else similarly arbitrary (like the sex of the child), that's fine with me. It's her choice, not anyone else's.
Especially when you use this nice java app: http://www.babynamewizard.com/namevoyager/lnv0105. html
I never said this. Of course the problem is too many people. However, this interacts with a cultural peculiarity: the importance of having a male offspring. My oldest brother knows this first hand; there was no pressure on me.
Now put two and two together here: you can only have one offspring; it's important that you have a male offspring. Now add the ability to detect the fetus sex in utero and the ability to get abortions.
What do you think the result is?
Now, other places have the similar problems, driven by different factors. For example in India, some cultures have had a tendency for sex selection because of the problem of dowry: female children are expensive. However this is a self limiting problem. Once a surplus of males is established in the population, the dowry money will flow the other way.
Furthermore it isn't just an issue of male life becoming cheap (to the government); there's the problem of what to do with them. You are going to have a large number of males without the steadying influence of family. Furthermore, these will be concentrated in the less developed ares where the traditional ideas are strongest and the available jobs are the least. Then you end up with a displaced population of rootless, alientated males in your nice, modern cities.
So, unless you want a crime wave of epic proportions, you find something for them to do. Something that will occupy their time, direct their aggressive energies, and impose some discipline on them. What do you think that might be?
Now, with respect to technology and war, it may come as a surprise to you, but winning the war is not enough to allow you to impose your will upon another people. You need boots on the ground. I think the US learned this less in Iraq.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Not only that, but it has been noted that, in areas where the ratio of men VS. women is expecially high, like in some parts of India, there is a heightened agressiveness and hence, lower security, higher violent crime rates etc.
Sigged!
just like in other countries where they "allow" gender selection.
Everyone always focusses on themselves - noone ever thinks what this means for society.
[yes, the first sentence was ironically tinged]
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
As an alternative to this view, consider the possibility that you might prefilter your sperm, and then use artificial insemination. Do you have the right to do what you want with your sperm?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
China doesn't have the one child law because of a gender imbalance; the one child law has resulted in a gender imbalance.
DNA just wants to be free...
Hmm... The US population is a little under 300 million, the Chinese population is well over a billion. I'm too lazy to look up exact numbers, but China definitely has more manpower in their military. Who'd win in an all-out war? Anyone who thinks superior technology can't overcome a difference in numbers shouldn't comment on warfare. Numbers only matter if there's a ridiculous difference, or if the two sides have essentially the same technology.
When both sides have nuclear weapons, numbers mean nothing in an all our war.
Numbers really mean very little in any war, it is number you are willing to loose for the cause, that is important (see Vietnam)...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Fantastic! A UK government committee thinks that children can be of the "wrong" sex. So we can all just discard those little accidents that fate has entrusted to us, throw them out of the house, disown them totally. Shall we have a bonfire of the rejected children? These lawmakers say rejection is quite OK.
Exaggeration? Selecting one sex is equivalent to rejecting the other. If parents didn't care what sex the child was, they wouldn't need to choose. So this is about empowering those who really care, who strongly want one sort of child, for whom the wrong sort is a disaster. Bluntly, such IVF patients don't sound fit to be parents -- and neither do these lawmakers.
Will become a fact of life.
It will be quite likely, that in years to come, there will be *laws* which stipulate, the gender of the one child you are allowed to have, *after*, getting your marriage license...
Humans are standing on a epoch, where as a species, we are gearing for a great leap, into space.... either we survive, anhiliate ourselves, or come into contact with an Alien species and are anhiliated or anhilate them.
Genetic modification is going to be a fact of life.. *adapt* to it's envitability... *we* humans *can* so we humans *will* tinker with our genome.
In two hundred years, barring war, or some *radical* shift in the attitudes of society... your average *Western* hominid, will probably have varying levels of altered Genome, perhaps based on a system of what the parents/progenitors can afford, perhaps dictated by law... perhaps *outside* of the law... but, make no mistake... those who don't make their children smater... faster... and longer living, will go the way of the T-Rex baby.
And yes... I do mean to imply a double entendre since "soft tissue" from T-Rex was recently found inside of T-Rex bones.
Let the GMO-Human, be born !
My name's Bill and this has been an "embrace and extend" message, from your friends at Redmond.
That would only happen if most jobs required a certain gender, but they don't, not even close.
Sorry, that was slightly innaccurate. 120/100 was what a fairly reliable source said a while ago for the *birth* rate, which is what I forgot. Now, it's 1.12 men born for every woman and the population discrepancy among those under 15 years of age is 1.13 men for every woman. For all age-groups, it's 1.06 men for every woman. So, among the population that is coming up as the next generation to go through the whole marriage stage, 113/100. Also, those figures are nationwide and urban areas have more balanced populations while rural ones have less.
Everything you say is correct, but most wars are not really big WWII style wars.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
+4 insightful , Only on slashdot would someone suporting eugenics gets moded up so highly.
Well then, you should let an Armani bang your wife.
It seems like most people look on genetic engineering to produce superior babies as a bad thing. The fact is that we as a species have pretty much stopped evolving. Who knows what the human race will have to face in the future and whether we'll be able to survive it. Why should we limit the potential of the human race?
The practice has been banned here in AU recently by the national Sience ethics commission. The theory goes that embryo are less viable after the procedure, so doing an invasive implantation with embryo made less viable for no medical reason is unethical.
I see your point, but we're weighing factors differently. For example, you are not assigning any weight to the ratio of males to females, only the raw number of males. My point is that the change in the ratio creates problems that have to be managed. It's terra icognita though, because no society has managed to alter their sex ratio to any great degree.
You can't successfully impose your will upon another people who aren't willing to take it.
depends on yoru definition of "willing". It's enough that people "go along". If most people know what is needed to keep out of major trouble, they will go along with an imperial power, provided the imperial power can pose a credible threat. If your theory was correct, then history would have no empires. I will grant you that empires are generally not stable, unless they are reasonably benign.
In any case, your argument overstates my assertion of "necessary" as "sufficient". In any case, I'm not arguing a form of demographic determinism here. I'm arguing that sex imbalance will cause societal problems that the leadership will have to deal with. I believe, given the character of the regime and its past history, that militarism will look like an attractive solution.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
What I suspect might be happening more often is births of girls are being registered less often than boys' births, becausing having a boy is seen by some as so prestigious as to be worth the heavy fines of violating the one child policy or being the determining factor in whether to get married after an unintended pregnancy out of wedlock.
The US has a military designed for distant conflicts. We have more aircraft carriers, long range bombers, fighters, transport vessels, cargo planes, and other logistics stuff than anyone else. Probably more than everyone else combined.
China's military is strictly geared for homeland protection. They have lots of tanks, troops, trucks, short range aircraft and things of that nature. They could never project their power over seas or a great distance like the US can.
With that said, the US is in no threat of being attacked by China, and China is in no threat of being attacked by the US, because nobody is dumb enough to deliver their troops into the backyard of an enemy that has that many tanks and troops sitting there.
To the idiot who modded this troll: Please do not moderate any longer.
Simply because you do not LIKE a post does not make it a troll. I disagree with a lot of what was written above. However, it is insightful, but with a different viewpoint than many on Slashdot.
If you cannot tolerate simple differences of opinion like this, then you are not fit for modern society.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
look at the end of the day, if it stops suffering then do it, i dont care what people say. Just stunned our governments done something good for once