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."
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
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
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.
Of course, these aren't really big wars in the WWII style of things.
Historically, war happened when one ethnic/language group wanted things (usually land) that belonged to another ethnic/language group. Who is an ally - somebody who speaks your language. Who is an enemy/subject - somebody who doesn't.
When the English took over a French town in the middle ages you wouldn't have an underground resistance - the peasants had the same lot as always they just paid their taxes to a different unelected king. If there were a result the troops would have probably just killed anybody with a French accent.
The problems in Iraq and Israel are related to modern warfare - when one country wants to exert influence over another without totally dominating them.
In WWII a Japanese person walking towards a US checkpoint was probably considered a target. Fast-forward 50 years and in Iraq friend and foe all look the same.
I'm not sure whether numbers or technology would win a true war. That is a war in which both sides stand to completely lose - when all the stops are pulled out. The allies bombed Dresden because it was a real war. That would never happen in Iraq (I'm not talking about isolated bombing mistakes that collectively kill a few thousand people - I'm talking about an intentional planned attack whose goal is to kill off most of the residents of an entire city).
I'm not sure whether a country that ran out of women to marry would be a serious problem - maybe it would. If they don't mind interractial marriage I wouldn't want to be a male in a neighboring province, though.
My main point is that I wouldn't draw conclusions based on modern limited wars and apply them to theoretical future unlimited wars. War knows no limits - at least on the part of a party that thinks it might lose. The US isn't worried about losing in Iraq, so it can afford to play "nice" (if you can use such a word to describe war). Sadaam was willing to pull out all the stops, however (such as human shields). If this were Germany vs Britain in WWII, however, and there were Germans standing on bridges, the bomber pilots would probably have welcomed the extra carnage.
If you want to study unlimited warfare you'd do better to ignore Iraq and look at Africa instead. Technology there is a bit limited, but there are certainly no limits on how it is employed...