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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"if everybody decided to have a boy, then in the next generation it would be obviously convenient to be a woman"
Actually, it seems much more likely it would result in widespread rape and an active slave-trade. Also, if there still wasn't a way to birth children without human involvement, the social pressure to give birth would be frickin' enormous. Of course, if none of those hit you, it would be quite convenient.
"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.
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.
I like the vice versa, actually. Haven't you heard the song "Two girls for every boy" by the California Beach Boys?
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
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.
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.
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...
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...
Those aren't wars. Those are occupations - a very different sort of activity. Soldiers are trained to think of well defined enemies and allies with clear demarkations of who's who, where police are trained to think of the majority of strangers as allies or bystanders with just a few "enemies" hidden among them. They are very different states of mind, and that's why soldiers aren't police and police aren't soldiers. (And that's why we won the war but are losing the occupation).
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.