Given that there is little intrinsic value to being tall, but rather it is to being taller than others, would not the wide spread use of genetics to enhance height decrease the value of being tall. Perhaps we should encourage, through subsidization, a certain percentage of the population to remain short. Of course, if genetics lives up to its promise we will also have to subsidize people not to look like Brad Pitt and Nicole Kidman.
Ron Baty ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wei Dai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 6:54 PM Subject: [armchair] Re: Regulating Positional Goods On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 02:24:18PM -0500, rex wrote: > Wouldn't it make more sense to tax or "punish" the people who don't > enhance > their kids to be taller or better? Part of the advantage of being taller is social. Because making your kids taller confers a social advantage on them while simultaneously disadvantaging other people's kids, genetic enchancement for tallness is considered a "positional good". Here are a couple of articles you can read about positional goods, if you're interested: "Why Does Growth Fail to Make Us Happier? ? Some Mechanisms Behind The Paradox of Happiness", at http://dipeco.economia.unimib.it/happiness/accepted_papers/binswanger.pdf "Status Effects and Negative Utility Growth", at http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/economics/papers/1998/w22/futilegrowth5.pdf.
