On 12/07/2006, at 2:46 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
Isn't the real danger of ending up with an unbalanced population, making it difficult for a generation to find a mate, worth noting?
It's self-correcting - if there is an imbalance in gender one way, it is selectively advantage drives the ratio back to near 50-50. Plus I think it unlikely that it will ever be a common enough procedure to risk affecting the overall gender ratios (especially as I think unlikely that there'll be a significant bias in gender chosen).
And is this really functionally different from eugenics?
I'd say yes, but it's only a small step away. Close monitoring is necessary, and strict regulation. Oddly, the Australian system of only allowing gender selection to avoid genetic disease is closer to eugenics than just selecting a gender for personal reasons (like you've got 3 boys and want a girl...).
Is eugenics itself *inherently* a bad thing? I say not. But it's definitely, like pharmacology, nuclear physics, and chemistry, able to be corrupted to bad ends and misused.
Charlie _______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
