Charlie Bell 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. > Unless there's a way to eliminate the need of one gender for reproduction. If a large enough number of lesbians chose to have girls by this method, the population could drift towards the "Glory Season" equilibrium: a huge majority of lesbians with a minority of males.
> 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). > Don't be so sure about this. Having babies is a huge investment in a human's lifetime, so spending lots of money to have the baby of your dreams is the most likely scenario. Gattaca comes to mind - with the risk of being banned from the List, for mentioning _two_ sf stories, one by Himself. > 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. > Eugenics is evil when it's done by murder - but then it should not be called Eugenics but simply Mass-Murder. Alberto Monteiro _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
