> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of jdiebremse > Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 11:02 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Yet, I don't think this means it is inherently immoral for someone > > to have a private jet. > > I have to say that your example did not convince me of the point. > Presuming that everyone has a private jet in a market economy, > presumably the prices would still reflect the new situation. In > other words, as the number of people with private jets increased, > the price of oil would increase to reflect the tradeoff of using oil > for private jet flights vs. using the oil for other things. In > order to keep flying the private jet as the price of oil rises, one > would presumably have to provide increasing amounts of value to > society through work or capital allocation or both. (Or one would > presumably have to value the private jet flight more than the > alternative goods and services one could have purchased.)
> In other words, to have reached a point where everyone had a private > jet, we preumably did so at a price level equilibrium that reflects > that fact that it really *was* the most efficient use of our oil to > spend them on private jet flights. Well, if you are able to assume that the economic cost of choosing a baby's sex goes down, I thought I could assume that the price of oil would not go up...by assuming other technical innovations. For example, let's say the technology needed to covert shale beds developed significantly, or that we find an easy and cheap way to tap under-sea methane. The problem I was thinking about was the fact that CO2 levels in the atmosphere would really go through the roof. You know that I've argued for the middle position on global warming....and consider both those who deny the existence of human induced global warming and those who claim it must be stopped at any price to be in error. But, if everyone had planes and used them, the change in climate would be catastrophic....after a CO2 rise of a factor of 10 or more. Let's assume that, in the future, there would be an easy, cheap method of picking the sex of a child, pre-conception. Let's also assume that it rarely was used to get all boys or all girls, that most families who used it picked a girl if they had a boy and a boy if they had a girl. Why would this be such a significant problem that the government had to ban it? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
