UK Report Suggests Designer Offspring 419
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."
Gattaca? (Score:3, Insightful)
(And yes, I know its not nearly the same, but still, you can easy see the similarities.)
Re:Gattaca? (Score:3, Informative)
Just my opinion.. (Score:2)
But the actual execution was boring as hell
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just my opinion.. (Score:2)
Wrong premises (Score:2)
"Perfect"? Pfah. (Score:3, Insightful)
But replace "perfect" with "better" and suddenly your argument looks kinda ridiculous. We can build a car that eats fuel more efficiently, all other things being equal. We can build a CPU that eats less power, runs faster, and is cheaper to manufacture than its predecessor.
If we can build a better machine, why can't we
Male/female? (Score:3, Insightful)
But no, by "better", I meant healthier, hardier, less likely to keel over and die from Tay-Sachs before age ten. Which, actually, is what they're talking about doing in the original article.
Unless you're implying that there's no advantage to not dying of Tay-Sachs over dying of it.
--grendel drago
Re:Gattaca? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Gattaca? (Score:5, Informative)
You don't have to wait. In India and China the sex imbalance has been growing for over a decade. The peasants used to just smother unwanted girls at birth, now the middle class has ultrasounds and aborts them. That's one reason why there is a market for kidnapping and selling women to be wives of men in rural areas where there aren't enough to go around.
China grapples with legacy of its 'missing girls' [msn.com] "From a relatively normal ratio of 108.5 boys to 100 girls in the early 80s, the male surplus progressively rose to 111 in 1990, 116 in 2000, and is now is close to 120 boys for each 100 girls at the present time"
Ratio of girls to boys in India continues to decline [bmjjournals.com] "The sex ratio, calculated as number of girls per 1000 boys in the 0-6 age group, declined from 945 girls per 1000 boys in the 1991 census to 927 during the 2001 census... In 2001, four states--Punjab, Haryana, Himachal, and Gujarat--fell into the category of having fewer than 800 girls per 1000 boys for the first time. In Punjab the decline was in 10 of the 17 districts, whereas in Haryana state almost all districts recorded fewer than 850 girls. In Fatehgarh, in Punjab, the number of girls declined to 754 per 1000 boys."
Stupid (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Funny)
I can see how that might-just-work.
Re:Stupid (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
There are some potentially severe consequences to increasing the male population. One is that we can anticipate that a country with surplus males may well choose to be militarily more aggressive, since male cannon fodder will be a relatively low value commodity.
I don't think _you_ could be more wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell that to the guys in Iraq who have been fighting an insurgency for a couple of years. Or the Israeli solders who have been fighting for decades.
I don't deny that technology is helping them, but it certainly is not winning wars for them, they are still getting killed on a regular basis, with no end in sight.
Never underestimate the power of those willing to die for what they believe, regardless of technology available to them.
Re:I don't think _you_ could be more wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:I don't think _you_ could be more wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I don't think _you_ could be more wrong. (Score:3, Interesting)
and so if you filled the streets of Iraq with (gun-toting) American cops it would be any better?
If there were enough to spare? Yes. Absolutely. Unfortunately there are two problems with this 1 - there aren't enough to do that, and 2 - Police officers are civilians, and aren't under any obligation to have to go where their country tells them to.
The whole flaw with the war in Iraq was the lack of understanding at the top that winning against an army and winning over a population are two entirely differ
point missed? (Score:3, Informative)
Nukes and Numbers... (Score:4, Insightful)
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)...
Re:Stupid (Score:2)
Re:Stupid (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stupid (Score:2)
Designers (Score:3, Funny)
I want an Armani.
(With apologies to Kate Charlesworth of New Scientist...)
Might not be a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
China already has a huge problem with a surplus of males, and they don't even allow you to choose.
Re:Might not be a big deal (Score:2)
Exactly so (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Might not be a big deal (Score:5, Informative)
In many developing countries, it is possible to find hundreds of "sonogram clinics" on the street. Pregnant women go into the clinic in order to find out the sex of the child. If the child is female, there is a high likeliehood that the child will be aborted.
Re:Might not be a big deal (Score:3, Insightful)
Slippery slope? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Slippery slope? (Score:3, Insightful)
a good movie nonetheless (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Today-Food-Tomorrow-Hu mans.htm [mindfully.org]
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/fdavet/1999/july.html #transgenics [fda.gov]
http://www.ifgene.org/proscons.htm [ifgene.org]
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0317,baard,43560, 1.html [villagevoice.com]
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1640 [capmag.com]
and n
What's the big deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Would the inevitable imbalance in the male/female ratio and the resulting (possibly society-killing
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
> ratio and the resulting (possibly society-killing)
> problems it creates invoke the defense clause that
> you bring up?
I rather suspect there will be a pendulum effect. Right now probably more boys would be chosen than girls. Girls would then be in short supply - making them more desireable.
--
Toby
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:3, Informative)
Alternatively, this could make them a illegally traded commodity. I'm not saying that I disagree with your original points, but when something is desireable and in short supply underground markets often develop to illegally trade this commodity.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
But something that also happens is an expansion of supply.
--
Toby
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just to be a Devil's Advocate, I can think of at least one reason. That would be the inevitable inbalance that would occur in the sexes. In China right now, with it's one-child policy, there is a large inbalance in the number of male versus female children. There will be thousands (millions?) of young Chinese men that will not be able to find a mate, simply because there aren't enough women around.
The inability these men will have in finding a mate could have huge negative consequences for the entire Chinese Society. These negative consequences would be one reason why government should be able to prevent you from choosing a male over a female child.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
There are a certain number of males. There are a certain number of females. Each male and each female has a certain value in the dating game, based on looks, intelligence, socio-economic status, etc.
There are also different classes of relationships.
Some people are succesfully married, some are married but have extra-marital relationships, some are in long-term partnerships, some are in short-term relationships, some aren't
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:4, Informative)
In a Developing Society (like China), having a wife and many children is very important. What do you do with the thousands of Chinese men that will not have wives and children? Those men feel cultural pressure to get a wife, at any cost.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
> wife and many children is very important.
Sort of...it's true, but in different ways, depending on whether you're rural or urban.
> What do
> you do with the thousands of Chinese men that will
> not have wives and children? Those men feel
> cultural pressure to get a wife, at any cost.
What do you do? you watch the social pressure change their society. If the Chinese stopped thinking "you must marry because it's socially expected of you" the
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not look at actual historical examples of sex imbalances? For example the man shortage in Europe after WWI and WWII. Or the female shortage in Asian immigrant communities in the US. (Due to the fact of high interracial marriage rates among Asian women and very low rates among Asian men.) Or the effects of polygamy on communities that practice it.
None of these examples support your
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
Really? What makes you think the preference for male children is limited strictly to developing countries?
Second, if we take your argument to its logical conclusion, the government should by extension be able to dictate the sex of your baby. If the politicians believe there are "too many" men, then they could force everyone to have baby girls until the
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
Because sex-selection of embryos is notoriously unreliable, and thus a significant number of children born thanks to this kind of procedure will be of the 'wrong' sex.
Psychiatric implications on both child and parents are left as an exercise for the reader.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
> unreliable, and thus a significant number of
> children born thanks to this kind of procedure
> will be of the 'wrong' sex.
In n years time, sex-selection will have improved to the point of being completely reliable.
--
Toby
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
If you doubt this, watch China with their 120 men for every 100 women and see what problems they get from it.
Of course, that may not be sufficient reason for this, but it at least does need to be considered.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
> for every 100 women and see what problems they get
> from it.
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/g
Not bad, but no cigar, at birth, current ratio is 1:1.12.
As for the problems? I note a lot of people asserting a priori there will be "a lot of social unrest".
I'd like to see some reasoning before I accept that as true.
--
Toby
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
How about this article in Asia News [asianews.it]? The article was written in January, 2005. It refers to the rising crime rate that results from increased male-related gang activity.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
It's probably bad form to reply twice to the same post, but I found another article. A quick internet search led to this story on the Chinese single-child issue in USA Today [usatoday.com]. The article is a couple of years old, but it is a very interesting read.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do a google on "ultrasound china or india 'sex selection'" for an excellent primer on why this is a bad idea. Sure, on an individual level, many things appear innocuous. Translate to a societal level and things can get very, very messy. China already has an 8% disparity over the rest of the world and India is catching up. Granted, this would take the abortion problem out of the loop. However, that may be the only thing restraining "western" countries from experiencing the same problem.
On the other hand, this might solve the whole "gay marriage" issue. If there simply are not enough women, some otherwise heterosexual men may just give up and demand the right to marry each other out of exhaustion and apathy.
Hmm... come to think of it, this is a GREAT idea.
Search [google.com]
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
From that, I can gather that not only have you never had a child of your own, but you also don't remember what it was like to be a child yourself. You can't "choose" for yo
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
--
Toby
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
The state is just enforcing the status quo. You haven't been able to choose the sex up until now, eight? Blame nature not the government for that one...
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
> chance to choose between a male and a female child
> whom would you think they'd choose?
Male...until there are so many men than women become more valuable. Then I'd chose a woman.
The notion that people will just keep choosing men is remarkable only for its short-sightedness =)
> The world doesn't belong to just you or me - it
> belongs to all of us.
What does that mean, exactly?
Do you mean to say that there should be restrictions on our be
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2, Interesting)
I also think hands off on the gender decision.
I am sure the masses will make some choices that cause problems.
But, I don't think the overlords/government are the solution.
On the question of parenting tests.
How many young people are ready to be parents ?
Too many only start being responsible once the parenthood begins.
Some people at prenancy, birth or soon after.
Education ? Whose opinion is right ?
Cultural, educational, financial, & lots of other differences are there.
Are you sure you want the politi
What right do "you" have - just as much as state (Score:3, Insightful)
What right do you yourself have to choose the gender of the child? Until medical developments in scanning technology, the only way you could tell a baby's sex was when it was finally born. Back then, the only "choice" you had was the choice to kill your newborn baby, try again, and hope for the other sex. Not a particularly viable option.
Even with medical ad
Excuse me? (Score:5, Funny)
It's hard enough for the average /. reader as it is, now we have to have a doctor's note?
Ubiquitous (Score:3, Funny)
Risky Business (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Risky Business (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree totally with your post, but I feel the need to add a small clarification to it.
Sex-based abortions are illegal in China. Indeed, prenatal sex tests are not allowed. Instead, the government makes you carry the child to term and give birth to discover the sex of your child so as to avoid just that problem.
Re:Risky Business (Score:2)
For a couple more examples of how problems could arise:
- Women might be more popular in urban areas where there is no benefit one way or the other, real or imagined, while men might be more popular in farm communities and industrial communities where ph
Re:Risky Business (Score:3, Insightful)
Not if they don't change the fact that men pass on the family name. As it stands, a woman doesn't carry on the legacy in China, and that matters a lot.
And, even if that does happen, that leaves them with 2-3 generations of increased crime and violence, as that's what tends to happen in societies with tons of unmarried men.
Choice in Bioethics (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Choice in Bioethics (Score:3, Interesting)
"There are differing opinion on the ethics of jihad. Some of these opinions borrow from religions teachings. We should allow terrorists free access to all services and armaments, since doing so allows pe
Re:Choice in Bioethics (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a serious imbalance in male/female ratio (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:There is a serious imbalance in male/female rat (Score:2)
oh man.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:oh man.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Then the environment changes. Suddenly the species realises that it has bread out the characteristic that it needed to adapt (possibly as a side effect of removing another trait). Su
Woah! (Score:2)
Trivial improvement on an old method (Score:5, Informative)
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....
Australia Doing the Opposite (Score:4, Informative)
It's all about choice (Score:5, Funny)
Choices apparently include everyday, three times a week, hard 'n fast, and special occasions only.
In the UK it won't make much difference (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:In the UK it won't make much difference (Score:2)
Re:In the UK it won't make much difference (Score:2)
Britain knows good breeding (Score:2)
Hmm oh dear , (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if it is for medical reasons , if you for some reason decide that you wish or need to ahve a child of sex A or B to avoid an illness
As a person who has a Form of disability myself I find this highly unnerving.
if you so badly fear a child with a disability then please dont have children or adopt , there are plenty of children who are suffering in underfunded, understaffed orphanages
Take pick up a cleche here , Do you think Steven Hawkins parents
Alas i belive in peoples right and freedom to decide and i dont want to be a hipocrit, so if it was to come up in a ballet i would allow it , But i would certainly avoid it like the plauge and tell anyone who asks what i thought of it (self censorship that is , take note Politicians , we dont need views forced upon us)
Re:Hmm oh dear , (Score:2)
Just any old ballet or a specific one? Swan Lake perhaps?
Re:Hmm oh dear , (Score:3, Insightful)
So after having experienced life with a disability you want other people to have it too? You've got one sick mind.
> Do you think Steven Hawkins parents
> option would have taken it and deprived the world
> of such a brilliant mind.
They wouldn't have deprived the world of a brilliant mind. They would have given the world a brilliant mind in a healthy body. I am sure Dr.Hawkins would have been much happier
Re:Hmm oh dear , (Score:2)
Just as i have a disability
Yeah i would of been hapier without a disability
I would like a cure not extermination
Dr Hawkins does have a disability and selective breading would have ment he was not born , this is not an IF
Re:Hmm oh dear , (Score:3, Interesting)
If there were genetic mutations that we could inject into ourselves that would be able to prevent cancer, cure disabilties, and enhance our lifespan is it really better to deny ourselves such things?
Once humans master DNA, the next step beyond that is to make us "better", to remove the defects that plague our genes, to increase our intellig
Half the comments here are crazy... (Score:3, Informative)
We're talking about giving parents who might have dreamt about having a child of a specific gender the chance to have that dream come true. And we're not talking about giving that choice to everyone, we're talking about giving it to those who won't be able to try, try and try again until that boy or girl comes along. And, if it needs saying, most parents desperate for a kid won't care what gender their baby is, they'll be happy to let nature decide.
Remember also that IVF conceptions often result in multiple births, normally with non-identical twins or triplets, so the chances are that this sort of selection will only be necessary in a small number of cases. And, of course, IVF conceptions are a small fraction of the total number of pregnancies that occur, which means that we're definitely talking about thousands of kids every year.
Lastly, I'd like to add that IVF treatment is provided for free by the NHS. Of course, not everyone needs it but at least those people who can't conceive naturally don't have to choose between trying for a baby and having a positive bank balance.
So, any chance of cutting down on the some of the knee-jerk, distopic comments now?
Re:Half the comments here are crazy... (Score:3, Insightful)
But that IS eugenics.
eugenics
n. (used with a sing. verb)
The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.
Re:Half the comments here are crazy... (Score:2)
We won't stop at the sex... (Score:2)
The issues that arise are detectability of traits not favored by traditional parents. I can see people lining up to stop pregnacies that result in brain damaged or geneticially defective children. What happens if we find out we can determine the likelihood a child will be more inclined to violence or gay (please I am not trying to associate the two). What then? Do we allow for the screening
Simple solution (Score:2)
From an economic perspective... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:From an economic perspective... (Score:3, Interesting)
Spin Doctors (Score:2)
More Genetic Engineering, Less Special Ed (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:This is not a Good Thing(tm) (Score:3, Funny)
I'm liking this vice-versa thing of yours. Let's put together a commitee and see if we can make something out of it.
Re:This is not a Good Thing(tm) (Score:5, Funny)
I like the vice versa, actually. Haven't you heard the song "Two girls for every boy" by the California Beach Boys?
Re:Didn't know it's even possible (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I think you might be right (Score:2)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Re:have we learned nothing? (Score:2)
Plots are chosen based on popularity and entertainment value.
If a Star Trek plot posits a conflict between generically improved and stock humans, it is perhaps imprudent to treat it as an accurate predictor of human behaviour.
--
Toby