h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>But, if the huge majority of people were screening their children for a wide range of genetic conditions, I don't see the problem.

Me neither, fundamentally. Given that we don't know, nobody is better placed to make the choice in an individual case than the parents themselves - specifically, *her*self.

That said...there are a number of sex selections that I would be ideologically opposed to to greater or lesser degree. Sex selection. Skin colour. Bipolar disorder. But that's just *my* individual choice...albeit that I hope there are enough like-minded people who can get together and defeat The Forces Of darkness.

>Would he have needed if Adolf Hitler had been screened out before birth?<

What genetic disorder did Adolf have? I thought it's been speculated that it has as much to do with his appalling childhood, involving endless vicious sadistic beatings from his father, and the excessive sentimental sweetness of his smothering mother.

....If people, blicky for one, didn't find my chav thing very funny. How about this Christian version of Brokeback mountain?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-wcK8GhPh-I

Ed,

"That said...there are a number of sex selections that I would be ideologically opposed to to greater or lesser degree. Sex selection. Skin colour. Bipolar disorder. But that's just *my* individual choice...albeit that I hope there are enough like-minded people who can get together and defeat The Forces Of darkness."

OK so we agree that it should be the parents choice, but I'm still interested to why those are your particular choices. Take sex selection - I can see the argument in a country where you knew that people would prefer to choose boys say. But if that wasn't happening - and I think you're talking about personal moral choices above - then what's the problem with choosing the sex of your children?

Effers,

Oh he had the evil gene, didn't you know?

>I can see the argument in a country where you knew that people would prefer to choose boys say.<

That covers more or less all of them, then.....(and I don't buy this nonsense about enlightened western countries not thinking that way.) Scratch below the surface of any politically correct father, and their secret desire is first and foremost, for a son. I was disappointment in this respect. And one of my best friends has had 4 girls, the last one being the final attempt at the boy, her oh so liberal husband was desperate for.

OK. Small sample size. But this preference for sons goes deep. For centuries in our culture it was only the first born son who could inherit the family title, not the child.

I am totally against any form of sex selection. However many *reasonable* excuses people may have for the preference of the sex of their child.

Hey Effers, what about a swapping system: you can only select for a boy (or girl) if you can find another parent who commits to selecting for a girl (or boy). How would you feel about it then?

Another alternative which avoids some of the social problems that would entail would be a quota system - say you can only screen for a boy/girl if that wouldn't take the ratio of people who have registered a wish to screen for a boy/girl outside some acceptable range (say, an equal ratio plus or minus 1% either way).

Or how about communal childrearing? Just a thought. It's been tried in at least one successful experiment in a certain country with a fascist government. It turned out well-balanced individuals. Plus it's the normative model on

Dogster:
How did I make my choice? That's rather personal! . How did we make the choice not to go for amniosentsesis? Well our decision is was, I guess something to do with the sum of our fears for the difficulties that might be faced by a disabled or ill child minus the joy that can be brought by, say, a child with Downs' Syndrome. (To express it as a formula). And the decision will have been loaded strongly by our shared value of seeing the worth people with many forms of disability.

Am I making any sense? It's the first time I've really thought about in.

Yes Dog, your suggestions make complete sense. were it a purely neutral subject. But it ain't neutral is it? What motivates such a preference? that's the crux of my argument. I've yet to hear a reason given for the need to predetermine the sex of a child, that holds much water. Giving the possibility to determine the sex of a child, can only be a backward step in terms of there eventually being *true* equality of 'worth' and 'respect' of both sexes.

>> Yes Dog, your suggestions make complete sense. were it a purely neutral subject

Damn clever, Effrs Ulimtely, a serious of individuals is msking sa set of personal choice. We can't pontificate or lay god on abortion. *Human* Choice!

>> Giving the possibility to determine the sex of a child, can only be a backward step in terms of there eventually being *true* equality of 'worth' and 'respect' of both sexes.

It comes down to what kind of society/ mentality we are comfortable with. Does under-valuing the female *sound* like something we need more of?

(And the last time I mentioned feminism, you told me to shut up ...under understandable circumstances).

Hi Effers,

So Blicky is No True Chav?

Gif

Hi Dogster,

>Is talking about evolution really relevant though? The time frame is too short.

Artificial selection can work on much shorter timescales than natural selection. (Actually, under some circumstances, natural selection can work surprisingly quickly too.)

A purely evolutionary problem with eugenics is that it leads to a diminution of the (already dangerously small) genetic variation within the human race. This leaves us less variety, and thus less chance of surviving any change in our environment.

Gif

<>

Well, it depends on the man's philosophy.
If the man is decent he'll do everything he can to support the woman he's got pregnant.

<>

Isn't the point of evolution that it throws up ever more genetic variation through mutations?

Explain if you will why the genetic variation within the human race is so dangerously small.

Hi WG,

Yes, mutation increases genetic diversity - but this take time. Lots of time. Natural selection decreases genetic variation, and can occur at any rate from fast to slow. Together with sexual recombination, these processes together make up Darwinian evolution.

Genetic variation within humans is unusually low because we (probably) went through a 'bottleneck' - a period where the population was very small, probably a few thousand at most - a few tens of thousands of years ago. Tigers are an even more extreme example of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck

Gif

re: communal child rearing - that's the practice in the Maori communities/culture in NZ is it not?

>Another alternative which avoids some of the social problems that would entail would be a quota system<

What like this hypothetical scenario, Dogster?

Jenny and Thelma are having coffee, at Jen's house.

Jenny says, "Yes you were so lucky Thel to get your application in last month. We applied last week, only to be told that the boys' quota has now reached the +1% limit. John's heartbroken. He'd banked on a son, what with all his blokey interests like football, fishing, and trainspotting...He had set his heart on sharing them with a son. So now we'll either have to wait for a bit, or risk doing it the old fashioned way, and maybe getting a girl. As John says, 'It can only benefit the country to have a good few more boys; there's too many bolshy women around by half.' I do sometimes think it would be better for all of us if we went back to the tried and tested way for everyone. It only creates resentment.

"Yes Jen, that's what Ian thinks. But he's less blunt about saying it than your John. It wouldn't have bothered me what sex little Tommy had been. But it is nice for Ian to have had a choice...."

They re-fill their coffees, and get on to discussing Victoria Beckham's latest career change, of publishing books on healthy lifestyles......

"And one of my best friends has had 4 girls, the last one being the final attempt at the boy, her oh so liberal husband was desperate for."

This supports another thesis I heard recently, namely that families tend to continue having children till they have at least one of each sex. So it's not necessarily sexist. And haven't you heard of "Daddy's little girl"? I think many men prefer daughters.

TRiG.

Ed: "Or how about communal childrearing?"



(That's a red herring btw.)

Ed: "Well our decision is was, I guess something to do with the sum of our fears for the difficulties that might be faced by a disabled or ill child minus the joy that can be brought by, say, a child with Downs' Syndrome. (To express it as a formula)."

For that argument to work (mathematically speaking) the potential joys, following your example, of a Downs' syndrome child would have to be larger than the potential joys of a child without.

Ed: "And the decision will have been loaded strongly by our shared value of seeing the worth people with many forms of disability."

I absolutely agree with this, but I don't see how it bears on the question at all.

I don't want to seem like I'm attacking your decision or telling you that you made the wrong one, I just really don't understand it and I'd like to. A lot of people whose views I respect a lot have the same view, so I feel it's likely I'm missing something.

Effers: "What motivates such a preference? that's the crux of my argument. I've yet to hear a reason given for the need to predetermine the sex of a child, that holds much water."

We don't need a reason for having the freedom to choose, but if want to make a choice illegal we need a reason why people shouldn't be free to make the choices they want to.

Here's another way of looking at it: there are people out there who would prefer to have boys, and people out there who would prefer to have girls. At the moment, both of these two groups are disappointed half the time. Surely as long as the total numbers of boys and girls are not too mismatched, it would be better to let these people get what they want?

Effers: "Giving the possibility to determine the sex of a child, can only be a backward step in terms of there eventually being *true* equality of 'worth' and 'respect' of both sexes."

I don't really see why. You could make a similar argument about birth control: giving people the choice about when to have children and how many to have only diminishes the worth and respect for children - it makes them into consumer objects. Can you give me a reason why that argument is fallacious that doesn't also apply to your argument about choosing the sex of a child?

Ed: "Does under-valuing the female *sound* like something we need more of?"

But what's the evidence that giving people the choice of the sex of their child would lead them to value women less? Surely it would only reflect the value that they already give the two sexes?

Gif: "Artificial selection can work on much shorter timescales than natural selection."

A fair point.

Gif: "(Actually, under some circumstances, natural selection can work surprisingly quickly too.)"

True, but isn't this only the case for very simple changes (like changing the colour of a butterfly's wings)? I mean, it's not like you're going to see a complex structure like an arm appearing from scratch over a few generations.

Gif: "A purely evolutionary problem with eugenics is that it leads to a diminution of the (already dangerously small) genetic variation within the human race. This leaves us less variety, and thus less chance of surviving any change in our environment."

OK, but if you follow this argument through, aren't you saying that millions of people must definitely suffer the consequences of 'preventable' genetic disorders in order that in the unlikely event of a change in our environment that causes most of the population to be killed some would survive? Great fodder for sci-fi stories but is it really something we should be concerned with?

From Effers' story: "I do sometimes think it would be better for all of us if we went back to the tried and tested way for everyone. It only creates resentment."

Isn't this true of any limited resource though?

>Can you give me a reason why that argument is fallacious that doesn't also apply to your argument about choosing the sex of a child?<

No birth control is completely different. Women most often have to bear the brunt of childcare and rearing. Having too many children is detrimental to most often the womens' quality of life and possibly mental health. I for sure couldn't have coped with even one child, given my mental health issues. Had I had one, the moment it was born, I would be straight round to the father's place and immediately dump it on his doorstep, for him to bring up. *Plus there is the Cyril Connolly idea that 'the pram in the hall is the enemy of art* Once again anedote. I know 2 painters who are married. The woman reluctantly gave up her career as an artist. Her choice you might say; but the pressure in a relationship/marriage to produce children is very strong in our society. Her husband was most keen to pass on his painterly genes. He forged ahead in the art world and is doing great. My own brother is a painter. Same thing. His wife gave up her career in animation to bring up the kids. Massive pressure on them to produce grandchildren from my parents, as I was clearly not going to deliver on that front.

There is also the question of financial burden. These are all motivations for using birth control I have no problem with. As other children in the family may well suffer, as well as the woman, if too many kids are born.

I do hope you are just being an avocado Dogs over this issue; otherwise you really should get out more.

**********

It would be good to do a proper scientific survey to actually establish whether there is a higher preference for boys in our culture. Obviously it might be difficult to get people to be really honest, but proper survey techniques would hopefully overcome the problem. There is also the question about whom in the relationship has most power in the decision of which sex to select. My bet is that men are more likely to have a preference and the woman may just go along with this, as in my experience it's the child itself, irrespective of sex that woman want. But not always of course.

So yes a proper survey is needed. Rather than anecdote as has been discussed here.

Well, a good survey of birth records should provide evidence for or against the theory I presented. If the youngest child is often a different sex to the older ones, then I'm likely onto something. (Not my own theory, but I forget where I heard it.)

TRiG.