Prenatal Sex Selection

[Strike For The South]

Should Prenatal Sex selection be legal?

I have been mulling over this for a few days and can't really come up with a solid answer either way. I lean towards no as those who generally wish to do this sort of business are those who perpetuate a rather unequal worldview. Be they hindus in India or crazed upper class feminists, these people often seek to elevate one gender over the other, something that goes against my sense of fair play.

Of course then the plebs get all uppity about their rights as an individual It seems logical that if a woman can kill a fetus then she can choose its sex, seems a bit more merciful actually.

So only women can participate in pre natal sex selection...wait...what?

Thus my conundrum.

EDIT: THERE WILL BE NO POLLS, POLLS ARE THE PURVIEW OF THE BOURGEOISIE

[HoreTore]

I see no problem with this.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes absolutely.

Lots of people just don't want to have only sons or daughters.

[Strike For The South]

Even if sex ratios become wildly skewed?

[Major Robert Dump]

I tell you right now

If theres one thing this world needs

It's more qaulity wool

So yes, legal

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Even if sex ratios become wildly skewed?

Wouldn't happen in the US...

Sorry I missed the part about the hindus. But it doesn't go against my sense of fair play, it seems like in those countries you would be worried about the societal impact...but do you think it would self correct or not? If the ratio got more skewed would people start to see it as advantageous to have a girl (in which case sex selection would be very useful) Or what?

[Major Robert Dump]

Well,
One thing to consider is that China has infantcided so many of its females,

That the shortage of available wives means they go to poorer countries to find the womenz. A war could start over something like this. Remember the mongels?

[Papewaio]

Shouldn't be allowed. Generally it's around the 18-20 week mark before an ultrasound can infer the sex of the child.

With movement, cord and development still to occur it is very difficult to be certain of the sex of the child until later.

As such these abortions are going to occur post first trimester.

[Montmorency]

Even if sex ratios become wildly skewed?

The state intervenes - somehow.


Wouldn't happen in the US...

Sorry I missed the part about the hindus. But it doesn't go against my sense of fair play, it seems like in those countries you would be worried about the societal impact...but do you think it would self correct or not? If the ratio got more skewed would people start to see it as advantageous to have a girl (in which case sex selection would be very useful) Or what?

The question is, would they self-correct in time?

How much long-term damage and disorder should be tolerated? For instance, if girls become 'prized', they become commodities and gender inequality rises. This compounded with a contemporaneous paucity, even if at that point medium-term shortage...

Hence Strike's fears, yes? It's the developing world that matters more when it comes to gender issues.

I have it: The state will produce females to fill the gap. An equal number of males will be euthanized. :smug:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I had assumed this would be occurring invitro, not inutero.

I am against abortions beyond the first trimester unless the mother's life is in serious danger.

I'm also against designer babies, because this technology will inevitably be available to the rich and not the masses. That includes the three-parent baby tech being mooted.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm also against designer babies, because this technology will inevitably be available to the rich and not the masses.

So?

Anyway. Libraries were once available to the rich but not the masses. Now you can have thousands of books for $80.


How much long-term damage and disorder should be tolerated? For instance, if girls become 'prized', they become commodities and gender inequality rises. This compounded with a contemporaneous paucity, even if at that point medium-term shortage...

I guess I don't get how we're supposed to predict this sort of thing. And I would bet that the people who are against it for some other reason do a lot of scaremongering.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So?

Anyway. Libraries were once available to the rich but not the masses. Now you can have thousands of books for $80.


I guess I don't get how we're supposed to predict this sort of thing. And I would bet that the people who are against it for some other reason do a lot of scaremongering.

Watch Gattica, Star Trek 2, read Brave New World, watch Logan's Run and then read The Forever War.

Science Fiction is built on speculation "what would life be like if..." Every example of engineering people is a vision of hell.

Something to think about.

[Montmorency]

I guess I don't get how we're supposed to predict this sort of thing.

Look at trends. China's trends show a pretty skewed ratio emerging in just a couple of decades, leaving tens of millions to be partnerless. China's government takes that stuff seriously.


Anyway. Libraries were once available to the rich but not the masses. Now you can have thousands of books for $80.

I don't know that we should entertain such wild equivalencies.

Anyway, the problem with designer babies in the full range of design (sex having little impact relative to the other possibilities, really) is the risk of an unenhanced underclass forming within a generation or two. Coupled with the shrinkage of human roles in non-skilled labor, it's something that should at least be treated carefully.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Watch Gattica, Star Trek 2, read Brave New World, watch Logan's Run and then read The Forever War.

Science Fiction is built on speculation "what would life be like if..." Every example of engineering people is a vision of hell.

Something to think about.

I saw Gattica. I also saw terminator but it didn't make me decide that AI was a bad thing.




Look at trends. China's trends show a pretty skewed ratio emerging in just a couple of decades, leaving tens of millions to be partnerless. China's government takes that stuff seriously.

Yes it's serious, but is there really going to be mass revolt and human trafficking and such as the result? And they have it without prenatal selection.


I don't know that we should entertain such wild equivalencies.

We can be entertained BY them.


Anyway, the problem with designer babies in the full range of design (sex having little impact relative to the other possibilities, really) is the risk of an unenhanced underclass forming within a generation or two. Coupled with the shrinkage of human roles in non-skilled labor, it's something that should at least be treated carefully.

Already exists.

We can't treat inequality as an inherent bad. Our problem is less with having an elite than the attitude the elite has towards the "underclass", which is not a necessary result of having inequality.

You have to consider the ability of designer babies to avoid bad traits too. If they could fix a genetic factor that predisposes someone to sociopathy or alcoholism do you really think it would get public funding?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I saw Gattica. I also saw terminator but it didn't make me decide that AI was a bad thing.

That's funny, because if you actually asked Philip K. Dick or Issac Asimov they'd tell you AI was even more dangerous - mostly because anything we build with a self-preservation instinct will try to kill us.


Yes it's serious, but is there really going to be mass revolt and human trafficking and such as the result? And they have it without prenatal selection.

It's a well know problem in India, to the extent that it is illegal to tell parents the sex of the baby, but many doctors will find a way to indicate it - for a fee.


Already exists.

We can't treat inequality as an inherent bad. Our problem is less with having an elite than the attitude the elite has towards the "underclass", which is not a necessary result of having inequality.

You have to consider the ability of designer babies to avoid bad traits too. If they could fix a genetic factor that predisposes someone to sociopathy or alcoholism do you really think it would get public funding?

Gross inequality is inherently bad - people born better than other people by design is worse.

An underclass is inevitable.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That's funny, because if you actually asked Philip K. Dick or Issac Asimov they'd tell you AI was even more dangerous - mostly because anything we build with a self-preservation instinct will try to kill us.


I'm surprised that you would take the view that AI could reach a dangerous level...



It's a well know problem in India, to the extent that it is illegal to tell parents the sex of the baby, but many doctors will find a way to indicate it - for a fee.


Yes this is true. But I mean the problems socially resulting from the imbalance. How serious are they going to be?



Gross inequality is inherently bad - people born better than other people by design is worse.

Yikes, really?. Maybe we should use design to level it out??? I'm sure there's some horror-sci-fi for that too.



An underclass is inevitable.

I can't tell if you mean it's inevitable without design, or only with it.

[Montmorency]

So subsidize it until it really is widely accessible.

[Major Robert Dump]

Well if we are going to start genetically engineering people I was wondering if maybe I could get a vagina on my hand.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Variety is the spice of life. In other words, if you try to take away my ability to do it with a female and then her all female siblings as well with your sex selection, I'm rioting in the streets.

[Tuuvi]

I can't tell if you mean it's inevitable without design, or only with it.

I think what Philipvs means to say, is that it would destroy social mobility.

[Vladimir]

So something is bad if rich people can afford it, and since everyone can't have access to something, it shouldn't be available.

Everyone here needs to supply a computer and internet access to those who do not have it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm surprised that you would take the view that AI could reach a dangerous level...

I know I shouldn't ask, but why?

I would have thought it was obvious that a genuine artificial intelligence would ultimately try to destroy humanity.


Yes this is true. But I mean the problems socially resulting from the imbalance. How serious are they going to be?

You just need to look at China - the one child policy has resulted in a massive imbalance which is causing Causing China serious economic and social problems.


Yikes, really?. Maybe we should use design to level it out??? I'm sure there's some horror-sci-fi for that too.

I can't tell if you mean it's inevitable without design, or only with it.

Consider one example - myopia is largely genetic, we produce high-quality lenses because there are people to buy them. Designer babies would eliminate myopia amongst the wealthy, and the demand for glasses, especially good ones, would fall through the floor. At the same time, wearing glasses would become an indication of class, just like short stature and rickets before good nutrition was generally available.


I think what Philipvs means to say, is that it would destroy social mobility.

Correct - and once you start designing babies it's a tiny step to selecting people for jobs based on a genetic profile, and parents actively designing their children to be certain things like doctors or gymnasts.


So something is bad if rich people can afford it, and since everyone can't have access to something, it shouldn't be available.

Everyone here needs to supply a computer and internet access to those who do not have it.

Mucking around with how people are put together is a very special case - a lot of where you go in life is partially determined by genetics. Genetic engineering will entrench a social view that your genetics should determine your path through life. This will become worse with each successive generation, as the gene-pool the wealthy have to work with becomes better and better through unnatural selection the masses, or the underclass, will be increasingly disadvantaged.

[SoFarSoGood]

No, just no. Is for God to decide such matters not scientists or women.

[Kralizec]

I like Pape's answer, but...

Even if it were possible to reliably detect gender I'd still be uncomfortable with it. In some situations, i.e. a couple which already has daughters really would like a son, it would be somewhat understandable but I really can't see myself agreeing with an abortion on such grounds.

That said; I think abortions should be elective in the early stages of pregnancy and I'm not going to start making blacklists with inadmissable grounds for other people.


That's funny, because if you actually asked Philip K. Dick or Issac Asimov they'd tell you AI was even more dangerous - mostly because anything we build with a self-preservation instinct will try to kill us.

Most of Asimov's stories about robots are the direct opposite of the killer robot stories that were popular back then. Several of them were about the irrational fear people had about them despite the fact that it was impossible for robots (in his works) to knowingly kill humans.

[Ronin]

Even if sex ratios become wildly skewed?

life uh... finds a way.

[Vladimir]

life uh... finds a way.

Or, rather, death.

[Montmorency]

Mucking around with how people are put together is a very special case - a lot of where you go in life is partially determined by genetics. Genetic engineering will entrench a social view that your genetics should determine your path through life. This will become worse with each successive generation, as the gene-pool the wealthy have to work with becomes better and better through unnatural selection the masses, or the underclass, will be increasingly disadvantaged.

Well, there is another path: destroy the underclass. Wipe them out. Liquidate them.

The only humans left will be the modified.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, there is another path: destroy the underclass. Wipe them out. Liquidate them.

The only humans left will be the modified.

And on that note, I believe we have demonstrated that genetic modification of humans is an unmitigated evil.

That sex-selection is an unmitigated evil should be obvious.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I know I shouldn't ask, but why?

I would have thought it was obvious that a genuine artificial intelligence would ultimately try to destroy humanity.

Why do you think it's possible for their to be a genuine artificial intelligence?




You just need to look at China - the one child policy has resulted in a massive imbalance which is causing Causing China serious economic and social problems.

Yes it has. What are the serious economic and social problems and how serious are there?

It seems they were bound to have problems anyway, simply from needing a one child policy.




Correct - and once you start designing babies it's a tiny step to selecting people for jobs based on a genetic profile, and parents actively designing their children to be certain things like doctors or gymnasts.

I'm skeptical that there's anything you could do to make a baby predisposed to be a good doctor specifically.

IQ is part of someones genetic profile, and it affects SAT scores, and SAT scores effect college admission, and what college you go to is a par of job selection. None of that sounds terrible to me.


Mucking around with how people are put together is a very special case - a lot of where you go in life is partially determined by genetics. Genetic engineering will entrench a social view that your genetics should determine your path through life.

I think people naturally reject that kind of determinism on a visceral level.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why do you think it's possible for their to be a genuine artificial intelligence?

I'm not sure it is, but the worst outcome would be that we stumble on it.


Yes it has. What are the serious economic and social problems and how serious are there?

It seems they were bound to have problems anyway, simply from needing a one child policy.

For one thing, they have a building bubble because parents build their sons big houses to attract women; they have serious labour shortages in some areas, especially agriculture; aforesaid housing bubble is fueling a credit bubble; looming social unrest is a concern and so is elderly care, because parents are generally looked after by their sons and daughters in law.

Then you have the very human problem that many men will die unwed, childless, and alone.


I'm skeptical that there's anything you could do to make a baby predisposed to be a good doctor specifically.

IQ is part of someones genetic profile, and it affects SAT scores, and SAT scores effect college admission, and what college you go to is a par of job selection. None of that sounds terrible to me.

There are certain traits, empathy, lack of empathy, mathematical or linguistic ability, which predispose a person to certain careers - some of that ability is innate.


I think people naturally reject that kind of determinism on a visceral level.

They do now, but there's no special reason to believe they will once you make "aristocracy" a genetic reality.

The individual worth of a human life is a concept which has not been popular throughout history.

[Montmorency]

I'm not sure it is, but the worst outcome would be that we stumble on it.


Ourselves...

[SoFarSoGood]

It's a step to a new eugenics - no!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm not sure it is, but the worst outcome would be that we stumble on it.

I don't see a reason to think it's possible, don't think it's something that can be stumbled upon either...




For one thing, they have a building bubble because parents build their sons big houses to attract women; they have serious labour shortages in some areas, especially agriculture; aforesaid housing bubble is fueling a credit bubble; looming social unrest is a concern and so is elderly care, because parents are generally looked after by their sons and daughters in law.

Then you have the very human problem that many men will die unwed, childless, and alone.


I'm not sure this stuff isn't mostly cultural or a result of population pressures already in existence. Anytime you have a one child policy elderly care is going to be a problem. We had our own housing bubble. Marriage requirements are cultural.

I don't see why they wouldn't adjust now that they've seen the difficulties.

My objection is to phrases like "looming social unrest" being thrown around willy-nilly.



There are certain traits, empathy, lack of empathy, mathematical or linguistic ability, which predispose a person to certain careers - some of that ability is innate.



In a crude way that we already select for, yes. But I don't see why we should imagine a future in which when you apply for a job they take a dna sample and run it through a computer or something.


They do now, but there's no special reason to believe they will once you make "aristocracy" a genetic reality.

The individual worth of a human life is a concept which has not been popular throughout history.

We've already had societies where we believed that people were justly aristocrats based on birth. We've rejected that harshly. It would take a lot to reverse that.

It's a conceivable sci-fi scenario that genetically designed people take all of the best jobs and such--we already filter strongly for IQ--but not it would change the basic values of our society. We already have athletic celebrities, and singer celebrities, and beauty celebrities, and intelligence celebrities. If they all started from upper class families they would, like, commit fewer dumb crimes or something. Maybe actresses and athletes would have higher iq's. Bonus.

I guess I would put the problems you suggest in to two groups. One group is problems that I don't think would arise, and another is problems we already have*. And you skip over the human factor of parents getting the ability to choose--to be able to have just two kids if they want a boy and a girl, instead of having a third or fourth that they can't really support. And you skip over all the terrible things that could be done away with.

I still can't believe you said that about any inequality being bad...

**************

*There is already enough human variance for a separation between "elites" and "underclass". We have a lot of problems with the elites--their contempt for "ordinary" people or their fake-concern that is really about their own ideological causes, their support for things like vastly looser drug laws and social mores that the upper class can deal with easily but cause a lot of problems for the "underclass"...but I don't see how preventing rich people from becoming smarter is any kind of solution for that.

[Tuuvi]

In a crude way that we already select for, yes. But I don't see why we should imagine a future in which when you apply for a job they take a dna sample and run it through a computer or something.

The problem isn't that employers would start genetically screening their potential recruits. The problem is that, over a few generations, the rich would be able to weed out undesirable traits, becoming smarter and more capable than those who couldn't afford pre-natal genetic screening. The poor wouldn't be able to compete with the rich, and social mobility would be greatly reduced.

Historically, the superiority of the elite was only perceived. If genetic screening/modification were to become a reality (and not subsidized), the superiority of the elite would become genetic fact.


*There is already enough human variance for a separation between "elites" and "underclass".

This is assuming that the capable and the incapable are already well sorted into rich and poor. I don't think this is the case, because there are plenty of factors that aren't related to ability that affect one's station in life.

Ironically if we were able to achieve 100% social mobility, a genetic division between the upper and lower classes would naturally occur. But I think it would be more fair to leave it up to nature/chance than to money.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The problem isn't that employers would start genetically screening their potential recruits. The problem is that, over a few generations, the rich would be able to weed out undesirable traits, becoming smarter and more capable than those who couldn't afford pre-natal genetic screening. The poor wouldn't be able to compete with the rich, and social mobility would be greatly reduced.

Historically, the superiority of the elite was only perceived. If genetic screening/modification were to become a reality (and not subsidized), the superiority of the elite would become genetic fact.



This is assuming that the capable and the incapable are already well sorted into rich and poor. I don't think this is the case, because there are plenty of factors that aren't related to ability that affect one's station in life.

Ironically if we were able to achieve 100% social mobility, a genetic division between the upper and lower classes would naturally occur. But I think it would be more fair to leave it up to nature/chance than to money.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/83027326@N00/1114002952/

Fact is a lot of the highest paying jobs do require a lot of intelligence. Especially now that we do less manufacturing.

And genetic is only the start--upbringing has a large effect as well, and wealthy people do a better job, and not just because they have money for private schools but because they have kids after marriage, stay married, are less alcoholic, etc.

I don't think it's true that the superiority of the elite was only percieved in the past, it was just exaggerated, and an incorrect explanation was believed.

Essentially we can either try our hardest to hold back the elite, and attack anyone who suggests that their position is legitimate...or we say that the elite is here to stay, always has been, and hammer home the point that they have a responsibility that comes with their position.

Libertarianism is the enemy not genetic designs. And the dumb ideas of liberalism too.

And still, the obvious benefits and the practical certainty that some of the genetic stuff would be subsidized for everyone makes most of this moot.

[Tuuvi]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/83027326@N00/1114002952/

Fact is a lot of the highest paying jobs do require a lot of intelligence. Especially now that we do less manufacturing.

And genetic is only the start--upbringing has a large effect as well, and wealthy people do a better job, and not just because they have money for private schools but because they have kids after marriage, stay married, are less alcoholic, etc.

Well yea this is what I was getting at.


I don't think it's true that the superiority of the elite was only percieved in the past, it was just exaggerated, and an incorrect explanation was believed.

I won't argue with this.



Essentially we can either try our hardest to hold back the elite, and attack anyone who suggests that their position is legitimate...or we say that the elite is here to stay, always has been, and hammer home the point that they have a responsibility that comes with their position.

I'm not trying to hold back the elite, and I'm not suggesting their position is illegitimate or ill-earned. That's why I've been using the term Social Mobility. I'm starting to feel like you're arguing with assumptions you've made about my political outlook, instead of what I wrote.

Anyway I already addressed this point: "This is assuming that the capable and the incapable are already well sorted into rich and poor. I don't think this is the case, because there are plenty of factors [like you just said] that aren't related to ability that affect one's station in life.

Ironically if we were able to achieve 100% social mobility, a genetic division between the upper and lower classes would naturally occur. But I think it would be more fair to leave it up to nature/chance than to money."


And still, the obvious benefits and the practical certainty that some of the genetic stuff would be subsidized for everyone makes most of this moot.

I dunno if we can be so certain about that.

[HoreTore]

Even if sex ratios become wildly skewed?

Why on is that a concern, or even a negative?

We'll find a way to cope.

For me, it's more of an economic issue. This kind of thing generates nonincome while having a cost, meaning that I'm against it. However, if the cost is low, I don't really care. If the cost is big, then I'm against it.

Oh, and I'm talking about cost, as in the money and resources needed, not whether that money comes from taxes or the parents pockets.

[Vladimir]

Why on is that a concern, or even a negative?

We'll find a way to cope.

For me, it's more of an economic issue. This kind of thing generates nonincome while having a cost, meaning that I'm against it. However, if the cost is low, I don't really care. If the cost is big, then I'm against it.

Oh, and I'm talking about cost, as in the money and resources needed, not whether that money comes from taxes or the parents pockets.

Looks like an argument to use against global warming.

[Moros]

Absolutely against. I don't know why one would even want to. Checking wether a baby has a serious illnes, genmutation,... and possibly fixing that would be okay in my book.

Sex selection however should be illegal, just as genetic designing.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I say no, fixing genetic disorders is one thing, but the sex of your child is not a problem. Treating it as if it is one crosses my personal line of what is reasonable and ethical.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why on is that a concern, or even a negative?

We'll find a way to cope.

For me, it's more of an economic issue. This kind of thing generates nonincome while having a cost, meaning that I'm against it. However, if the cost is low, I don't really care. If the cost is big, then I'm against it.

Oh, and I'm talking about cost, as in the money and resources needed, not whether that money comes from taxes or the parents pockets.

A better question - why allow people to select the sex of their children.

It's not like we're so antiquated that your property reverts to the King if you can't produce a male heir.

[HoreTore]

A better question - why allow people to select the sex of their children.

It's not like we're so antiquated that your property reverts to the King if you can't produce a male heir.

Simply because everything should be legal unless we find good reasons to illegalize it.

[Montmorency]

Skewed sex ratios are a matter of national security, as is gross inequality (even in true aristocracies or kleptocracies). The risk must be taken seriously and evaluated.

I find that sort of cavalier attitude to be improper in general, and here in particular...

[a completely inoffensive name]

Simply because everything should be legal unless we find good reasons to illegalize it.

No, this is wrong headed. We cannot have "allow" be the the default status, because very often we simply have no idea of the long term or even the short term repercussions of legalizing said action. There are legitimate complaints raised regarding long term social complications and until those are addressed, the libertarian sound byte of "it doesn't harm anybody else" just doesn't cut it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Simply because everything should be legal unless we find good reasons to illegalize it.

Hedonism is no way to run a state - I could say that no action should be taken without justification and I would be just as right.

However, I don't have to. If this were legal is would be abused as evidenced by India and China, and the preponderancy in the Western world for families with large numbers of daughters or sons.

Abortion was legalised to prevent desperate women from going to back-alley quacks, but now women consider that they have a "right" to abortion "just because".

Sex selection will be just the same, bad enough that people jump into bed with whomever they please and then just dispose of the resulting "accident" like so much offal - introducing the concept of an actual choice, as though children were a product you selected at the supermarket.

That is actually a regression, back to the period of infanticide and selective breeding which I would have thought any true progressive would want to avoid.

[HoreTore]

No, this is wrong headed. We cannot have "allow" be the the default status, because very often we simply have no idea of the long term or even the short term repercussions of legalizing said action. There are legitimate complaints raised regarding long term social complications and until those are addressed, the libertarian sound byte of "it doesn't harm anybody else" just doesn't cut it.

That qualifies as a "good reason to illegalize it".

I don't see it, however. For me, the only issue is the cost.

[Strike For The South]

That qualifies as a "good reason to illegalize it".

I don't see it, however. For me, the only issue is the cost.

A large group of angry, unemployed, lonely young men. WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG

[Montmorency]

Abortion was legalised to prevent desperate women from going to back-alley quacks, but now women consider that they have a "right" to abortion "just because".

Sex selection will be just the same, bad enough that people jump into bed with whomever they please and then just dispose of the resulting "accident" like so much offal - introducing the concept of an actual choice, as though children were a product you selected at the supermarket.

I have no emotional revulsion to any of that, yet the inevitable shift in cultural values should this be permitted freely and normalized is also a matter for deep consideration. 'Stike a balance?' Inconceivable.

It's why I so often feel as though committing suicide as a species after creating and proliferating a new sentient race might just be simpler than managing 'morality' over the long term, from a policy and governance perspective. I mean, we're not even taking into consideration all the technological developments that will obtain other than genetic engineering, and how they will interact with our society and the presently mooted advances - particularly those in the area of neurophysiological manipulation. I have a feeling those will prove to be more decisive in whatever is to come.


I don't see it, however. For me, the only issue is the cost.

Clearly, there would arise a new industry to handle the demand. Thousands would be employed. Your "generates nonincome" clause is not fulfilled. To what extent would you restrict plastic surgery?

This sort of metric is flawed; cancer and obesity are said to be harmful to society, despite providing paychecks to millions around the globe.

[Papewaio]

It might mean more of the third gender... :smoking:

[a completely inoffensive name]

This sort of metric is flawed; cancer and obesity are said to be harmful to society, despite providing paychecks to millions around the globe.

Wouldn't those millions be paid for their job even if there was no cancer or obesity? There is no shortage of diseases to tackle.

[HoreTore]

Clearly, there would arise a new industry to handle the demand. Thousands would be employed. Your "generates nonincome" clause is not fulfilled. To what extent would you restrict plastic surgery?


First of all, the n between "no" and "income" was a typo... Anyhoo, the creation of an industry, employment etc does not equal "generating income". The number of jobs is wealth redistribution, the content of said job determines whether or not it creates an income.

[HoreTore]

A large group of angry, unemployed, lonely young men. WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG

It's precisely because I don't see how this will create a "large group of angry, unemployed, lonely young men" that I can't see much wrong with it.

[Montmorency]

Wouldn't those millions be paid for their job even if there was no cancer or obesity? There is no shortage of diseases to tackle.

Those hundreds of billions "lost" in medical costs go to someone...Anyway, without cancer and obesity, quite a few pandemic chronic conditions are nearly wiped out.


Anyhoo, the creation of an industry, employment etc does not equal "generating income".

Wages are income, or are they not?


The number of jobs is wealth redistribution, the content of said job determines whether or not it creates an income.

?

This is unclear. Are you referring to government subsidies? At any rate, I maintain that if profits and wages are created, an income is created - there isn't really a distinction.

[HoreTore]

Wages are income, or are they not?

Short answer: no.



?

This is unclear. Are you referring to government subsidies? At any rate, I maintain that if profits and wages are created, an income is created - there isn't really a distinction.

Longer answer:

Let's say you hire someone to move a rock from one end of town to the other. The following day, he will carry the rock back. It serves no other purpose, all that is done is move one rock from one place to another, before moving it back.

You can pay the man as much as you want for it, the total amount of income generated is still zero.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have no emotional revulsion to any of that, yet the inevitable shift in cultural values should this be permitted freely and normalized is also a matter for deep consideration. 'Stike a balance?' Inconceivable.

People are, as a group, stupid, lazy and selfish. At this point in general the vast amount of stuff we invent is basically useless.

iPads? Pointless, learn to write shorthand.

TV remote? get off your fat arse and press the button.

Forget emotional revolution - look at it logically. We waste, and I do mean waste, technical expertise at one end giving women over 40 babies they would have been better off having twenty years ago and at the other end we abort perfectly healthy feoti carried by rudely healthy 16 year-olds.

Our society spends a lot of time wasting time and resources - from the consultant telling you how to to streamline your business (the answer is always "don't outsource") to the personal trainer for the rich fat guy who is employing someone to tell him to go for a run.

I'm against abortion in principle, but beyond that I am disgusted at the number of childless couples we have, the amount they are encouraged to waste on IVF (often doesn't work) when there are not only thousands of children in care, there are some who aren't even allowed to be born.

The idea of sex-selection is just the next logical step on turning children into a commodity - and if children are a commodity you have to wonder what that makes the rest of us.


It's why I so often feel as though committing suicide as a species after creating and proliferating a new sentient race might just be simpler than managing 'morality' over the long term, from a policy and governance perspective. I mean, we're not even taking into consideration all the technological developments that will obtain other than genetic engineering, and how they will interact with our society and the presently mooted advances - particularly those in the area of neurophysiological manipulation. I have a feeling those will prove to be more decisive in whatever is to come.

This assumes they will change society at all.

We banned infanticide exutero and made it a crime - a few hundred years later we not only legalise infanticide inutero we sanitise it and declare it socially acceptable in a way exutero never was.

At best we're seeing social stasis.

If you want to kill yourself, that's your business though.


Clearly, there would arise a new industry to handle the demand. Thousands would be employed. Your "generates nonincome" clause is not fulfilled. To what extent would you restrict plastic surgery?

This sort of metric is flawed; cancer and obesity are said to be harmful to society, despite providing paychecks to millions around the globe.

A large surplus of men generally leads to war, an increase in male homosexuality, and/or social collapse. A surplus of women leads to infidelity and a more widely accepted (and/or cheaper) sex-trade.

People are people - men want women and women want men (by and large) a lack of this vital resource is just a bad thing, end of.

[Montmorency]

You can pay the man as much as you want for it, the total amount of income generated is still zero.

For the civilization as a whole, you wish to claim thus.

On the other hand, it is clearly a personal financial income for the man who carried a rock. The sum of the incomes of these rock carriers is nothing to sneeze at and constitutes a significant economic indicator. You might consider them not to be creating value, but daddy is getting paid and that can't be discounted out of hand.

You would see plastic surgery restricted, I take it.

[Montmorency]

If you want to kill yourself, that's your business though.

Otherwise, our creation would necessarily need to waste time killing us ( Cf. PVC on AI)

[HoreTore]

For the civilization as a whole, you wish to claim thus.

On the other hand, it is clearly a personal financial income for the man who carried a rock. The sum of the incomes of these rock carriers is nothing to sneeze at and constitutes a significant economic indicator. You might consider them not to be creating value, but daddy is getting paid and that can't be discounted out of hand.

You would see plastic surgery restricted, I take it.

What I described is basically an unemployment benefit.

So no, it is not an income, it's simply wealth redistribution, as I said in my previous post.

Also, I'm a socialist, it should be pretty damn clear that my stance is "screw the individual, the only thing that matters is society as a whole". It's what I'm indoctrinated to think.

[Montmorency]

So no, it is not an income. Also, I'm a socialist, it should be pretty damn clear that my stance is "screw the individual, the only thing that matters is society as a whole". It's what I'm indoctrinated to think.

Pensions are a personal income, as are other benefits. An earning is an income, on this scale.

You've just spent the past few months on a libertarian bend, and denied that you were a collectivist when I referred to you as one. All of a sudden, you want to be seen as a doctrinaire Commie? :shrug:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Otherwise, our creation would necessarily need to waste time killing us ( Cf. PVC on AI)

So you see why I'm not keen on AI.

[HoreTore]

Pensions are a personal income, as are other benefits. An earning is an income, on this scale.

You've just spent the past few months on a libertarian bend, and denied that you were a collectivist when I referred to you as one. All of a sudden, you want to be seen as a doctrinaire Commie? :shrug:

This is economics. I have never in my life denied that my economic thinking is based on collectivism. Also, there are certain things you start taking for granted when you belong to a particular ideology. That I refer to "income for a society" when I talk about "income" is among those for commies.

[Papewaio]

Pensions are just a form of social security for those who win the lottery of longevity. The orginal versions were based on harsher statistics so that the payouts were manageable by the rest of society. Nowadays instead of a few outliers outlasting retirement age a whole large portion of society does.

Only real solutions are: have a sliding scale for retirement age, increase automated care, stop paying pensions, invent the fountain of youth.

One of the very real options is to have voting attached to working age. You can vote from 18 to when you get pensioned off. Because at some point unless we get an aged health care revolution equivalent to the food source green revolution we are going to have a very small working population looking after an elderly one.

I don't think it is fair to have the workers not have the benefits of their work... I think that is one of the few areas communism and capitalism might agree.

[HoreTore]

Pensions are just a form of social security for those who win the lottery of longevity. The orginal versions were based on harsher statistics so that the payouts were manageable by the rest of society. Nowadays instead of a few outliers outlasting retirement age a whole large portion of society does.

Only real solutions are: have a sliding scale for retirement age, increase automated care, stop paying pensions, invent the fountain of youth.

One of the very real options is to have voting attached to working age. You can vote from 18 to when you get pensioned off. Because at some point unless we get an aged health care revolution equivalent to the food source green revolution we are going to have a very small working population looking after an elderly one.

I don't think it is fair to have the workers not have the benefits of their work... I think that is one of the few areas communism and capitalism might agree.

Communism is based on the idea that workers should have the full benefits of their work, yes.

Anyhoo, as the life expectancy is pushed back, I find it natural that the retirment age is pushed back as well. It's 67 here today, it shiuld be pushed back to 70 asap, and then we'll take it from there.

I'll never support a decrease in voting rights, however.