Post: #1

http://roo.sh/fm

For starters I was amazed this is actually legal in the US after all the squawking under Bush over stem cells, but the implication of this for the future is rather bleak.

Given that women are poor producers and excellent consumers, I can see a general trend towards reproductive selection for girls in a society where there aren't enough jobs to go around and the economy is primarily based on breeding people stupid enough to buy endless amounts of clothes and electronics that they don't need. Throw in a good measure of government subsidized paper pushing make-work jobs that only go to women, and you've got a perfect economic circle-jerk.

I think if HG Wells wrote the Time Machine today, instead of the future being populated by midget retards, it'd instead be the evolutionary product of 800,000 years of fat women being maintained by ancient machines designed to supply them with designer cupcakes.

[Roosh: Your link wasn't working for some reason but shortening it helped.]

Post: #2

Your projection is unhinged and incoherent.

I think sex selection in this instance is a good thing. At birth, the ratio of boys to girls is 105:100 - if people going to clinics are opting to select girls more than boys, then they're doing their little part to right the ratio - though I'm sure the numbers are so small that it's irrelevant.

I'm familiar with pre-genetic diagnosis, and I came up with a simple regulation for maintaining gender balance: Require every couple to find another couple who would have a baby of the opposite sex. In a place like China, this might the family wanting a son must pay off the other family, so be it. Given the prevalence of boys at birth, this regulation would only be needed in countries where most customers would opt for sons. For a place like China where the sex ratio is already so skewed, I'd require each couple wanting a boy find *two* couples willing to have a girl. This might even have the effect of raising the status of men to status objects, as intrinsically more valuable , because of the cost associated with getting one.

Gattaca was a stupid movie. Or smart in that it illuminated how stupidly people think about such matters. The world has always been like 'Gattaca.' It's close to impossible to become a pro-NBA player without being very tall and very athletic. And those traits are very much influenced by one's genes. You don't need a fucking DNA test to discriminate against people on the basis of their genes, especially when genes are worse indicators than real world tests, like a forty yard dash.

Post: #3

I am of the opinion that couples can choose whatever gender they would like their children to be. We don't need any more legislation and also, it says in the story that the woman was only distraught after having three boys without a girl. I've heard of many men doing the same thing with wanting boys. They kept on having children until they had one so they now have 4 girls and a boy.

Preferably, each couple would have an even number of male and female children but many times, it does not work out that way.

And Basil, the only reason why there's a gender imbalance in China is due to the one-child policy which although effective at curbing the birthrate and stabilizing the nation's growth, will also cause it to hit the same socio-economic wall that Japan hit in the early 90s.

Post: #4

(09-18-2012 08:41 PM)Icepasian Wrote:  And Basil, the only reason why there's a gender imbalance in China is due to the one-child policy which although effective at curbing the birthrate and stabilizing the nation's growth, will also cause it to hit the same socio-economic wall that Japan hit in the early 90s.

No, India suffers from the same problem. One child policy or not, if there's a strong preference for males, access to abortions and sex selection will yield skewed sex ratios among infant populations.

You've fallen victim to the 'Everyone's Really an American' Fallacy: Whereby Americans believe people around the world to be Americans deep down, who want to have the same things and behave the same way as Americans do. This fallacy is responsible in whole or part for current American entanglements in Libya, Egypt, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sure, in Western countries, giving people free rein to select their offspring's sex might not be so bad. But not everyone is Western, and non-Westerners may act differently in ways that make freedom in this area problematic.

As for the 'socio-economic wall' - yes, Japan has not had much growth. But they're still well off. They have the most Michelin starred restaurants in the world.

Mainstream economists say some pretty retarded things, and one of them is how they constantly obsess over general economic growth. For instance, you'll hear them talk about how immigration is essential to growth in GDP. In reality, this is all nonsense, because the real, per person GDP is stagnant or falling in many cases where growth is supposedly occurring. 3% GDP growth is nice, except when there's 1% population growth per year and 3% inflation.

One of the reasons for America's relative prosperity was the abundance of land relative to the population. A reduced population means more land for the people left, less drain on resources, and greater power for wage-earners relative to landowners.

Post: #5

I hardly think it's unhinged to see this causing trouble down the line. For starters, we've already seen that having artificial selection for gender causes social problems (ex. China and India selectively aborting for boys).

Secondly, at this point while it's only rich yuppies with mental problems dropping $50k to ensure they get the child they want, eventually technology is going to advance to the point where this is cheap enough that it'll become routine. It's already routine in India and China simply because there's less stigma against abortion and they don't bother with expensive fertilization procedures.

Thirdly, remember that one of the most common complaints on this forum is that men have no say in the childbearing process. If women prefer having daughters over sons in our society, there's not much their husbands/sperm and paycheck donors can do about it.

Post: #6

(09-19-2012 01:15 AM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  I hardly think it's unhinged to see this causing trouble down the line. For starters, we've already seen that having artificial selection for gender causes social problems (ex. China and India selectively aborting for boys).

Secondly, at this point while it's only rich yuppies with mental problems dropping $50k to ensure they get the child they want, eventually technology is going to advance to the point where this is cheap enough that it'll become routine. It's already routine in India and China simply because there's less stigma against abortion and they don't bother with expensive fertilization procedures.

Thirdly, remember that one of the most common complaints on this forum is that men have no say in the childbearing process. If women prefer having daughters over sons in our society, there's not much their husbands/sperm and paycheck donors can do about it.

It's relatively easy to regulate. Instead of banning it entirely, or severely restricting it, make a market like I proposed, where people will end up paying someone else in order to have children of the sex they desire.

As for men having no say, maybe when you're impregnating trashy chicks outside of marriage. Within marriage, I don't think it's quite so bleak for most couples. And again, the law could require consent from both parties.

Maybe these laws wouldn't be put into place. I just think it's premature to get into all these apocalyptic scenarios over something that has yet to be problematic, and can be easily remediated if you keep an open mind and don't just reflexively scream "GATTACA! GATTACA! OHNOES!!!!" Which is what the mainstream press and public does every time such matters come up.

When it gets a solid following among yuppies, when they can get a leg-up for their kids in their $30k a year preschool, you'll start to see them evaluate it more rationally.

Post: #7

Reminds me of Brave New World..

Post: #8

This is the greatest news I've ever heard--imagine a future full of tons of girls frantically losing weight and makeuping like hell to compete for the scarce supply of men. My 40s will be much more fun than my 20s.

Post: #9

(09-18-2012 08:29 PM)basilransom Wrote:  Gattaca was a stupid movie. Or smart in that it illuminated how stupidly people think about such matters. The world has always been like 'Gattaca.' It's close to impossible to become a pro-NBA player without being very tall and very athletic. And those traits are very much influenced by one's genes. You don't need a fucking DNA test to discriminate against people on the basis of their genes, especially when genes are worse indicators than real world tests, like a forty yard dash.

I don't think you really got the message the movie was trying to convey.

The point of the movie was that even if you could select for physical characteristics, non-physical traits like perseverance, spirit, courage and willpower can't be so easily identified in a lab.

And that those are the traits that ultimately determine greatness.

So sure, to follow your example, you could manufacture a "perfect" NBA player in a lab.

But it's highly unlikely that physical perfection would enable him to achieve greatness like Jordan or Kobe, etc... History is rife with examples of incredibly physically gifted players who squandered their talent.

The heart of a champion can't be identified in a DNA test.