Two Boys And One Girl Please

Can you even begin to imagine what will be possible in two hundred years time.... Frankly, I think humans will need a new sort of conciousness going forward into a brave new world... In the meantime, squirm as I may, I cannot see how it will be avoidable... and yes this is just the start.

Funny that. I got asked exactly that tonight. And for the first time ever I told a complete stranger to * off. So.

So I guess you're psychic.

But he didn't know what an asterix was.

Well there's ONE good reason for choosing a female.

"So should couples be allowed to decide which gender their kids should be? Is this manipulation of the human race a move too far?" In answer to the original question: "No" to the first one and also "No" to the second one. I don't in principle object to something on the grounds that it takes us an increasing distance from our original natural state, if scientists could do something clever to babies before they were born to prevent them getting cancer or Alzheimers in later life, that would be a good thing. But I think being able to choose the gender of your child is a bad thing. Partly because of the China stuff and partly because it encourages parents to think of children as products rather than human beings. And once parents have imposed a gender on a child, they'll have nine months to plan out the rest of the poor thing's life. Some families may agree arranged marriages while the happy couple are still in the womb. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how people (or wealthy people, at least) can be prevented from doing it if they want to. Even if it was banned here, it's bound to be legal in Switzerland.

>> ..I don't in principle object to something on the grounds that it takes us an increasing distance from our original natural state, if scientists could do something clever to babies before they were born to prevent them getting cancer or Alzheimers in later life, that would be a good thing. << But here lies the genesis of the problem that will face human kind in the future. This manipulation of nature appears to be a good thing on the surface, and no doubt it is in certain areas, but the long-term effects of our 'interference' are already beginning to manifest themselves. The ratio of old, sick people to healthy ones is closing by the year. There are not enough homes for those we have now, and many of the inhabitants are suffering degenerative diseases that they wouldn't have lived long enough to develop a 100yrs ago. Is there really any good reason to keep old people suffering from Alzheimers disease, among others, alive at the expense of providing good care for younger people? My mother-in-law (I use the term loosely) has recently had a stroke and is practically paralysed head to foot. She can't speak but has communicated that she wants to die. The authorities have placed her in a home and do everything they can to keep her alive! What the fuck for? It's OK juggling nature to rid the planet of certain diseases but if the end result is to suffer from another equally debilitating complaint it's better to spend the time and effort on giving people the chance of a painless, quick end to what is otherwise a living death. Nature has always managed to balance the planet quite adequately without our arrogant intervention, which so far has brought nothing but disaster on Earth. OK, that's probably a bit too simple but you get my drift.

We can't change the natural order. We may think we can, but nature always finds a way, and we remain grotesque.

Thom Yorke sums it up nicely in "Fake Plastic Trees." He used to do surgery For girls in the eighties But gravity always wins.