Chris Abraham

Mark Harrison argues that gender selection of fetuses is good for the world. “I say, bring on unnatural selection! It is the merger of biological evolution and cultural evolution. Culture and technology picking up elegantly where Malthusian factors are now failing us…”

Mark pointed me to an article on Slate.com, Lads or Lasses, that discusses parental gender choice for child birth. The Brits are into it. The article states: “Because of the preference for sons in China and India, the ratio of boys to girls has already been thrown off in those countries, in some places by as much as 140 to 100. Estimates suggest that nearly one in 10 female fetuses is aborted in India for reasons that have nothing to do with the health of the baby or the mother…”

Here is his argument in full:

“What’s so bad about India or China ending up with twice as many men as women? The ratio and the laws of supply and demand would probably increase the value of women in societies where women have traditionally suffered low status (the very reason that couples are now taking the opportunity to choose boy fetuses over girl fetuses…)”. With enough men competing for few enough women, the men will have to offer a pretty good deal to be the chosen one.

“And an added bonus will be a reduction in population growth with fewer women around to have babies; and those women who are available will probably be able to pick and choose the husband who will treat them with more respect - and perhaps even let her have control over her reproductive rights.”

“In the Western world, gender selection will probably have little or no effect on the gender ratio - the cultural ideal for the modern European mind is a balance of boy and girl children in the family. In misogynist cultures where girl children are undesirables and the overpopulation is a symptom of women having little control over their own reproductive capacities, gender selection could prove to be a wonderful thing for the few young women around fifteen years down the road.”