"allowed positively to choose"
Who would decide what constitutes a catalogue of 'positive' attributes?
( Wet-chinned bag shanker Cannot parse Wogan, Wed 28 Sep 2011, 10:20, 1 reply)

"Positive" does not mean "desirable"
"Positive" means just that: that they should be able to add characteristics according to their preference.

That is: choosing negatively would refer to saying things like "I want a child who doesn't have characteristics x, y, and z"; choosing negatively would refer to saying things like "I want a child who does have characteristics p, q, and r".

Obviously, there'd be some constraint at the extreme - if you made a positive request for a harmful trait (eg Huntington's), that could be vetoed. But I don't see any problem with being able to choose for or against most other phenotypes. By and large, though, the criterion of desirability would be the parents' preferences: just about anything that is not harmful could go into the catalogue.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 28 Sep 2011, 11:00, closed)

Ah, I see. Misread the other post.
I can see what traits people would choose not to have (inherited disorders etc), but what kind of things would you choose to have?
My personal wish list would be:
Four arms, á la Goro from Mortal Kombat
A stinging tail
Pleasant smelling feet
A superhuman thirst for justice
( Wet-chinned bag shanker Cannot parse Wogan, Wed 28 Sep 2011, 11:48, closed)

Just had a thought ...
This technology would usher in a whole new era of teenage resentment. They could legitimately blame their parents for being ugly.
"You could have stopped this! I HATE YOU!"
( Wet-chinned bag shanker Cannot parse Wogan, Wed 28 Sep 2011, 11:52, closed)

This is true.
But, then again, teenagers managed to derive a cause from resentment from just about everything anyway, so I'm not sure that the difference would be noticeable...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 28 Sep 2011, 11:58, closed)

I think the problem there would be
that "positive" doesn't mean "good". eg Many cultures would think male or heterosexual are positive, rather than neutral, characteristics.

That said, I agree that (especially with our considerable knowledge of genetics) eugenics could be used for good in terms of getting rid of negative traits such as susceptibility to certain diseases, it's just the idea of giving anyone the power to say what is a negative characteristic is a scary thing.

Also, if someone wants a child with specific characteristics, I'd say they shouldn't be allowed a child in the first place, as that is the wrong reason to want one.

However, I think the major issue with eugenics is not "designer babies", but rather population control.

Ultimately, population control (ie global, rather than immigration) is something that will need to be addressed soon. It would be nice if people cared enough about the future of our species not to sprog so much, but I can't see people willingly stopping at two at any point soon, and so I imagine eugenics may end up an only solution.
( monkeon schmonkeon, Wed 28 Sep 2011, 16:18, closed)