Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zen_tom
I doubt this will ever be the case, it will always be cheaper and easier to have children in the natural way, without resorting to fiddling about with genes etc. Screening for various diseases etc may be viable, but again, I don't see that having an effect, except perhaps by narrowing the ranges of diversity in the population.
|
When we have reliable in-vitro pregnancy, it will be easier to have children the non-natural way. There are ... species survival problems with that.
Lets assume we have the GeneBlaster 2000. You put a drop of blood onto a sensor, and it takes your genes and quickly generates a chromosome map.
A certain percentage of your gene's will be 'known' to medical science. The GeneBlaster 2000 will look up those gene's online (or in a local database), and tell you which chromosome they come from, and what the suspected and known effects of that gene are. More importantly, it can tell you what the
difference between your two chromosomes are.
So, now you have a system that tells you, roughly, what the effects of given random chromosome is. (very rough, however).
If you make a child with chromosome17a, they'll end up with 5% more muscle mass than chromosome17b, on average.
Now, all you need is the ability to sort sperm or eggs based on having chromosome17a vs chromosome17b (which people already do for male vs female sperm), and for it to be cheap.
Raising a child costs as much as buying a home. Westerners spend
alot on children -- a small enough pre-birth cost that could have a large impact on your child
will be used.