SUBJ1

Of course genetic engineering is safe. It's just a matter of finding a safe way to do it.

Sex is an urge and the society expects us to control it, for males having children is rather irrelevant.

The Chinese do, and they manage it with heavy fines.

Genetic engineering is safe? There is no possible way we can know that. One more time, I do not think you appreciate the magnitude of a genome, nor the complexities of its expression. Throw in environmental/ecological interactions, and analysis is even less tractable. Taking risky, quite possibly far-reaching, steps based on unreliable projections is foolishness, to put it politely.

Unintended consequences can be a bitch.

"Males having children is rather irrelevant" ?? Bull. Not socially, not emotionally, and in most modern societies not financially.

Sex is one urge. Procreation is another, related but different.

Are you suggesting that we, wherever "we" are, should willingly adopt the Chinese model? Are you aware of the human suffering, the opportunities for authoritarian abuse there?

Central planning and micromanagement have a bad name, and for good reason. Tell us about the farming you've done, the livestock you keep, the children you have raised... I'll save myself some typing, and say "I didn't think so" right here.

Genetic engineering is safe. We can fall back to cloning.

"Bull." So do adopting parents get treated differently? No.

People in developed nations have far less children. Having children is attractive, but there is no "urge" beyond cultural. Humans don't even understand the mechanism to make children out of the box.

I am not suggesting that we adopt Chinese socialism, just pointing out that smacking a big fine on people who do criminal things does discourage them a lot. It is called enforcement.

If it's bad it's micromanagement, if it's good it's regulation.

Your saying so does not make genetic engineering safe. "We can always just fall back to cloning" is nothing but baseless hand-waving.

What type of regime will it be that criminalizes having babies?

Your saying so does not make genetic engineering safe. "We can always just fall back to cloning" is nothing but baseless hand-waving. What it does is it displays you are in denial. It is not at all an unreasonable assumption that there can be safe genetic engineering besides eugenics.

A regime that practices democracy, bringing many advantages.

Modified genes have already escaped into the wild, with effects that will not be known for a while. Even if you limit the discussion to engineering the human genome, there is still a risk of undesirable side effects. Assume it could be made safe; safe for what proportion of the population? How soon? At what cost?

I think you meant a regime that proclaims democracy. Plenty of examples of how that can go. Advantages to a small circle of friends, perhaps. Perhaps you believe you will be one of the select few?

Details aren't really significant. This exercise was designed to show that genetic engineering is desirable. If it becomes safe and available to a couple they will gladly use it. This will not leave their urges untreated and turn them into anarchists. In the light that eugenics is low-tech genetic engineering, why should a poorer couple reject eugenics?

What kind of benefits you think an Eugenics Party could deal out? Remember, Japanese pornography is not based on reality.