| « | Flouting The Law |
»
|
|
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Blue Vs….Pink?
Michael Williams poses an intriguing question:
For the libertarians out there, does the government have any business regulating when parents are allowed to select the gender of their children?...Does society have an interest in preserving a particular gender ratio (probably 50/50)? If so, should we empower the government to limit gender selection?
Michael presents a table of male-female ratios in a number of Islamic countries, notes the heavy imbalance toward males, and comments, "No wonder they're so grumpy." As Glenn Reynolds might say, "Heh. Indeed."
However, the problem stimulates other thoughts as well. For example: in poor countries, an advanced technology such as sperm sorting would be beyond the means of the great majority of persons. Yet it is precisely in poor countries where the economic value of a male child is highest, and the economic burden of a female child is felt most heavily. In wealthy societies, the economic aspects of gender have evened out, despite the rantings of the gender-war feminists, which would appear to negate the most powerful driver for sex-selection technology. So the major motivations for sex-selection would be the ones Michael calls "aesthetic considerations."
Fertility rates are so low in most Western countries that population growth is entirely due to immigration. Immigrants to our shores are principally from lands and cultures that still prize fertility. However, they're also normally unable to afford something as exotic as sperm sorting, and they would regard artificial insemination as, well, artificial. Given that American women are increasingly unable to conceive at all, due to having deferred childbearing till too late in their lives, will widely available sex-selection even make a mark on our demographics?
Let's imagine so, and that in consequence, an imbalance were to develop between the two sexes here in America. Given today's degree of economic equality between the sexes, could we expect market forces to play any part in the correction of such an imbalance? How bad would the imbalance have to get to persuade ordinary Americans to allow Washington to "ration" boy babies -- or girl babies, should the tastes of the populace trend in that direction?
The indicators are unclear. This is one to ponder, and to watch.
Comments
I’d bet that Western societies would overwhelmingly prefer girls. (That gender-war thing again. Artificial gametes are just over the horizon, which means that female reproduction in rich societies will no longer technically require the cooperation of men even as anonymous tissue donors. But even with artificial eggs, men won’t be able to bring a son to term without the cooperation of women.)
To the extent that it will matter (I hope, but also doubt, that it will) we can assume this effect will be counterbalanced by immigration from cultures that prefer boys.
Either way, it poses no special challenge to my libertarian instincts. In the absence of an extinction-scale crisis, it’s not a fit subject for government coercion. Moreover, I’d fully expect any actual government regulation which would be politically viable in the near-to-medium term to lean the WRONG way.
Posted by Matt on 08/17/2005 at 10:01 AMUltrasound scans will have an enormous effect on Chinese and Indian society, where it is not infrequently used to determine whether or not to abort the baby—usually if it’s a girl. According to the CIA World Fact Book, India currently has a male/female ratio of 1.06, and China’s is the same. Once all these young men start looking for wives (or even girlfriends) there are going to be lot of disappointed guys. I predict this will shake those societies to the ground, since the inescapable laws of supply and demand dictate that a scarce resource is highly valuable. This could turn traditions like dowries upside down. But what will they do with all those single young men while society adjusts to the new realities? Historically, this situation has led very frequently to wars of conquest.
Posted by on 08/17/2005 at 04:43 PMThanks for the trackback! If Matt’s right, I may be picking the wrong time to get married.... (just kidding, J).
Posted by Michael Williams on 08/19/2005 at 04:16 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
