Saturday, June 12

Rant

There Are Some Magazines Man Is Not Meant To Buy

I've mentioned here before that New Scientist is the only magazine I still buy (or indeed, read) regularly. Back in the 80s and early 90s I bought and saved three magazines every month: Byte, Dragon, and Scientific American. I still have boxes full of each at home.

I still buy New Scientist because, although the information is available online, I'd have to spend a great deal of time digging it out. It's worth the few dollars I spend to have the staff of New Scientist to seek out the latest news and compile the magazine for me. I pay them to be editors, really, rather than writers.

Which is why it's particularly galling when their editors run off the rails. They're generally pretty good with science, a little weaker on environmental matters - there's a clear bias there that assumes that bad news is intrinsically more reliable than good news, and pretty much hopeless on politics, being a bunch of unreconstructed lefties.

But I still don't expect them to be pushing the hokey old line from Frankenstein that there are some things Man is not meant to know. And yet, this weeks editorial on choosing the gender of your baby, titled Boy or girl? Best leave it to chance, sums up as follows:

Increasingly, reproductive science is taking us beyond the limits of nature. On the grounds of safetey and the unknown societal impact such novel technologies could have, governments surely have a responsibility to regulate. Needless meddling is never good, but in this case drawing the line as to who can use the technology might be the least intrusive move of all.
So, when exactly did the secular European left align themselves with the reactionary Christian right? These people make the old Count Vorkosigan look enlightened.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 12:10 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.

1 The irony here being that Count Piotr would probably have been in favor of gender-selection? After all, the gender imbalance in China and India is being driven by traditionalism - the valuation of male heirs over female afterthoughts. I think you do the old would-be infanticide an injustice. Of course, he would recognize immediately that what is being offered is only a technological improvement of an old, dubious practice. Sigh. I sort of agree with the article's author that gender-selection is a socially unwanted behavior, but I can't agree with the recommended prescriptions. Education and propaganda would seem to be the proper response to superstition and long-term antisocial behavior. Bannings and harsh regulation always seems to have those down-sides, don't they? After all of the heroic social-minded efforts of the Chinese governmental abortionists, China is doomed in the near long-term to a simultaneously elderly and poor fate. "Unintended consequences" doesn't begin to describe the issue, I fear.

Posted by: Mitch H. at Saturday, June 12 2004 12:19 PM (iTVQj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
47kb generated in CPU 0.0658, elapsed 0.1711 seconds.
56 queries taking 0.1586 seconds, 347 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.