I think you are overlooking the power of money. Given the extreme competition in the monied classes (both really rich and just professional) for getting kids into competitive situations (best schools, etc.), any means of improving their kids would probably be used. Once this sort of thing starts, it would turn into an arms race. As time went on, more and more extreme modifications would probably occur.

While the rest of the book goes on to try to prove that the initial setup won't work, the first chapter or two of "Beggars in Spain" talk about this: http://www.sff.net/people/nankress/books/beggars2/chap1.htm

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 10:27 am: Edit

I agree with John. Most parents want a better life for their children than they themselves had. Rather than saving for college, I could easily see families saving for that genemod which makes their child "better" in some way.

By John Kasper (Jvontr) on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 11:01 am: Edit

We looked at all of the schools in Pittsburgh before picking one to send our son to. When it closed a year later, we and some other parents got together with the teachers and created a new school. From zero to a licensed school in 60 days - don't try this at home. You don't want to think about the time, energy and money involved. Since, of course, both of my kids are perfect, I wouldn't retroactively change anything (well, hardly anything), but if I had the opportunity to make sure a new kid came out right, I surely would. And it would be worth a lot.

By Richard Brown (Richardb) on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 01:59 pm: Edit

John and Gary have hit the nail on the head. In a free society eugenics will start out with rich people eliminating birth defects. The trouble is how much below average is defective, and once you've eliminated the truly defective genes haven't you rased the average? Then eventualy you get people engenering there children to fit some sort of ideal no mater how impractical, because their parents think they will be beter off physicaly or socialy because of it. Of course people who can't afford this sort of modification will either lobby to have the government prevent it or pay for it for everyone, or they will be forced to take jobs that pay for and require post-natal genetic or cybernetic modification. Eventualy those who won't be modified will become a permenant underclass or they will rebel which is where the Eugenics Wars come in. The real question is whether, after centuries of genetic modification by several groups each with their own shifting ideals of the perfect human, you would have anything recognisable as human left.

By Jonathan McDermott (Caraig) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 01:49 am: Edit

There is an inherent fallacy to eugenics, in that, in any closed system of breeding, defects and recessive traits will become more and more apparent.

As it is now, harmful recessive traits are buried beneath a large number of dominant traits. These recessive traits -- including such things as sickle-cell anemia -- can become more and more present in offspring of a closed-genepool population. Without an influx of new genetic material into the pool, which includes new dominant traits to subsume the recesive traits, the pool must rely on mutation in order to evolve and maintain a viable genebase.

Now, this is the basis of eugenics. Gengineering, -- genetic engineering, that is -- theoretically can nullify this issue, in that the harmful recessive traits can be removed artificially and directly from the genepool.

Opinion: However, as it stands now I am not at all confident in our current level of genetic research to be able to properly prevent any number of genetic disorders and harmful recessive traits. I do not see the requisite knowledge coming to fruition within the next fifty years. Which means, of course, we're going to have some sort of commercial application of human eugenic gengineering within the next twenty-thirty years which will go spectacularly wrong. Please note, that I am not AGAINST genetic research, I think that there's a great deal of hope and promise in it. I *am* against the application of technologies developed from improperly-understood science especially when you're dealing with something as fundamental as the biological blueprint of humans.

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 03:23 am: Edit

Jonathan: don't go out too far on that limb.

You used 50 years as a benchmark. Consider the state of medicine 50 years ago, compared to today -- it is an entirely different ballgame. For an excellent example, compare the medical techniques shown on M*A*S*H (which was 50 years ago) to ER. I don't think I need to elaborate on the differences?

All mention of TLs aside, the practice of medicine as done NOW would be totally incomprehensible to someone from 50 years ago -- it would seem to be magic. And as for 50 years from now, I am pretty sure that in the year 2050, medicine will be doing things that I, a person who has been reading science fiction since I could read, can not imagine.

By Richard Brown (Richardb) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Jonathan: While your crituque of eugenics is accurate for clasic eugenics (the sort that was in vouge with some people at the turn of the last century), you neglect what can be acomplished by coupling eugenics with the sort of genetic screening which is curently possible. If you put your population through genetic screening for recesive defects you can then direct them to produce children in such a way that they renforce the desired traits without bringing out undesirable recesives. Include invitro fertilization and pre screening of embryo's and it becomes posible to conserve desirable traits while eliminating undesirable recesives altogether. This can actualy be done to some extent today, although we can only screen for a relative handfull of defects pre screening embryos from IVF is relatively easy. OTOH you might have trouble finding people willing to do it since this sort of activity is at best questionably ethical.

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 01:38 pm: Edit

Never mind the fact that basic husbandry (selective breeding) has been successfully used in agriculture for millennia to breed desirable traits into livestock and other domesticated animals. When recessive and undesirable traits manifested, those individuals were not allowed to breed further.

By Richard Brown (Richardb) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 02:45 pm: Edit

True. Of course controling the breeding of animals is easyer and more socialy acceptable than controling the breeding of humans.

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 03:11 pm: Edit

One other Eugenic pathway should be considered. If the level of technology to artificially eliminate harmful recessive trait appearance or harmful mutation does not exist, these could be treated medically. In other words you could eugenically breed humans whose traits specialize in a certain area (smart, strong, fast, climate adapted etc.)And then treat the manifestations of any negative mutations or recessive traits with compensating medicines.

By John Kasper (Jvontr) on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 03:37 pm: Edit

Wonders and miracles:

There is one particularly nasty version of leukemia that used to be 100% fatal in 3-6 months. They discovered it was caused by a single mutation that produced a malformed protein. A vaccine against that protein was invented. First stage human trials involved 30 people who expected to be dead in a month. 29 of them were cured. They may need another shot in a couple of years.

Congestive heart failure is caused by the heart muscle ceasing production of certain growth hormones. In dogs, they have injected viruses containing the genes for the hormones into their hearts and cured them.

Then there was the Bubble Boys over in France. They gave about 8 of these kids new immune systems. 6 were cured, 2 were sorta cured, but came down with leukemia.

I can't imagine what things are going to be like in 20 years, let alone 50. I have a 3-year old and a 7-year old. I wonder what my grandkids will be like.

By Jonathan McDermott (Caraig) on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 12:48 am: Edit

Gary: 50 years was my estimate to get the science and technology down *pat* with nothing ugly happening. Admittedly, it is very conservative, based in part on cynicism in the modern research establishment, legistlative control of research funds, and current state of intellectual property law. I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

However, I can see us attempting some stunning things in twenty-thirty years, before the technology has fully matured... but if others' posts above are accurate, then that time frame must be a lot shorter. I had not quite realized that genetic engineering had progressed quite so much.

Which brings up additional concerns....

Richard Brown: The ethics of science and techology is the main thing I am concerned about; I realize that Gattaca was w dystopian view of things, but I have no trouble seeing insurance companies and employers requiring genetic screening for their employees. ('Sorry, you can't work for us; genetic screening indicates you have a tendency towards high blood pressure and heart attacks.') Though I will admit that I am perhaps being overly cynical.

Randy Buttram: Animal husbandry has indeed been priven usable for breeding for specific traits, and in fact has produced entire viable species. However, it has also gone badly awry, in my opinion, mainly through human oversight. A good example is the purebreed German shepherd. The *pure* German shep has short, squat, extremely muscular hips because that's what the breed was, er, bred for. But German sheps have no end of hip problems, and many have to be put to sleep at a relatively early age because of hip displacement and related issues. (There is anecdotial evidence that points to purebreeds haveing a higher incidence of mental and emotional issues than mongrels, but I have found nothing definitive.) You can find other breeds of animals that have been bred for certain traits; these traits have been achieved, but at cost to the quality of life of these animals.

That being said, husbandry is a viable field of study and formed the basis of eugenics; however, it is not a social, ethical, or even practical way of approaching human genetics, though I know that is not what you were proposing.

Hugh Bishop: In such a society, then, it is possible that the genetic 'haves' will be at a distinct advantage, while the genetic 'have nots' will find themselves becoming an increasingly marginalized class. I would be very worried; the leadership factors of that society might decide that it isn't worth the cost to continually medically subsidize the genetic have-nots. THough that such a society could develop within the next few decades is virtually impossible.

Please forgive me if most of my comments have been overly negative. I am only attempting to defend and/or explain my statements, and I admit that having little faith in the human race at this time colors my responses; please take what I say with a few pounds worth of salt!

By Richard Brown (Richardb) on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 02:41 pm: Edit

Currently the sort of genetic screening depicted in GATTACA is illegal in the USA. That could change however. When costs for in virto fertilization drop enough I can easily see insurance companies pushing for genetic screening of embryos, just so they can reduce costs of paying for care of children with genetic disorders. This is something parents might go along with, after all who wants their child to grow up with chronic health problems. Ethicist, however, would likely be against this sort of screening because it's a slipery slope. No one would argue that screening for cleft palate would be a good thing after all, but what about screening out people who might be ugly and therefore need psycological counceling later in life, because they were teased as a child? Ethicist however are easily drowned out by insurers wanting to reduce costs and parents who want to insure perfect children. Then once the insurance has the genetic data on babies as they are conceived the privacy considerations behind the current laws are less relavant, the children never had the privacy we enjoy today so why protect it. From that GATTACA's distopia isn't too far away, unfortunately.

As to conflict between the genetic haves and have not's, that is the exact premise of Trek's Eugenics wars. Except in Trek at least some of the ubermen haves had extra ambition and arogance and thought they could take over the world instead of the have not's rebeling against being marginalized. The Trek (and presumably SFU) conclusion was the have not's won and thereafter the subject of species improvement was taboo for scientific research much as it has been in the real world from WW2 till recently (and still is in most scientific circles). There is no reason for the LGU to have this patern.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 02:51 pm: Edit

if you want another example, look at the effect that ultrasound has had in India and other nearby countries.

boys are prized, girls are a liability, ultrasound allows them to discover what the baby is early enough for an A****n to be done. result: a population VERY heavily skewed towards males. (over time this will balance out as these males compete for wives, but it will require a significant social change as well)

By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 02:55 pm: Edit

The Eugenics program that relies on medicine to conteract negative characteristics would probably be developed by governments or corporations that depended on the characteristecs being emphasized. The Smart guys would be placed in the R&D areas, the strong and fast people in the military/secruity areas or as laborers. The climate adapted individuals as colonists to extreme environments etc. Instead of an effort to improve the race overall, they would be used as tools to further the agendas of particular groups.

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 03:43 pm: Edit

What's scary is that I went to high school with a friend who had a dream to genetically men to live on the bottom of the ocean or on Mars, amongst other genetic changes. Now, most people lose that sort ofzeal once they hit college and learn what it really takes to do that sort of thing. Not my friend. He studied molecular and cellular biology in college and got an undergrad job as modifying flat worms for certain characteristics. After graduating with honors, he went to work for a group that was basically doing the same sort of research, just not with flatworms. Then, a couple weeks ago, I get an email from him saying that he's joined the Army and wants to be a tank commander. Now, I'm thinking, the Army is never going to let him get anywhere near a tank (he's slightly a klutz for one thing) after they hear what he's studied and what he wants to do. They're going to stuff him into a lab working on those sorts of things. Years from now, when we hear about genetically enhanced soldiers, I'll know who's responsible.

By Frank DeMaris (Kemaris) on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 04:01 pm: Edit

David: I hadn't heard that about India, but I do know that it's happening in China, in part because of the one-child policy. What scares me about that is that you soon (1 generation or so) find yourself with a lot of un-marriagable males. Does that sound to anyone else like the basis for a huge-ass army that's eager to fight?

By David Lang (Dlang) on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 04:09 pm: Edit

Frank 60 min did at least one story on it several years ago.

IIRC births are something like 90% male in some areas of the world.

eventually the idea of the brides family providing a dowry (and the grooms picking the best offer) will be replaced by the grooms providing the money and the brides (or their family, could almost get to slavery here) pick the best offer. that will turn their culture on t's head and will end up with the weomen either with a lot more power or as virtual slaves (more so then they are) eitehr way things will then start to balance out as greedy parents try to have more girls, a few ugly swings of the pendulm and things hopefully will settle into a sane situation

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 04:16 pm: Edit

All it takes is one generation of almost all males and things will start to boil over as there are too many men and not enough women. They've got to do someting...

By John Kasper (Jvontr) on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 09:16 am: Edit

Adding to that mess is the number of Indian and Chinese women staying here when they come for college. When I was in graduate school, *none* of the women in these groups (that I knew) planned to go back, while most of the men did.

By F. Douglas Wall (Knarf) on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 04:19 am: Edit

Klingons: I like the economic empire thing. Another way to give them more trade resources might be to have the Lyrans contact the Yitlians. The inevitable conflict could weaken them economically, leading to a "recovery effort" from the Klingons, making them essentially Klingon puppets.
On the SSD thing: How about just mixing around with existing ship types. Instead of trying to make a Klingon frieghter, take an existing frieghter and say that it's Klingon. Alter the points of introduction of the various ships or technologies as needed. For an economic Klingon Empire, switch the Security Station with the Company Store with much the same effect (Some kind of crew morale, efficiency, or revolt thing, I'm guessing). Economic dominance might just lead to economic slavery. Ever hear the song "I owe my soul to the company store"?

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 07:58 am: Edit

There isn't much difference between Klingon freighters and anyone elses. A F-S is basicly the same in any race's fleet, ditto all of the other various non-warship classes -- they're generic. A more important difference is whether a freighter is phaser-armed, drone-armed, or whatever.

As for the Security Stations on Klingon ships, they are there for a specific purpose: to keep the subject race crewmen under control. If the Klingon Empire's races were truly cooperative like the Federation, then it would make sense to get rid of the Security Stations completely -- but I would not replace them with anything else.

FYI, all US Navy ships (and most foreign ones) currently have at least one "ship's store" aboard them (one on DDs and FFs, several on CVNs) and I believe they have had them since before WWII.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 01:51 pm: Edit

Gary, on large ships the security stations take the place of flag bridge so if they are removed you will need to put flag on the command ships

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 03:29 pm: Edit

Maybe, maybe not. You've got to keep in mind that Security Station vs Flag Bridge is more or less a SFB damage allocation table issue, and may not be 100% applicable to GPD.

Klingons also use a different command structure than the Federation )or the USN, for that matter) so whether or not this happens is an issue SVC will have to address in GURPS KLINGONS.

In any event, we're talking alternate universe here, so there are as many different ways of doing it as there are people discussing it!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 04:11 pm: Edit

Replacing (Economic based) Klingon Security with Flag makes perfect sense. Only the Flag is where negotiations take place, among other things. Its where the Economic Executive is stationed.

If that is done then it would also make sense to replace Earth Empire Flag bridge with security.