Carl writes:
>It is of interest to consider what traits are worth selecting for. ...
>(3) The trait should not be a positional good. ... Better to just
>not let it get started by banning selection for height.
This is a solid argument, but the tricky part is that most goods that
have a positional component also have substantial functional components
as well. So as usual, "where do we draw the line?"
Height is attractive not just because of the possibility of a job as
a basketball player, but mainly because it is a signal of health and
nutrition in childhood, which correlates with lots of desirable
characteristics.
We already have a vast number of positional goods which we do not now
ban efforts at attaining. I think we need to better understand this
behavior before being very confident of the value of analogous bans
in new areas such as genetic choice.
Robin Hanson
hanson@econ.berkeley.edu http://hanson.berkeley.edu/
RWJF Health Policy Scholar, Sch. of Public Health 510-643-1884
140 Warren Hall, UC Berkeley, CA 94720-7360 FAX: 510-643-8614
Received on Thu Feb 26 18:33:57 1998
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 07 2006 - 14:45:30 PST