27 replies to this topic

[Purple Library Guy]

Don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying the manga. It lets the author put together semi-random couples and have fun with them, allows some interesting character interactions. So you know, when I'm reading it I just take the premise as this silly thing that's a given and move on.

But really, this is the most horrible dystopian idiotic thing. And I just couldn't hold back any more from pointing it out. I mean, at the obvious level, of course it's authoritarian as all hell, which is pretty bad right there. But beyond that, it's nonsense on a stack of levels, from political to scientific to philosophical.
--Scientific: Genetics is not destiny, nature and nurture mix in odd ways; there is no possibe way you can look at someone's genes and say they will make a good romantic match for someone else. It's not just beyond the current state of the art, it's flat wrong, like saying you can decide who's a good romantic match by figuring out how their four humors balance (blood, phlegm, yellow bile, black bile).
--Children are not clones; brothers and sisters can be quite different from one another, and the variation is random. The "quality" of two different offspring of the same couple could vary widely, so how do you say categorically that the offspring of a given pair will be the best?
--Ignoring for a moment the next problem about what is "good", even if you had some basis for selecting breeding pairs for the genetic makeup of their offspring, I don't see why there'd be much correlation between that and romantic attraction.
--What is "superior" and "good" and stuff? This is the most serious problem. What's a superior being? A smart one? We can't even define intelligence! An athletic one? What kind? Big and strong? Quick and wiry? Fast sprinter? Endurance runner? Do we value strong will, maybe associated with aggression, or co-operativeness, maybe associated with docility or lack of originality? Do we value cheerfulness or wariness, persistence or flexibility, extroversion or introversion? Do we select for poets or accountants? How do we weight any of it? Ask ten people and you'll get ten (or more!) different takes on what should be aimed for. Which brings us to--
And who gets to decide, and what makes them so special they get to define "good" for the rest of the human race? Whoever's in charge, many will disagree with their criteria, and there's really nothing to say who's right. I can't imagine how anyone could be considered to have arrived at a genuine enough claim on defining this for it to be OK to have Big Brother arrange everyone's marriage.

But yeah, I know in the manga it's not an issue. It's just magic--they've got the Sorting Hat turned matchmaker. Even at that level I think it's a bit of a pity that not a single story rebels in any way, like nobody finds they have to buck the system because they're already in love with someone else.

[madelinelime]

Completely agree. Anyone who has filled out a lot of questions on OKCupid and then looked at the match results would agree with you, and that's only personality. lol

[ValorantX]

I agree with most of your points except it being authoritarian, you know they're pretty much free in deciding who they want to be with.....even in the latest chapter the main character arrived at the place with the intention of rejecting her.

[Hinanawi Tenshi]

I agree with most of your points except it being authoritarian, you know they're pretty much free in deciding who they want to be with.....even in the latest chapter the main character arrived at the place with the intention of rejecting her.

Agree, but I would like to expand on it abit. If we think of the bigger picture, this might not be a bad idea.

Wordwall ahead :V
with grammer pitfall
so shoo grammer nazis
I'm to lazy to check grammer to a large extent.

Japan has a declining birth-rate, which is attributed from several factors (mostly a finanacial & job attributed other factors also). This service offer finanacial & medical care. More or less this service seems to be a icebreaker throwing candidate based on genes.

As op mention gene matching doesn't really correlate to romanctic attraction, but if they do then you have a well-off child by computer standard. The plot may suggest the correlation of gene equals romance, however I don't think it fair to conclude this to early on. We have only seen 4 cases, at best he showing best incase scenerios. However if you look at every following couple you see the couples being less connected to the "choosen couple" at start. Author would most likely will not show the failing couple, but if he does it would have to be setup properly in the course of what couple they show or how he introduces it. The reason to why not is a matter of wha the authors goals. I won't expand on this to much, but short and simple version "would you want to turn your rom com into something depressing from the get go".

A superior being wouldn't it be the one that thrive best off the current situtation? If, so gene supply the physical nessisity to achieve it. How would they decide what combination to what combination. I don't know, plot hasn't expose and may never expose this much. I would presume it take the optimal part of gene that both party excel at and pair them on that basis with other consideration and such. The child would not neccessary be a "genius". I won't push the scientific aspect of whether gene dictate the mental spectrum from personality to whether they like oreos like their parents(that another debate to speculate on it own). However gene could give advantages to what the child could acheive a larger mental capacity, optimal body, enhanced reflexes, etc. The child chooses his future from what he want he may not become the "destined writer", and instead be a janitor from his own free will. I used free will as consideration to the aspect of external factor aside from gene. Analogy: In a online game that you wanted to play. They have a promtional event where if you play the recently released class you get milestones, limited edition items for that class, other gimmicks. As a player you may be attracted to what they want you to do, but ultimately you will decide the class that you most want to play. The gear they give you can come as a tool to further yourself with(npced :3).

A note is that they match candidate by maxmizing their gene capability.

Dystopia equate to opposite of utopia. Utopia is reffered to as the best of the best possible society. To see this as

this is the most horrible dystopian idiotic thing.

seems uncalled for. I hope to assume you just passed the 3-4 parts where they say they can reject it. This is simular to how your doctor says you should take this certain medicine. You don't have to take it or believe it will make you better, but it's recommended. I won't comment on the practice of medicine, since I know this can be debated highly. Medicine cost money, this service cost abit of one's time and probaly taxpayer money. If you are going to say it a waste of tax payer money I won't object or change your view on that. However as my first section suggested, It would seem appealing to many and society. The people in it don't object (oh wait case 5 seems to have the intention of rejection from start), if anything many seem enthusatic.

To op, nothing personal against you or your opinion, you can believe it dystopian like idea. But, I hope to entail you to an opposing view. I see where your coming from, but I believe you are focused to much on the fact of how they match people up and linking it to dystopia like. Rule of thumb for dystopia to making dystopia having "all" ruled by "one"(1984) or having to little rule(clockwork orange). Idea as mention by above poster is up to teh candidate to decide.

I didn't want to comment about op post. Why I bother putting these wordwall up, would be because no adequate reponse outlined why his point he made seem to miss the point or seem open ended. I believe everyone entitled to their own view. Critising an writer/mangaka is fine, but this seem like slandering of his idea and personally I think that's a shame if it was intended to slander the idea. Op has right to his opinion, if he want to continue to believe his oringinal post.
However, human I believe are everchanging physical and mental.
I can expand if you want. If you read this far thank you and I hope this was semi readable. I know this is the internet and this is a manga. Many would just ignore this post. Thank you for bothering to read it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Purple Library Guy]

Hinanawi Tenshi, I appreciate that you're putting thought into this and I'm also pleased in that I don't think you can have a real discussion without some difference of opinion. But I believe you are for the most part wrong; you have not significantly shifted my opinion, nor do I think I overstated the problem.

Before I get into the main thing--Japan has a declining birthrate. True enough. My basic reaction, "Good!" The world needs a declining birthrate and Japan is as good a place to start as any. "Solving" this "problem" in the name of continuing to have compounding annual economic growth rates is shortsighted. It certainly wouldn't be worth having a solution like this one, even if it worked which it couldn't.

Okay, first I'd like to note that yes, the claim does get made that the gene-matching results in optimum romantic matching as well. In the latest chapter there's a nice little summary of the credo, which actually sparked me to finally do this post I'd been mulling for a while. On the first page of the chapter it says:
"Humans are nothing more than a vessel for their genes. That's the depressing truth.
A theory stating that 'a couple who will give birth to genetically superior offspring . . . is the one with the best romantic affinity' is being advocated.
Therefore, everyone in the country has been supporting computer-selected couplings. The computer can predict the optimum couples. And thus . . .
When both parties are over 14 years old, they are contacted . . . "

Again, it is my opinion that much of this is nonsense on stilts. But leaving that for the moment,
-->So the claim is definitely that romantic affinity is being programmed for through genetic superiority.
The problem isn't just that this wouldn't work. Nor is it just violation of freedom of choice. The problem is that it's fundamentally incoherent. A scientist would say "That's not right. It's not even wrong!"
Whether people are a good romantic match is, while IMO very hard to predict, at least vaguely determinable, in some sense a real thing (Will they fall in love? Will they be good for each other's levels of happiness, self-esteem etc. if they do fall in love?). Even there it's pretty slippery and different cultures would have somewhat different opinions about what constitutes a good match, but at least there is some doubt to give the benefit of.
But "genetically superior offspring" is not a real thing at all. It is necessarily a concept with a meaning created by people. "Superior" is a human idea. Even evolution itself says nothing about optimal traits as such; what works depends on what the environment is like, and the environment varies and is subject to change. In parts of Japan right now, "superior" might mean "resistant to radiation damage" but in many places and times that's not an important trait. Furthermore, most traits have some kind of metabolic cost, so to be good at one thing you have to be not so good at another. Be more disease resistant, maybe you need to eat more. So which balance of traits, favouring disease resistance or favouring frugal consumption, is the one that's supposed to be "superior" and so be the one to aim for to make superior romantic couples? Then there's mental traits. I don't see how you can be claiming to influence couple affinity, which is all about mental and emotional makeup, without dealing with genetic factors claimed to relate to mental and emotional traits. But if you get into mental traits, you can't even define "better at" without making value judgments. Personally, I'm good at being a nail that sticks up--someone who calls things as I see them and has little patience for authority when it errs. I value this trait. I suspect the Japanese ministry of couple-formation is less likely to value this trait. So when they program the computers, that's a trait that will be "inferior". Leaving aside how arbitrary this all is, how are we supposed to get from any of these value judgments to "parent-pairs who give rise to the group/s of traits we define as superior will result in the best romantic affinity"? It's impossible. It's not just scientifically impossible, it's a category error, like trying to derive ideal levels of health spending from an analysis of Shakespeare. Well actually it's worse than that, because there is no such thing as "genetically superior offspring" so it's more like trying to derive ideal levels of health spending from an interview with The Joker, given that you lack a Joker to have an interview with. You could make something up, which is all someone inventing "genetically superior offspring" could do.

OK, so that talk about the problems of claiming that genetically superior offspring --> romantic compatibility I hope has led a bit into the basic problems of defining what "genetically superior offspring" even is, and the political problems of letting someone claim to define it. But let me get into that a little more. Hinanawi, you propose that "A superior being wouldn't it be the one that thrive best off the current situtation?" but that just pushes the problem back a level. Define "thrive best", particularly in modern Japan. The death rate in modern Japan is fairly low, so greatest ability to not die is only mildly relevant. Is it fertility? Would "thrive best" mean having ten children? That seems irresponsible as a goal. Is it happiness? Would "thrive best" mean being happy even if the circumstances are such that many would find them alienating or disagreeable? Wouldn't that lead to a population that never tried to change things for the better? We could argue about this stuff until the cows came home; there is no clear or scientific way to just define it into existence. To the contrary such a decision, even if you could somehow make it, would be a social and political one. As I've said before, we don't even know what intelligence is. We don't just have trouble measuring it, we can't even define it. The more people try to define intelligence, the more they fail, and the more reputable scientists conclude that it can't really be defined, much less measured. We don't know what "IQ" tests measure, but it sure isn't intelligence. It's some kind of skill, which can be acquired through practice and on which cultural background has an impact. It's well worth reading "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould on this.
Which brings me back to, who gets to decide? And on that score I've if anything been too gentle. There is actually a history of people thinking it would be OK to decide for others whether they should reproduce and what's good to have in the gene pool. It's called "eugenics" and while it was an easy mistake to make--lots of very well-meaning people in the earlier part of the 20th century thought it might be a good idea--its most striking association is with Nazism and its general history is repugnant. The idea of some bureaucracy making such decisions while hiding behind the idea that "the computer" is deciding (computers decide nothing, the decision that comes out is based on the programming and how the programmers weight the variables) is hideous, partly precisely because they hide the real value judgments behind technocratic language of science and computers to make their decisions unchallengeable. The very fact that many people would buy this bogus authority, the way you say "similar to how your doctor says you should take this certain medicine" makes it all the more dangerous. It would be similar--if your doctor was a quack who was using fake science to tell you how best to live your life and serve the authorities. There may be some parallel here to the way North American psychiatrists overprescribe ritalin and antidepressants.


I will admit that the setup seems to be sort of optional. We don't quite know just how hard it is to opt out because nobody has tried. It doesn't seem as if the law actually puts you in jail for saying no. But at the same time they do seem to bring a good deal of social and institutional pressure to bear strongly suggesting that you ought to . . . and they do all this to kids at the age of fourteen. Again, we don't know whether there are perks for opting in or problems that go with opting out, whether there are jobs you won't be able to get, whether you're allowed to bear children if you're insisting on not having "superior" ones, whether those children if you do have them will be discriminated against in education . . . it's certainly not just a dating service. It's the default; everyone gets a letter, everyone is more or less expected to at least go to a meeting. It's pretty pervasive, and I don't see how something like that with no real inherent appeal could become that common without some coercive stuff going on whether overtly or subtly.
It also makes me wonder . . . I mean, the whole pairing thing. What about people who just aren't going to help anyone have "genetically superior" offspring? For that matter, what about gays? What about anyone who doesn't represent a nice round peg that fits the holes being designed?

[omnipwnage]

This is a very interesting topic, as I can understand where both sidees are coming from on the subject. So without further ado, lets jump in.

(Warning: It's been a while since I've read some of the earlier chapters, so if I make a mistake with what I am saying, I apologize greatly to those I may have offended of misled with these statements.)

I have not read anything else by this mangaka, nor have I read anything on their ideals. So it is very hard to say as an individual with limited resources if they wrote this with the intent to push genetics based matching, government ran matchmaking, the declining state of our youths, or if it was just a fun idea for a rom com manga. However, what I can say about their work is that it is open to interpretation, no matter how promising or bleak you believe it to be.

So let's get some unbiased truths and facts in here already! People have up to 1 week from meeting their prospective mate to decide if they do or do not want to stay with them. This was established early on in the series. It is also established, at least for rumors sake, that people do not generally opt out. Therefor the social ramifications of a 'denied union' are an unknown. If we use to 'best case scenarios' that the author is supplying us for information, we can assume the pairings are also taken from a cluster group, meaning you only have people in that nation, and they are sorted by geographic locations, so they are not separate by hundreds of miles. Also, as an assumption based on what was given, not everyone is chosen for candidacy, at least not at an early age. This can be seen from classmates that formed the Manami fan club, classmates interested in Mai, and several characters in the first chapter of the Miyuki arc.(It could also be noted that if not everyone is 'paired' that people may be able to marry and so forth with someone else without a government blessing, giving a decent amount of free will and diversified gene pool to choose from.) From that data, a couple different assumptions could be made: not everyone is selected as a candidate for their genetics specifically, they can pair people that might have huge age gaps (50 year old to 16 year old), or there is a limited number of females in which the genes are optimized to ensure a healthy number of female members of society.

In most of the OP's statements, I have to agree entirely. The way that genes and traits work is entirely random, based on what you have in the pool, and what is strong in said pool. I've seen children from smart, responsible parents do some of the stupidest things, and people that grew up in the worst possible conditions, wealth and family wise, and made themselves into respected members of the community; just because someone has the potential to do something great does not mean they -will- be great.

As for the distopia comment, I couldn't agree more. In fact, I believe that this is where are current generation is headed in the next 50 or so years if it stays on the course, which it probably won't. As seen from everyone in this manga, in every arc, everyone has a certain amount of apathy; Rather than try to find someone that will make them happy, they depend on an anonomous and well recognized third party to do it for them. In addition, if someone does have feelings for someone else, they don't do a lot to win favor without the agency. I imagine if the feelings were one sided, the other would use the pairing as an excuse to coerce and force the partner to obliging. Even with all these implications of this type of society, it's still impossible to say that it would happen in their society. For all we know, everyone in that society is made up of rainbows and sunshine.

Unfortunately, even with all these fine points, if it deviated a whole lot from this set up it would be... pretty boring. It would be like pointing out that a Gundam is not feasible mechanically, financially, or even as a military weapon. Someone could make all of these points, but even if they are all correct, 'Gundam' and many other series would just be boring if not for the Giant Robots. Even if the premise is absurd, and doesn't hold water, and paints a horrible picture of their society, sometimes it's still needed to further the creative process. That's my opinion anyway.

Edited by omnipwnage, 24 August 2012 - 08:56 PM.

[Purple Library Guy]

Well, I don't see a lot to disagree with there, omnipwnage. It's a device that lets you have an unusual, somewhat interesting rom-com where you throw together "odd couples" and find out the ways they are unexpectedly compatible. As I say, when I read it I normally just set everything aside and let it be fun.
But in the end, faced with a setup where the subtext basically says "Government departments of eugenics are just wonderful!" I just couldn't resist noting that it wouldn't be quite like that in real life.

[omnipwnage]

I'd have a hard time believing that a large chunk of 'Government anything' is considered helpful in real life, wherein All the citizens are behind it. I could probably get away with a thesis on that subject, so I think I should probably stop with just the statement lol

[Comadrin]

PLG: Couldn't agree with you more on the whole eugenics thing. There are still state governments in the US trying to get out of paying damage to women sterilized without their consent or knowledge about fifty or so years ago. Of course, they were on the bottom of the economic scale, and mostly from ethnic minorities.

Genetics on a lighter not: An anecdote has it that the dancer, Isadora Duncan, met George Bernard Shaw, probably sometime in the 1920's. She went up to him and said she wanted to bear his child, as it could have her looks and his brains. His reply was, "Yes, but what if it had my looks and your brains?"

Edited by Comadrin, 25 September 2012 - 05:44 AM.

[Comadrin]

Re: Eugenics

Anyone interested in eugenics should read "Eugenics and other Evils," by G.K. Chesterton. He wrote this in 1922, when eugenics was considered a respectable philosophic and scientific idea by many people around the world, years before the hideous realities the Nazi's and others perpetrated under its' banner. Chesterton may have been "orthodox" religiously, but he was definitely not an early 20th century "Tea Party" type of person, since he was a political and social liberal, anti-socialist, anti-capitalist, and anti-authoritarian. He also wrote some of the most readable and entertaining prose of all time. His work exposing eugenics as an unworkable fallacy and tool of powerful special interests is as valid today as it was when it was written. Some critics have accused him of being anti-semitic, but,

"The Wiener Library (London's archive on anti-semitism and Holocaust history) has defended Chesterton against the charge of anti-Semitism: "he was not an enemy, and when the real testing time came along he showed what side he was on." (quote taken from Wikipedia).

Like a true liberal and thinker, he slapped anyone down, no matter what side of the fence, or what "party" they came from when he thought they were hypocritical or just plain wrong. It's a strong, well researched, and damned good piece of writing, and makes the same points PLG's post does, and a number more. I think it ought to be required reading for college level social sciences courses.

[Baltringue29]

I didn't followed all the tread but, at least for me, it's would be a good idea if this got applied in the whole world.... with a few change. 1st no dna matching at all you would have all control over your choice but in a narrowed path. So in essence it did be basicaly this: you can have children but only with another race than yours (i.e.: if you are white you can't have a white bride, same apply to others.) All this would be overlooked by a commitee to ensure that after lets says 5-10 generations all race on earth would be so intricated that basically we would be 1 and only race over all the globe. 2nd while mixing race we would take care to mix as well culture AND knowledge so there would be no more unbalanced, un-alphabetised people all around as well as a more understanding of the "past" we all shared together . 3rd distribution of all richness on earth equally between all nation/people and prone cooperation. With this all there should be no more case of racism, no more rich and poor, no more strong and feeble as we would all share the same genes and an englobing culture with all the richness the past divided race/culture/nation keeped for themself. So in global that would be a big bastadisation (in a good way) for the main objective of sharing all the same things, broke down elitism as well as prone tolerance and for the bigger objective that is for mankind to survive itself. (because the biggest stop for manking to keep on surviving and adapt is itself (I talk here about it to survive at least until sun become a giant red star and earth get roasted away in about a milion years in the future)) I could also include in this to preserve all species present in the current biodiversity, and lower and control the total of human population so we reach a point of balance that allow us to refrain on adaptating our environement for our own benefit at the cost of space of others species.

[Comadrin]

Well, that certainly takes the argument to several new level, but a basic premise for me is that I don't want any committee, computer, religious leader, political leader, commissar or gowleiter telling me who I can or cannot marry. I have nothing against interracial marriages, but if we don't let people choose their own mates, democratic ideals and personal freedom has failed on one front and will fail on the others.

Bottom line: If the government can force people with their marriage/breeding partners, it can force them to do anything it wants. Then there is no individual freedom.

Edited by Comadrin, 10 January 2013 - 12:28 AM.

[Baltringue29]

I know i'm going away of the subject but: freedom isn't free, most money currency=credit/debt. Democracy? A big lie! There isn't something as true democracy currently applied. It's a faked one! Democracy=the win of bureaucracy. True freedom=anarchy and is viewed as socially unaceptable (you know how they picture it with lotta violence and no justice just to scare you... that's the Hollywood version of it). True money is simply barter items/services for what you [really] need. The earth is borrowed from future generations, so limiting our numbers so the earth can give us enough food without transforming our environment is the key for mankind to survive. And a way to promote peacefullness is to abandon patriarchy for matriarchy. Marriage is a nonsense created by priesthood to enslave the population, if you trully love someone you don't need a piece of paper to tell it, they should make it so the rules become "You're united until the lack of love separate you". (So you are truly free and it'll not cost you if you get away from each other [you don't belong to the other and vice-versa]) And for instance people like to be told what to do or else they pretend to be lost and profit of the confusion to indulge their lowest instincts. The greed is the source of most ill on society and it will take century, if not millenia, to get rid of. And a good way to do so is merging all race together so there's no disparity. (plus there is good chances it will create bonds on a larger scale around earth) I'm sorry if it sounded as if i raged but this is one of the foundation of my philosophy (not raging but creating a society where there is a more profound spirit of community away from the actual consumer society with its empty [created] desire) For the money/credit part look up news about Island who throw away credit (along with bank and its overwhelming dept) i'm sure you'll find it interesting.

[Comadrin]

Yes, I agree that greed, envy, quest for power over others, and rampant consumerism are bad things and should be controlled to a certain extent. This was tried by anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws over 100 years ago, most of which has gone by the wayside.

Having been married for nearly 30 years (by my own choice) I cannot see it as nonsense, nor do I feel particularly enslaved.

I have seen no evidence, either, that matriarchy vs. patriarchy will necessarily make the world peaceful, since I have this peculiar view that women controlling men is just as bad as men controlling women, and I have also known a number of vicious and control-freak members of both genders.

While rampant population growth is a definite concern which I have studied, both in school and on my own, I dislike the idea of any government or social committee having the power to decide who is permitted to bear children and who is not.

If democracy (the theory and practice as it is in many countries, not the greek definition) is a big lie, perhaps constitutions and courts should be scrapped. Of course, if that happens, then a Stalin, a Hitler, a Kim il Sung, will be waiting in the wings, overjoyed at the fact that his designs can be accomplished so much more easily, as there would be nothing in place to deter him.

[omnipotentcheese]

Lol. Aside from the flawed scientific basis, it could not be much worse than our current system of matching, which boasts a robust %50 failure rate.
Divorces for everyone!

[inzaratha]

I basically agree. I hate the idea of government control of almost anything ( not complete anarchy but I am definitely for less control ) and any talk of eugenetics must be tainted with the possibility of Hitler-esque and Joseph Mengele style atrocities happening, even on a subtler level.
The Nazi's would have euthanized or terminated Stephen Hawking because of his body - but look at how his mind has benefited us.

However this manga does have a better basis than the other manga which came out around the same time with a similar subject, Happy Project, where the couples have to be picked in a small amount of time within a small amount of random people or else they face a lifetime of being seen as a social failure and the pressure on the 18 year old is much worse in that one.

This one at least corresponds to the way we breed race / show horses and dogs. Matches are picked for genetic factors performance etc. However while the good traits of that may come out say increased performance there will also be bad linked traits. This is how we have made dogs with protruding eyes, overshot jaws or bad hips, cause say nice fluffy fur might be linked with protruding eyes in a breed and you will get both in the offspring. And society does some of this without genetics tests, when we look at height, intelligence or eye color we are looking at genetics traits.

However I would not want any government agency being in control of something like this. It reminds me of the Boys from Brazil in the implications of how it could be used in a bad way of course that is an extreme example but we know what happens when government agencies get involved. It's not like it would be flowers and sunshine in the real world.

Of course that is only looking at the subject from the point of offspring, actually getting along is a different story altogether.

And I definitely don't think we need to be increasing the population - quite the opposite really.

Edited by inzaratha, 15 January 2013 - 05:23 PM.

[Purple Library Guy]

Oh, ya, Happy Project--I remember reading the description on that one and going "Pass!"
Although basically, just as this is an excuse for a different take on Rom-Com, Happy Project seems like an excuse for a different take on harem manga. I generally hate harems so that didn't make a big temptation for me.

Edited by Purple Library Guy, 15 January 2013 - 05:58 PM.

[Karry]

there is no possibe way you can look at someone's genes and say they will make a good romantic match for someone else.

How would you know ? Okay, CURRENTLY it is impossible, but what gives you the right to say what is possible and what is not so assuredly ? Are you a Nobel prize winner in Biology ?

For that matter, what about gays?

Same as any other inborn brain injury group.

In fact, I believe that this is where are current generation is headed in the next 50 or so years if it stays on the course

Nonsense. Genetic disposition matters little when you are broke, for example. Most women in this world prefer material wealth to any other male trait, and so any such system is doomed from the start.

But in the end, faced with a setup where the subtext basically says "Government departments of eugenics are just wonderful!" I just couldn't resist noting that it wouldn't be quite like that in real life.

As an individual that is the obvious way of thinking. Yet, it might be hard for me personally to agree with something, but still see some concept as being good for the whole race. For example, i do enjoy the availablity of computers, yet at the same time i do believe that humanity really could use a new dark age with severely restricted global communications. Think of it as being a soldier in a war, you dont want to die, but you are providing lives of others with losing yours.

And a way to promote peacefullness is to abandon patriarchy for matriarchy.

Matriarchy never existed, and never will exist as long as there are sane people in this world. As if women actually want matriarchy...try telling them that they must decide everything, then drop down and cover your head.

[Baltringue29]

This one at least corresponds to the way we breed race / show horses and dogs. Matches are picked for genetic factors performance etc. However while the good traits of that may come out say increased performance there will also be bad linked traits. This is how we have made dogs with protruding eyes, overshot jaws or bad hips, cause say nice fluffy fur might be linked with protruding eyes in a breed and you will get both in the offspring. And society does some of this without genetics tests, when we look at height, intelligence or eye color we are looking at genetics traits.

my point was essentially this women have come to decide on guys based on how much security they could give them (money, lodging, material wealth). And guys picking up women was more based on the physical aspect. (it change with the nation's cultural ideology) So we could say it has come to be a genetic/cultural/psychological adaptation for men to meet women and have babys so mankind could survive. But society has gone way off that and have created all kind of things that aren't really needed to survive. I'll take your comparison of what have become of selecting mating dogs to come with caracters we like (so unneeded for the race to survive) when it come to dogs i would gladly chose a bastard over a purebred because he lack the genetic trait that make him weaker or at least has more in his DNA to go over this. So genetically speaking hybriding mankind would get rid of some genes (or lack of genes) that give us weakness (like not being able to drink milk, inbred, trisomy) and give us a larger luggage of genes in order to survive and become more adaptative to our surrounding than adapt our surrounding to fit us.

[KelpTheGreat]

Most of this was TL;DR, but in a good way - I agree with the premise being unscientific, and I'm not letting that stop me from enjoying the story, much like the rest of you.