[SUBMITTED] Stellar Baby Making Skills

[Hediacrana]

Submitted 07/16/2019.

Now that #183 ('Buy a better baby') has been made capitalist-only, I thought I'd try my hand at an approach of genetic profiling for socialist countries. All help is welcome.

Thanks to Sacara for the good title!

Current draft (changes in dark blue):

TITLE: Stellar Baby Making Skills

VALIDITY: Socialism

INTRODUCTION:

After a recent stay in a private clinic in the United Federation, the local @@ADJECTIVE@@ ambassador @@FEMALERANDOMNAME_01@@ found herself the subject of intense debate. Word came out she was there to undergo embryo selection treatment, a controversial medical practice that enables parents to create so-called 'designer babies' and that is not currently offered by @@NAME@@'s state-administered hospitals.

OPTION ONE:
"I honestly don't see what the big deal is," says @@FEMALERANDOMNAME_01@@, proudly showing you the ultrasound image of her as yet unborn child. "So I made sure that the little comrade will have the very best genetic make up that my partner and I could offer; what could possibly be wrong with that? [...] If you're worried about it being unfair to other parents, just boost the health budget so that everyone can choose to have the perfect baby!"

EFFECT: all are truly born equal in @@NAME@@

OPTION TWO:
"This technology testifies to the deep-seated moral corruption of the United Federation ruling class," opines @@RANDOMNAME@@, a senior member of the Party Committee on Ethics. "Notice how it effectively annihilates anyone who doesn't conform to the capitalist ideal of optimally productive workers? And who are we to say that the discarded embryos do not deserve an equal opportunity to be born and to flourish? Embryonic screening should remain outlawed, and anyone who travels abroad to undergo these procedures should be duly prosecuted."

EFFECT: newlyweds face police questioning if they happen to conceive a child on their honeymoon

OPTION 3:
"Optimally productive workers, you say?" inquires @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Huxley, your minister of health. "That raises an intriguing idea: what if rather than making genetic profiling freely available to all parents, we made it mandatory? Imagine, we could have a whole new generation of genetically superior workers, each with an enhanced but equal ability to contribute to the greater good of @@NAME@@! True equality at last!"

EFFECT: the phrase "from each according to their ability" now encompasses near-superhuman feats

Draft 3:
- In the first option, changed 'my baby' to 'my little Comrade'
- Shortened last line of option 1
- New effect line for option 1
Draft 2:
- The mother is no longer a well-known multi-millionaire; now she is the @@adjective@@ ambassador to the United Federation. This is to make this issue suitable for socialist nations with low income inequality.
- Changed title and first option to include clearer downside and to make it clearer that this option makes embryo screening a possibility rather than mandatory.

TITLE: Perfect Child (Alternative suggestions welcome!)

VALIDITY: Socialism

INTRODUCTION:

After a recent stay in a private clinic in the United Federation, well-known @@ADJECTIVE@@ multi-millionaire @@FEMALERANDOMNAME_01@@ found herself the subject of intense debate. Word came out she was there to undergo embryo selection treatment, a controversial medical practice that enables parents to create so-called 'designer babies' and that is not currently offered by @@NAME@@'s state-administered hospitals.

OPTION ONE:
"I honestly don't see what the big deal is," says @@FEMALERANDOMNAME_01@@, proudly showing you the ultrasound image of her as yet unborn child. "So I made sure that my baby will have the very best genetic make up that my partner and I could offer; what could possibly be wrong with that? Sure, I am lucky in that I was able to afford the journey and the treatment, but it's my own money, isn't it? If you're really worried about it being unfair to other parents, then just make it so that everyone can have the perfect baby!"

EFFECT: genetic disorders are unheard of in @@NAME@@

OPTION TWO:
"This technology testifies to the deep-seated moral corruption of the United Federation ruling class," opines @@RANDOMNAME@@, a senior member of the Party Committee on Ethics. "Notice how it effectively annihilates anyone who doesn't conform to the capitalist ideal of optimally productive workers? And who are we to say that the discarded embryos do not deserve an equal opportunity to be born and to flourish? Embryonic screening should remain outlawed, and anyone who travels abroad to undergo these procedures should be duly prosecuted."

EFFECT: newlyweds face police questioning if they happen to conceive a child on their honeymoon

OPTION 3:
"Optimally productive workers, you say?" inquires @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Huxley, your minister of health. "That raises an intriguing idea: what if rather than making genetic profiling freely available to all parents, we made it mandatory? Imagine, we could have a whole new generation of genetically superior workers, each with an enhanced but equal ability to contribute to the greater good of @@NAME@@! True equality at last!"

EFFECT: the phrase "from each according to their ability" now encompasses near-superhuman feats

[Fauxia]

Title’s been used before (785)

[Hediacrana]

Title’s been used before (785)

Whoops! Indeed. Apologies. Now I'm in an even more dire need for an alternative title! Went with 'Perfect Child' for now, as a placeholder.

[Australian rePublic]

Issue 183

[Sacara]

Issue 183

He explained that in his preface.

I’ll give this an in-depth lookthrough later tonight when I get home.

[Jutsa]

I. love. this.

Sacara where's that in-depth look?

edit: Also I have nothing to comment about this except that I love it.

[Australian rePublic]

Are you outlawing/legalising all forms of embryo selection, or only embryo selection to weed out disease?

[Jutsa]

Well, option 3 of the original, capitalist one for this actually had an option like that, though it put the technology under government control,
which is kinda redundant for this draft as it's, well, communist.

Still, some way to make them distinct options* wouldn't hurt.

[Sacara]

I think there should be a truly unique option that belongs only to this draft, so that it warrants the need for it in the first place. I'm not sure what that could be, but just think of the possibilities of a socialist government that has designer baby capabilities. I'm sure there's something.

[Jutsa]

Actually, that's kinda what option 3 does.
It's different from option 4 in the original; it doesn't make babies into super soldiers.
Instead it makes all babies super babies.

[Sacara]

Actually, that's kinda what option 3 does.
It's different from option 4 in the original; it doesn't make babies into super soldiers.
Instead it makes all babies super babies.

Right, but I'm kinda left with the feeling that there could be more that really makes this unique to socialist nations.

[Jutsa]

Got any ideas for one?

[Hediacrana]

Thanks for all the feedback, folks!

I'd definitely be willing to consider a unique option for this one, beyond the third option in the current version. I'll think about it and am welcome to ideas.

About differentiating between only legalising embryos with severe diseases and legalising all forms of embryo selection; yes, that does make sense, though I worry it would make it closer to 183, and stand it out less. Have to mull it over.

[Trotterdam]

I can think of two basic ways to implement socialist genetic engineering: (A) equal outcome, i.e. the government edits everyone to turn out the same way, or (B) equal opportunity, i.e. all parents (not just the rich) have equal right to access genetic engineering treatment according to their own wishes. These seem to be the current options 3 and 1, so nothing new there (maybe make it clearer that option 1 is asking for this service to be made available locally rather than simply allowing the United Federation version - the last sentence hints at this, but it reads like an afterthought/concession rather than the main point). Neither is exceptionally exciting, but anything more than just that would come down to "So what exactly does the government want from its citizens, anyway?" (competence? ideological loyalty? etc.). Well, that, or outright hypocricy.

[Hediacrana]

Hi all, I returned from an extended work trip and am ready to start working on this one again. The main things I currently need:

1. A better title.
2. A better effect line for the first option.
3. Another option that would uniquely apply to socialist nations, to make it stand out more from 183 (as suggested by those kind enough to offer feedback, above).

I have little inspiration for any of these three, and I would welcome anyone's help!

Also, I have decided not to separate between embryo selection 'in case of bad diseases only' and 'anything to make them better workers,' in order to maintain some distinction from 183. For now, that is; I might reconsider

Thanks for any and all feedback!

[Sacara]

While looking this over again, I’ve come into a problem. Option one stats “why don’t you just make it so everyone can have the perfect baby”, but I thought option three made it so everyone has that?

Also, I’ll see what I can come up with regarding a title.

[Hediacrana]

While looking this over again, I’ve come into a problem. Option one stats “why don’t you just make it so everyone can have the perfect baby”, but I thought option three made it so everyone has that?

Also, I’ll see what I can come up with regarding a title.

Option 1 makes it possible for anyone to undergo the procedure, whereas option 3 makes it mandatory. I aimed to indicate this with the introductory sentence of option 3, but I guess I should make it more clear.
I look forward to seeing what your title ideas are!

[Sacara]

Here are a few I brainstormed: "The Infant Travel Guide", "Baby Problems at Home", and "Stellar Baby Making Skills".

[Starpoint]

It seems like option 1 doesn’t really have as much of a negative fallout as the others. I’m not sure if you were going for that or not, but issues are much more interesting when there’s not one “best option”.

[Sacara]

I know you said that you are going to edit option one, but I would also consider add a part about "those who are privileged enough deserve it", to make it seem more snobby and giving it a downside.

[Hediacrana]

Thanks for the feedback!

Here are a few I brainstormed: "The Infant Travel Guide", "Baby Problems at Home", and "Stellar Baby Making Skills".

I like Stellar Baby Making Skills! It does sound a bit like there ought to be a sci-fi connection of some kind, but the star is also a communist symbol so I think it ought to work. So I'm going with that one I think. Thanks!

It seems like option 1 doesn’t really have as much of a negative fallout as the others. I’m not sure if you were going for that or not, but issues are much more interesting when there’s not one “best option”.

I know you said that you are going to edit option one, but I would also consider add a part about "those who are privileged enough deserve it", to make it seem more snobby and giving it a downside.

I agree that it needs a clearer downside, but I think I'm just going to mention higher taxes instead. It's a little more bland, but makes more sense in a socialist context than an overtly elitist position I think...

Edit: Worked the above into draft 2, which now is up.

[The Sherpa Empire]

For the most part, I think this is good, but I am a little bothered by the assumption that your nation still has enough inequality for one person to be a multi-millionaire and other people are still too poor to afford this.

[Hediacrana]

For the most part, I think this is good, but I am a little bothered by the assumption that your nation still has enough inequality for one person to be a multi-millionaire and other people are still too poor to afford this.

Good point! While high income inequality and a socialist economy do not need to be mutually exclusive, it certainly seems likely that a lot of players of socialist nations wouldn't like this implication.

I think instead I'll make it about the @@adjective@@ ambassador to the United Federation being the mother. Then I can just talk about having access to this treatment without explicitly entering into issues of income disparity.

Edit: incorporated the above point into draft 2 (as I don't think this change quite warrants a separate draft).

[Trotterdam]

I think instead I'll make it about the @@adjective@@ ambassador to the United Federation being the mother. Then I can just talk about having access to this treatment without explicitly entering into issues of income disparity.

That's better, but the question is why do you need the "treatment by foreigners" angle at all?

The capitalist version of the issue doesn't stem from some poor person having to visit a communist nation to receive the service. You seem to be assuming that communists can't innovate and can only ever copy technology others came up with. Granted, I agree that communist nations would inherently have more trouble with innovation, but it seems a little biased to assume they can never invent anything regardless of all other issue choices they've made.

[Sacara]

You seem to be assuming that communists can't innovate and can only ever copy technology others came up with. Granted, I agree that communist nations would inherently have more trouble with innovation, but it seems a little biased to assume they can never invent anything regardless of all other issue choices they've made.

I think this is well within the realm of reason to assume for a communist nation.