Fertility Links, 5/12/2025

Christine Rosen on embyro screening; Joseph Bronski on eugenics; Scott Yenor on campus feminism; Timothy Taylor on South Korea

Christine Rosen writes,

They are also enthusiastically destroying an ethical consensus in this country that has tenuously held for some time: the idea that playing God with the human genome is a dangerous thing to do, with likely serious unintended consequences. And they are lying to their customers, to whom they are promising they have powers of prediction that they do not yet possess.

She refers to “repro-tech,” consisting of embryo screening and polygenic prediction models. I would say that the models are not very good. But as they get better, the ethical questions will become even more pressing.

I think that some people believe that the ethical solution is simple: fight deformity and disease, but stop short of “enhancement.” But that is a line that won’t hold. If Sally does not want to bring a 2-foot dwarf into the world, what is to stop Suzie from refusing to bring into the world any man who will grow to less than 6 feet tall?

The libertarian approach is to let people use repro-tech however they choose. But try to keep government out of their decisions. That, too, is a line that may not hold.

Joseph Bronski writes,

Think of all the death and suffering the failure to do classical eugenics has caused due to the lack of progress. Now weigh that against the typical arguments against it: “it’s kind of mean to tell people how much to breed.” So? China had a national one child policy. Why can’t we have a one child policy for the bottom half of the bell curve? We have to be a century behind on technological development because someone might get offended?

And there’s no excuse for it. Only a committed libertarian can consistently disagree with classical eugenics. The coercive horrors of modern day education and credentialism are far worse than any reasonable classical eugenics program

In response, I would plead guilty to libertarianism. It is worse than “kind of mean” to tell particular persons not to breed. It denies their moral equality as human beings. The idea that people are born with equal moral worth is what the phrase “all men are created equal” means to me. Equal moral worth is at the top of my list of social moral principles.

And speaking of views with which I disagree, Scott Yenor writes,

The university fosters the supposedly glamorous, independent life. Pictures of such career-oriented, professional glam girls—with arms folded in knowing confidence or looking at a smartphone to show their importance to a company’s operations—direct the aspirations of many. Middle management for most. World travel for some. Economic and political power for a few. This image, more than the university itself, directs women to the ideological Left.

…American culture itself is that feminist factory. Only an alternative vision of the heroic feminine can win the day.

It’s a disjointed essay. On the one hand, he argues that universities have become too girly, with trigger warnings and safe spaces replacing open inquiry. But then he starts to argue that the problem is women achieving too much independence.

I am happy to see women gain economic freedom. I am troubled by emasculation of higher education and other elite institutions. But that is a matter of making sure that norms of competition and free speech are maintained, regardless of how high the proportion of women rises to within those institutions.

Timothy Taylor writes,

with a fertility rate of .72, Korea’s population will fall by one-third in less than a half-century. Setting aside extreme conditions of war, disease, famine, and oppression, I do not know of any country which has gone through such an experience.

…The IMF notes: “As of 2024Q1, it is estimated that median income families spend about 63 percent of household income for loan repayment of a median-priced home. The ratio is notably higher in the Seoul Metropolitan Area (151 percent), where the best jobs and education institutions are concentrated, and for larger living spaces needed to raise a child (153 percent for a property bigger than 135 square meters).” Payment of this size pretty much define “unaffordable.” (For those who don’t read metric, 135 square meter is about 1200 square feet; that is, a typical size for a two-bedroom apartment or condo.)

Like me, Taylor notices the self-reversing nature of some of the causes of low fertility.

If Korea’s population and workforce decline with the speed of these predictions, then in the next few decades housing should become substantially more affordable, admissions at major Korean universities will be less selective, firms will be under pressure to be more flexible in their workforce, and so on.

substacks referenced above:

@

What's Wrong with Classical Eugenics?