Author: Sterling
Title: Babies Who Will Never Be
Summary: In a near future, DNA sequencing allows an accurate
image of the future human based only on the genes in a fertilized
egg. And a simple scan by a smart phone can determine the exact
genetic sequence that a man or woman would contribute to a baby
just then. Any man and woman meeting casually can visualize with
great accuracy the baby they could create if they had sex. What
would happen? What are the implications of seeing a person you
could create?
Keywords: ScFi NoSex

First posted 3/26/2015.

I'm always eager for comments, whether good, bad or mixed.
Comments to sterling27@live.com.

I have written many other stories and they can all be found at
/files/Authors/Sterling/
For an index see
/files/Authors/Sterling/A%20%20SUBJECT%20INDE
X.txt

You are welcome to copy this story if you include the entire text
unchanged, including this notice.  If you tell me where you have
re-posted it, I can enjoy knowing it is appreciated and perhaps
enjoy the feedback the story gets where you re-post it.

Sterling

And now, our feature presentation.  Enjoy!

============================================================
Babies Who Will Never Be

Four articles by the venerable science journalist Sebastian Shaw,
from the years 2030, 2040, 2055, and 2070:


January 7, 2030

Facetweet Times
"Detecting Genetic Defects Earlier Than Ever"
Sebastian Shaw

To learn more about the latest reproductive screening technology,
I followed a woman I'll call Aspen on her visit to the Obstetrics
and Gynecology center at Mass General Hospital. A 33-year-old
professional, she arrived four days after she ovulated. A
technician wielded a device the size of a hand vacuum cleaner.
The business end was a flat plastic plate the size of an old
music CD, and she placed it on Aspen's bare stomach just above
her pubic bone. After 30 seconds the technician determined that
she did indeed have a fertilized egg on its way down the
fallopian tube to her uterus. Aspen was visibly pleased at the
good news.

Her expression turned more somber as the technician prepared her
for the next step. She had not come here for simple good news --
she was here to rule out bad news that might not be simple.

The ability to detect genetic diseases in a fertilized egg four
days after ovulation rather than seven days after is not that
important to most women. But to some who are uneasy with
abortion, implantation is a key milestone. If the egg is destined
to produce a child with a disease, then when an egg is just
passing through the uterus, it's not so bad to just let it keep
going. Once it has put roots down, it's a harder choice.

Watson and Crick discovered the double helix of DNA in 1953.
After decades of intensive scientific efforts, gene sequencing
became possible. The human genome was first fully sequenced in
2003, a half-century after Watson and Crick's discovery. This was
just one milestone in a research effort that held high promise
for saving human lives. But fundamental advances have been slow
to yield practical benefits -- many start-ups failed when a
marketable product proved to be out of reach. Now the benefits
are clear and significant, and with the benefit of 2030 hindsight
-- 2020 hindsight is a decade behind us now -- we can see all the
obstacles that had to be overcome to move from sequencing the
human genome to practical applications. Now we can detect most
common errors in the human genome early, when abortion is still
possible.

The National Medical Database tells us that in the US, the
incidence of genetic diseases has dropped dramatically. The
ability to detect massive genetic abnormalities such as Down
Syndrome has been around far longer, but now diseases caused by a
single errant nucleotide can be reliably detected in the early
stages of pregnancy. New cases of cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs,
Huntington's, Sickle Cell Disease and many others are down
sharply. They could be virtually eliminated if two additional
conditions were met. One is universal access to high-quality
medical care. The other is the willingness of mothers to abort a
fetus with an abnormality. The second is of course a moral
question, not a medical one. Many women refuse to have the
genetic testing performed; even after a serious genetic disease
has been diagnosed, about 30% of mothers carry a pregnancy to
term.

Some women are unwilling to have an abortion from the moment of
conception, usually on religious grounds. For others,
unwillingness rises as the fetus becomes larger and more
developed. Studies show that in practice, a woman's decision is
most strongly influenced by the invasiveness of the abortion
procedure -- and advances in technology have made it less and
less invasive. A 4-month pregnancy can now be terminated with an
hour's procedure under IV sedation and virtually no side effects.
The woman's experience is going into a hospital pregnant, falling
asleep, and waking up with no signs she can detect that she ever
was pregnant.

Earlier-stage pregnancies can be terminated by taking one pill
and having a heavy period -- without even the menstrual cramps
that most women before the year 2023 considered an inevitable
monthly occurrence.

Still, there is a drive for ever-earlier detection. Doctors used
to rely on amniocentesis, but this requires the presence of a
fair-sized amniotic sac. For the past 8 years or so they have
needed only a maternal blood sample to fully sequence a fetus's
DNA -- once it has implanted.

Now nearly finishing clinical trials is a technology that allows
DNA sequencing before implantation. Aspen is one of the patients
in the trials. Having determined that her egg had been
fertilized, it was time for the real test.

The sensor was an impressive belt, six inches high, an inch thick
and weighing about ten pounds. Given the current state of
technology, that is space and weight to hold a lot of sensors --
the sensing power of 4,000 MRI machines of 2010 vintage. Aspen
sat in an ordinary armchair as the technician wrapped the belt
around her hips. All she had to do was sit still for twenty
minutes. After five minutes, as our conversation tapered off, she
elected to read. Electronic devices interfere with the sensors,
so she read a book -- the old-fashioned kind based on Gutenberg
technology.

The other presence in the room was a computer on a cart. Imagine
a stack of four microwave ovens. This enormous computing power is
required for an astonishingly complicated task. Aspen's
fertilized egg had by now divided many times into a ball of
cells. The computer needs to detect the minuscule vibrations of
the nuclei of the atoms in that little ball, and from that
determine the exact sequence of 3 billion base pairs in the
simple CGAT genetic code. The mass of surrounding maternal cells
all have the same DNA sequence, a background against which this
tiny ball of cells is a very faint signal. The computer takes
advantage of knowledge of the father's genome, but it is still a
very difficult problem.

Once the test was done and the belt removed, Aspen and I were
ushered into a doctor's office. A minute later Dr. Michelle
Renaud entered, introduced herself, and started talking.

She had bad news. The ball of cells had a genetic abnormality
that was inconsistent with life. It might or might not implant,
but it would not live long enough to really count as a pregnancy.
If Aspen did nothing, she might conceivably miss one menstrual
period. But her body would shortly flush out this tiny blob of
dead cells. Without the test, a delayed period would just tell
her she hadn't gotten pregnant. About a fifth of failures to
conceive during any given month are due to problems of just this
sort. This result had no adverse implications for Aspen's ability
to have a normal baby in the future.

The good news was that she had no life-and-death decision to make
about whether to bring a child into the world. Her only choice
was whether to take a morning after pill (the newest versions of
which have no side effects at all) or let nature take its course.
She took the tiny generic pill with her and was told she had a
day to take it if she wanted. She scanned a QR-X code with her
wristy which would give her access to further information on the
situation in however much depth she wanted.

I reached Aspen by phone a week later. Asked how she felt about
the experience, she said it was a little disconcerting to think
she had produced something so very defective, but well worth it.
She planned to go back every month until she did conceive a
health baby.

I accompanied three other women that day. Two did not have any
fertilized egg at all and never made it to wearing the heavy
belt. The fourth was a petite 28-year-old redhead I'll call
Martha. She is married to a woman, and was having the test four
days after artificial insemination. She went through her
half-hour with the belt and was told she had a healthy baby. The
test's job is to verify that all the important genes are healthy.
But in the process, it inevitably also reveals which healthy
variants of those genes are present. A few of them have simple
effects. Martha wanted to know, and was told she would have a
girl with brown eyes and A-positive blood.

When I followed up with Dr. Renaud, she reported that for Aspen's
defective ball of cells the underlying technology could reveal
the gender, blood type and eye color it would have had if it had
been viable. But revealing those "what-ifs" was not going to be
comforting, so the software is configured in the factory to
destroy that information once a "not viable" diagnosis is made.

It was no surprise that none of the four patients I followed that
day was on course to deliver a baby with what we usually think of
as a genetic defect -- since the nonviable ones don't enter our
everyday thinking at all. What we call genetic defects are quite
rare and always have been.

When this technology emerges from final tests and becomes
publicly available, scientists predict more women will choose to
have the test and more will abort in case of a defect. In
parallel, the genes for ever-rarer diseases are being identified.
We will continue to hunt genetic diseases towards extinction.

Another promising technology is in its infancy. It should be
possible to apply the same sensing technology earlier, before
conception. There is no sperm in the picture yet, but the test
could detect the half of the genome that would be contributed by
a ripening egg. If the egg has a defect, the couple might just
decide not to invite any sperm to meet that particular egg, a
decision that is acceptable to most people who are opposed to
abortion -- and beneficial to many women like Aspen who would not
allow a defective ball of cells to implant but would feel morally
uneasy about it.

Although no sperm have met the egg in this test, such a
calculation could take into account the genome of the prospective
father. In a fairly common case, the chances are 50% that he
would contribute a gene causing a defect and 50% that the baby
would be normal. A different father might with certainty
contribute a working copy of the relevant gene, guaranteeing a
genetically normal baby.


============================================================
March 21, 2045

Facetweet Times --
"Genetic knowledge, computing power, and humongous data combine
to let us predict your baby's adult face"
Sebastian Shaw

In the late 20th century, doctors could tell from amniocentesis
whether a fetus would have Down Syndrome and whether it would be
a girl or a boy. That could be done by just looking at the 46
chromosomes. In the one case they were looking for an extra
chromosome, in the other looking for a small Y instead of a large
X. Only in the 21st century have we been able to look within the
46 chromosomes at 3 billion base pairs to find the defects in
individual genes. A genetic disease in a newborn baby today in
the developed world is extraordinarily rare. The cases that do
occur are largely confined to children of religious
fundamentalists, including devout Catholics.

But scientists can find more than gender and defects. Sometimes
things go wrong, but most of the time they go right. Genes
determine healthy variation too. A decade ago it was easy to
determine from a noninvasive scan of a tiny ball of cells the eye
color and blood type. Good guesses were soon possible for height
and hair color. Intelligence joined the mix, and this posed a new
problem -- an ethical one. Most people would consider very low
intelligence a defect. But depending on parental expectations,
anything short of very high intelligence could also be viewed as
a defect. There is no clear line between a defect and healthy
variation.

The danger of genetic knowledge leading to eugenics occurred to
thoughtful people long before it became a technical possibility.
As a reaction to recent advances, legislation has been enacted or
is pending in many states that limits the information that
doctors can convey to prospective parents. Given the enormous
complexity of prenatal DNA sequencers, prohibitions have been
largely effective in the case that matters -- when abortion is
still a possibility.

But once a baby is born, there are no such restrictions.

We have heard for some time now of predictions of intelligence,
height, strength, coordination, and running speed, for instance.
The predictions keep getting more accurate.

Then we heard of predictions of the six key personality traits:
openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness,
neuroticism, and the recent addition: optimism.

But massive computing power, the DNA sequences of a billion
people, and plain old digital photography are allowing something
quite different: predicting what someone is going to look like.

I joined Dr. Aaron Singh in his lab at Carnegie-Mellon
University. A short, dark-skinned man with a ready smile and
perpetual twinkle in his eyes, it was impossible to miss his
enthusiasm for his work.

"Here are some examples of what we were able to do last year," he
said, bringing up a series of side-by-side pictures on his
36-inch monitor. The first pair of pictures was the same
blue-eyed woman with short dark hair. Or that's what I would have
sworn. Maybe they could have been identical twins instead of the
same person. But Mr. Singh told me that the picture on the right
was the real woman at age 26. The one on the left was derived
from nothing but her genome, some very complicated algorithms and
a great deal of number-crunching. My jaw dropped. Next he showed
me the same woman aged backward in time. My eyes saw two pictures
of the same 8-year-old girl. Up next was a pair of
African-American men of 52 years. He asked if I could tell which
was the real picture and which the simulation. I had no idea. He
grinned at that, but noted that the level of realism was an older
advance -- the current problem was how to produce accurate
predictions, not simply ones that were realistic in every detail.

These results were astonishing. "That was last year?" I said.

Dr. Singh laughed. "Well, I have to admit I showed you my very
best examples. Here are some of the worst..."

They were indeed bad. A broad face and big nose in one case, a
narrow face and much smaller nose in the other.

"But what we care about most is the average case. And I'd like to
show you the results from our latest study."

More pairs of pictures came up. For these I would have judged the
two people to be brothers or sisters -- a definite family
resemblance, but different people. I then saw a picture of Dr.
Singh and the prediction based on his genes, and could definitely
tell which was Dr. Singh.

Next I saw a pair of earnest-looking 4-year-old East Asian boys
who again looked like identical twins. "Our predictions are best
with children," he said. "People naturally diverge from
predictions as they get older. To some extent that's just more
genes doing their work differentially, and partly it's
environment. Take a look at these." I saw what I correctly
guessed were the same boy, now at age 45. But those images looked
quite different, one looking well-preserved and the other more
worn down. "We're toying with adding in environmental factors.
For instance, most of our Japanese data is on people who live in
Japan -- not surprisingly. But this man actually grew up in New
Delhi, eating New Delhi foods and breathing New Delhi fumes. If
we put in our environmental model, you can see the results." The
match was noticeably better -- now both looked worn down.

I saw pictures of our US President Kyle Connor -- a decent match.

Finally I saw two pictures of myself -- or me and my predicted
alter ego. I had given him access to my genome in advance of the
interview. Looking at the simulated face was a creepy experience.
Who was this other guy? Is that who I should have been? He
actually looked like me -- like the big brother who the younger
one can never quite compete with. Perhaps sensing my discomfort,
he said, "But then there's this," and I saw next to the real me a
much less appealing man -- the dissolute ne'er-do-well of my
imaginary clan.

"That's you on a traditional Russian diet."

I asked if he could describe the advances -- what had led to the
improvements and what would lead to more. "Schwartz-Feingold
Hidden Markov Models" was the first in a long list. The
algorithms are beyond the comprehension of more than a couple
dozen experts worldwide. But I did get the picture that there
were still plenty of interesting ideas to try and he was
confident of further progress.

I tried to think through what it would mean to have accurate
pictures -- to know what your baby will look like at the age of
50 -- or 90. I asked about predictions for old people, and I
thought I saw his face darken for one brief moment before it
resumed its bright smile.

"Those results aren't so good," he said. "And to be honest, we're
not focusing our efforts there."

The implications for parents seeing their newborn at age 50 were
plenty of food for thought. We have always been uneasy at the
prospect of knowing too much about our future. On the bright
side, I figured that some awkward 13-year-olds could be relieved
to see themselves at 21.


============================================================

February 12, 2055

Apple Micro-Google Times
"The Quest For Uniform Sperm -- How and Why"
Sebastian Shaw

I have interviewed many intensely driven scientists over the
years, but Dr. Kyle McCarthy stands out.

We met in his office at the giant medical complex in Atlanta,
Georgia. He is notably clean-cut, and a conservative dresser --
formal Scottish wear, largely unchanged from the 18th century:
kilt, matching sash, Prince Charlie jacket, and sporran. He is
also a devout Catholic. Church attitudes on homosexuality and the
inclusion of women have softened in recent years, so if there is
one thing that defines a Catholic today, it is an implacable
opposition to abortion of any kind. It is the most fundamental
conviction of his faith: human life begins at the moment of
conception, and any human intervention to end that life is
murder. He is not the least apologetic in admitting that it has
driven his life's work.

In the early days, the practical application of advances in
genetic knowledge started after birth. It was limited to
predicting future disease and providing early treatment. But
sensitive scans inside the mother allowed detection of defects in
tiny fetuses. A mother who didn't want a child with a defect
could get an abortion. As technology has advanced, the new life's
genome can be known earlier and earlier. Now it is routine to
abort small balls of cells before they implant.

But Dr. McCarthy has devoted his life to something else. He wants
to change the reproductive workings of the adult male. He is
imaginative and very capable -- the number of parallel
investigations he conducts has eminent colleagues sighing with
envy. He is also aggressive in pushing the envelope. Much of his
work is privately funded by Catholics. He is deeply frustrated by
US medical ethics restrictions, and has been reprimanded for his
treatment of chimpanzees.

In parallel, there are research programs in countries with much
laxer medical ethics and medical ethics enforcement. Catholic men
have volunteered in large numbers. A few have contracted fatal
cancers, many more have become sterile or impotent, but still
they volunteer.

It seems crazy, until it makes perfect sense. Desperate times
call for desperate measures. Catholics believe that every time a
fertilized egg is not allowed to implant and develop into a baby,
it is cold-blooded murder. These are desperate times.

So what exactly is McCarthy trying to do with the male
reproductive system, and why?

"It's really quite simple. For some years now we have been able
to analyze the genome of a woman's egg, and when there is a
serious risk of a genetic disease, the woman may decide not to
engage in intercourse at that time. This is not a sin. We cannot
do this with men, because men emit millions of sperm in each
ejaculation. Each one is different. They each contain half the
man's genes, but which half is essentially random. Among them
all, some small fraction carry genetic diseases. We do not know
until the instant that a sperm penetrates the egg whether he will
contribute good genes or defective genes."

"So early detection sounds like a very difficult problem."

"What we can do is to constrain the meiotic divisions during
sperm formation. When we succeed, the ripening sperm are all
genetically identical. To a large extent this works by killing
the other sperm -- 95% of the sperm die. But the other 5% are the
result of meiotic divisions that have been constrained to an
exact pattern. While ordinarily the chances of two sperm cells
having identical genetic structure are effectively zero, with
this experimental drug cocktail tens or hundreds of thousands
undergo identical meiotic division. They are numerous enough to
have a high probability of causing conception -- nearly as high
as an ejaculation from an untreated man."

"So you can now analyze the man's genetic contribution before
intercourse too."

"Precisely! The same technology that allows us to look at the
egg's structure allows us to analyze the structure of the sperm.
It is actually easier. Since there are tens of thousands of
identical ones, they stick out like a sore thumb in the genetic
soup inside a man's testes."

"I think I see..."

Dr. McCarthy is eager to finish the story himself. "So now a
couple can determine before they have intercourse the exact
genetic structure of any baby that God may see fit to bless them
with. There should be no need to ever abort a fertilized egg.
Whatever criteria the couple may choose can be applied before
intercourse happens."

"So does this mean that all a man's children would have his same
contribution? That would mean he could only have all sons or all
daughters, right?"

"That is correct, if it was permanent. But instead, we find that
a particular meiotic constraint lasts only a few days, then it is
replaced by another one. For roughly two days his genetic
contribution is fixed, but then for the next two days it is also
fixed, but to a different genetic structure."

"Very interesting. How is the man treated to make this happen?"

"It is easy and painless. We can give a man an implant that
delivers its drugs in a consistent fashion for up to several
years at a time. No doctor visits, prescription refills, or doses
to forget."

"I can see that this would be of great interest to devout
Catholics. But they are not the ones having abortions anyway. How
could you convince other men to accept this treatment?"

"Mostly preference. A great many people are troubled by the
prospect of abortion. They may go through with it anyway, but it
bothers them. With this technology they would be completely free
of guilt -- and mortal sin. It will also help Catholics and
others who refuse to murder children to nonetheless prevent
genetic defects."

"So, what stands in the way of bringing this to market?"

"There are still some issues to be worked out. Most important are
the side effects. As you may know, I am collaborating with
colleagues overseas where human trials have been underway for
years. Before we could get approval for a US trial, we would need
to greatly reduce the side effects."

"And what are these side effects?"

Dr. McCarthy gives a wily smile. "Our overseas colleagues have
not been willing to share that data with us."

It is widely suspected that the overseas operations are
completely controlled by McCarthy, but it's impolite to say that,
and I don't want to jeopardize my relationship with him.

He has good reason to remain silent. He knows that even if the
side effects are eliminated, public knowledge of what they used
to be will interfere with acceptance of the treatments.

One of the first steps in human drug trials under standard
medical ethics is administration to people with terminal
illnesses to make sure the drug itself doesn't have any
life-threatening side effects. It sounds like he still has to get
over that hurdle.

Some scientists are skeptical that McCarthy's technique could
even work. He admits he does not have a theoretical basis for his
treatment -- in plain language, he has no idea how it works.
However, an independent US lab has found some evidence of this
meiotic restriction effect in rhesus monkeys. It would be wrong
to dismiss Dr. McCarthy.


============================================================
April 3, 2070

Exxon Micro-Apple Times
"Potential Babies: Making Them Or Grieving For Them"
Sebastian Shaw

I have been covering advances in genetic technology for 42 years
now. The achievements have been many. Genetic diseases have
virtually vanished from the developed world. Down syndrome, other
forms of mental retardation, schizophrenia -- all down sharply.
Even psychopathy is down noticeably, leading to lower crime
rates.

Now we face a new sort of problem. We are seeing the start of a
baby boom. The anecdotes have been building for a couple years,
getting much more common in recent months. But the breaking news
is that the United Nations statistics back it up. They are no
longer just anecdotes. How did this happen?

It is the story of several independent technologies converging.

The first is the late Dr. McCarthy's work on sperm restrictions.
The drug works. Side effects are now rare, and in contrast some
users report a sense of well-being. Perhaps more surprising is
the number of men who have chosen to be "McCarthyized". Contrary
to McCarthy's predictions, moral qualms about abortions are not
the reason men give. There is instead a psychological benefit:
somehow men like the idea that they are dependable -- reliable.
Instead of producing sperm with a bewildering variety of
genetics, they now have control. A man can say, "Today I'm loaded
with brown-eyed girl".

The man's ability to say that depends on another technological
advance -- easy-to-use affordable devices for sequencing the DNA
of his sperm. It's already widely available, and it will soon be
a standard app on wristies. Put your wrist near your crotch, and
the computer knows your half of the genome if you make a baby
today.

A reliable women's version is just now achieving broad market
acceptance.

And it is then a simple matter to produce a full genome from the
combination of egg and sperm -- the particular egg waiting in a
woman at that moment, and the particular batch of sperm waiting
in a man at the same moment.

The third key technology is the Singh process.

---------------------------------------------------------

What's the problem? To find out, let's visit Steve and Anne. They
are a married couple in their early 30s, and they wanted to start
a family. They had been trying without success for a few months
using the old-style 4-day genetic tests. Twice they had genetic
duds, once there was no fertilized egg at all, and once they were
predicted to have a shy, short boy of average intelligence and a
significant chance of developing schizophrenia. They decided not
to have him, but it gave them pause and they stopped trying for a
few months.

Meanwhile, the last of the new technologies came out -- an
affordable home device for sequencing the genome of a woman's
ripening egg. Steve got McCarthyized and fired up his sperm
sequencing software. When the identity of Anne's egg became
apparent, the software would be able to tell them what baby would
result if they simply let nature take its course. And they
increased their possibilities by using an obvious technique.
During the many weeks of the month when Anne was infertile, Steve
started a new routine. Every other day, he read his gametes,
saved the resulting file describing exactly the half-genome, and
collected a semen sample that he froze. Now the software could
combine Anne's fixed contribution with each of Steve's frozen
samples in turn, so they could pick the most promising
combination. Looking at columns of statistics, it was easy to
rule out several, but there were two outstanding ones, both
blue-eyed girls. Anne whimsically called them Amy and Sue.

If the decision process ended with columns of statistics, it
would have been a fairly easy matter to choose the one they liked
best. But a few more clicks and swipes could apply the standard
Singh process to bring any genome to life.

At age 2, Amy would be gorgeous with wavy blond hair and a bright
smile. There she was at 6, missing her front teeth, dancing
around the room with abandon for all to see. And there she was at
30, a voluptuous young woman with a mesmerizing speaking voice,
most likely in a career involving entrepreneurship.

Sue would be an equally gorgeous 2-year-old, but with straight
brown hair. She was watchful and hesitant, but she too had the
brightest smile when the occasion warranted. There she was at 6,
dancing around the room more slowly but with more graceful
movements. And there she was at 30, an appealing young woman with
a willowy figure, suitable for a career as an engineer or perhaps
a visual artist.

Steve and Anne had fun playing with different diets and climates,
looking at them at various ages, listening to them talk and sing.
They knew from countless demonstrations just how accurate the
modern versions of the Singh process are.

They were at first delighted, but then delight turned to unease.
They could not have both of these girls. They could only have
one. If they thought ahead to having a second child, Steve's
sperm could be divided into multiple doses, but Anne's egg could
yield at most one baby.

In their brooding they Singhified a couple of the other
combinations. They looked at the child (a boy) who would appear
if they just had sex; that gave him a certain claim on life. He
was only average in intelligence and would have flat feet, but he
was still cute and entirely lovable. Anne felt that he was very
handsome at 25. Whatever his merits might be, neither of them
really felt like having sex. They debated just skipping this
month.

Eventually they decided to thaw Steve's contribution to both Amy
and Sue and mix the sperm thoroughly before inserting it where it
would hopefully do its job. In a sense it removed the decision
from their hands, but in another sense it didn't.

It was a "Sue-genic" sperm that won. They are looking forward to
her birth. But Anne tears up as she says she will always miss
Amy. And she's not even just a child who died in an unfortunate
accident. In a very real sense, they killed her.

---------------------------------------------------------

Now let's join Jenny as she recalls her second date with Bill.

Her wristy told her she was fertile. Reaching under the table
while they were eating, Jenny surreptitiously took a reading near
Bill's crotch. At a suitable moment she went to the ladies' room
and brushed the relevant wristy controls with her right index
finger. And what she saw was the most adorable boy. Yes, the
stats confirmed he would be smart, strong, outgoing, and a good
guy in every way. But it was the image that affected her so
powerfully. He reminded her of her brother, who she had always
adored.

She wasn't sure about Bill as a life partner, but at a primal
level she really wanted that baby. Back at her place, they had
sex -- with a condom, naturally. When she took her turn in the
bathroom afterward, she retrieved the used condom from the
wastebasket, and thought of her son lovingly. She knew that it
was wrong, but on sudden impulse, she put some of the sperm back
exactly where the condom was designed to prevent it going.

It really wasn't a good time of life for her to have a baby, but
she'd manage somehow. Bill's anger had mellowed to annoyance. He
wasn't sure what sort of a relationship if any he would have with
this baby. He refused to look at the Singhified boy.

---------------------------------------------------------

"The Place" used to be an ordinary singles bar, but it has
developed a certain reputation recently. It attracts young men
and women interested in using their genetic apps. It is typically
the men who make their genetic profiles freely available and the
women who scan them and initiate a connection if they feel like
it.

Many of the women are not fertile. They have stored profiles from
past eggs, and they just enjoy the interplay of apps as a topic
of conversation. But a picture of a baby you could have jointly
made with someone has a greater effect than the typical romantic
dinner. It has some of the same bonding effect as an actual baby
born to a couple. They can see who the baby would have resembled,
often of course having some visible features of both.

But some of the women come when they are fertile. Sometimes it is
just for the thrill of dangerous potential, other times they are
actually open to getting pregnant that evening, and based on
later reports, other times they do not really know their true
motivations. But they see many babies vividly depicted on their
wristies. "Baby hunger" is an ancient phenomenon, but when there
is a specific baby who you can almost reach out and hug, it can
be a much more powerful force. Something happens. Pairs have been
observed going into the alley out back for a quick coupling, or
even the bathroom. Other times they end up at one apartment or
the other. There has always been the temptation to forget a
condom in the heat of passion, but here it is magnified
many-fold. Also, men have been known to put small holes in the
condoms in their desire to create that cute baby, and women have
been known to go fishing in used condoms like Jenny did.

The result: many pregnancies among a demographic who were having
very few before.

---------------------------------------------------------

Rachel is almost 15 years old, a girl from a solid middle class
family. Her parents and teachers had always seen her as
responsible and sensible. So had she. Now, at four months, she is
just starting to show. She was just having fun when a friendly
18-year-old boy engaged her genetic app. She had no idea the
effect that the animated little girl on her wristy would have on
her. She quite eagerly lost her virginity. Now she regrets what
she's done. She says maybe she'll give the baby up for adoption.
When I see the glow in her eyes as she looks at her animated
future daughter, I have serious doubts.

---------------------------------------------------------

Wherever the genetic apps are used, people are seeing potential
babies. Sometimes they like what they see -- this isn't unusual,
since most children are appealing. Now they are making those
potential babies into real ones at an alarming rate.

The many who resist the temptation often think with anguish of
the babies they have glimpsed who will never be. Because they
were not just theoretical babies. An act of unprotected
intercourse would with high probability have brought that baby to
life.

This is an entirely new aspect of human reproduction. It is hard
to know just how its effect will play out in society in the years
ahead.

A common reaction to this situation is to get rid of the genetic
apps. However the technology is so good that anyone else can scan
your genetic condition without really even invading your personal
space. Imagine yourself a woman. A pair of attractive men walk in
front of you. One reaches his wrist out closer to your body than
was really called for. You then see them huddle ten yards away
and grin at whatever is on their wristies, also glancing at you.
Wouldn't it be sorely tempting to at least have the option of
looking at what they are seeing?

A common female reaction is to go on the pill. It both guards
against impulsive sexual acts and against heartache from seeing
babies that never will be. It promises to give the pill less of a
stigma, so that young girls and single religious girls may be
more likely to go on it. Preventing an emotional reaction to a
possible baby is a goal consistent with moral purity.

We can predict calls for banning the technology. But the tiny
scanners can be shipped between countries with ease, the apps
downloaded with even greater ease.

We can predict a strong reaction against the technology from many
pundits, think tanks, and organizations. Religious communities
are likely to be prominent among the "anti" voices. The online
communities that define so much of today's social organization
will be bound to weigh in on one side or the other.

But we can also predict enthusiasm for the technology, acceptance
of it, or at the very least respect for individuals' choices as
to whether to use it or not.

Even going on the pill is no long-term guarantee of avoiding
unwanted knowledge. Researchers are experimenting with
identifying the egg that will become ripe the first time a woman
ovulates after going off the pill. Results are promising. If she
catches sight of a match of that egg with some frozen sperm, that
baby lives as a potential.

---------------------------------------------------------

A few Catholics have made news with statements that seem to
challenge the core doctrines of the church.

Meghan Murray is a lifelong Catholic, a woman pushing 70 with
short gray hair, not at all petite. She conveys calm. In a recent
Atlantic article, she says the Church's focus on abortion is
misplaced. I visited her in her apartment in Pittsburgh.

She gets right down to business.

"There is no question that the possibilities uncovered by recent
technology have influenced my views. Other Catholics have
criticized me for that, but they are conveniently forgetting
history. Ultimately, it was science through geology that
convinced us the world was not formed a few thousand years ago.
It was science through astronomy that convinced us the earth was
not the center of the universe. It was science through biology
that led us to accept large portions of the theory of evolution.
Now it is science through genetic technology that has convinced
me that abortion must not be the center of our beliefs."

"How?"

"It has shown us that the essence of life is information, not the
present arrangement of molecules. All of us are moved by the
videos of children who could have been created but weren't. The
essence of the child is in the egg and the collection of uniform
sperm. The essence is there as information. This is as true
whether the sperm is in the woman's body or resting quietly in
the man's. It is as true whether a sperm has actually penetrated
the egg or not."

"So are you saying abortion is OK?"

"No, I'm not saying that. But we have to confront the fact that
from the viewpoint of information, there are innumerable children
who can never be created. Let me show you some."

She brought up on her desktop display an app that I had seen
before. It accepts in real time genetic scans of women who have
hooked themselves in to it. It shows eggs that are ripe at that
very moment, available for fertilization in a woman's body. It
crosses them with the vast collection of stored semen samples
from McCarthyized men. You can specify many parameters. For
instance, you could restrict your display to strong, coordinated
men who would grow to 6'9" or taller, or to those with Black
African fathers and Chinese mothers, or highly intelligent women
with the personality type of CEOs. Such restrictions do not slow
the pace of images available for you to peruse. Meghan had no
obvious filters in place and had set the display rate to a
comfortable one second per image.

"None of these people will ever live. Why is it in comparison so
vital that a sperm that has combined with an egg should?"

I nodded. I couldn't think of a good reason -- but then I never
had been able to before, either.

"Our Church teaches that ensoulment happens at the moment of
conception." She points to her display. "These people may not
have souls, but we certainly know a great deal about them."

We look at a dozen more potential people whiz by before she
continues. "There is another church teaching that we should
emphasize instead, one whose truth is reinforced rather than
undercut by recent technology. And that is not to interfere with
God's plan. We have no business scanning genomes at any point
before birth."

"That will be hard sell, given how successful we have been at
eliminating genetic defects."

"I know that. Church teachings are often unpopular, but it is a
clear line that can be drawn. Thankfully the world is still
united in opposition to infanticide. Once the baby is born, we
can use technology to save its life or improve its quality of
life. Not before."

It's a consistent position. It appeals to many non-Catholics who
are disturbed by the parade of potential people.

I say, "Suppose we take that approach. The Church's teaching on
not interfering with God's plan is also the reason the Church
bans contraception. Yet this is almost universally ignored, even
among devout Catholics."

"That depends on what you mean by a 'devout Catholic'."

"True enough. Let's say it has been almost universally ignored by
self-identified serious Catholics."

She doesn't argue the point, so I go on. "Many religious people
could get behind the idea that we should leave it to God to
determine what properties a baby will have. But humans get to
decide whether to have a baby or not. It's an 'on-off' switch.
They can use the 'off' switch by not having intercourse, by using
contraception, or using the morning-after pill."

I deliberately omit the case of even early-stage abortions. We
both know that once the baby starts to take on recognizably human
form, a different set of issues arises.

She hesitates briefly, then says, "That would be a consistent
view that I think would appeal to many people."

"But not you, as a devout Catholic."

"Correct. My main point is that using or even having information
about potential babies just might be of much greater consequence
than destroying blobs of cells."

"Could that view get you excommunicated?"

She does not appear very enthusiastic as she says, "These are my
private speculations. I accept that I am in error. His Holiness
John Paul IV and his successors will as always discern God's true
plan."

A good Catholic couldn't disagree with that. But if devout,
lifelong Catholics like Meghan Murray can have profound doubts,
others will too. We can predict a notable exodus from the Church
and turmoil among those who remain.

It's ironic that the late Dr. Kyle McCarthy who lent his name to
McCarthyization was himself a devout Catholic whose passion was
eliminating the need for abortion. I interviewed him back in
2055. His work has instead undercut the revulsion against
abortion by revealing a more riveting problem. Abortion opponents
may view it as a tragic irony. But if McCarthy hadn't invented
his technique, others would have before many years had gone by.
As so often happens, people failed to predict the consequences of
new discoveries.

This emphasis on information does raise an interesting
possibility for non-Catholics who seek consistent moral rules,
one that arose in my conversation with Meghan. It might be
permissible to have an abortion because you don't want a baby,
but impermissible if that decision is based on any property of
the future baby you happen to find out.

--------------------------------------------------------

Many are troubled by the images of people -- visible as babies,
children, and adults -- who could have been created but were not.
But there are others who aren't worried about such things. When
they want children, they will pick the one they want most from
among many possibilities.

Eugenics has had a bad name ever since its heyday in the early
20th century. It brings to mind the killing of undesirable
adults, undesirable babies, or undesirable fetuses. Eugenics also
conjures up the idea of a woman forced to mate with a man based
on someone else's decision about a good match.

What we have here is eugenics with a friendly face. The choice is
entirely up to the woman -- and her partner, if she grants her
partner a say. It's not a matter of killing undesirables. There
are so many potential babies that will never be born that no
moral system can fault us for not bringing most of them into the
world -- and what's more, many of them are mutually exclusive
possibilities. It's a positive process -- I choose THIS baby! --
and not a negative one. Yet by the unprecedented precision of
information available, the potential looms for a rapid and
dramatic change in the gene pool beyond what earlier thinkers
could have dreamed of.

The app that Meghan Murray showed me has potential far beyond
entertainment. A woman can detect the genome of her egg before it
actually ripens. She has roughly 48 hours before the egg needs to
be fertilized. She could consult a national database with
millions of sperm samples and choose the one that will produce
the single baby among millions that she wants most. FedEx
overnight is fast enough to bring that baby into being.

The gap between haves and have nots has been widening for
decades. This technology has the power to multiply such
differences a thousand-fold. We will breed people with extreme
traits, and in succeeding generations the rare genes that
contribute to those traits will be far more likely to co-occur in
a single gamete, ready to contribute to further concentrations of
rare genes, resulting in further improvements. New people who are
extraordinarily strong, tall, fast, or graceful might just be
wonders to behold. We will also breed astonishingly intelligent
people. They might give us new technologies or inspire the rest
of us to be our better selves. They also might apply their gifts
to control and manipulation of others for their own ends. They
will accumulate further wealth and power by way of merit.

The technology is not restricted to the 1% or even the 10%.
Anyone in rich countries can use this technology if they want to.
But what about the many who will choose not to use it? The
technology will also be selecting for the willingness to look at
thousands of potential individuals and be untroubled by not
bringing them to life. Consider the mindset of the parents of
these new superbly talented children who weren't troubled by a
potential dancing Amy. They will tend to create a home
environment and convey values so that their children will not be
troubled by it either. Subtle genetic influences are possible as
well, though moral values are mostly unrelated to genes.

My hunch is that indifference to potential people is closely
related to a broader sense of morality and compassion -- or
rather its absence.

And finally, civilizations rise and fall. If we are faced by some
asteroid-induced decade of winter, what skills will be needed for
survival then? Might it not be the ability to patiently hoe
potatoes all day in cold summers,and huddle in cramped dwellings
for months on end in far colder winters. Key traits might be slow
metabolisms, the ability to pack away ample stores of fat when
food is available, and the ability to tolerate boredom. Those are
unlikely to be high on anyone's list of desirable traits today.
Fortunately, the gene pool of poor nations will retain all the
diversity the gene pool has brought forward for tens of thousands
of years. Nature's long-term wisdom may win out over the
inevitable short-term focus of the go-getters of today. The first
will be last -- would be last, or could be last.

Meanwhile, we can expect some extraordinary people to come our
way in the years ahead. What they will mean for our society is
anyone's guess.

============================================================

What did you think? I'm always eager for comments, whether
positive, negative or mixed. Comments to sterling27@live.com.