Again, the most important point here is that this knowledge of the true complexity of real life is something you can only gain by living–as a very young person you can’t know these things. I’ve had only a few of these preconception-shattering insights in my life, but once they hit you you never forget…

The stake to the heart of cheuvanism didn’t even really work. She had the same feelings toward the whole thing or she wouldn’t have consented to the test in the first place.

The speculative element seemed mundane, and the story unconvincing and overstated.

The story was good, but nothing I haven’t hear before. The voice was out standing, and I would like to hear more of her pod casts.

Thanks.

I was intrigued by the reading style, but I couldn’t decide if I liked it. The slow pace and flat accent kind of accentuated the idea that the characters had originated in the midwest. But it wasn’t really that nice to listen to.

There seemed to be some criticism that the ‘real issue’ not adequately aired was socio-economical / genetic class struggle. I agree that the premise is like Gattaca; a great story illustrating the individual and socio-economical implications of the ability to genetically modify ourselves. That was a major point of Gattaca. However, I don’t believe that it was or ought to be the primary issue addressed by this story. Instead, I believe that the focus was the impact of a society with an ability to test and modify genetics (for those with sufficient funds) has on an individual, a (potential) couple, and (again, potential) family. The author noted that there is a socio-economical aspect to the problem the character is facing. It is an important part but it is still only a part. Personal struggle against socio-economical implications of this ability is a theme better left to Gattaca and other stories that take this course.

This piece feels to me more like a thought experiment. It touched on many ways of reasoning while emphasizing the one that gave the character the most hope. She wanted to have a family with him and was trying to find a way, some source of hope, that it could work. What this story, for me, really does is attempting to throw off the ‘rational actor’ and recognize that emotion and desire, hopes and dreams, have just as much, if not more, of an impact on decisions regarding love and family. She recognizes that his hopes (of a symmetrical relationship and higher probabilities of genetic success) were in direct conflict with hers (a family with him). I am glad she realizes this fatal flaw to their relationship. I wish that his dreams had been in line with hers, but we don’t always have that. Most things in a relationship don’t have to be symmetrical: e.g. talents, personality, physical features. But the most important part of an enduring relationship does: hopes, dreams, and love.

I love my wife. We ave very asymmetrical in terms of abilities, tastes, and other things. But we are symmetrical in our dreams of life together despite differences and our hopes for our young (20 months) daughter who will, despite her inherited genetics and many similarities, will be very different than the both of us.

I wasn’t planning on carrying on like that. I hope it came out and across well enough. Take or reject my opinions as you will. After all, they are just mine.

P.S. For additional conversation on the ethics and morality of genetic engineering I recommend this talk: “How Do We Think about What Is Human?: C. S. Lewis and The Abolition of Man” by Jean Bethke Elshtain (http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1650&tid=2)

The only way the science in the story would make sense is if mutation rates had been drastically heightened (by nuclear war?) and the only way to get a half-healthy child was to spend pregnancy in a lead-insulated box. Then there would be a large genetically damaged underclass. But there’s no hint of such a scenario in the story.

Anyway, great singing.

The genetic potential of the haves versus the Have-nots wasn’t pushed enough to make the side comment about upcoming class struggle feel as just filler. Ecpecially the only lens through which we see the potential conflict changes views at the end.

The main characters were shallow enough in the beginning that by the end, when one becomes just less shallow enough to feel differently about children, I just don’t care.

forgettable characters.
Forgettable conflict.
A foregettable story.

She seemed to sort of skirt that point, and then justify her position with much less valid arguments, such as a negative association with “cold numbers”, and the possibility that such a test could hurt relationships.

Also, I didn’t think the ending was very moving or tragic– a guy who would end a relationship based on the possibility that their child wouldn’t be slightly above average according to some arbitrary social standards clearly wouldn’t have made a very good father or husband.

I’ve had a couple of friends involved in long-lasting relationships which ended rather abruptly when they found out their goals regarding hypothetical future children did not agree. The emotions ad the actions of the characters really hit home with me.

P.S. Maybe my throat clearing copy will become a collectors item like misprinted stamps and comic books

This episode is not showing up on iTunes yet.