A clean-cut, educated couple sits down for an interview. They do not want any children right… A clean-cut, educated couple sits down for an interview. They do not want any children right now, they explain, because the career comes first in order to best provide for a family when the right time does come. Next time they are interviewed, they say having kids would be nice, but that now is not the right market in which to start a family. When they are finally ready for children, it turns out they missed their biological window of opportunity, and both blame each other for their failed reproductive outcome.’ ‘ ‘ Meanwhile, the quotidian teenage mom in the trailer park down the road has collected about a half-dozen little rugrats without much in the way of planning. Those rugrats beget more rugrats, whose clans grow exponentially while passing on their conventional and crude ways from one generation to the next. In the end, the world is overrun by multitudes like this, while the fiscally responsible couple never ends up reproducing once. This is the scenario from the 2006 film ‘Idiocracy,’ in which the eventual dumbing down of the populous leaves the world filled with modern cavemen ‘mdash; no offense ‘mdash; unable to make much progress as a society. It’s an actual concept of study ‘mdash; the ‘demographic-economic paradox.’ Sheer numbers overpower the efficiency of selective evolution. Dysgenics ‘mdash; the ‘dilution’ of quality genetic material ‘mdash; is then supposed to eventually lead to a slowdown in human progress. I believe it was George Carlin who said in one of his last stand-up comedy routines, ‘No Child Left Behind. Oh, really? It wasn’t too long ago you were talking about giving children a head start. Head start ‘mdash; left behind, someone’s losing ground here.’ And looking around, particularly in my bathroom vanity, has led me to believe dysgenics is inevitable. So how does one counter this genetic free-fall? At present, I see three options: negative eugenics, Chinese birth control or positive eugenics ‘mdash; Robert Klark Graham-style. Since forced sterilizations in the early 20th century proved to be an immoral and plainly just bad idea and because adopting any policies from communist China will never be an option, our only hope is to start utilizing positive eugenics to take our gene pools in a progressive direction. Designer babies, here I come. Personally, I cannot wait to reproduce a handpicked, top-of-the-line mutant cyborg baby and call him my own. The more superpowers, the better. He will have 20/20 infrared binocular, no ‘mdash; trinocular vision, a 50-inch vertical leap and the nose of a Bloodhound. Forget college funds, it’s time to start saving for your future child’s genetic modifications. It is a more comprehensive investment than college: You start off with a rad, Terminator-like infant that is physically incapable of crying, with 250 terabytes of memory and the necessary critical assessment skills to ace the LSATs by age 5. Teach him a few good manners, and that small gene mod investment you initially made turns into a full ride to Oxford. Come up with an inventive name for him ‘mdash; let’s go with Sirius Lee ‘mdash; and you now have the first major step in your gene line’s advance toward post-humanism. Some skeptics out there don’t seem to realize this is the only way to save our country, maybe even humanity as a whole, from degenerating into a mass of sheep that fights fire with gasoline. Guys like Bruce, my guest columnist this week, tend to ask too many questions, delaying my plans for Lee’s augmentations. But in the tradition of fairness, I’ll give Bruce his shake. Go ahead, buddy. Bruce: Thanks, Brandon. I wanted to raise some concerns about positive eugenics, as I believe allowing for such a development opens up more questions than it provides solutions. What happens if gene modifications become so popular that everyone is average in relation to one another?’ What if those who were born with modifications begin to resent those without? Will only the wealthy have access to this? How do we measure children for their bravery or their altruism or generosity? Are these not traits that help benefit and advance our society as a whole? It’s not that I ‘mdash; Me: That’s enough, Bruce. You’re over-thinking this one. And last time I checked, this was America. You must not have heard me the first time: Terminator-baby. Some people … ‘ ‘ ‘ LOL ‘mdash; tell Bruce how naive he is at [email protected].