The sin of doing well by being charitable

“Want to make a million selling violent video games to kids? Go for it. Want to make a million helping cure kids of cancer? You’re labeled a parasite.”

Check out more here

Lane ends, 200 feet. Do you merge?

A fascinating essay on the ethics of merging from this weekend's NY Times Magazine.  Are you a rule-following "lineupper" or a "sidezoomer"?

Although the personal stories of anger and frustration are a treat themselves, the most interesting is the traffic theorists who note that a "zipper merge" at the point of lane closure is the most efficient outcome.  (And clever exits and re-entries are perfectly legitimate, as well). 

A year or two ago, I was traveling on I-35 and the traffic signage specifically asked motorists to use both lanes and to alternate entering the remaining lane.  Like the unified checkout at the retail store, it should only be a matter of time before we implement the zipper merge. 

Preserving disabilities for the sake of diversity?

Should more parents be able to avoid having a child with disabilities? Such is the dilemma raised by new testing technology and recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The doctors are recommending that all pregnant women have their fetuses tested for Down Syndrome, a disability affecting 350,000 Americans.

Parents of children with Down Syndrome say that we shouldn't be too hasty in choosing to avoid having any children with Down's. Raising issues from funding for research on the disability to school access to presence of other similar children, the parents are organizing to help parents whose fetus has a Down Syndrome diagnosis to consider the options.

At the same time, Down syndrome is not a cakewalk for parents.

The 5,500 children born with Down syndrome each year in the United States suffer from mild to moderate mental retardation, are at high risk for congenital heart defects and a variety of other medical problems, and have an average life expectancy of 49. As adults, some hold jobs, but many have difficulty living independently.

On the one hand there's the ethical question of parent's choosing features of their children (e.g. the presence of disabilities, perhaps the gender, etc...). On the other hand, having a child with this disability means a lot of extra care and work. And what about the child? No matter the quality of the parenting, the child will still have to face the social stigma of their condition, the being "different."

I was left with two thoughts:
1) As the article notes, some of these parents are rather selfishly desiring their child to grow up in a supportive environment. More kids with Down syndrome means more support. That's crap.
2) In a recent conversation with the vet about our outdoor cat, he noted that Leo was likely to have a shorter lifespan than an indoor cat (I'm sure he's expended several of his 9 lives already). However, he also said that it may be a much happier life for him (and any cat) than being confined to a single house for a lifetime. Are the the lives of my cat and my children simply subject to my personal preferences?