to think children should be randomly reallocated at birth?

[AnotherEffingOrangeRevel]

I think this would solve a lot of problems.

For instance, I have a tendency to experience anxiety. My DC therefore both inherit my anxiety genes and also learn from my anxious behaviours (even if I try to minimise this) - a double whammy. If they had been reallocated to someone else, and I had been allocated someone else's biological DC (perhaps with a genetic tendency to feel angry, say; something I suffer less often), this might potentially all get ironed out.

OK, so there are some potential problems with the scheme. But AIBU to think it might have its advantages?

Alien replacement..plausible.

It would probably make for a fairer society but this thread demonstrates that the chances of good genetic material growing up without whimsy, imagination or much intelligence are just too high to risk it.

I have a son conceived naturally with my husband and a baby son conceived via IVF with donor eggs and my husband's sperm (we don't know the egg donor). So a pretty random allocation of maternal genes anyway. It's different to the OP's proposal in that I carried ds2 and gave birth to him but I am looking forward to seeing what he's like as he grows older. Ihe certaintly feels like 'mine'. I also think I see some signs of the anxious side of my personality in ds1 and I'd be glad if ds2 escaped that (although he will presumably have his own 'defects' as we all do).

This is funny! Of course the op wants to swap her children and have a nation of mass child swapping.

Seriously though, if you have anxiety you might know more about it, and be more empathetic, know about what treatments may help, and therefore be a more stabilising parent than if the anxious child got swapped to have the angry parents?!

"It would probably make for a fairer society but this thread demonstrates that the chances of good genetic material growing up without whimsy, imagination or much intelligence are just too high to risk it."

As risk if being flamed for not being "lighthearted" enough, can I repeat my question.

What is the proposal for those children who won't grow up?

Alien replacement..plausible.

I think it's fairies - all those stories about changelings - it isn't newborns it's the teenagers they want for workers .

Knowing what is in your family medical history - it a positive thing mostly.

I know dyslexia and dyspraxia are common so have been aware of potential problems my DC could have developed - plus I know type two diabetes is common so have even more incentive than other parents to ensure active children who are at least presented with a healthy diet.

Presumably having experience anxiety you'd have an idea of what it was like for any children of yours, coping strategies that you've developed and can pass on and an awareness that it could develop in your children.

Perhaps it is less a double whammy and more being raised in an environment catering more to mitigating problems that might be worse in other environments.

I think the principle has already been tested via twin adoption studies, where each twin was adopted into a different family. And it turns out that nearly everything, health, wealth etc is genetic, to a very high degree.

I though when quantified it was something like 40% they generally come in around - with rest being prenatal environment, home life and as DC get older peer group influences was disturbingly high.

Though actually quantifying in any meaningful way it a bit hard anyway - I think it a complex interaction of environment and genetics and epigenetics that's going to be impossible to unscrambled for any one individual.

At least the kids couldn't then say to you "I didn't ask to be born." You can then truthfully say, I had nothing to do with you being born either.

Do we get scored on looks pre allocation?
Say me and DH would be ranked a 1/10, could we get a baby with supermodel genetic parents 10/10? But then chances are they might not make Mensa? Hm tricky.

"Double whammy" ?!?

I think you are a GF, OP

You can't ever get a perfect child so stop being so silly.

If this is meant to be lighthearted you've forgotten to be funny..

Fucking hell, has everyone quit smoking this week or something?

I thought it was funny. As it was clearly a joke. I have anxiety too, am I allowed to find it funny?

Also, what happens to the children who get allocated to parents who suddenly expire, to continue the dark note?

Another swapsies?

I don't think having anxiety precludes you from moral musings on the subject, does it?

I think I would get an exemption as I sleep like a big dead log and have passed this on to my children - it wouldn't be safe for me to trade with a bad sleeper (or fair)!

Also, slightly more seriously, my "problems" are of the autoimmune variety and I think it is better that I parent my predisposed children as will know the signs/treatments etc. Perhaps it could be opt-in?

I have anxiety - i think the OP has GF too.

There's a book in this thread somewhere

But if you have potential genetic conditions that you don't want to pass on.....you would still be passing it on...but for some law to deal with.

It's bonkers doesn't even make sense.

There is no double whammy.

--

"Double whammy" ?!?

I think you are a GF, OP

You can't ever get a perfect child so stop being so silly.

'Children of a highly antisocial parent (i.e. a parent with high aggression, irritability and a history of illegal activites) are at increased genetic risk for displaying antisocial behaviour (e.g. lying, fighting, having a hot temper). This genetic risk is present, of course, even if the highly antisocial parent (usually the father) is completely absent from the home and the child is raised by the other parent. However, as Sarah Jaffee and co-workers (2003) found, when high-antisocial fathers live at home and are involved in caretaking, this further increases children's antisocial behaviour and risk of developing a conduct disorder. In contrast, when low-antisocial fathers live at home and participate in caretaking, this tends to decrease children's antisocial behaviour. Jaffee and co-workers concluded that children of high-antisocial fathers who are involved in caretaking receive what they call a 'double-whammy' of genetic and environmental contributions to their own antisocial behaviour.'
(Holt, Bremner, Sutherland, Vilek, Passer, Smith, Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour, 2nd Ed., 2012, p. 495)

I must admit I have no idea what the nature/nurture situation is with anxiety (/neuroticism), though.

I though when quantified it was something like 40% they generally come in around

Pretty much.

'[G]enetic factors accounted for approximately 40 to 50 per cent of the variance among people in [personality] trait scores.'
(Ibid., p. 586)

I should add that the latter citation refers to Tellegen et al.'s twin study of 1988.

The "better the devil you know" thing, which a few people have pointed out, is a good point. It's true certain things must be easier to deal with and mitigate if you're familiar with them. Hmmm... could each child come with a sort of background information pack, perhaps?

I also agree with the PP who said the ideas behind this could be expressed more positively, too, rather than just in terms of problems. So a parent with a genetic predisposition to, say, high intellectual ability/educational attainment would have a higher chance of raising a child with genetic predisposition to low intellect than would be the case if rearing her own offspring. This parent could then be in a better position than the biological parents to mitigate tendencies which could otherwise limit the child's options. This sort of thing could really break up all the spiraling "rich get richer" and "poor get poorer" (not just materially) in society. I think it could make people a hell of a lot less selfish, too.

cleaty, I like your thinking - so many great come-backs for grumpy teens.

Smilias - "double whammy" in a real academic text book! Hurrah!

To anyone who's upset - I'm sorry you feel that way.
I'm afraid I don't think it's a good reason for others not to discuss things, though.

Goady? I've seen some goady OPs but this isn't one of them.

Yes I'm sure any randomer we would love to parent my autistic kids. Seeing as they get such acceptance in general society. What could go wrong?

To anyone who's upset - I'm sorry you feel that way
I'm afraid I don't think it's a good reason for others not to discuss things, though

Yes to this X 1000.

The professionally offended thankfully do not have the right to close down any hypothetical or speculative discussion that happens not to fit within their approved parameters.

I guess this is lighthearted but it makes be fe horrific just to think about it!

So a parent with a genetic predisposition to, say, high intellectual ability/educational attainment would have a higher chance of raising a child with genetic predisposition to low intellect than would be the case if rearing her own offspring. This parent could then be in a better position than the biological parents to mitigate tendencies which could otherwise limit the child's options. This sort of thing could really break up all the spiraling "rich get richer" and "poor get poorer" (not just materially) in society. I think it could make people a hell of a lot less selfish, too.

Some of the benefits start in the womb - with the mother eating well and the child getting enough nutrients (and increasing looking like the environment GP had switching on and off gene or changing how they are expressed ) I would have thought your swap plan would mean less incentive for mothers to look after themselves and the unborn child and refrain from drink and possibly drugs.

Would there be an impact on bf rates? Across of population that supposed to affect health and well being - though again hard to access impact on an individual child and again that are lots of other influences.

Would there be a market in back handers to get a good child with poor people getting less desirable children?

Plus there are less radical methods that have benefit of having been tried and proven to work - one such as good state education that doesn't rely on parental input, well funded early years services - having a society that is set up for social mobility or a political class that come from and therefore understand and care about all sections of society.