IMHO, the OP was somewhat carelessly worded (risking the kinds of offense that indeed were taken), but the “deeper” issue is logical and well worth discussing.
Societies/cultures have preferences, some very overt, some implied. People who grow up in those societies absorb those preferences. It almost certainly has some effect on the choices we make. (I am not saying that preferences and dispositions have no other source than cultural conditioning, BTW.) Though I have not been a pregnant woman for 52 years and counting, there’s considerable plausibility to the claim that, when we learn to fine-tune the physical and mental traits of our unborn progeny, there will be winners and losers among those traits.
Tendencies to extreme variation from the norm re weight and physique and height will surely be weeded out. Baldness, too (in that a person with hair can easily choose to become visually bald, but the reverse is much more difficult). The sorts of things we term “birth defects,” as well as many plain old diseases, will be nipped in the bud; and I doubt anyone will listen to the “deafness is just another culture” lobbyists. People will keep all their teeth till death does them part; and I don’t recommend investing in the eyeglasses business.
Will the entire population become “conventionally beautiful”? Will we weed out, not just the Ann Coulters and Linda Tripps and the real ugly guy living a few doors down on my street (who runs around shirtless), but also Kathy Bates? Linda Hunt? George W. Bush? Golda Meir? Will future Joe Leibermans not get a hearing just because their jowls no longer remind anybody of a beloved grandfather?
As for so-called racial traits, I’m less concerned about color than about noses and butts and eye-folds. Many white aesthetes think black is sexy–if it looks like Denzel Washington. But the Al Sharptons (and Nelson Mandelas!) may be at a great disadvantage. The vaguely Euro-Western standard of beauty–or, better, “range of the acceptable”–surely dominates right now. I don’t see the Kim Jong Il look having much of a future.
Yes, people will want to have smart babies–but also compliant, obedient babies who don’t cry much. Nice fodder for a world dictatorship by MicroSoft-Disney.
Homosexuality? (See the movie TWILIGHT OF THE GOLDS.) Not as clear as all that. If parents had, say, 6 children, they might actually like having a queerboy or dykegirl. But if ZPG is the rule, few hetero parents would care to give either of their reproduction-tickets to someone whose desires they find difficult to identify with. (A countervailing tendency: open gays and lesbians having children on their own.)
I hate to say it as much as you hate to hear it, but if “diversity” has a value in and of itself–and I think it does–progressive thinkers are going to have to insist on something VERY counterintuitive: a certain amount of wombless baby-making under government control, with a measurable mandate to produce certain numbers of new people per year with “disfavored” traits. Think it’ll happen? Neither do I.
No more than we’ll have any luck trying to stop parents from bearing designer babies.