"in some families, the condition appears to have an autosomal dominant pattern of inheritance. Autosomal dominant inheritance means that one copy of the altered gene in each cell is typically sufficient to cause the disorder"
So every person that is descended from this one will have the disease. So why is she having the operation?
"I really want to go ahead and have a family."
So let's say she does have that gene, and technology is introduced to let her reproduce.
"MRKH syndrome affects approximately 1 in 4,500 newborn girls."
Let's assume the Autosomal dominant inheritance happens in one in ten cases.. they haven't given the exact figure anywhere i can find.
"Women with MRKH syndrome may also have abnormalities in other parts of the body. The kidneys may be abnormally formed or positioned, or one kidney may fail to develop (unilateral renal agenesis). Affected individuals commonly develop skeletal abnormalities, particularly of the spinal bones (vertebrae). Females with MRKH syndrome may also have hearing loss or heart defects."
So these people will require more money to care for than they are likely to produce; they are a net burden over the span of their lives.
So 1 in 45, 000 girls will have it in the first generation. Lets assume each girl has two children on average that survives to reproduce, and that the world population is stable.. big assumptions, but probably not too far off.
7.046 billion (2012) total people.. let's make it 3 billion women world wide as a simplification.
3 000 000 000 / 45 000 = 3 000 000/45
= 66, 667 worldwide.
in twenty years, 133,333
Forty years, 266,667
One hundred: 2133333
120, 140, 160 180 200 220
4,266,666, 8,533,332, 1,706,6664, 34,133,328, 68,266,656, 136,533,312,
240 260 280 300
273,066,624 546,133,248 1,092,266,496 2,184,532,992
So in 340 years, if this practise was followed with ONLY ONE of these types of diseases, the entire human population would be suffering from it. EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON EARTH WOULD BE WORKING AT A LOSS.
Obviously only one disorder is absurd. If you bring this in, you'll bring it in for all sorts of genetic traits that currently self limit by creating a zygote (adult organism) unable to breed. The crash will occur when the sum total of human productivity is negative; at that point, people will start to die and this technology will become unsustainable.
Now tech developments may well put off the final day, but let's look at how much they have done to defeat things like the common cold, or the aging process.
Currently life expectancy has pretty much plateaued in the richer countries. (http://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&hl=en&dl=en&idim=country:USA:RUS:CHN)
Barring some miraculous breakthroughs, this is pretty much it in terms of how well we can cope for the future.Technology hasn't solved the problems of aging, it has merely helped us survive a few years more, over the period from 1962 to now. Social development has been the real game changer, with dividends for most, and an overall loss for the wretched inmates of North Korea.
So if we introduce this technology, the consequence is that we will cause incredible misery for future billions in exchange for the happiness of a tiny few now.
Is that truly a good idea?