99% of people believe in God in Brazil? It's not reliable. The last PNAD (Pesquisa Nacional por Amostragem de Domicílios, or National Survey through Household Sampling) showed that in Brazil there are 12 492 403 people who declare to have no religion. I know it is not the same as not to believe in God, but it can be used as a proxy. And this figure is not 0,01% of a 170 000 000 population. Link: http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/censo2000/populacao/religiao_Censo2000.pdf

Is it just me or there is no clear-cut hypothesis being tested? Free associations of unrelated concepts may be statistically significant. What has sexual orientation to do with any of the phenotypes studied?

It is quite amusing to imagine a researcher trying to discover the real, natural, undyed colour of a woman's hair. Nothing harder.

Get yourself new batteries. The ones you have got are "addicted" - they have the charge setpoint restored to the small amounts of charge they used to get from the torn up wires of your old AC adapter. The constant on-off current switching unables the batteries to be fully charged, specially the old models.

This kind of genetic engeneering on this hypothetical japanese would be done to make "fine tunning" on complexion, height or appearence. The whole idea is that, by the means of genetic engineering, or selective abortions, or what else, parents would be able to control one or two biological knobs and switch their future descendece's height, complexion, noses, eyes, and so on. 
 
It is well understood that relatives have, to one or another degree, the fantasy that their children will fulfill or surpass their own abilites in life. Relatives do make a lot of expectations on their children. For example, boys will be as good sportists as fathers were, girls would be more atractive, or better ballet dancers, than their mothers. 
 
Physical appearence, intelligency, charm and personality are qualities that no one thinks are in excess, no matter how much they have. To most parents, specially during the first years of parenthood, children are small little people who will make true many of parent's dreams, including some personal aspirations that were not accomplished. Evidently, as anyone learns, life is full of disappontments and frustrations, and kids will be only who they are. Intelligent relatives realise fast that one copeing with frustration is a key ability to one who would like to identificate himself as happy. Even though his not a PhD football star or her daughter is not the highly-intelligent Spring Princess. 
 
I do not want to seem a moralist, either do not want to pass judgement on anybody, but it would be interesting to investigate what is behind such an idea. I also would like to remind that the feasability of one scientifical proccedure is not reason enough to justify it ethically.

I would like to put some of the comments here in perspective. 
In the past most families were touched by death, indeed, and many children died before 1 year old. However, one cannot prove that the greatest losses were during infancy anbd chilhood. There is evidence for the opposite. Children were more affected by infectious diseases, and they were the first to benefit from reductions of infections. This reduction can be accounted by improvements in nutrition and public health caused by economic growth(1). 
 
The idea of reducing the population so wealth can be increased is not new at all. It has been first elaborated in the 18th century by Malthus. It says namely that lolwering the population of poor people by means of restricion would effectively decrease poverty. Other aspect of the idea is called theory of population and had profound influence on Darwin himself and the original idea of species competition. However, Darwin also noted that the thory was applied to animals without human intelligence. This determinism was criticized by (who?) Marx (2). 
I think people are a little bit biased by social aspects when discussing on biology. 
My bias is the one of a citizen of a 3rd world country. Here, infectious diseases, chronic illnesses and the losses they cause on economy are not theory. Everyday public health administrators face with the problem of a non-producing, sick population that have to be supported by bthe welfare state. I would be very glad if someone could explain me how to increase wealth of a population just letting the sick go. 
1-http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/spring06/w11963.html 
2-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus

I think that Mr. Caplan has got it right. The burden of a disease is not only the physiological damage to an organism, or the psychological suffering that anyone has already passed by. There are social and economical costs, paid by the sick, their family and the State. One would say that letting the sick die would improve general income. That would be the same as to say that if half of the population of a hypothetical town was killed, let's say, by cholera, then per capita wealth would double. The issue is, after all sick die, who will produce wealth? The living. They will not double the production of wealth to keep the total amount of wealth stable. Some of the town's citizens would not be killed by cholera, but would become too weak to work, and would become extra cost for the wealth-producing citizens. This is taken in consideration when planning public health policies. Vaccines, sanitation and antibiotics are indeed expensive, but the costs of not treating is higher. Sorry for the general lack of quotations on papers or other sources, but this is basic medical knowledge.