In Selection effects, it was noted that circumstances and choices wholly determine who we have known, know and will know in the future. The family is an exception to it. No circumstances and choices can determine who would be in one’s family. i do not mean the trivial exception of marriage and family made out of one’s own volition.
Family as in where and when the members share a blood relation which was cast in place beyond everyone’s control - parent and child.

A parent cannot choose who could be their child, how the child could be. Similarly, a child cannot choose who could be their parents, how their parents could be. Lack of any choice or any illusion of which, readily implies there cannot be any selection effects. Futhermore, this lack of choice also plagues the siblings.

How many would choose to exchange their fathers/mothers/siblings? How many would want to disown their fathers/mothers/siblings? Is it ethical? The question of ethics is raised here but not in case of friends/acquiantances/partners. In a way, lack of choice empowers such bonds so much that breaking them is seen as unethical. This is a defeatist attitude. Presence of a biological connection renders these bonds unbreakable. Rather, they are breakable but doing so is seen unethical. Fathers and mothers provide for the offspring. This debt makes breaking the bond unethical for the offspring. How unfair is it that for things beyond one’s control, the burden of bonds are to be carried through.

If in a world, if there was an agency, which managed and mapped parents and the offsprings, how wonderful would it be? It would take consents from the parents and the offsprings, match the personalities/expectations/needs/demands/idealogies of both the parties and only then let the offspring be conceived with the parent?