6 ms·

Those who haven't seen it, should definitely see Gattaca. Good movie, but aside from that, posits a premise that I think will resonate with virtually everyone.

• eganist 11y ago
  Counterpoint: traits arise through neural networks established in the brain. What's to say that we won't reach a point where such traits can be artificially engineered? Likely not in the near future, but I see it happening hundreds of years from now.
  • Ygg2 11y ago
    Great. Now we only need to decide which traits are those... Perhaps servility and humility. Doing what's told? I bet lot of moms and dictators would love that. Eternal happiness. Why shower, when you are happy as you are? Why eat when you are already happy? EDIT: The point is, our traits depend on environment. If it changes, we change as well. We might think we control our environment, but so far, I doubt that's possible.
• finnh 11y ago
  Life will continue to provide sufficient travails, even to those with "perfect" genetics, that I don't think this is a real concern. On the very, very minor end of the spectrum: If I could guarantee that my child (or i) would never have a cold, I would choose that for sure. There is zero downside. My resulting life will not be excessively perfect; people being mean in high school will still scar people for life, etc.
  • FussyZeus 11y ago
    Point of order: We don't know there's no downside to never having a cold. Unforeseen consequences and all that.
    • finnh 11y ago
      That's a different argument than OP was making. Clearly if "never having a cold" happens to also mean "dies at 50" then it's not a good idea. But OP was arguing that the experience of having a cold makes you a better person, and thus we perhaps should not edit colds out of our genome.
      • Ygg2 11y ago
        OP, didn't declare any logical means to achieve it. If "never having a cold" might also mean you suffer allergies due hyper immune system. Or be susceptible to a future disease people without cold can easily overcome.
    • deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    • Delmania 11y ago
      I'm struggling to find the right way to disagree with this. On one hand, we do know the downsides, provided there is no immunization. We don't develop the antibodies needed to fight the disease, and we're at greater risk for an outbreak. Polio was defeated largely due to immunizations, but there's still outbreaks that are devastating because people don't get vaccinated. I'm also not sure we can vaccinate against the cold, I think it's like the flu, it mutates too quickly.
      • FussyZeus 11y ago
        Well right I'm not disagreeing directly, I'm more saying if we could choose to simply not get colds, we don't know definitively what that would mean because it's impossible to test currently in any sort of practical way.
• cordite 11y ago
  The part about him as a kid being unable to play with the other kids because he may be an insurance risk really struck at me here. At least today, it shouldn't seem to be the same as not having immunization shots and being a risk to others.
• mikeash 11y ago
  I love that movie, but what you say doesn't resonate with me. I see no reason to think that willpower and the rest are "unquantifiable." And ultimately the protagonist selfishly endangers his entire crew because he refuses to accept his physical limitations. Confronting adversity and pushing our limits is great, but imposing unnecessary adversity on our children, when there is an alternative, is no good. It's strange how this sort of sentiment appears whenever you talk about genetics, yet I never see anyone praise the virtues of imperfection when it comes to taking prenatal vitamins or not eating too much fish during pregnancy.
  • pc86 11y ago
    > And ultimately the protagonist selfishly endangers his entire crew because he refuses to accept his physical limitations. I think we watched different movies. Sure the scene on the treadmills showed that he could barely keep up, but he still kept up. To say that he "selfishly endanger[ed]" his crewmates is a bit hyperbolic.
    • mikeash 11y ago
      He had a heart condition which was likely to kill him soon. He was healthy enough at the time, but there was a good chance he'd die from it while in space.
  • maratd 11y ago
    > It's strange how this sort of sentiment appears whenever you talk about genetics, yet I never see anyone praise the virtues of imperfection when it comes to taking prenatal vitamins or not eating too much fish during pregnancy. This is a valid criticism, it's far easier to portray this issue as black/white, when in reality, it is unbelievably complex. Nature of course, does not permit pure defects to exist for any substantial period of time. They are viciously eliminated from the gene pool. The ones that stick around are a double-edged sword. A lot of benefit here, some detriment there. And we separate them and decry the detriment ... but you can't have one without the other. I am fearful of the day when we start eliminating these genes, that clearly have a detriment, but may also have a clear and more substantial benefit that is not readily apparent. The computational power of natural selection over millions of years through trillions of permutations is unfathomable and does not rely on the necessity of human cognition. We are playing with fire when we start playing whack-a-mole with genes. I'm all for trying, but we should tread carefully.
• daodedickinson 11y ago
  China has shown you can do a pretty good job of legislating the heads of parents to change. Their system is rather similarly classist and eugenicist as the Spartan one, where the party leaders at the top are very interested in keeping a national and even international genetic advantage. The eugenicist story of Yao Ming's upbringing, if true, would be far more innocuous than thousands of known programs. And of course, every year there is another rumble that they are leading in the march to human cloning. It seems a possible path to becoming the world's only superpower, unless the smart people just turn on each other without enough dumber people to order around, or some other country somehow gets superhuman AI first. http://www.vice.com/read/chinas-taking-over-the-world-with-a-massive-genetic-engineering-program/ http://www.vice.com/read/chinas-taking-over-the-world-with-a...
• Retric 11y ago
  Gattaca stuck with narrative causality. There is little to suggest that cleaning up DNA is would prevent obstacles. If anything the opposite might happen where achievements are one of the few ways to stand out.
• lordCarbonFiber 11y ago
  I really wish that movie would stop being brought up. If you haven't watched it since HS like most people, I'd encourage you to watch it again. There is nothing noble about hiding a heart condition in order to become a crucial member on an expedition that will almost certainly kill you. On top of that the distopia just ended up feeling shallow. We're never given any reason as to why society drops any pretense at meritocracy just because of the availability of genetically optimized babies (to say nothing of the handwaving around genetic markers for fuzzy traits like intelligence nor the idea that environment plays a nontrivial part in development). The most major discrimination is that a space flight agency doesn't want an astronaut with a high probability of dieing mid mission. That's not only perfectly reasonable it's also what we do now. Vincent never would be allowed on a NASA space flight anymore than he should have been allowed on the GATTACA flight. Gattaca is a film everyone should see if only to understand that the lay person has no business weighing in on issues of scientific ethics. A tale of human exceptionalism that does a great job of ignoring any of the science it claims to take inspiration from.
  • maratd 11y ago
    > If you haven't watched it since HS like most people, I'd encourage you to watch it again. Just did, available on Amazon Prime for streaming. Just as good as I remembered. > There is nothing noble about hiding a heart condition in order to become a crucial member on an expedition that will almost certainly kill you. There's something disgusting about telling people what they can and can't do without actually testing whether they can do it or not. You see, when you test actual ability, you're confirming an almost infinite amount of data points all at once. Your picture is complete and no understanding is necessary. It's a binary proposition. You either can or can't. When you test for a genetic disposition ... it's just that. A disposition. You're testing only a single data point. That data point might be very important ... or it might not. Either way, it's a terrible way to determine actual ability. He wasn't negligent in the slightest. It was all the useless genetic testing. They should have been testing his ability. If they did that, there wouldn't be a movie or anything to be outraged over. > On top of that the distopia just ended up feeling shallow. The movie is over 20 years old. I'd say it held up as well as could be expected. > We're never given any reason as to why society drops any pretense at meritocracy just because of the availability of genetically optimized babies Laziness. Why go through the trouble of testing ability, which is very hard ... vs pressing a button on a computer? > The most major discrimination is that a space flight agency doesn't want an astronaut with a high probability of dieing mid mission. The movie made it clear that this discrimination was pervasive in every walk of life ... which makes sense. Why hire a genetically inferior person if you can determine that through the press of a button? > That's not only perfectly reasonable it's also what we do now. No we don't. We do actual physical testing. We set up physical parameters that the person must clearly demonstrate. I mean, that's why they call it a physical. > Vincent never would be allowed on a NASA space flight anymore than he should have been allowed on the GATTACA flight. No, he wouldn't. You're right. Because he's myopic. Which by the way, is not a genetically inherited defect, although it was thought to be at the time the movie was made. But if the assumption that genetics played a part in myopia was perpetuated in the future as it is in the movie, that would be a truly sad state of affairs. You would have people being discriminated against for no valid rational reason. That's the point of this movie. Genetics very rarely determine a certainty. Merely a probability. > Gattaca is a film everyone should see if only to understand that the lay person has no business weighing in on issues of scientific ethics. Wow. I don't think scientists should have a monopoly on ethics. Pass.
• chillacy 11y ago
  > That there are unquantifiable attributes like willpower, perseverance, honor, compassion, etc. that arise out of adversity and overcoming our shortcomings It's funny because personality is still about 50% genetic (though it can be complex: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/under-the-influence/201307/do-genes-influence-personality https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/under-the-influence/201... ) For instance in Twin studies, we regularly find that if one twin becomes an addict, so will the other, even if they're raised differently. Compassion also seems to be partly genetic as well.