3 ms·

You don't need dna to perform an ethnic cleansing. It's not even really that helpful. We've been doing those as a species for centuries, long before we even kne

You don't need dna to perform an ethnic cleansing. It's not even really that helpful. We've been doing those as a species for centuries, long before we even knew what DNA was. In the case of the reverse: doesn't that just strengthen my point that this tool should be used to narrow the set of possible perpetrators? Btw, I find the "this is a really bad take" verbiage to be rude and unnecessary. You could just leave it out and it wouldn't make your argument weaker.

Consultant32452 7y ago
When I had my DNA tested I found out I was 7% Jewish. It's not clear if that's enough "bad" blood to qualify me for the gas chamber.
- hilbert42 7y ago
  I'd bet it would have been quite sufficient information for the likes of Heinrich Himmler—and if you'd lived back then and if he could have gotten his hands on you then you'd be history! That's why putting one's DNA on line is so dangerous and so bloody damn stupid! For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would voluntarily put their DNA on any database when it's been so damn obvious for many years—from the very start—that police, governments, life insurance companies and crooks etc. are just dying to get their grubby little paws on this valuable information. What annoys me even more is that people who put their DNA on these databases do so without consideration of those who are genetically related to them. When a person puts their DNA on a database, ipso facto, they are also violating the privacy of their near (and no-so-near) relatives, who in most instances, have never given their consent to do so. Frankly, I consider this a terrible state of affairs and there should be strict laws against people doing it. Seems to me that now that the cat's out of the bag the only thing that can be done is to seed these databases with cleverly engineered noisy/disruptive profiles that would make tree analysis much harder to decipher.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    Okay, now do the same thing, but with the potential benefits of large DNA databases so we can compare and contrast.
    - hilbert42 7y ago
      No, I'll let you do that and then I'll show you that, irrespective of what you do—assuming the database isn't encrypted and with the DNA owner holding the key to his/her record—then you'll end up overriding the autonomy of individuals—people in our societies will be less free than they are now. As usual, few bother to think important stuff like this through before it becomes a done deal. It would be interesting to see a class-action lawsuit against DNA database holders by those who consider their privacy invaded. If governments don't step in to control and regulate this unholy mess soon then I'd reckon it won't be long before the lawsuits begin. I'd put money on it.
      - Consultant32452 7y ago
        Okay, I'll start. How about ridding humanity of all manner of disease? How about designer drugs, custom made for your particular DNA? How about, to the extent intelligence is determined by DNA (80% by some estimates), increasing the intelligence of the population, furthering our understanding of the universe? How about my dad who suffered years of paralysis until a 23andme test revealed a genetic mutation his many, many doctors didn't consider and now he's mobile and active again just by taking inordinate amounts of B12 vitamins? I'm a little concerned about things like insurance, but as long as our country still has plenty of guns I'm not worried about Hitler 2.0. Your country might be different.
        hilbert42 7y ago
        There are many ways around that problem that don't involve exposing one's DNA to police, government or anyone else. One would be for everyone to have a secure certificated [not able to be forged] anonymous hierarchical ID where those who have access to the ID/database are ranked/rated. For example on a rank of 10, the user would rate 10, your doctor 7 the government would rate say 5, your bank say 3. Such a ranking system would set the level of access and what data could be taken from the user's record. There are many other solutions too which I've not go time to go into here. Unfortunately, governments won't like such a schema because it puts citizens back in charge (and bureaucracies have never liked that)

Consultant32452 7y ago

When I had my DNA tested I found out I was 7% Jewish. It's not clear if that's enough "bad" blood to qualify me for the gas chamber.

hilbert42 7y ago
I'd bet it would have been quite sufficient information for the likes of Heinrich Himmler—and if you'd lived back then and if he could have gotten his hands on you then you'd be history! That's why putting one's DNA on line is so dangerous and so bloody damn stupid! For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would voluntarily put their DNA on any database when it's been so damn obvious for many years—from the very start—that police, governments, life insurance companies and crooks etc. are just dying to get their grubby little paws on this valuable information. What annoys me even more is that people who put their DNA on these databases do so without consideration of those who are genetically related to them. When a person puts their DNA on a database, ipso facto, they are also violating the privacy of their near (and no-so-near) relatives, who in most instances, have never given their consent to do so. Frankly, I consider this a terrible state of affairs and there should be strict laws against people doing it. Seems to me that now that the cat's out of the bag the only thing that can be done is to seed these databases with cleverly engineered noisy/disruptive profiles that would make tree analysis much harder to decipher.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  Okay, now do the same thing, but with the potential benefits of large DNA databases so we can compare and contrast.
  - hilbert42 7y ago
    No, I'll let you do that and then I'll show you that, irrespective of what you do—assuming the database isn't encrypted and with the DNA owner holding the key to his/her record—then you'll end up overriding the autonomy of individuals—people in our societies will be less free than they are now. As usual, few bother to think important stuff like this through before it becomes a done deal. It would be interesting to see a class-action lawsuit against DNA database holders by those who consider their privacy invaded. If governments don't step in to control and regulate this unholy mess soon then I'd reckon it won't be long before the lawsuits begin. I'd put money on it.
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      Okay, I'll start. How about ridding humanity of all manner of disease? How about designer drugs, custom made for your particular DNA? How about, to the extent intelligence is determined by DNA (80% by some estimates), increasing the intelligence of the population, furthering our understanding of the universe? How about my dad who suffered years of paralysis until a 23andme test revealed a genetic mutation his many, many doctors didn't consider and now he's mobile and active again just by taking inordinate amounts of B12 vitamins? I'm a little concerned about things like insurance, but as long as our country still has plenty of guns I'm not worried about Hitler 2.0. Your country might be different.
      - hilbert42 7y ago
        There are many ways around that problem that don't involve exposing one's DNA to police, government or anyone else. One would be for everyone to have a secure certificated [not able to be forged] anonymous hierarchical ID where those who have access to the ID/database are ranked/rated. For example on a rank of 10, the user would rate 10, your doctor 7 the government would rate say 5, your bank say 3. Such a ranking system would set the level of access and what data could be taken from the user's record. There are many other solutions too which I've not go time to go into here. Unfortunately, governments won't like such a schema because it puts citizens back in charge (and bureaucracies have never liked that)