I feel like you're actually getting to the deep, important questions explored in the movie, as you try to explain why it's just a good movie :) I think the big

I feel like you're actually getting to the deep, important questions explored in the movie, as you try to explain why it's just a good movie :) I think the big take-away is that it's not a foregone conclussion that they "always work, always better". The question is should we remove the possibility from those without perfect genetic markers because the odds say so, or give them a chance and evaluate in some other way? Or are the markers both less conclusive than believed and/or less causal? We could find lots of trivial markers that have nothing to do with meaningful outcomes; does the world explored in Gattaca take this to the extreme?