4 ms·

>Anyway, have you seem Gattaca? It shows how this can become dystopian very quickly. The main problem in Gattaca wasn't that some people were genetically super

>Anyway, have you seem Gattaca? It shows how this can become dystopian very quickly. The main problem in Gattaca wasn't that some people were genetically superior, it was that they were marked as superior and others were discriminated against.

midoridensha 4y ago
I think another way of looking at it is that it showed that people who were handicapped by their parents' poor decisions had a harder time in life. For a modern-day parallel, look at parents who won't allow their kids to get vaccinated, and those unfortunate kids end up with diseases like measles or polio.
- AussieWog93 4y ago
  They had the whole passport system with "valids" and "invalids", and Vincent eventually achieved his goal. I don't think what your saying was the main point of the show.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    No, I'm just presenting an alternate point of view, that of the people in the movie who supported the system in place. However, one objective fault I see in the movie (from what I remember, it's been many years) is that their "valids/invalids" system assumes that non-GE people are automatically inferior, which may not be the case (and also depends on the task/role). Even today, some people obviously won the "genetic lottery" (like Michael Phelps, who's obviously genetically optimized for swimming compared to most humans, though this doesn't make him good at other things), while others clearly lost.
    - AussieWog93 4y ago
      No, you're right. Dumb old me was looking for an argument when you were trying to simply share your perspective.
      - midoridensha 4y ago
        Honestly, I was trying to play devil's advocate in a way. In that reality, most of society had decided that getting their kids genetically engineered (GE) was the correct choice: we have the technology, so why not use it? I see it as somewhat similar to medical technologies we have today, like vaccinations, with a small number of people refusing them because "they're not natural" or whatever. Most people prefer to have a society where polio and smallpox are eradicated instead of normally-occurring, so vaccinations are generally required in most places. So in the future, would having your kids GE'ed be seen the same way? For low-hanging fruit, what if your kid has sickle-cell anemia or MS or some other obvious genetic defect, and a simple tweak can fix this and keep them from being condemned to a lifetime of health problems and an early death? Why wouldn't we avail ourselves of this, and what parent would want their kid to suffer with these things? But with GE technology, obviously we can go much farther than just fixing a few transcription errors that have devastating consequences, so where does that lead us as a society? I do find this question really fascinating.
        AussieWog93 4y ago
        Oh, of course. If it were possible to actually do it, then it wouldn't ever be possible to contain. Either a small selection of elites get access to the tech and use it to dominate all of society, or we all have it. I don't think you could put the genie back in the bottle once it's possible to make your children smarter, stronger and more successful.
      - midoridensha 4y ago
        Another thing I just thought of with my Michael Phelps example: genetically engineering people isn't necessarily going to make them superpeople, so I wonder how this will be handled. Phelps is really good at swimming with his body type, but that same body type probably means he's also really bad at other sports, such as weightlifting or cycling. Different body types are better optimized for different activities. Currently, people just get lucky usually, born with physical attributes that make them good at those tasks. So you don't see any pro cyclists that look like the "The Mountain" guy from Game of Thrones, for instance (whereas that guy is really good at weightlifting).

midoridensha 4y ago

I think another way of looking at it is that it showed that people who were handicapped by their parents' poor decisions had a harder time in life. For a modern-day parallel, look at parents who won't allow their kids to get vaccinated, and those unfortunate kids end up with diseases like measles or polio.

AussieWog93 4y ago
They had the whole passport system with "valids" and "invalids", and Vincent eventually achieved his goal. I don't think what your saying was the main point of the show.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  No, I'm just presenting an alternate point of view, that of the people in the movie who supported the system in place. However, one objective fault I see in the movie (from what I remember, it's been many years) is that their "valids/invalids" system assumes that non-GE people are automatically inferior, which may not be the case (and also depends on the task/role). Even today, some people obviously won the "genetic lottery" (like Michael Phelps, who's obviously genetically optimized for swimming compared to most humans, though this doesn't make him good at other things), while others clearly lost.
  - AussieWog93 4y ago
    No, you're right. Dumb old me was looking for an argument when you were trying to simply share your perspective.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      Honestly, I was trying to play devil's advocate in a way. In that reality, most of society had decided that getting their kids genetically engineered (GE) was the correct choice: we have the technology, so why not use it? I see it as somewhat similar to medical technologies we have today, like vaccinations, with a small number of people refusing them because "they're not natural" or whatever. Most people prefer to have a society where polio and smallpox are eradicated instead of normally-occurring, so vaccinations are generally required in most places. So in the future, would having your kids GE'ed be seen the same way? For low-hanging fruit, what if your kid has sickle-cell anemia or MS or some other obvious genetic defect, and a simple tweak can fix this and keep them from being condemned to a lifetime of health problems and an early death? Why wouldn't we avail ourselves of this, and what parent would want their kid to suffer with these things? But with GE technology, obviously we can go much farther than just fixing a few transcription errors that have devastating consequences, so where does that lead us as a society? I do find this question really fascinating.
      - AussieWog93 4y ago
        Oh, of course. If it were possible to actually do it, then it wouldn't ever be possible to contain. Either a small selection of elites get access to the tech and use it to dominate all of society, or we all have it. I don't think you could put the genie back in the bottle once it's possible to make your children smarter, stronger and more successful.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      Another thing I just thought of with my Michael Phelps example: genetically engineering people isn't necessarily going to make them superpeople, so I wonder how this will be handled. Phelps is really good at swimming with his body type, but that same body type probably means he's also really bad at other sports, such as weightlifting or cycling. Different body types are better optimized for different activities. Currently, people just get lucky usually, born with physical attributes that make them good at those tasks. So you don't see any pro cyclists that look like the "The Mountain" guy from Game of Thrones, for instance (whereas that guy is really good at weightlifting).