6 ms·

There'd be no hilarity whatsoever if people discriminated against you based on something they said you could not change. Anyone doing actual science cannot det

by t43562 2y ago

There'd be no hilarity whatsoever if people discriminated against you based on something they said you could not change. Anyone doing actual science cannot determine whether you are worth hiring based on your DNA - all they can do is point to some correlations which don't tell them about you individually. It is quite possible for such research to be discredited in future by other studies. It's not even well defined what are all the characteristics that make a good "X" to then discriminate about because people of all kinds end up doing things we didn't expect them to be able to. What is intelligence and how many ways are there of measuring it and what kind does a certain job require anyhow? So it is factually and morally wrong to discriminate on DNA. It might be pointless to say this though, as I notice that to convert a prejudiced person into an anti-racist all you have to do is make them think they're being discriminated against.

wqaatwt 2y ago
The fact that it’s morally wrong (and IMHO objectively evil) does not mean that it wouldn’t be an efficient policy purely from a strict utilitarian angle. Assuming we could actually identify the genetic markers that signal a higher likelihood of preferable traits even if on the whole it would only be e.g. 80% accurate that might still be useful. Individual outliers could just be ignored at minimal cost.
- t43562 2y ago
  Of course it would be inefficient because it is an extreme oversimplification of what is desirable (which is arguable) and whether or not certain markers would achieve it. The big mistake that racists and bigots make is in overvaluing whatever they think their own strengths are and undervaluing strengths they don't have.
  - wqaatwt 2y ago
    True. But there are some “low hanging fruits” e.g. if not outright eradicating then at least significantly reducing the prevalence of congenital diseases. Of course giving the government the right to prevent some individuals from having children is an extremely slippery slope. States that are willing and capable of engaging in such things e.g. ( Communist China back in the 70s ) also tend to be run by extremely misguided and delusional people.
    - t43562 2y ago
      We already test for things like Downs Syndrome which doesn't mean that we stop pregnancy but it tells the parents what to expect. Since we can do gene therapy to some degree already I imagine we'll fix things that are already known health problems for an individual. Eventually other things will become possible, including modifications that are not about health. That's where dragons be. We'll at least need rules about modifications that aren't 99% understood and "guaranteed" to do what is wanted. We will also want to ensure some level of genetic diversity - not allowing everyone to make their kids blue eyed.
dani__german 2y ago
In the absence of any other information about an applicant whatsoever, DNA evidence can give you strong likelihoods and useful correlations for many possible outcomes. If I was to take this to the logical end, you can bar any bananas, lizards, dogs, or other non humans by simply looking at their DNA and having no other applicant specific information. To bring this back to the more mundane, even the BBC is covering whether genes impact your likelihood to have certain hobbies. We are not going to discover that genes impact our lives LESS as we dig into the human genome more. To proclaim by personal fiat that people will never figure out how to productively (and for personal/corporate gain) filter by DNA is simply wrong. This is similar to the idea that criminals with 20 previous felonies can be given any punishment besides life in prison or death. It is really super easy to predict the future of any such criminal let loose. A 90% chance of a 21st felony and yet another ruined or ended life. [1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230509-how-genetics-determine-our-life-choices https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230509-how-genetics-det...

by t43562 2y ago

wqaatwt 2y ago

The fact that it’s morally wrong (and IMHO objectively evil) does not mean that it wouldn’t be an efficient policy purely from a strict utilitarian angle. Assuming we could actually identify the genetic markers that signal a higher likelihood of preferable traits even if on the whole it would only be e.g. 80% accurate that might still be useful. Individual outliers could just be ignored at minimal cost.

t43562 2y ago
Of course it would be inefficient because it is an extreme oversimplification of what is desirable (which is arguable) and whether or not certain markers would achieve it. The big mistake that racists and bigots make is in overvaluing whatever they think their own strengths are and undervaluing strengths they don't have.
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  True. But there are some “low hanging fruits” e.g. if not outright eradicating then at least significantly reducing the prevalence of congenital diseases. Of course giving the government the right to prevent some individuals from having children is an extremely slippery slope. States that are willing and capable of engaging in such things e.g. ( Communist China back in the 70s ) also tend to be run by extremely misguided and delusional people.
  - t43562 2y ago
    We already test for things like Downs Syndrome which doesn't mean that we stop pregnancy but it tells the parents what to expect. Since we can do gene therapy to some degree already I imagine we'll fix things that are already known health problems for an individual. Eventually other things will become possible, including modifications that are not about health. That's where dragons be. We'll at least need rules about modifications that aren't 99% understood and "guaranteed" to do what is wanted. We will also want to ensure some level of genetic diversity - not allowing everyone to make their kids blue eyed.

dani__german 2y ago

In the absence of any other information about an applicant whatsoever, DNA evidence can give you strong likelihoods and useful correlations for many possible outcomes. If I was to take this to the logical end, you can bar any bananas, lizards, dogs, or other non humans by simply looking at their DNA and having no other applicant specific information. To bring this back to the more mundane, even the BBC is covering whether genes impact your likelihood to have certain hobbies. We are not going to discover that genes impact our lives LESS as we dig into the human genome more. To proclaim by personal fiat that people will never figure out how to productively (and for personal/corporate gain) filter by DNA is simply wrong. This is similar to the idea that criminals with 20 previous felonies can be given any punishment besides life in prison or death. It is really super easy to predict the future of any such criminal let loose. A 90% chance of a 21st felony and yet another ruined or ended life. [1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230509-how-genetics-determine-our-life-choices https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230509-how-genetics-det...