4 ms·
I think the wording is a bit strong- it's really not that horrifying- but it's certainly not scientifically sound. It's not like there's a mountain range surro
by araneae 17y ago
I think the wording is a bit strong- it's really not that horrifying- but it's certainly not scientifically sound. It's not like there's a mountain range surrounding Somalia that has prevented them from interbreeding with individuals from other countries for the last hundred thousand years. Heck, the place didn't really even exist until the 1950s.
- electromagnetic 17y agoWell it is horrifying, they're planning on refusing people who are immigrating on humanitarian and compassionate grounds (refugee) based on their DNA. Warfare doesn't check your DNA before it kills your spouse and children. Apparently Britain, however, checks your DNA before it decides to save you or not.
- hughprime 17y agoTrue, but the real villains here are the non-refugee immigrants who lie about their country of origin in order to get refugee status.
- araneae 17y agoSo you believe in no immigration restrictions at all then? I think it's perfectly fair to only admit people into a country if they desperately need it. They just want a way to identify those people. This is the wrong way to do it, but that's a separate issue.
- biohacker42 17y agoIt's also horrifying because of how the government is using utterly misguided "science". It's like if they demanded everyone get homeopathic therapy.
- hughprime 17y agoIt's not quite as bad as homeopathy. DNA evidence is worth something in these cases, but it's not conclusive -- the main problem is that government bureaucrats are too dumb to understand this and would treat it as conclusive. If we knew the number of Somali citizens with "non-Somali" DNA and the number of non-Somali citizens with "Somali" DNA, then... well, there's another application for Bayesian statistics, I guess.