4 ms·
Not really. It explores some of the negatives that crop up from scientifically illiterate parents crippling their child due to their own misinformed decisions.
by caskance 11y ago
Not really. It explores some of the negatives that crop up from scientifically illiterate parents crippling their child due to their own misinformed decisions. Vincent was sturggling against his hippie antivaxxer parents who wanted a "natural" child. Unfortunately, naturalist audiences interpret the enemy in the film as society and see his parents' decision as pure and noble.
- bduerst 11y agoDon't be so patronizing. The film visualizes a possible society where the line between genetic therapy and genetic enhancement is crossed. From a bioethical perspective, this isn't "Anti-vaxxing", it deals with misconceptions of genetic predeterminism in humans. Sure you can minimize harm by preventing a child born with tay sachs (genetic therapy) - but you're not minimizing harm by picking a child that will be taller and have blue eyes (enhancement) just because they're statistically likely to be more successful in life. The main character's roommate provided this contrast as a "failed" olympic athlete, whose life was chosen before he was born.