Josvan135 t1_j8qihjg wrote
Reply to comment by gorkt in Americans are ready to test embryos for future college chances, survey shows by ChickenTeriyakiBoy1
No, I really didn't.
They were attempting to make a point about the less than infallible path that genetics takes towards capability and success.
The character they chose to embody that message nearly had a heart attack because he had to run on a treadmill for a few extra minutes and it strained his congenital heart defect yet somehow thinks it's acceptable to hide that fact when trying to go on a long duration space mission.
BroHanzo t1_j8rl9js wrote
I think people are being too hard on you.
Everyone is extrapolating the events of the movie here, but I have a couple of thoughts.
While I agree with u/Josvan135 that the purpose of the films story was to demonstrate that genetics does not equal actual success, happiness, or anything promised by the actual process of selecting genes. But I disagree that the point of the movie was solely to demonstrate this point. The characters growth along the movie also comes to terms with how his philosophy really works to demonstrate why he’s being insane, and pushing himself to the limit? And why he, despite all odds to the contrary, will go out of his way to try and live a lie.
Why? Because he doesn’t have time to think about consequences, he doesn’t plan for failure, he doesn’t see around the long corners, just the more immediate ones. He thinks quickly to get out of situations and is clever about how he subverts the system
But I believe we also should feel some type of way about his character, because while he’s still breaking the rule, his courage to still get up and try isn’t lost on me.
Finally, the one scene with his genetically superior brother, where they’re swimming towards the later half of the movie, and the brother gets to a certain point and said “I don’t get it!”
And the brother basically says something to the effect of “I never plan for the swim back” — This is the moment where I saw that this movie is not just about proving genetic superiority right or wrong? But the mentality of it is the driving force.
When you take the struggle out of life, when you suddenly don’t have to worry about disease, death, dismemberment……. Are you really living at that point?
goatAlmighty t1_j8qqdi6 wrote
It is certainly debatable what is acceptable and what is not. But, for me at least, the thought of living in a world without any kind of personal freedom, where more or less society decides for you what you ought to be doing, is a pretty horrible scenario.
Remarkable-Hall-9478 t1_j8smxv6 wrote
Yeah? Sounds bad?
Imagine how kids born with MS feel. Or Palsy. Or epilepsy. Or, quite frankly, any of tens of thousands of other diseases.
Imagine having a heart defect that could’ve been fixed when you were a kid, but which went untreated because your parents either didn’t care enough, or didn’t understand, or had some sort of ideological opposition to the tech that would fix you.
Imagine how much. Less freedom you would feel if your body didn’t allow you to do things that others could.
Sounds pretty fucked, right? Sounds like you want eliminated EXACTLY WHAT THE GATTACA SOCIETY WAS ELIMINATING
goatAlmighty t1_j8swqoh wrote
Stop implying something I've never said. Shout as long as you want, but the original link (and Gataca, imho), isn't about eliminating illnesses as such, but about either favoring certain embryos and/or forcing people to take careers that fit their genetic outfit, no matter if they want to or not. So forget things like freedom of any kind.
Selecting embryos due to their (perceived) chances for future college is a f*cked up idea. It's euthanasia for nothing else but, basically, intelligence. And it will, once again, favor those who can afford it and leave all others in the dust.
Eliminating illnesses on a larger scale is a completely different matter, but even that purpose is debatable. There are parents who are willing to give their unborn child a chance even if they know that it has some kind of genetic defect. And even if such measures would be reliable in the future, they'll most probably wouldn't be for the masses but for the few who can afford them.
The end result would be some very healthy, very intelligent rich people and an endless stream of poor people who, due to their "faulty" genetic composition, would be seen as mere underlings, only there to serve those that are "worthy" of good education and jobs.
Remarkable-Hall-9478 t1_j8tln87 wrote
At this point I am thoroughly convinced you didn't even watch the movie lmao. At best you have it confused with another movie, my guy.
StarChild413 t1_j8vk3kl wrote
What about things like autism and ADHD, they're technically disabilities that are hindrances but less so/in a different way, should they be as eliminated
[deleted] t1_j8xfgij wrote
[removed]
krumpdawg t1_j8qo3px wrote
Wooosh, right over your head. In a Gattaca-esque world you would be unfit to post comments online because of your lack of critical thinking skills.
goatAlmighty t1_j8qq5jr wrote
This is not a condemnation, but I think, in actuality, he would probably be seen as a pretty good citizen, for the fact that he agrees with the whole eugenics- and pre-selection thing that is expressed in the movie. It's a stand one can take, for sure, and I see their reasons, but I disagree wholeheartedly with it.
krumpdawg t1_j8qqkwu wrote
It's a stand one can take if one doesn't see the fallacies of a dystopian society like Gattaca.
goatAlmighty t1_j8qrdw6 wrote
I would agree. I can see why some people would defend it, but it's not a world I'd want to live in. I mean, there's a reason that it's officially called a "dystopian" movie. It's kind of like with "Equilibrium" or "Elysium". Your life might be fine, as long as you fit the parameters to be on the winners' side, but if not, you're in a living hell.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments