Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

MpVpRb t1_j8odz75 wrote

If it worked reliably, it would be a great thing

I suspect that once testing starts, researchers will discover that intelligence isn't nearly as simple as they speculate

139

Lord0fHats t1_j8oj9bj wrote

I'll keep bringing it up to illustrate how dumb this correlation is;

You can already do this with your ZIP code.

83

pinkfootthegoose t1_j8potye wrote

I was gonna say this. people always look for the most complex convoluted data sets to "solve" some perceived problem. Are you gonna be rich or poor? zip code!

12

rampantsteel t1_j8qyeck wrote

Or in this case if you can afford the test your kid will do just fine.

2

Lord0fHats t1_j8rj25o wrote

Or you're just throwing money away. There's no convincingly strong evidence that genetics is determinitive with intelligence. If they were, you'd think it would be more consistent than being able to directly translate success to where you were born and how much money you had available to you.

More likely what'll happen is a lot of rich aholes with become even aholier, insisting that this matters more than it does and using it as a new means of pulling the leader up from under them because the rich are always looking for a new flimsy justification for why they're better than everyone else.

3

modfreq t1_j8t0n3z wrote

You also don't have to be smart to go to college... and plenty of smart people don't.

2

Lord0fHats t1_j8t97oh wrote

Part of the issue is people erroneously equate successful with intelligent. Which is very silly. People fail upward all the time. Some have bad luck.

College isn't really about intelligence or smart. It's about education. These words are not interchangeable but at the same time they're so entangled its almost impossible to separate them down into a single factor, let alone one you can test for in DNA.

3

BigFitMama t1_j8pdzg0 wrote

We all know a little post traumatic stress can vastly pivot success factors just as much as being raised with a lack of resources, lack of parental contact, and and mental illness factors.

You can throw a embryo with a potential high IQ into 10 different environments/cultures and get 10 different outcomes entirely.

Kids with privilege are raised by nannies and boarding schools. Poor kids by family, grandparents, foster care, or relatives.

Either one can turn out to be a success or a criminal.

12

Saidear t1_j8pm63q wrote

No, I don't think it will.

Gattica wasn't a movie meant to hype such a society.

6

anonisko t1_j8tzxfl wrote

We already live in that kind of society.

It's just that the sorting mechanisms are drastically more crude than a DNA test.

The best sci-fi, like Gattaca, aren't great just because they present an interesting possible future to work toward or avoid, but because they exaggerate and lay bare the problems we already have in the present that are simply harder to recognize. The world of Gattaca already exists, by way of racism, sexism, caste systems, cultural and religious discrimination, etc. In fact, the film says exactly this in the open scenes with "we now have discrimination down to a science".

2

StarChild413 t1_j8vkakl wrote

but that doesn't mean it can't get worse, that's like saying the aspects of our society that are currently authoritarian mean 1984-as-close-as-could-realistically-happen-tech-wise could never happen as "it's technically there"

2

elehisie t1_j8rfny6 wrote

They seem unable to consider that one very possible outcome of this test would be a child who gets so much pressure from the parents for all their potential that they actually end up doing nothing useful with their life.

2

Maleus_ t1_j8saw33 wrote

Read the book "Outliers". There isn't anything to discover, this is just a cash grab for dumb people.

2

1-trofi-1 t1_j8qv8bw wrote

We know that allready. There is a more reliable test the zip code one, but you know. Someone is ready to make some money for rich people that believe that their wealth stems only from their skills. Nothing to do whatsoever with privilege

0

slackmaster2k t1_j8okap8 wrote

If you can afford this test, your child has a good chance of going to college. Now, where can we send the bill?

134

Valarbetarn t1_j8qt8ud wrote

We can predict with reasonable accuracy if your child will go to college from your ZIP code, no needles required.

45

cstmoore t1_j8sh893 wrote

Numb3rs S1E11 "Sacrifice" covered this. >!Based on the zip code where a person was born and raised could determine their chances of success. Zip codes fostering those with low chances of success could have their public funds redirected to zip codes containing persons seen as having a greater chance of success.!<

7

Pobbes t1_j8t0qcj wrote

This thinking is kind of the problem though, right?

The richest zip codes have the most success because they have the most resources. So, we should prioritize more resources for them to have even more success. Meanwhile, the places with the least resources are unable to provide children with enough preparation to be highly successful in post-mandatory educational settings, resulting in less success. So, we should provide them with even less resources since they don't have that high success rate?

I'll take how to further entrench heriditary wealth for 500, Ken

5

cstmoore t1_j8t1s0s wrote

Exactly. This was the point they made in the episode. Instead of helping those who need the resources, they would double down on those who needed the resources the least. (If they're great now, then just think how much greater they could be with even more resources!)

7

American_Streamer t1_j9130pj wrote

There is always the law of diminishing marginal utility which puts an end to this. There is no such thing as endlessly increasing success, as eating 100 bars of chocolate doesn't bring you 100x more fun than eating 1 bar.

Also, even the kids with all resources imaginable may turn out failures. There are enough examples of rich kids with severe drug and alcohol problems, as well as mental problems like depression and gambling. You could argue that this doesn't matter, as they will always have been handed lucrative positions. But there also is a limit to these positions, as any company will begin to suffer if too many incompetent and useless people are sucking it dry. Someday, somewhere along the way, even the most pampered kid of the most inherited wealth will have to prove itself and will have to bring adequate performance and will fail at that, if it misses the necessary skills.

In general, the whole Ivy League thing is a big scam. The quality of the education there is detoriating fast, maybe even in the law and economics departments. The Ivy League degree has been reduced only to the "club member card" you need to have to be able to apply for the top positions. It doesn't necessarily give you the skills to be successful in your discipline, anymore. But you still need to have marketable and high quality skills to become successful and compete on the job market. If you are not useful and not able to produce decent results, all those fancy degrees and daddy's influence still won't help you.

2

cstmoore t1_j8t1r05 wrote

Exactly. This was the point they made in the episode. Instead of helping those who need the resources, they would double down on those who needed the resources the least. (If they're great now, then just think how much greater they could be with even more resources!)

1

Valarbetarn t1_j8vq9qn wrote

That kind of thinking is putting the cart before the horse. The upper middle class pays most of the taxes that finance those programs, so you would essentially be giving them their own money back. At that point it makes more sense to simply lower taxes.

In terms of money well spent, giving more money to good students who have good teachers is probably less efficient than using the same funds in poorer neighborhoods. A bad environment can harm the future prospects of students much more easily than a good environment can improve it. In other words: students from well-off neighborhoods are generally already performing at the level that their potential allows, or close enough to it that additional investment in their education likely does not improve outcomes very much.

1

hercdriver4665 t1_j8sazas wrote

My other favorite correlation/causation fallacy: pre-school attendance improves chances of academic success and reduces chances of future criminal activity. Isn’t it amazing that kids do well if you can afford out of pocket pre-school, and also care enough about your child’s future to send them to preschool.

8

goatAlmighty t1_j8oesxw wrote

Welcome to the world of Gattaca. Or Brave New World...

51

Josvan135 t1_j8pk0k2 wrote

Gattaca never seemed like a particularly awful world.

The technology used legitimately created smarter, faster, more musical, etc, people.

Given that the protagonists parents were presented as middle class (at best) it also appeared that the technology was widely available and reasonably affordable.

The protagonist was fundamentally unfit for the position he was seeking, he had a major heart defect that meant he was all but certain to die under the rigors of a long term trip through the solar system.

The only "downsides" shown in the movie seemed to be that some people's parents were shitty and refused to offer their children the best potentials possible.

16

gorkt t1_j8plwh7 wrote

Wow, way to miss the point of a movie lmao.

9

Josvan135 t1_j8pxlkb wrote

I didn't miss the point, I disagreed with the creator's interpretation.

11

gorkt t1_j8q1r07 wrote

Yep, you entirely missed the point of what the movie was trying to say. How sad for you actually. This is the equivalent of thinking Starship Troopers is about how we need to cull the weak in our society in order to be secure.

1

Josvan135 t1_j8qihjg wrote

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.

12

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?

3

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.

0

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

4

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.

1

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.

1

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

1

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.

−4

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.

4

krumpdawg t1_j8qqkwu wrote

It's a stand one can take if one doesn't see the fallacies of a dystopian society like Gattaca.

−1

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.

1

goatAlmighty t1_j8qpwtx wrote

In movies like this, those that are "perfect" in the eyes of society often don't have such a terrible life. But all the others suffer. In the case of Gattaca particularly the most abhorrent thing to me is the eugenics (something that is banned for a good reason, not only because the Nazis implemented something along these lines, according to their state of technology back then). In my opinion, the whole scenario leads to a kind of slavery where one isn't granted any personal freedom, not better than what happens in an ant-state, devoid of any humanity.

3

sexy_starfish t1_j8qrow1 wrote

Eugenics was huge in the US as well from the late 19th century all the way into the mid 20th century. There have been horrible atrocities committed in the name of eugenics including thousands upon thousands of forced serializations. Here is an excellent podcast called Criminal that did an episode on it.

https://thisiscriminal.com/episode-165-unfit/

6

goatAlmighty t1_j8qsg1r wrote

Thank you, I will definitely give that a listen. I'm from Germany, so I'm not that familiar with US-history. But given the stance of several of their secret services and what kind of "experiments" they did with their own citizens, I'm not surprised that they went into eugenics as well.

3

EbonBehelit t1_j8rbz2v wrote

It's easy to forget that the political left of the time was just as enthusiastic about eugenics as the right -- though their reasoning in supporting it was vastly different, as you can probably imagine.

3

Test19s t1_j8s021g wrote

Voluntary, consensual eugenics with the goal of closing gaps and creating a less tribal species would be really good if we could figure out how to implement it. Many if not most ideologies converge on something resembling fascism if taken to their extreme, though, with a loyalist inner circle and an oppressed “other.” Leftist ideologies aren’t immune.

2

goatAlmighty t1_j8y8wmk wrote

Unfortunately, we're living in an age where this is proven day in, day out. Every ideology tends to turn into extremism when given too much power.

1

mekareami t1_j8xjnt3 wrote

I agree completely. The monsters in that movie were the parents who chose to have a control natural in a world that was defined by a persons genes.

2

[deleted] t1_j8oblnz wrote

Who doesn't cringe at this. Some weird psycho people among us.

28

goatAlmighty t1_j8of051 wrote

People are already cloning their "beloved" pets to have them around again after they die... So yeah, I'm not surprised.

13

StarsinmyOcean t1_j8pjdg8 wrote

why would you cringe?

2

[deleted] t1_j8plr8q wrote

Selective breeding

3

StarsinmyOcean t1_j8puwjw wrote

it will enhance everybody

3

[deleted] t1_j8qbxul wrote

Not you lol

3

LibertarianAtheist_ t1_j8qu188 wrote

Just like education (a form of human enhancement even according to transhumanists) was not offered to u/StarsinmyOcean .

Oh wait.

3

[deleted] t1_j8scd7k wrote

Selective breeding will create generations of pontentially weak sperm being used for conception, resulting in the possibilty of genetic issues never seen before.

2

lostbutnotalone1 t1_j8oa2nk wrote

Should be made illegal. It’s illegal to choose the sex of a baby in the UK but it isn’t in the US. US is more open to designer babies than the UK is.

I fear for a world where designer babies are an excuse by the rich who can afford it to build a master race while the poor will stay poor because they can’t afford it.

23

Euphoric_Gas9879 t1_j8rxr9s wrote

You can probably have it banned in the US with bipartisan support from “They are playing God” conservatives and “This only benefits the rich” liberals. Then, China will start its eugenics program and the rest of the world will have to follow suit, not to fall behind. Sad.

1

StillSundayDrunk t1_j8t1fg7 wrote

We would straight up make baby-doodles given the chance, not even kidding.

1

StarsinmyOcean t1_j8pj8tr wrote

are you anti science?

−8

lostbutnotalone1 t1_j8pja1t wrote

Not at all

6

Codydw12 t1_j8pk4ji wrote

Yet you want to make genetic screening illegal.

−2

lostbutnotalone1 t1_j8pk8ke wrote

I didn’t say I wanted to make genetic screening illegal. Also You can be pro-science and pro-ethics. It’s called bioethics. Look it up

7

Codydw12 t1_j8pl105 wrote

Yet you defaulted to make it illegal to change the sex of an unborn child. I will say I disagree with said option of choosing to change sex but don't think it should be illegal.

What if you do a screening and find a gene that predisposes the child for a heart defect? Or a mental disorder? I'd say it's ethical to attempt to edit those genes.

"Oh but designer babies. The rich will just give their kids the best."

Yeah. And? I'd be more concearned if parents didn't attempt to get what's best for their kids. If you take two chess grandmasters and have them fuck is that a designer baby? What about two Olympic level athletes? Or is that different because it's natural?

2

deepoutdoors t1_j8pqaab wrote

Sure let’s allow people to do whatever the fuck they want because #science! This would never have unforeseen consequences.

Island of Doctor Moreau was originally planned as a Utopia too.

3

Codydw12 t1_j8pqrmx wrote

What part of my comment made you think I believe people can go full mad science?

Let's say you come from a family with a history of cancer or mental disorders like I do. Wouldn't you want to screen your child to either remove that genetic predisposition or limit it?

1

deepoutdoors t1_j8prh2t wrote

This already exists, so I can tell you are not a parent. Both of my children were screened neonatal for 198 genetic disorders. The parent can choose to abort fetus. This is why downs syndrome is becoming rare, it’s being actively removed from the gene pool.

Natural evolution is a lot cooler than something we have no idea what the unintended consequences of meddling in genetics would be +1 Gen.

3

Codydw12 t1_j8prznb wrote

So your answer is abortion. Ok fair. I haven't had the chance to have a child on account of being fucking broke but I'd like to one day. But if a couple continues to try for a child and continues to have an issue such as downs syndrome or a massive chance of becoming cancer ridden, or have crippling anxiety all their life there's not many better options. We're going to edit genes, if not today then tomorrow. We might as well get the ethics of doing as such down right now.

3

deepoutdoors t1_j8psxbf wrote

I agree with you. The current option is to not have a child. We all must strive to make the informed choices and it is ourselves that ultimately must live with them.

I know a person who chooses not to have children due to the extremely high probability of breast cancer. Would genetic screening to remove that risk be cool? Yes.

But once that box is opened and widespread who knows. We are talking bioethics yet we can’t even agree as a society on the results of the 2020 election.

2

Codydw12 t1_j8pvme8 wrote

You're right in all regards. Not having kids, bioethics and politics. But the thing is there is no example in any iteration of Pandora's Box where the box doesn't get opened. It'll be much the same with AI, robotics, space exploration and colonization and probably a whole lot more this century.

To me if someone wants to go in and edit their genetics so they grow to be 7'6", I really don't care. If someone wants to have purple eyes or bright pink hair or elf ears. If people want to get stronger or smarter or more agile or almost anything else. Fuck they could splice in Firefly genes to become bioluminescent and I wouldn't really care much the same I don't care if someone gets a tattoo, piercing or physical reassignment surgery. If you're happy and aren't hurting people I don't really care.

For gene editing their kids there's a lot that I support like improving health, removing defects or just trying to give them a good quality of life. For the more excessive things like turning their skin purple or having them grow four arms then yeah, I have an issue because you don't have the kids consent and can't get it. Now if the kid grows up and says "I want to have four arms!" then since it's them consenting I don't really care. Now we'll have another issue when two people with four arms want their own baby Shokan but that's like 50 years off at least.

I think in some regards Cyberpunk pretty accurately predicted the future. We as a society are going to have to figure shit out pretty fast.

2

Kyotokyo14 t1_j8ptt9f wrote

Here's an alternative to eugenics. Better health care.

0

Codydw12 t1_j8pw6kw wrote

I get how this is seen as eugenics by removing some genes but I am not calling for anyone to die here. Hell I want more people on this Earth and get called crazy for it. But I don't see how saying "This gene causes a significantly higher risk for literal cancer" and then saying "We should probably change that to benefit the life of a person" is anywhere near wanting to genocide people.

Additionally, we can have both. Hell I'd call gene editing a healthcare procedure if you're fixing an illness.

2

flyswithdragons t1_j8qktki wrote

True Bioethics exist but so do psychopaths, clearly.

We will simply create designer babies and cull the undesirable. That's some corporate genocidal shit. What could possibly go wronggif

0

SciFiSoldier_481 t1_j8otv0e wrote

Sounds like another wonderful form of Eugenics, which has done such wonderful things for humanity in the past. /s

21

Salahuddin315 t1_j8rj3lu wrote

Some human specimens and their behaviour make me think that it would be lovely to have some eugenics in our lives.

−1

SciFiSoldier_481 t1_j8rjtkm wrote

My problem with Eugenics is that some of those "human specimens" were the ones practicing Eugenics and deciding who should live and die based on things like race and ethnicity and certain birth defects. People used Eugenics to play God with the species, and we lost some really good folks to people who, like Hitler, considered themselves "Eugenicists." It's extremely dangerous territory that destroys human potential, both positive and negative. I'd rather not.

6

BardicSense t1_j8of936 wrote

This kinda reminds me of that horrible Spartan practice of judging the babies on day 1 if their life, and deciding to put the rejects out into the wild to be killed.

Will the test be able to tell me what major the embryo will choose? If it's anything in business or finance, I'm gonna lobby my spouse to terminate the pregnancy.

I want a lawyer or a doctor, only. /s

18

just-a-dreamer- t1_j8ojf3y wrote

It is actually the exact opposite. A council of elders was put in charge to save male babies, not kill them. Too many healthy male babies were killed by their parents.

Disabled babies were allmost always left to die in ancient times, that was not the issue. Infanticide was a problem for spartan manpower im regards to the military.

The spartans did not toil the land or build things. They were landlords, wariors, writers, poets. Quite lazy asses, drunk and feasted a lot. They did not work.

Every spartan family was given a lot with thralls to work on. Thralls grew food and delievered to the spartan landlord living in the capital communual barracks.

Yet if there were too many male children, there was trouble. A land lot cannot be divided in too many small pieces, or a warrior cannot live off it and hold his station in society. Thus male babies were killed off.

In time spartan elders worried about their numbers relative to the slaves in their land and neigbouring powers. Thus regulation was set in motion to keep up the right balance in population control.

20

sexy_starfish t1_j8qs13t wrote

Still sounds pretty fucking dystopian.

4

just-a-dreamer- t1_j8qty8w wrote

It was an improvement. Keeping your numbers in balance is a requirement for peace. There is only so much land and slaves to leech off. The same is true for assets and passive income today.

There is nothing worse than a 2-4 son with military training, growing up with status and no inheritance in sight. Throat cutting is guaranteed under such conditions.

Spartan society was all about keeping the ranks tight.

5

Lord0fHats t1_j8oje1u wrote

Now consider that this is a myth invented much later about Spartan society by Romans to try and illustrate how backwards and barbaric the Spartans, and Greek culture, were.

11

advester t1_j8ptg6w wrote

The pregnancy wouldn’t have even started yet. It is about choosing which embryo to implant, not terminating pregnancy.

2

BardicSense t1_j8puadm wrote

The warning stands for any child of mine looking to go to business school...

3

ChickenTeriyakiBoy1 OP t1_j8o99zg wrote

>Imagine that you were provided no-cost fertility treatment and also offered a free DNA test to gauge which of those little IVF embryos floating in a dish stood the best chance of getting into a top college someday.
>
>Would you have the test performed?
>
>If you said yes, you’re among about 40% percent of Americans who told pollsters they’d be more likely than not to test and pick IVF embryos for intellectual aptitude, despite hand-wringing by ethicists and gene scientists who think it’s a bad idea.

3

dbclass t1_j8pbgeo wrote

Anyone who could afford this doesn't need it to begin with

3

boynamedsue8 t1_j8olvwn wrote

Yes test the embryos for their future in college debt enslavement.

2

ThePhilosofyzr t1_j8opqpj wrote

Oh good, I see we've resolved all of our societal differences & this sort of test would in no way reflect socioeconomic divisions.

2

tickitytalk t1_j8pdp6z wrote

Goodbye future Steve Jobs, bill gates, mark Zuckerberg

2

malmode t1_j8pfpa0 wrote

Sounds like people working with broken reality models.

2

AdDear5411 t1_j8popal wrote

You can already predict this incredibly well by zip code. No need for DNA.

2

RedditBeginAgain t1_j8q6rd5 wrote

We already know which embryos are likely to go to college. We don't need their DNA, just their parents' zip code.

2

csandazoltan t1_j8qofd2 wrote

There was a movie... Gattaca... Is it gonna become a documentary like Idiocracy?

2

Judgethunder t1_j8rnezj wrote

Another way to scam rich parents into wasting money. If you give your kid attention, read a parenting book or two, can afford to feed them properly, and are home often enough to help them with their homework they will probably be fine.

2

FuturologyBot t1_j8oe6ul wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/ChickenTeriyakiBoy1:

>Imagine that you were provided no-cost fertility treatment and also offered a free DNA test to gauge which of those little IVF embryos floating in a dish stood the best chance of getting into a top college someday.
>
>Would you have the test performed?
>
>If you said yes, you’re among about 40% percent of Americans who told pollsters they’d be more likely than not to test and pick IVF embryos for intellectual aptitude, despite hand-wringing by ethicists and gene scientists who think it’s a bad idea.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1136iwq/americans_are_ready_to_test_embryos_for_future/j8o99zg/

1

attorneyatslaw t1_j8ofkw3 wrote

Someone just got confused when they were told they had fraternal twins.

1

dumb_in_3_languages t1_j8ogeyt wrote

Hahahaha. I’m looking forward to seeing this in action. I think it will be entertaining

1

ForgeoftheGods t1_j8pfz1q wrote

It would be much cheaper to check your bank account/s, investments, and zip code.

1

javert-nyc t1_j8pydv0 wrote

People support this because they think their embryo will pass muster, until they don't.

1

breakingpoint26 t1_j8qj8cq wrote

What? No! We MUST keep overpopulating while not providing social safety nets!

You know what? I really don’t know what the hell Republicans thought process is. Real Christians would care about humans AFTER they’re born too.

1

UncommonHouseSpider t1_j8qp952 wrote

Why aren't people having babies? Also, we will determine your entire future at birth...

1

Tehnomaag t1_j8qw4jc wrote

Why would they test the embryos for that?

As far as I understand in the US they would need to test their wallets, because no matter how intelligent a person is he/she is not going to college there if his/her parents can't afford it.

1

DubiousFoliage t1_j8r4cl3 wrote

How many are also willing to select for blonde hair, blue eyes, and white skin?

1

Psychobabl t1_j8r7bq1 wrote

Environmental factors also impact your ability to attend college or be successful. Like some other posters said if they live in a good zip code or the parents have $$$ they're probably good to go.

1

Strict-Research-7413 t1_j8r9miy wrote

Future biology major here. This is a horrible idea. Imagine Hitlers “Aryan Race” theory except it becomes real. Perfect race of humans, all rich and beautiful. Then the 99% of people who live in their shadow. Also, since when do genes = intelligence? Sure, there are genes that might code for certain structural differences in your brain, etc; but, it all comes down to the environment of the child’s youth. We are always so incredibly arrogant and ignorant.. thinking we can just control everything. Instead of making “smart” designer babies - how about we fix the top soil issue, mass extinction event, and the giant plastic island in our ocean?

1

StarChild413 t1_j8ubvqk wrote

So we should let people be dumb and ugly because the 1% might turn into perfect Aryans and also we're too arrogant to control a baby's intelligence but can fix the environment

2

Strict-Research-7413 t1_j8uo56e wrote

You went immediately to an extreme. No, what I said is that there will be first class citizens that can afford being GMO’s, and then there will be normal people who can’t. And yes, we can fix the environment but we are too lazy as a species and prefer short term over long term benefits. By the way, it’s not that we are too arrogant to control a baby’s intelligence, it’s just that we can’t as of right now, and we shouldn’t try. Genetically modifying humans is a slippery slope.

You picked and chose only the words you needed to create a whole different message than the one I delivered.

2

StarChild413 t1_j8vju2d wrote

You kinda went to an extreme too, maybe the solution's somewhere in the middle?

1

Strict-Research-7413 t1_j8x2fq9 wrote

It’s truly not an extreme, it’s just the way it will be. I wish there was a middle solution because then there wouldn’t be a problem. But tell me, in all your experience with other people, do you really think that the rich elites wouldn’t end up benefitting the most from GMO babies? Do you think that we would offer free DNA testing for everyone’s gametes? There’s just no way. If you do believe that humans would be fair and let everyone have designer babies, then I hope that you’re right about us.

2

EbonBehelit t1_j8rbgfq wrote

I have no idea why they'd bother with this when it's much easier to just check the parents' bank accounts.

1

isayporschewrong t1_j8re17q wrote

Zip code still likely a better indicator than any of those bs tests.

1

uh_buh t1_j8rswsa wrote

Wasn’t this the plot of a Tom cruise movie or something?

1

hbHPBbjvFK9w5D t1_j8s52zv wrote

Great, now we'll have millions of college grads and not enough jobs for them. While the 5 plumbers in the USA will charge $600 an hour.

1

StarChild413 t1_j8uc0o1 wrote

But if you even metaphorically force people to become plumbers (as they don't have to be only that any more than your example meant only that) instead of go to college to avoid that you just end up with a flipped scenario and too many plumbers

1

hbHPBbjvFK9w5D t1_j8v5b43 wrote

So the end result of genetic selection for only academic success is a few happy folks and a lot of people forced into jobs they don't care to work. Sounds like capitalism, but with more medical procedures.

1

StarChild413 t1_j8vjrlp wrote

Doesn't mean it's a good or bad thing just that it's like the current system

1

hbHPBbjvFK9w5D t1_j8vm2ug wrote

Considering that the majority of people in the USA are either ambivalent or hate their jobs, the current system sucks.

2

WEFederation t1_j8s5zqu wrote

I would never use such a thing. I would first have to be convinced that most college was anything other than a way to saddle kids with debt they should never have. As it seems most are more interested in maximizing revenue rather than delivering long term positive outcomes for their students, I question their priorities as educational establishments.

1

RavenWolf1 t1_j8s9e1g wrote

So we are one step closer for genetic engineered cat girls!

1

StarChild413 t1_j8ubnte wrote

Hopefully in the sense that real girls could modify themselves to be cat girls and fend off (perhaps with claws etc. added through modification) guys who think they're asking for it as if you're talking about the "classic" "anime totally-not-a-slave-or-pet-just-a-"domestic-companion" waifu who you could probably order as a catgirl version of your favorite anime best girl looks-and-personality-wise" archetype you'd need them to somehow be created at 18 (unless you want to give them a childhood just to take it away with "domestic training" brainwashing) in a way that wouldn't make them still too-soon-past-creation to be too young to consent and you'd need to make them stay 18 forever.

1

RavenWolf1 t1_j90x6av wrote

I wouldn't mind to be catgirl and 19 forever! Of course those claws you mentioned would be really nifty too!

1

Gicotd t1_j8sa45f wrote

oh, americans

For you guys its somehow easier/makes more sense to test an embryo than giving everyone quality education until college.

1

Maleus_ t1_j8sanvh wrote

I see, too bad I didn't think of it. Anyone who thinks that they can find the answer to this question only in the genes of their offspring, and are willing to pay for it, are obviously too stupid to raise a child well enough so that it may attend college, so basically whoever does this test should get a "no" immediately.

1

shableep t1_j8sd5ru wrote

Imagine actually using this test, and then your kid decides not to go to college. Imagine how these sorts of parents might react. I'd feel bad for the kid.

1

kardiogramm t1_j8wgg3w wrote

Well if you think of the possible outcomes this will foster more competition and higher rates of depression and suicide especially if they do not have other things to fall back on. Maybe work on making education better and cheaper as it doesn’t sound like more students being unable to afford studying or just missing a scholarship is going to result in good times.

1

roundyz32 t1_j8x842m wrote

How are dissertations going to be graded now we have chatGPT? It’s going to rock the higher educational world. Just revert to more testing?

1

StarsinmyOcean t1_j8pj6a2 wrote

Good! Eugenics is the future of humanity, it's not a nasty word at all

0

StillSundayDrunk t1_j8t0do9 wrote

We are so close to Spartan-kicking babies off of cliffs aren't we?

0