Hacker News Reader

Comment by code_duck | Hacker News Reader

There could be various forms of discrimination by the government or private entities based on genetic characteristics. For instance, you could be denied health insurance or required to undergo a therapy or treatment based on genetic traits. If a government was to become more abusive, they could practice some form of eugenics such as forced sterilization.

View on HN

> undergo a therapy or treatment based on genetic traits

Person X has a genetic predisposition that results in anger control issues in 87% of people, so they must subscribe to weekly anger management counselling or they'll be denied access to public areas such as malls and schools. The government certified and licensed suppliers are A, B, C.

Imagine the profits of legally compelling people to buy your stuff. History shows there would be a long lineup of people eager to exploit something like that.

I think in such a system, the people would rightfully target the law as the enemy and ramp things up until enforcing the law becomes too dangerous to attempt.

Too late. There's too much surveillance - how would you even discuss it with each other? The first thing they're going to do is target your phone and computers. Expect terrorism charges.

How long until LLMs and friends are capable of producing life-like video evidence suiting any facts for any case? The credibility of a recording is already tenuous. It's only going to get worse. You can have all the footage in the world, but if it's considered compromised or bunk, what then?

87% is a huge number. If person X has that genetic predisposition then what's wrong with that rule? If as a society you allow the government to impose 'weekly counselling' on people for some reasons, then you open it up to being imposed on people for other reasons too.

I don't think the government should be imposing anger management counselling on people in the first place. That has nothing to do with concern about DNA, and everything to do with concern about the government being able to tell me what to do when I've not been convicted of a crime.

> If person X has that genetic predisposition then what's wrong with that rule?

A lot of it would be based on junk science and the low rate of offenders, because the diagnosis is bullshit, would be touted as evidence of the value the program is providing.

So the problem is basing policy on junk science. Is basing policy on junk science okay in some fields, but suddenly bad when it applied to genetics? Of course not.

What if it's not based on junk science, but on good science?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com