»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Human Genome Amendment
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Human Genome Amendment |
|
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia 
|
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of DNA. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification. How long before we'll see this? Do we need it? Pros /Cons? good background reading is at: http://www.actionbioscience.org/genomic/bereano.html [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (edited 08-14-2001).] |
||
| © Copyright 2001 Local Rebel - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
No one wants to open the beaker full of worms... |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
LR, Ah, c'mon give me a break. I was going to get to this eventually.  I found the article to be more fear oriented than anything else. In order for this to be, it has to deemphasize the real power of the working classes (latent but always there), misunderstand the current views of this same class, mystify the power of nature, and reinforce the anti-technology motif of many deep ecologists. 1. It assumes one change and extrapolates it in the current system. This simply doesn't happen. DNA research and testing will create problems, of course, but I find it hard to believe that capitalists will create a system that allows class conflict this type of avenue to manifest itself. They seem to be really good, moreso than the working classes, of realizing the consequences of such a have and have not scenario. 2. The working classes seem to have a kind of 'gambler', 'lotto' mentality. In America, nobody thinks that the owners, the rich are in some inherent way 'better' than the rest of us. They believe some people get lucky. If the game is publically 'rigged', what happens, what have workers done in the past? 3. What's so natural about what we've been doing in the past? 4. You don't fight mystification with mystification. In the first paragraph: "Technologies are not value-neutral" --the argument has never been that techonology is value nuetral, it's been that science is value nuetral. This is wrong as well but it helps to understand the difference. ; they usually embody the perspectives, purposes, and political objectives of powerful social groups. --Yes, but in each and every case, a dialectical situation is created. The dominant ideology in Western society proclaims that science and technology are value-neutral, and the only problems caused by technologies are either "externalities" (unintended side effects) or abuses. --Really? Who has this person been talking to lately? The dominant ideology is competition. Nobody believes there's a level playing field, but people believe they have the chance to win if they get lucky. Science and technology are seen as, well, exactly the following: However, because technologies are the result of human interventions into the otherwise natural progression of activities (and not acts of God or of nature), --this is what most people, I believe, believe. they are themselves actually imbued with human intentions and purposes. --They are seen as unnatural. Human intention and purpose aren't discussed, the MACHINE is. This allows us to complain without actually having to do anything. Current technologies do not equally benefit all segments of society (and indeed are not intended to do so), --true but it begs the question -- technologies will benefit just enough of society to keep that society working and buying. although to maximize public support for these developments and to minimize potential opposition, their proponents rarely acknowledge these distributional ramifications. --Of course they don't. They don't have to. It sounds so much better to say that humanity will benefit rather than the rich (which is what we want to hear). The question will be whether this new research significantly alters the views of the working class (I have a small chance to I have no chance). If this happens, the working class will be either placated or will take action or both. --The result will be small victories for many people to have access to genetic modifications, an emphasis on 'curing', not the prevention, aspects of DNA knowledge, but the basic class structure won't solidify anymore than it already is solidified. --And the rest of us won't care because we've got our own lives to live. --Result: People will be better off, live longer, but probably not happier lives but the class power system will remain the same. Brad |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well Brad it looks like you, me, and the crickets on this one. (chirp chirp) You've hit on some of the interesting arguments made by Bereano where I found the facts presented far more compelling. I can understand your distraction by all of the talk of 'value neutral technology' because I found it rather annoying as well. However -- I think (and I'm supposing because I find some of his language hard to follow) that in the end what he was trying to say is something with which you would agree (ie -- your comment regarding competition -- to which I would say the profit motive is actually at the base of the pyramid) is that technologies will be desinged and implemented in ways that will benefit those funding them. A couple of examples come to mind such as the VHS vs. Beta war in the VCR battle -- the Mac vs. Windows wars... etc. The people with the most money win in the marketplace. I found the latter part of the article much more intersting and alarming -- and I'm not afraid to admit that I am afraid. I think it is our civic duty to be afraid of how government and business will react to technology that threatens life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness if allowed to propogate in malevolent ways. The profit motive being the driving factor in Capitalism -- let's look at the situations of genetic discrimination that have already occured that he presents: _____________ Genetic discrimination Genetic discrimination is the other major civil liberty threatened by genetics research. Scientists working with the Council for Responsible Genetics have documented hundreds of cases where healthy people have been denied insurance or employment based on genetic "predictions." Of course, relatively few genetic diseases are deterministic; most tests (which have inherent limits themselves) cannot tell us if a genetic mutation will become manifest; if it does do so, it cannot tell us when in life this will occur; and if it happens, how severe the condition will be. In addition, many genetic conditions can be controlled or treated by interventions and environmental changes; that is why governments mandate testing newborns for PKU. The growth of the mania for testing in the US is a manifestation of class relationships, through new technological possibilities: employers test employees, insurance companies and health organizations test patients, college officials test students, legislators pass bills to test a variety of disempowered groups (welfare recipients, prisoners, immigrants and the like). Such indignities are never foisted upon the ruling class by the masses. Examples of such discrimination include: -- A pregnant woman, whose fetus tested positive for cystic fibrosis, was told by her health maintenance organization (HMO) that it would be willing to cover the cost of an abortion but would not cover the infant under the family's medical policy if she elected to carry the pregnancy to term. -- A healthy woman, who casually mentioned to her family doctor that her father had been diagnosed with Huntington's disease, and that she herself was at risk for inheriting this genetic disorder, was later denied disability insurance. The insurance company rejected her because they found a note about her father's diagnosis written in the margin of her medical records. -- A healthy boy, who carried a gene predisposing him to a heart disorder, was denied health coverage by his parents' insurance company, even though the boy took medication that eliminated his risk of heart disease. -- One healthy man in his 20s with a gene for the degenerative brain condition Huntington's disease was refused life insurance. His older brother, on the other hand, tested negative and was able to reduce his premium which had been previously set on a family history of the disease. -- Another case involved a well woman in her 30s whose genetic test indicated a 70 to 90 per cent risk of developing cancer. Despite having regular screening for cancer, her superannuation was reduced and the life cover component refused. ___________________ Anyone who has ever played sandlot softball and divided up teams knows the fear of being chosen last. It is human nature to stratify the abilities (or worth) of persons. This is anathema to "All Men Created Equal". Yet we're already allowing this to take place. We know from history the US has (like any other country) discriminated before. This time though -- I don't think it's going to be much about class at all. I think we're decades and decades away from the ability to go in and actually 'fix' the genetically defective -- so I think it unlikely for sometime that even the rich or ruling class would be able to manipulate their genes to their advantage over the working class. Indeed -- as Bereano points out -- we really don't understand the implications of genetic defects due to environmental conditions and whether or not a genetic disease will or will not become manifest. On another line of thought -- companies are already using psychological testing to determine what kind of employee you will be -- what if they determine (for the sake of profit motive) that blood sample beats a resume? I don't see the problem with taking genetic samples from criminals any more than fingerprinting suspects... however -- rules will need to be applied to the use of that information -- and I think it is a violation of rights for governments to keep samples taken from babies at birth as is being done in California. Ergo -- my Human Genome Amendment question -- which I'm sure everyone will recognize as the Equal Rights Amendment re-written with the acronym DNA substituted for the word Sex. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (edited 08-21-2001).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I can understand your concerns but do you think genetic discrimination will go as far as "Gattaca"? My thinking is that health insurance, while no doubt discriminating against certain cases, will find some middle ground. If not, if you're the one who is excluded and there are enough 'you's around, the government will step in and mandate arrangements. As long as it doesn't affect you, do you really think people will be that bothered by it? Possibly. Americans have a strong tendency to react against situations that seem out of the victim's control (and see no reason to defend those that are in 'control' -- smoking, addiction, and whatnot). Because free will is not a factor here, perhaps a grass roots effort might make sense, not to stop the research -- that seems silly -- but to prevent the possibilities that you are concerned about. Perhaps your concerns and others like yours will be the point that prevents precisely the thing you fear. But I don't see how we can actively do anything about some of the individual cases except get them individually on 60 minutes. The DNA amendment? Give me another day or two. I'm not sure. At the moment, I think it would take too much work to get it going for what is still of limited benefit. But you never know. Brad PS You don't think the curative value won't start having an effect in ten years or so? That's the figure I heard, they meant it to sould like a long time, I thought, "Wow, that soon." You think it'll take longer? Ten years is a short time. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Do I think it will go as far as Gattaca? Difficult to say -- I think it won't if enough people get involved before too much more momentum is gained in that direction. I think there are actually genetic therapies that are available as we speak -- for specific diseases -- and I decry the slowness of the implementation of them and their availability to the general public. What I think is going to take decades and decades is the ability to determine how to re-engineer someone so that mathmatical abilities, musical talent, logic, memory, athletic ability, etc. can be enhanced to the point that the elite would be availing themselves of these techniques to breed superior children (the Gataca problem if you may). I don't think insurance companies will find any kind of medium ground at all. I think they will act in their own interest as long as they are allowed. As will be the hiring practices of any/every company. This is what will cause this problem to effect not just every family -- I think at some point there is the potential that every person could be discriminated against on some genetic grounds in one way or another -- even in a courtroom -- the reversal of DNA evidence being used to 'prove' a crime -- but in its absence used to 'prove' disposition to commit one. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
It seems to me the only real issues here deal with insurance companies and employers. DNA testing, in terms of law enforcement, isn't greatly different from fingerprints and there is a very long history of archiving those, whether you were arrested or served in the military. Using DNA for identification probably isn't going to go away. And frankly, like Heinlein, I'm more concerned about the Social Security Number than either fingerprints or DNA. LR's reference to "All Men Created Equal" is probably the crux of the matter. The phrase, however, applies to rights and not privileges. Do we have a God-given right to insurance? To employment? Life insurance for someone who is sixty costs more than identical coverage for someone who is twenty. Why? Because, of course, the former is "more likely" to die than the latter. That doesn't mean the sixty-year-old is certain to die first, but that's pretty much the way the odds fall. And the insurance companies are betting on those odds. If we substitute a "bad heart gene" for age in that argument, I don't see where anything really changes. We're still talking statistics and profits. What would happen if we passed a law saying life insurance costs should be equal across the board, regardless of the applicant's age? Well, the old guy would pay less and the young man would pay more. (Either that, or the insurance companies would fold and no one would be able to get insurance.) It's not so cut and dried in the employment sector, but the principles are the same. Employers would have to pay more for some employees, meaning everyone else would have to get less. (Or prices would go up.) What we're talking about, of course, is socialism. Whether you advocate it wholly, a little bit, or not at all, everyone should recognize it will carry a cost. Protect the old. Protect the genetically disadvantaged. But know you are essentially moving dollars around on the table. There ain't no free lunches, and someone is going to foot the bill when that heart attack chromosome kicks in at a much too early thirty-five. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
And that IS exactly what we're talking about here -- socialism. But not from the perspective you're seeing Ron. Nobody said insurance companies couldn't make a profit by continuing to use the actuary tables they've developed for a hundred years. Last time I looked though they weren't allowed to charge more or deny coverage on a basis of race. Using DNA (mis)information to attempt to determine the future of someone is Genetic Determinism just like Racial Determinism was. If the Gataca problem does manifest it will be because people are blind to what the possibilities are for the abuse of genetic identification. What if someone's son wants to be an engineer -- and his university counselor tells him -- "I'm sorry son -- I can't advise that you follow that career path because your XYZ sequence indicates you just wouldn't be suited for that profession -- according to your DNA you'd be an excellent hamburger flipper." Currently it is illegal to gather and maintain fingerprint information from private citizens who are not suspected of comitting any crimes. Why should we allow the state to invade privacy by mainting DNA databases on every person from birth? What possible use could it have for this information? Why should we bear the tax burden for the cost? The social security number is far less invasive than the ability to track the comings and goings of every single human being by the gathering of residual biological traces -- why not just put a chip in everybody and keep us all on GPS leashes? Anyone not familiar with the potential abuses of DNA information needs to brush up on the issue quickly. This will be the biggest brother of them all. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Let's see. LR, I don't see that your fears are justified. Not yet anyway. I don't see much of a difference between a concentration on family history and a concentration on genotype (it's just more accurate). In theory and if Ron is right, wouldn't it bring down prices for those who don't have the genetic disqualifications? Provided the insurance companies are in competition with each other. I've never considered myself much of a conspiracy theorist but always thought that the government and large companies already have the tools to do what you say they can do, create 'Big Brother.' If this is so, the question becomes why don't they? I just don't see the government and large companies as all that interested in my life. Why should they be? From a cost/benefit analysis, I don't see the payoff here. I don't see the payoff in employing genetic testing and records here as well. I certainly don't mean to belittle your anecdotal evidence here, but this means that genetic testing will create new problems, problems that we should be aware of, but problems that will be alleviated in the same way as problems such as these have before. As I argued before, I don't see this as a pivotal mark in the social relational aspect of society. This doesn't mean it won't change things, it'll change things like the computer has, but the computer, as far as I can tell, hasn't changed anything really fundamental to our society (fundamental, to me, is a change in the social relations -- from Noble and peasant to owner and worker for example). I could be wrong but I just don't see it happening. Should we then ignore it? Of course not. you're certainly right to watch and be concerned over the developments and you've certainly made me more aware of these developments, I'll probably watch them more closely from now on. Ron, You already know I don't think socialism is a dirty word. I believe in TANSTAAFL as well but if socialism means 'big brother' to LR and irrational redistribution to you, it means something quite different to me. The question for a society is not that the sixty year old should pay the same as a twenty year old, but whether or not health care should be a right or not. Rights are not 'endowed by our creator' however great that may sound, they are decided upon by people. Does it help or hurt society if the elderly are not taken care of? No one denies the cost involved, the question is does that cost prevent a greater cost in terms of society instability. You can't make a profit if your customers are dieing on you, if they can't pay the cost of their own health care that rises, in part, as a result of an insurance system designed to alleviate individual but not social cost. A socialist doesn't say you have to cover the elderly just because, but because it helps you in the long run. A socialist questions why the system works the way it does and doesn't believe in 'that's just human nature,' or 'that's just the way things are.' A capitalist relies on mystification to avoid asking these questions. A socialist asks what you do want to do and how do we it. A capitalist doesn't ask and doesn't want to be asked. Brad |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Brad, I don't see the inclusion of the insurance problem here as anything other than evidence of the ability of companies to: a. misuse information they don't understand (getting back to the Bereano's point that there is no real knowledge of the likelihood of a disease to manifest considering environmental factors) b. use every bit of information they can get to their profit advantage. Is the cost/benefit analysis not clear? (And I'm sure somewhere there is a CFO with a 5 year discounted cash flow and economic summary on his desk right now submitted by some HR director to invest in DNA testing of employees to speed up and increase the accuracy and decrease the risk of the recruiting process.) If companies can hire "better" people with less risk (due to a perception) then that is what they will do. There's no conspiracy to it. It will be driven by competition. And, there is a reason why Dilbert cartoons are so popular. Humor requires an element of truth. Large companies are by and large inept because of the Peter Principal. Management does stupid things -- and I liked the reasoning behind it that was pointed out by Peter Drucker recently -- management is boring. (As a former manager in a couple of multi-billion dollar publicly traded companies I can attest to it first hand -- self included.) Myself -- I find the notion dreadfully distasteful that there is the potential for human achievement to be pre-judged before someone has a chance to do something. The world is full of broke geniuses. Sheer determination and passion are what propells success. (but there's probably a gene for that too) Would you favor a military that based promotions on blood samples? Yes -- Comapnaies and Government have had the tools -- but a generation ago when the wiretapping question had to be answered -- the government said the potential for abuse is too great. Now when the interenet question had to be answered the government has said it is perfectly acceptible (the FBI unleashed Carnivore just last year for example to munch your cookies and scan your e-mail) to monitor without probable cause -- there are many examples I could cite where the state has ruled in favor of big brother recently -- and many where it has ruled against it -- the point is -- with every new technolgy the state will have to decide how it is to be used. So, no, I agree -- the cause for alarm is not now that great -- you and I haven't faced discrimination based on our DNA -- but the time for the government to decide how this technology can and cannot be applied (particularly by the government) is close at hand. The payoff to governments to maintain DNA databases is ostensibly the prevention/detection of crime -- which is a noble cause -- but there is a fine line we have to walk in that endeavor -- how much freedom do we give up in order to be free of crime? Power corrupts. Just because today's leaders are willing to show restraint doesn't mean next week's will. The frog is in the frying pan on this one -- and there are always hands ready to turn up the heat. The one good thing about tyrants -- and the trait they always share -- is in the beginning they always keep the laws -- it's later when they destroy them. "The right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by a free people." - Justice Louis Brandeis, Olmstead v. U.S. (1928). [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (edited 08-23-2001).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
LR said: quote: Choosing loaded terms isn't likely to sway opinions in here as much as logic is. It's misinformation only in the sense that it's incomplete, and it's not Determinism at all. I also think you're fostering confusion by lumping everything together. Identification is one issue, insurance/employer use is a very different issue, and your hypothetical University scenario something else entirely. Identification : If there's a law, as you suggest, making it illegal to archive fingerprint information without due cause, it's a fairly recent law. Everyone in the military is routinely fingerprinted. Many government jobs require it. Virtually every law enforcement agency mandates it. I suspect there are more instances, especially in the high tech sectors. It isn't new, and the federally sponsored costs have been more than offset by the savings. One can argue whether it's right or wrong all day, but I personally prefer to fight winnable battles. Insurance/Employment : I'm not suggesting we don't need controls in this arena, because we do. Discrimination based on opinions needs to be discouraged, but that doesn't mean facts should be thrown out with the biased wash water. If someone who is 98 years old suddenly wants to take out a million dollars of life insurance, they should be charged a bit more than my 25 year old son would pay. Based on facts like date of birth and statistics like probable life expectancy. If you want to argue about the reliability of genetic testing, that becomes a science issue, not a moral one. Hamburger Flippers : Your scenario is already reality. Counselors routinely discourage overly optimistic careers based on IQ and SAT scores, both of which are probably much less accurate than genetic testing (or tossing a coin, for that matter). Sadly, that kind of bias isn't even first encountered at the college level, but rather during the first few years of grade school. Even more sadly, limited resources probably makes it a necessary compromise. Our only ray of hope is that it can still be overcome by plain old stubbornness, as countless people prove every day. Finally, the SSN system is far closer to the GPS leash you propose than DNA samples are ever likely to come. It has become virtually impossible to engage in legal financial transactions without a SSN, and the US government can track you far more reliably via income than it could with a removable chip. As computers and networks become more powerful, the delays and difficulties of retrieving this information will vanish. The final step will be paperless cash, making even illegal financial transactions difficult. As Brad suggested, Big Brother is already here. He just doesn't usually care much about you and I, but our only real hope is to remain beneath that radar level. Brad, I don't think socialism is a dirty word, nor do I automatically equate it to irrational distribution of resources. On the other hand, I don't think capitalism is a dirty word, either. As I've said in other threads, I don't believe unrestrained capitalism can survive for more than a generation or two. We need controls, and limited socialism is absolutely vital, both for our economy and for our conscience. But I also believe that every restraint placed on a free capitalistic system is potentially dangerous and should be very carefully considered. Those decisions need to be made with the head, not solely with the heart. While I agree caring for the elderly is logically (as well as morally ) justifiable, I also know the arguments for such things are often just well constructed justifications for what someone wants. I guess I should also mention that I see socialism standing front and center in a very serious chicken and egg quandary. Do we need to mandate care for the elderly because the extended family and community no longer provide what they did a hundred years ago? Or is that familial care not commonly available today because we've asked the state to furnish it? In too many instances, if not most, I think social welfare gives the wrong message. "You don't have to plan for your future, because we'll do it for you." (I know the above argues extremes, rather than reality. Familial care was far from perfect and too many people fail to plan their future regardless of what the government does. But in trying to correct those problems, I think socialism usually moves too far towards the other extreme, placing too little emphasis on personal responsibility.) Last but not least, I couldn't disagree more vehemently that "rights" are decided upon by the people. Whether one argues God, nature, or morality, I believe Jefferson was correct when he wrote that all men are endowed "with certain unalienable Rights." One might disagree about what rights should be on that list, but I believe no one can change the list. However, I also believe that exercising those rights is never without personal cost, even in a completely free world. In a less than completely free world, those costs usually rise, perhaps even to the point where few are willing to pay the costs. That doesn't, however, eliminate the right. In other words, and as I once argued poetically, people don't grant rights to other people. They can only determine the costs of exercising those rights. So what do you thing, guys? Could we possibly crowd a few more very complex issues into a single thread? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ron my internet friend, If not determinism then what? I agree with your assesment of the inherent dangers of the SSN. My point is that if there is DNA there need be no SSN. It will replace the SSN as the scenario you predict unfolds. With one difference -- you can get a different taxpayer ID number if you choose for transactional purposes and it is, technically illegal, for anyone to ask for your SSN excepting the Social Security Administration or an employer for the purposes of paying your FICA... so .. to a degree you can escape your SSN -- although replacing it with TPID is not much better. RE: SAT or IQ testing -- I also lament the use of these 'predictors' with the exception that these are both predicated upon actual performance of the individual -- interpretation of the results are a different matter, agreed, but at least we're talking about actual performance -- and most companies aren't going to base hiring decisions based on tests taken in grade school -- there is a chance to improve one's performance over time. DNA is forever. I think in my last post I attempted to singulate where these isssues were getting tangled up -- so -- yes I agree too many things were getting clumped together (but due to the way they were presented by Bereano -- not moi )And the law making it illegal to fingerprint PRIVATE citizens is and always has been probable cause. If you wanted to voluntarily walk into your local sherrif's office and give your fingerprints -- they may or may not take them -- but they can't go door to door building a database. Could we throw in more complex issues into a single thread? Darn tutin the three of US could... lol...  (and we'd love it) |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Yeah, there's a lot of stuff here. Hemingway said his story, 'The Snows of Kilimanjaro" had enough stuff in it to fill up four novels. So, we're in fine company. LR, Won't we find out if this type of DNA profiling will work or not? In theory, you have one company that hires and promotes based on DNA and one that hires and promotes based on achievement. Which one has the better chance of succeeding? I'm quite confident that it'll be the one who works from achievement. Isn't it similar to the genius thread we had a while back? Does your IQ matter if you don't do anything with it? Again, your concerns with privacy are understandable but I don't see how this changes much (you may be right, I may be too complacent not to see this as more pivotal), but I think the issue expands far more than this specific issue. What exactly is the right to privacy and what should and shouldn't be included in it? Maybe another thread is needed for that one. Ron, Ya got me. I no longer worry about this much but the days when I used 'capitalist' as a derogatory remark are still too close without some residual feeling emerging when I hear that word. Capitalism is still a dirty word for me. I'll hold off on some of the other stuff for now but maybe we should try to start other threads (Rights particularly interests me). Talk to ya later, Brad |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
"Won't we find out if this type of DNA profiling will work or not?" Probably -- and its' insideousness will become greater as emperical evidence stacks up -- if we indeed CAN say biology is destiny it will be a sad destiny for humanity. ___________________ "In theory, you have one company that hires and promotes based on DNA and one that hires and promotes based on achievement. Which one has the better chance of succeeding?" Management loves theory -- what they don't love is long term results. Decisions are based on what will drive the next quarterly report. There's no such thing as a bad decision -- only the next one. Peer pressure among managers (especially between competitors) is worse than Jr. High School. If one company starts it -- they'll all do it -- then where will the comparison be? There will be the occasional maverick CEO that gets his picture on Forbes for hiring genetic weaklings and succeeding -- but there is a herd mentality that permeates big company thinking. Besides -- do you want it to be your kid that's part of the control group? ______________ Privacy does expand way beyond this issue -- but this one is going to be pivitol because it is the ultimate invasion. But if you want to discuss the other issues on the forefront -- biometrics, consumer privacy, cell phone tracking, medical records, national ID cards, school records, video survelience, workplace privacy -- I'll be happy to engage the forum. For now I'll just quote myself from a soon to be published zine article wherein I lampoon the issue by suggesting in the future we will all get 15 minutes in jail.. "Now don't think that I'm so vain I think anyone actually cares what I'm doing at any given moment. No. I'm sure I could bore the rust off of Jesse Helms. All of this monitoring information will go by, for the most part, ignored. That is until you hack off your next door neighbor because you're grass is too tall or because you didn't invite him to your bar-b-que. Or maybe you'll just be trading insults with some moron on an internet message board. Or maybe some whack at a bar will be jealous because you stole his girl. Your daughter or son will be mad that you didn't let them go to the big party. You'll get reported for something then the politzi will just rewind and viola. Instant violation of some kind. Then you'll be arrested and sentenced for your 15 minutes. Then... when you get out... it will be your turn (to tattle)." |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
oops forgot to say re: SSN vs. DNA the only discrimination one may encounter due to SSN is a credit report (performance based -- assuming no identity theft occured) whereas the discriminatory potentiality with DNA is almost unlimited. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
On review I also failed to point out (because Ron and Brad already know this) for the gentle readers out there that may be perusing and not posting that 'probable cause' is a Constitutional provision containted in the fourth amendment. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
