Just curious who on these forums has seen this film and what they think of it. The reason I ask is that in the film it delves into the taboo of "classification" where the elite are gifted and while the less gifted/non gifted are kind of treated like trash. Recently in a scientific article I found out that scientists have found a new gene which causes the "Folding" of brain tissue in mammals with larger brains *like humans*. This folding of brain tissue is what allows people to have sophisticated intelligence and have cognitive thought processes. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/05/17/difference-idiot-genius-come-single-gene/



My question is due to the course of human events do you think that in the future we'll see a sort of "Elite" classification through blood testing like in GATTACA? If you don't have a particular gene then you will be turned away because you are considered "Defective/Trash".

No, I don't think so, I do think we'll see a lot more treatment of genetic disorders though, whether that be through gene therapy or some kind of artificial selection I don't know.

People seem so scared of DNA, I don't get it.

I saw the movie. Including the part where supposedly defective godchild Ethan Hawke pwns his genetically superior brother in a swimming race. The parts where the doctor informed Hawke that his son was his biggest fan. The doctor had a son with a physical disability, knew Hawke was faking the persona, and continued the duplicity.
The astronaunt that Jude Law plays becomes crippled, and Hawke assumes his identity. Gattaca's message isn't that genetic superiority makes a better person. It's message is that we are more than the sum of our parts. It's how we deal with adversity, how we function in less than ideal social circumstances. In the end, due to his tenacity and ability to work well with others, Hawke's character acheives spaceflight, edging out supposedly genetically superior rivals. He gets one over on the establishment. He endures bone grafts, grueling workouts, corrective eye surgery, and hides his heart murmur simply to get a foot in the door.
Gattaca, the title, is itself a play on the nucleotides of dna...guanine, cytosine, thymine, and adenine.


Do I think society will eventually go that way? I do not. It's been known for quite a while that convolutions in the brain are linked with higher levels of functioning. The previous notion was that size of the brain affected intelligence, that was disproven,
Genetic discrimination as a status quo?
That's like thinking only the beautiful are worthy of romantic entanglemnets, yet how many times has a distractingly physically attractive person turned out to be a total wackjob unsuited for any sort of relationship?



Also, FOX News? LOL.

I saw this movie in Year 9 when we covered the biology part of our science course. I've always loved science, especially the Old Testament.

Doubt it, or at least I hope. Anyways if that occurs then the Robits will discriminate against inferior organic beings in general. Muahaha, the cycle of life.

Something about how they can map out your health with your DNA which leads to ethical and legal issues and such.

Good movie.
The thing about messing around with genes is how it messes with natural human evolution and adaptation.
There could be something we change, thinking it for the good, but ends up with a negative consequence down the road.

I thought it was an OK movie. I thought the religion vs. science motif was poorly handled - either it should have been fully developed or dropped, as is it serves no real purpose.

Will genetics some day be used to "classify" people? It's very possible, people are already classified along many lines, some fall out of favor and some gain favor. However there is a very large anti-eugenics mentality across much of the world and this would hamper a society developing genetic screening of this sort.

I have some personal experience with the eugenics crowd, not pleasant to say the least. Like anything it's flawed by faulty human perceptions, and any good will soon be eradicated by greeds of various natures. The extremists are always the loudest and most looked at, and some of them are calling for drastic measures against diseases that don't really significantly impair your ability to live. If it ever happens, a lot of mistakes will be made. So hopefully it doesn't happen.

At most I can see preventative measures being taken to stop many disease before they affect the human body, but I sure don't want any other sort of tinkering going on. At least not until I'm convinced society has grown to a new level of awareness and is ready to handle it.

Considering we already have discrimination in issues of health care/health insurance and employment based on the medical history of one's parents and family, I am jaded enough to say GATTACA is the future.

Yeah, with DNA treatment one could eliminate problems to make a better "you" but you can bet society will more than likely keep that an option open only to the most wealthy. In the movie, parents opted to have gene splicers make the best "specimen" they could hope to create. I have no doubt that would be the future, and I particularly cringed at how in the movie genetic profiling was "illegal" but everyone still did it under the guise of otherwise legal testing.

Won't happen today or tomorrow, but once we ace genetic engineering to a level where parents can ensure healthy, fit, intelligent, attractive offspring... Well, then it will only take a generation or so for the NEO-HUMANS to step above their less able brothers and cast us down to the ghettos, or use us as a slave class.

Why use us at all? By that point we're inferior to them and machines, would they be so cruel in their workings to allow us some delusion of purpose?

Edit
Genetic engineering, it can never account for social/environmental conditioning and learning. A blessing and a curse.

They are still humans in the core... Humans are cruel and evidence of such is all around us every day.

EDIT: obviously not ALL humans are cruel... But we should expect that our treatment as Paleo humans would be perhaps similar to a relationship between a pet and it's owner, until all the parental generation that created the Neos passes on.... From that point everyone that could afford to be would be NEO and only the poor and shunned would be Paleohumans... The collective voice of the poor underclass has always been easy for the priviliged to ignore (I need not point out the many examples of such in our own lifetimes) and as such ghettos and slave classes are highly likely. Keep the undesirables out of sight or at least indentured enough to fear eye-contact.

It doesn't make any sense, why use a slave labor race? Humans are capable of cruelty, but so long as it benefits. Rare is it a true sadist appears who relishes the torture of a human, even rarer if the majority of people can screen out the genes for that sort of thing. They can have robots and themselves for work, from a logistical point of view and psychological it makes no sense. Neither does it have basis in reality. Cruelty in this era is of the indifference kind, not that brought upon by malice. What you propose is the later.

Without using specific (flamable) examples, people also don't look at themselves as cruel. No one who puts a poor class into a ghetto thinks they are doing something cruel. The indifference that you refer to is more than enough to look the other way. Like I said, while the parental generation exists, this is less likely to happen, but once the Paleo Humans are only poor people that couldn't afford to 'better' themselves, and not your poor old mom and pop, it will be significantly easier for the Neo Humans to push them down. Consider that the Neo Humans will be a different species than Paleo Humans... How do we treat the other species on the planet today?
Regardless, cruelty is only a small part of the equation. Paleo Humans will carry more disease, be less intelligent, less attractive, etc... Those features have all been used as excuses by humans to cleanse the gene-pool in our own time... They will continue to be considered valid reasons in the next few generations as well.

I'm not arguing that, I mean as a slave labour race. You keep dodging the point and haven't given any examples or logic for SLAVES. There is none, it might be a ghetto, but you said it yourself. They are more likely to annihilate them than make them salves. So why make them a slave race at all? Only pure torment since if they are so inferior nothing they do can measure up to the superiors. So why keep them around with people so proud of perfection? Only cruelty would keep the paleo humans alive as a slave labour race, more like a big joke. Your logic for them being a slave race doesn't add up, so make it add up. Or try.

I've seen the movie and I didn't see the classification as the main concern. I was more interested in the use of genetic manipulation to rid humans of various diseases and mutations that would be harmful or unwanted. Even changing how people looked to make them appear more attractive. While I don't think humans will be separated into lower class humans and 'die übermensch' (I simply have too much confidence in humans on that regard) I do think the movie reflects a very likely and near future in terms of medicine and genetic alteration. I mean; if I had a choice I would gladly give my child a vaccine for cancer or otherwise enhance his/her natural given traits/skills. (I personally believe that humans ought to take responsibility for their own evolution. )

They should start by taking responsibility for their mistakes first before they open up a bigger can of worms, but that's likely to never happen.

Why would the slaves have to be perfect, or likeable or otherwise? Look at the 'pretty girl' with the fat friend. Makes her even prettier by comparison. Why were Africans (thought of by whites to be inferior savages) used as slaves for so long? Because if you are superior, why do the work yourself? Robots are certainly an option, but lets look at this in terms that don't include such an option. Slave owners did not think of themselves as cruel beasts, but they certainly didn't want to harvest cotton themselves. They treated their slaves cruelly for decades, yet wouldn't have ever admitted such. Not having to do jobs that are considered demeaning, disgusting, dangerous or low class is reason enough. Using slaves as entertainment in pormography, bloodsports, or experimentation. Military fodder.
Honestly, I can think of more reasons to have slaves than to not.

The slave owners didn't think they were the pinnacle of human perfection, in this eugenics movement the peoples very beliefs are that they are perfect on a scientific level. So it would be complete hypocrisy to keep slaves to do inferior work when they can do it themselves or have robots to do it and just lord over those. So now that we see the core driving force behind the eugenics movements motivation we have to question why they would keep inferior slaves, and why they just got out smarted by a dumb paleo-human in terms of logic. Imagine that, thinking your superior, and then having this logic thrown back at you. Ouch. Okay so now your discarding the robots part of my argument, why don't I selectively discard parts of your argument too? Come on this is weak. Now you say they treated their slaves cruelly, so they are still under the domination of human whims and desires? Only perfect if they live up to society? So then all of their engineering has been for naught, but who commands the hive is what mattered all along? Another ouch, and another eugenics war once societies perceptions shift again.

It's not the slaves who have to be perfect, it's the work of the oh so superior people putting them down. They don't want to be reminded that they might not be so perfect.

Edit
The downside of slaves is the fact that they out number you, they will rebel and it becomes a matter of cost. Is it effective keeping this dead race alive to use as a slave race? They have nothing to offer as a species, and they know their doomed by technology. I would predict nothing less of full scale revolution and desperation, fighting to the very end. Like any species would do, they might not make it through and win but they will die. So now if you want your slaves you have to keep them alive only for them to be a constant thorn in your side. Not to mention it's not for the greater good of society, once these people are slaves. It can enter the thought that maybe other people are good for slaves and so on and so forth. Good with a strong ruler, impossible to manage when so many people bickering and jockeying for positions of power.

I'm not sure I'm really following your line of thought, so I believe we'll havta just agree to disagree.
In the end neither of us will be around to find out exactly how it all plays out.

No one follows my line of thought, well few can. I'm basically exposing them as hypocrites and and showing how where their beliefs go wrong in such a society that would keep inferior slaves to themselves. But forget it. Not to mention society has always accomplished more as a collective whole than if it's divided, slavery is never an option. Anyways just drop this, we're probably going to get too far off topic.

The culture we live in has a far greater impact on education, labor efficiency, and crime rates than any genetic factors. I don't deny that genetic traits have some impact on capability, but appropriate cultural changes would do more for society than even the best eugenic policies. I would rather have a decent culture and let natural selection run on its own from within that framework.

I'm inclined to agree, but I make the distinction that the only thing we should fix is any genetic disease/or anything along that nature through genetic engineering. That's it though until I can see first hand how people react and grow to it, and I don't think I'll ever get the chance.

I think a thing like that would happen.

I would say humans are prone to classify themselves in regard to their dominant characteristics.

Not conciously, we already do this with genes. For example, hair strand tensile strength is a good indicator of health. And, generally, we aim to date people with good hair; not loose, shaggy, dry hair.

So, why not do this conciously? I do indeed imagine that this will happen. For example, in Western cultures we do not necessarily openly say we won't date a person because of their looks, and will reason that its what is inside that counts. But, generally, when it comes down to it, that's not very true. Continuing, in other societies they will openly make these judgements. So, I would say this would be similar to what would happen with this kind of genetic modification would it becomes very common -- "I like you, and its not because you don't have the good hearing gene, I just want to find someone who sees me as I really am."