[GuB-42]

Now imagine a future where not only we are screening job applicants based on their genes, that police targets a specific genetic profile, but we also mark people with the "bad" genes so that anyone can recognize them. Some sort of color coding, like white for good, black for bad...

Yeah... see where I am going...

Gene-based discrimination is not new, in fact, it used to be the norm. Now, it is called racism, and we are actually in a much better situation than we once were. Not perfect of course, but we have laws in place to limit such abuse.

If discrimination based on "non color-coding" genes is not already illegal in first world countries, I suspect the existing laws will soon be updated to reflect that once it starts being practical. And I think it will be more readily enforced than for traditional racism. Racism is a natural, quasi-instinctive bias that you actually have to fight against, because there is no way you can ignore the skin tone of the person in front of you, but you can simply not use a genetic sequencing test. Plus it sounds like eugenics, something that became kind of unpopular since the 1940s.

[boppo1]

>not already illegal in first world countries, I suspect the existing laws will soon be updated to reflect that once it starts being practical.

I'm not so sure. Racism was shown to be completely unsupported by science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNESCO_statements_on_race?wpro...

There were a couple notable dissenters (some bigwig statistician iirc), but overall it was a clear consensus.

If it is shown that certain genes are causative of violent behavior, the legal situation might not shake out so cleanly. Already the debate has begun: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressiv...

[cbozeman]

You don't have to imagine it, it's 1997's Gattaca.

[GuB-42]

Gattaca is fiction, with more attention given to having a good story than to realism.

Which was a success, it is a good story, and a movie I recommend.

What I think is that Gattaca, like most good dystopian fiction feels much more realistic than it really is, almost visionary. It is by design, it is a reflection of real world issues that readers/spectators are familiar with at the time of the writing, pushed to the extreme, and our natural negativity bias tend to make us forget the parts where the story was wrong in its terrible predictions.

[nerdix]

This is excellent.

Anyone can lose the genetic lottery (and everyone might lose it in some way). Even if you're considered fine by the genetic standards of the day, you can never be sure that your future kids or grandkids will be. Everyone will know someone, a close friend or family member, that's been negatively impacted by the laws so it's much harder to boogie man or "other" them.

Those laws would be wildly unpopular and would never survive in a democracy or even a populist dictatorship.