[Spacecosmonaut]

For the vast majority of people lifestyle is much more deterministic than genetics. There are a few exceptions causing relatively deterministic adult onset diseases: Huntington, APOA4 homozygosity, FAP, BRACA mutants. These are rare however.

[1dom]

> For the vast majority of people lifestyle is much more deterministic than genetics.

How much of lifestyle do you think is determined by genetics, if any, and how much of that link do we currently understand?

I feel the concern around genetic data privacy has normally been the risk of unknown future stuff, rather than any current known vectors. I'm not saying it's a legitimate fear, but I don't know if it's one that is placated with "we can't currently do anything bad".

[Spacecosmonaut]

The impact of lifestyle is undeniable and large. Good genes will not protect your body from alcoholism. And if I were a betting man, I would bet against determinism emerging from a better understanding of combinatorial genetics.

I do think over time we will get a clearer picture of risk predisposition based on your entire genetic profile. However, I believe that genetic predisposion will remain a relatively small contributor for most disease states.

[1dom]

That's fair, thanks for the response, appreciated.

I agree that genetic predisposition will remain a small contributor for most disease states. However, I (an idiot who has no authority or experience with anything relating to genetics) feel we're going to learn a lot about how our genetics indirectly influence our behaviour and decision making though.

I think it'll be a boring dystopia: the biggest problem will be that the more complex, distant relationships between genetics and life outcomes are discovered, the more opportunities the bodies responsible for health will have to say "well we have to protect ourselves from the uncertainty, and that's going to cost you/be profitable for us".