There are all sorts of movies and narratives to reassure people that DNA-based social or hiring selection is unlikely to happen anytime soon, because supposedly there are few biological factors that allow you to easily predict life trajectory or productivity.
But I'm afraid the slightest boost in predictive power will matter to an organization of scale. And while it might be hard to tell if you should be a mathematician based on your DNA, it might be easier to tell risk factors about you or your relatives, which could cause an employer to see you as too expensive.
It's illegal to discriminate on disability, but if I know you're predisposed to heart disease and discriminate on similar basis, is that discrimination on disability if society doesn't classify it that way?
Also eventually judgments may be made on people which involve weights from thousands of data sources, only one of which will be DNA. It will be difficult to explain why any decision was made.
In the U.S., citizens voluntarily submit this data to companies without a counter-signed contractual agreement on data retention and protection. Some of these companies have relationships with the government.
I predict that in the near future, companies will offer more incentives to entice people into volunteering their DNA for various other perks.
Congress could enact foreign export controls for technologies that have repressive dual uses. The PLA will find ways around it. The same holds true for shareholder advocacy, management initiatives, etc. Restricting the sale of technology is enormously difficult, perhaps impossible. Repression in China will not be resolved externally. It's going to require change from within.
Surveillance I understand (its a fairly ubiquitous form of government control at this point, including use of DNA - Israel feeds that information into its domestic assassination program), but this op-ed repeatedly claims repression.
In China (based on its Marxist roots) cults and religion are deemed to be damaging to a person and to mass popular culture ("Religion is the opium of the people" - Marx). China considers religion to be within the freedom of an individual to observe, but not to impose on another person: in China you can not be indoctrinated into a religion until you are 18 years of age.
Combine this with the wave of Islamic reevaluation on the Asian supercontinent - ISIS is and has been a huge problem in China, with mailbombing campaigns and other acts of widespread terrorism.
Repression is an opinion expressed in the op-ed that hasn't considered factors that are alien to the Western author's perspective.
You cannot claim "cultural differences" as a legit reason to permit human rights abuses. You either believe human rights are inalienable or you don't. Even the ancient Romans, who codified slavery into law in their Republican era (and came up with the legal concept of private ownership, interestingly), described slavery as an "unnatural state" so this isn't a Christian argument either.
>Repression is an opinion expressed in the op-ed that hasn't considered factors that are alien to the Western author's perspective.
It's a given in the sense you describe, but a rose, by any other name is still a rose.
I see no reason to not call it what it is on the tin, and this is exactly the danger that entrusting your genetic code to anyone presents. As a whole, our species is only as scrupled as the least scrupulous actor. Frankly, I'm not half as upset at China as I am the firms that have been compiling private databases of genetic material and then selling access to the data.
As far as I know there was no fundamentalist terrorism in China due to the Uighurs. In the West we usually leave things alone that are not causing problems... Even if they have the potential to cause such problems. That's one of the reasons that one party authoritarian systems are wrong in that such systems are always worried about their stability and survival where more robust systems have no such worries. And that's why China will fail sooner or later because such systems come under control of strong men who then eliminate all of the survivability of institutions to consolidate power and then die and the system collapses or becomes dysfunctional.
However NSA shoveling all unfiltered data to Israel is in general an insane policy not in line with general liberalism.
[+] [-] threatofrain|7 years ago|reply
But I'm afraid the slightest boost in predictive power will matter to an organization of scale. And while it might be hard to tell if you should be a mathematician based on your DNA, it might be easier to tell risk factors about you or your relatives, which could cause an employer to see you as too expensive.
It's illegal to discriminate on disability, but if I know you're predisposed to heart disease and discriminate on similar basis, is that discrimination on disability if society doesn't classify it that way?
Also eventually judgments may be made on people which involve weights from thousands of data sources, only one of which will be DNA. It will be difficult to explain why any decision was made.
[+] [-] LinuxBender|7 years ago|reply
I predict that in the near future, companies will offer more incentives to entice people into volunteering their DNA for various other perks.
[+] [-] notus|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rrggrr|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EpicEng|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] donclark|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pampa|7 years ago|reply
Comments on HN became so politically engaged in the last two years, that it starts feeling like a Fourth International cell.
[+] [-] dang|7 years ago|reply
HN can't be immune from macro trends. We do what we can to contain them.
[+] [-] rm2889|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zachguo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dqpb|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dang|7 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[+] [-] ssnistfajen|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] subjoriented|7 years ago|reply
In China (based on its Marxist roots) cults and religion are deemed to be damaging to a person and to mass popular culture ("Religion is the opium of the people" - Marx). China considers religion to be within the freedom of an individual to observe, but not to impose on another person: in China you can not be indoctrinated into a religion until you are 18 years of age.
Combine this with the wave of Islamic reevaluation on the Asian supercontinent - ISIS is and has been a huge problem in China, with mailbombing campaigns and other acts of widespread terrorism.
Repression is an opinion expressed in the op-ed that hasn't considered factors that are alien to the Western author's perspective.
[+] [-] nickbauman|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HuShifang|7 years ago|reply
See https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/02/07/reeducating-xinj...
[+] [-] salawat|7 years ago|reply
It's a given in the sense you describe, but a rose, by any other name is still a rose.
I see no reason to not call it what it is on the tin, and this is exactly the danger that entrusting your genetic code to anyone presents. As a whole, our species is only as scrupled as the least scrupulous actor. Frankly, I'm not half as upset at China as I am the firms that have been compiling private databases of genetic material and then selling access to the data.
[+] [-] devoply|7 years ago|reply
However NSA shoveling all unfiltered data to Israel is in general an insane policy not in line with general liberalism.