DNA of relative indicts man, cuckolding ignored

Major Variola (ret) mv at cdc.gov
Mon Jul 7 09:11:59 PDT 2003

At 08:25 AM 7/7/03 -0400, Stormwalker wrote:
>The issue of knowing about other people based on one subject's DNA
>has been known for for several years. For example, if a a woman
>has the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene (breast cancer), then so does her mother,
>sister(s) and daughter(s) because the gene is hereditary. Insurance
>companies can/have refused insurance coverage to the subject's
>and the relatives have no idea why.

Interesting, thanks.  Even a brother's daughter could be refused.

>Ethical issues have surfaced around the desire of the subject's
>relatives not wanting to know if they have a harmful, shared gene. If
>the subject tells her relatives abour her gene, then her relatives know

>that they have the gene. It's not like I told some them I broke my arm
>which only tells them a fact about me.

Perhaps this is the basis for the social stigma of mentally ill
relatives --it says something (probabilistic) about the speaker.

Still, you'll find out when they end up in the hospital.  Its useful
knowledge to know your genes ---I know adopted people who
regret not having any clue.  I know that my prostate will explode
when I get older.  I'd like to know more.  Sticking your head
in the sand is rarely helpful.

>In my opinion, very few people understand the impact of human
>understanding of how life is constructed. The science is well
>the engineering has just begun. We are taking conscious control of
>evolution, far past selective breeding and way past clones.

Most descendants of germ-cell-fixed diabetes (etc) will probably
not regret the tinkering of their ancestors, unless there are unintended

side effects :-)  But yeah, interesting
times we live in.  I've never heard anyone curse their ancestors
for the genetic diseases they've inherited, probably because they
wouldn't exist except for the ancestors.  ("Damn, grandpa, couldn't
you have married someone in better health?")  Also little good
cursing would do.

Insurance companies are private entities, so IMHO its moral for
them to gather intel (eg, checking blood for nicotine metabolites),
or give discounts for folks who've had certain inherited diseases fixed
in the future.  Or eat better, drive safer, exchange fluids less
promiscuously, whatever.

I'm more worried about the State, which coerces with violence.

More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list