DNA of relative indicts man, cuckolding ignored

Stormwalker bruen at coldrain.net
Mon Jul 7 10:15:04 PDT 2003

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
> Interesting, thanks.  Even a brother's daughter could be refused.

  The BRCA genes are only transmitted through the mother, but
  there are many others that go through both lines.

> >Ethical issues have surfaced around the desire of the subject's
> Perhaps this is the basis for the social stigma of mentally ill
> relatives --it says something (probabilistic) about the speaker.

  With most genes there is not a 100% chance that any one person
  will suffer, although there are few. One measurement is the PPV,
  Positive Predictive Value, which gets to estimate the probability
  that the problem gene will actually cause the problem. Trouble is,
  it's real hard to get the PPV right. No one really knows how to
  do it, so the insurance companies just say to any possibility, no
  matter how remote.

> 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.

   While I agree completely, you might be surprised at just how
   many people don't want to know and will get upset if you spoil
   the surprise by telling them.

> >In my opinion, very few people understand the impact of human
> >understanding of how life is constructed. The science is well
> >understood, 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 :-)  

  Unintended side effects are all but guaranteed :(  The tinkering 
  will resemble eugenics at the building block level. Eliminating genetic
  diseases will be great, but introducing other things might not be, just
  as eliminating some things might be bad.

> 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.

   This already happens - selecting your mate has more procedures
   if youare in line for a spot as king somewhere.

> 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 have to disagree here. Medical insurance is not the same as life
  or car insurance. It was all supposed to be a big pool that we would
  draw on when needed. By skimmimng the cream, infant mortality rates
  rise, along with a host of other problems.

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

  Well, yes, but the corporations are becoming part of their own state...

                cheers, bob 

More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list