AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
① Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
② Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
③ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
④ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
⑤ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.
$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.
view the rest of the comments
Yes. You're missing the definition of "unforeseen".
Let's do a thought experiment together. Picture these steps happening:
This is all a flight of fancy, of course. Nobody would think of that chain happening. (Which is what "unforeseen" means. It was not foreseen.) That chain or potentially a million other chains that lead to horrific ends. All because we did not foresee just how dangerous handing out genetic information willy-nilly would be.
Other possible chain ends include:
Well you get the idea. While there's a lot of good coming from this technology (which is why we can't really ban it entirely), the prospective unforeseen outcomes that lead down the path of horror and despotism means we should not be just handing that shit around and trading it like baseball cards.
Oh, thank you for the explanations! However, all you've described is the misuse of this data, and my point is that it is not unforeseeable that data (whatever data it may be) gets misused, stolen, or sold. All your examples are just describing the same thing - misuse of data. Arguing that ethical cleansing based on misused data from a for-profit organization is a bit far-fetched as an article headline if he ment that). If it comes to a point where ethical clashing is on the menu, it will happen regardless of the existence of DNA data.
All these unforeseeable events seem quite far-fetched.
I understand if the argument was that under very specific circumstances, DNA data can be misused to identify people who might not want to be found, such as through family members who sequenced their genome, especially if the family members are in contact with or have any information regarding the target.
Or, if the argument was similar to the gun argument, like in the last paragraph you wrote, stating that it is a tool that can be misused, and now we must decide whether it is worth using as we do today and how we want to regulate it. The tool is not the problem; some humans are.
But none of the examples are truly applicable to our reality today. The regulation and control of these entities and datasets is an important question, but I think there are better ways to discuss it than the strategy the author chose.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, instead of concocting convoluted theories about potential outcomes, we should focus on the core issue, not just the symptoms. This article ignites wild theories about possible scenarios, rather than addressing the problem of our inability to effectively regulate companies and corporate entities. The issue remains unsolved even if these DNA companies cease to exist, but they certainly highlight the fundamental problem of somewhat unregulated data markets.