Quote:
Originally Posted by Creator  Errr.... still a bit blur... I meant how do we known if someone, like an employee has defective genes from one who has desirable ones? |
Well, this story was in the news a few weeks ago:
FOXNews.com - Study: Blue-Eyed People 'Smarter' than Brown-Eyed - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News Study: Blue-Eyed People 'Smarter' than Brown-Eyed
While chrispenycate is right that it will be quite a while before they map the whole human genome, they are working hard at it, and they should be able to associate some characteristics with others i.e. intelligence with eye colour, concentration with hair colour maybe?? Haven't they found some correlation between heart disease and plaque growth on teeth?
Wouldn't employers only like to hire only the most intelligent people, who won't get distracted and won't die early?
I think it is more an issue with life assurance and health insurance than with employment though. If you can't get those because you are a bad genetic risk then you have no future, even if you can get a job.
You could envisage whole sections of society being excluded - imagine, ginger haired people completely ostracized.
Apart from the obvious discrimination or racism that leads too, it leads to social inequality - haves and have nots - the valids and invalids.
Social inequality leads to social unrest - people with no hope, no future except poverty and an early death, have nothing to loose but to revolt.
Although it sounds like a future where diseases are banished and everyone is a perfect human specimen, it is not somewhere I would like to live.
And your point - how do we determine a perfect human specimen - I think we covered that already as Eugenics - who has the right to determine this?