Gattacca

[Blaggard]

It's one of those films that really makes you think about genetic engineering.

For those who haven't seen it, and if you haven't I would recommend it, because the proviso could provide the basis of a philosophy thesis:

Here's a spoiler though:

Of course spoilers follow but if you don't want to watch the film or have already seen it, march on.


Basically it's set in the near future where people aren't born naturally any more at least to the rich or more upper middle class, they are created in test tubes to have the sort of statistics that are all that you would think a human needs to become successful. Vincent the protagonist wants to join the space program but he's been born naturally and hence has all the inadequacies that come along with the blind watchmaker that is evolution, he's short sighted, he has a weak heart, he's quite short, he's of course as prone to the big killers in life that will shorten your lifespan as we are now, he even is a lefty good God! and his IQ is not in the top 1%, in fact he's supposedly intellectually only above average.

Vincent goes to an organisation (which is in fact illegal) that links the very gifted genetically engineered people with the not so gifted normal people, he meets Eugene Morrow, IQ off the charts, Olympic swimmer with a heart like an Ox, and immune from all those genetic diseases you might develop if you play the sexual selection chance game. He assumes his identity so that he might use his genetics to achieve his dream of space travel, he is given his blood so he may pass blood tests, his urine so he may pass drugs tests, and all the things that would slip passed what is now called a job interview for the space program, which is of course just a blood test more or less. We find over time an interesting discussion going on. Is it always wise to remove the deficiencies the human has?

Anyway so what do you think with advances in technology should we optimise humans, and if not why not? And what are the caveats therein?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Define optimize? (rhetorical)

[vegetariantaxidermy]

A very under-rated film. Quite 1984ish in plausability.

[Arising_uk]

Less Orwell more Huxley I'd say.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Less Orwell more Huxley I'd say.

I don't think so.

[Arising_uk]

You don't think Brave New World closer to the ideas of Gattacca than 1984? Biology rather than pure politics?

[thedoc]

We find over time an interesting discussion going on. Is it always wise to remove the deficiencies the human has?

Anyway so what do you think with advances in technology should we optimise humans, and if not why not? And what are the caveats therein?

Based on your spoilers, I'll jump in. Once the particular human is optimized, what is done with them? Are they assigned to the specific job for which they have been prepared? If it was their choice OK, otherwise it's just glorified slavery. And it is still slavery if the individual does not have the option of leaving that situation and trying something different.

[SpheresOfBalance]

An elitist OP by an elitist, obviously! The fear of death fueling the need, as if it can cheat it somehow. A serious human flaw.

[Blaggard]

I think it has shades of 1984 and Brave New World tbh.

Spoiler alert

Ok well I suppose I'll express an opinion, as anyone who watches the film knows it is fairly anti genetic tinkering in its overall view, showing some of the deteriments that can come of creating a "perfect" copy of yourself, you and your partner but with all the bad stuff taken out and the good stuff accentuated.

My view is that you need to have flaws, it's as vital to the human condition as it is to breathe, without challenges and hurdles the human psyche is unlikely to develop as well as it might, if everything is easy for you what would be the chances of you turning into a well rounded individual. There's also the stereotype element, people who were born in vitro are called valids and those who are born with their genetics being left up to chance are called invalids. There has hence developed a sort of two tier society where invalids are like the alphas and betas and the invalids are the deltas like in Aldous Huxliess Brave New World.

Suffice to say where the film really triumphs is showing that anyone no matter how supposedly invalid they are, if they want anything enough can reach the stars, in vincents case quite literally. At the end Eugene commits suicide being unable to face up to the fact that despite all his genetic superiority he is a failure at least as he sees himself (incidentally Eugene is wheelchair bound in the film after a previous suicide attempt), the film ends with Vincent going in to space and realising his dream.

A pivotal moment I Think is when Vincent races his brother who is a valid to see who can swim the furthest, of course his brother having the heart of an ox and the lungs of a thorughbread horse, always wins, but we later find out that before Vincent left the familly he beat his brother, and this provides the basis of their dislike of each other. Vincent tells his brother how he beat him later in the film. It was simple he didn't save anything for the swim back. Which sort of shows the determination he has to succeed despite his heart condition and all his other frailtess. The message is undoubtedly a positive one. The genes don't maketh the man, it is as always what you do with them that counts. The story of how an "invalid" manages to infiltrate a program where he has no right to be there and not just succeed but pass with flying colours (pun not intentional), is quite inspirational I think.

I suppose to sum it up it's not about where you finished per se, it's about where you started and how far and hard you ran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOK3PCKH17E

A little taster.


You could probably wax on about the irony in that scene all day, but then you'd have to have watched the movie, and then it would become somewhat irellevant.

Suffice to say I heartilly recommend anyone who has an interest in the ethics of science or just likes a good philosophical romp, to watch that film. If you aren't stroking your beard at the end then you are either beardless, or a female who doesn't have a beard and hence will probably and should probably be stroking something else, and oh God I realise that sounds like a really bad sexual innuendo but I think you get my point. By the way if you are female and have a beard no offence was meant, you should probably get that looked at though...

[thedoc]

I suppose to sum it up it's not about where you finished per se, it's about where you started and how far and hard you ran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOK3PCKH17E

A little taster.

A little close to home for me, that must have been what was happening when my defibrillator kicked me in the chest. 3 days in the hospital while they adjusted my meds.

[thedoc]

A couple of episodes of Star Trek come to mind.

One in Next generation, an official wanted to disassemble Data so they could build more of him and send them places too dangerous for normal humans, his defense was that it would amount to slavery.

The other is from one of the movies, where someone offered to remove all personal pain through a Vulcan mind meld. Kirk refused, saying that his pain was what made him feel alive.

[WanderingLands]

Anyway so what do you think with advances in technology should we optimise humans, and if not why not? And what are the caveats therein?

I'd say that we shouldn't considering that the elites would be mainly using these people as 'resources' (as in tools for this quasi feudal world order). There are moral issues, such as that it's similar to eugenics in that it does not put blame on the elites for the ills but the general people, especially those who aren't as 'optimized' but natural.

We would also have to look at how genetic engineering has done to other things, such as food (GMOs). I believe that genetic engineering of humans, just as the genetic engineering of foods, will probably cause many problems, such as possibly resulting in the creation of more deficient humans (which will probably be just disposed of to make way for the 'optimized' populace). To be honest, tampering with Nature will create a lot of adverse effects and is a product of man's plot against Nature for self aggrandizement.

In conclusion, we should not 'optimize' humans.

[thedoc]

It may be that in enhancing one quality you diminish another or several. What are you willing to give up to get what you think you want. Would you be willing to not feel any emotion in order to live a long time?

[Wyman]

It may be that in enhancing one quality you diminish another or several. What are you willing to give up to get what you think you want. Would you be willing to not feel any emotion in order to live a long time?

That would be a great premise for a sci fi plot. And it has a parallel in evolution, since as energy is put in one area, like the brain, less can be put in other areas.

[thedoc]

It may be that in enhancing one quality you diminish another or several. What are you willing to give up to get what you think you want. Would you be willing to not feel any emotion in order to live a long time?

That would be a great premise for a sci fi plot. And it has a parallel in evolution, since as energy is put in one area, like the brain, less can be put in other areas.

It was a good premise for a Sci-Fi plot. A man and wife were living on the earth when everyone had become infertile and no babies had been born for many years. Earth was visited by a higher power who promised that there would be children and they would be the parents, and they would both be immortal. Her immortality was that she would have children and they would keep a memory of her. His was that he would continue to live forever and be a father to her children, but he lost the ability to feel, he had no emotions. In the last scene he was sitting by a window, unmoved, and she was in the next room crying.