2) The real impact of this one will be to scare people about genetic privacy.

Excuse me? And this is because? Given the example of Watson, it would appear that Mr. Saletan is implying that white folks wouldn't want anyone to know that they might have an African ancestor (before Lucy, that is).

My my my. When this prick started with the genes/race/intelligence bullshit, I thought he was just slipping into one of his occasional fits of stupidity. After he kept on about it for months, until finally discovering that he was simply carrying water for white supremacists (and didn't even know it, allegedly!!!!), I decided he'd gone permanently stupid in the worst way-- you know, when somebody is so fucking dumb that they even think they're being scientific when they try to discuss the link between intelligence (which we don't understand) with genetics (which we haven't come close to figuring out) with race (which doesn't even exist as an objective, scientific reality). How dumb are you when you a: don't know how dumb you are and b: won't shut the fuck up about the dumb shit you keep saying?

Pretty fucking dumb. Like, Moira Redmond dumb.

But this kind of statement goes beyond dumb. Now, I see the truth. He's such a racist shit that he just naturally equates the discovery of a Black ancestor as having the same discomfiting effect as discovering that an ancestor was a horse thief, rapist or Republican. I mean, why else give a rat's ass other than the unstated assumption that having Black ancestors carries the stigma of inferiority?

Dayum.

The real impact of this one will be to scare people about genetic privacy.

It scares me. Not because of the race issue but because it shows that people don't know what information their genome will provide to others.

Anyone who pays insurance premiums or plans on getting life or medical insurance in the future should be leery of letting too many people look at their genome.

Plus, if you put it on the web now it's there forever. What kind of info will people be able to extract from it in 20 years?

Saletan's writing enrages me, now more than ever. His attempted cleverness just comes off as smugness. Given his oft-demonstrated lack of understanding of the nuances of race and intelligence, he should lay off trying to tackle these issues.

I also love how he equated homosexuality with being a "loser" in the fruit-flies article by staying that loser straight people might want to convert to homosexuality. Way to take one totally inconclusive study and extrapolate ridiculous social impacts, Will. So very enlightening! Seriously, man, get a new career or go join some conservative think-tank where your idiocy will be welcomed. This Slate gig is just not working out for you.

greeneggsnham:

The real impact of this one will be to scare people about genetic privacy.

It scares me. Not because of the race issue but because it shows that people don't know what information their genome will provide to others.

Anyone who pays insurance premiums or plans on getting life or medical insurance in the future should be leery of letting too many people look at their genome.

Plus, if you put it on the web now it's there forever. What kind of info will people be able to extract from it in 20 years?

Good point, different issue. Of course, the ultimate effect of allowing the market to use genome data for pricing and coverage for medical care, for employment prospects and such will likely be universal healthcare. That's because I don't think you'll find an effective consituency of folks who don't have cost-accelerating or coverage disqualifying "defects" in their genes-- most of us will end up with the same interest in not having any of it factored in.

drewbrown:

I also love how he equated homosexuality with being a "loser" in the fruit-flies article by staying that loser straight people might want to convert to homosexuality. Way to take one totally inconclusive study and extrapolate ridiculous social impacts, Will. So very enlightening! Seriously, man, get a new career or go join some conservative think-tank where your idiocy will be welcomed.

Welcome to the Internets. We have these things called links. Click the one next to that line, do a bit of reading, and take up your career advice with John Tierney of the New York Times.

doodahman:

2) The real impact of this one will be to scare people about genetic privacy.

Excuse me? And this is because? Given the example of Watson, it would appear that Mr. Saletan is implying that white folks wouldn't want anyone to know that they might have an African ancestor (before Lucy, that is).

And your beef, if you'd done the reading, is with Kathy Hudson of the Genetics and Public Policy Center. Is she, too, a bigot? Did you click the link? Did you read the article? Did you even stop to think about privacy as a legitimate issue in its own right?

Try looking up prejudice in the dictionary.

It’s not just insurance. Who knows what info we’ll be able to get from the human genome in 10, 20, 30 years. What if this happens on The Fray in 2015:

doodahman:

Your last post was the type of horseshit I’ve come to expect from you greeneggsnham, you’re a fucking asshole.

greeneggsnham:

That doesn’t even merit a response…unless you count this as a response…which I don’t.

Thirdpartyfrayster:

Greeneggsnham I just analyzed your genome and I have good news and bad news. The bad news is that you have FAH (Fucking Asshole Haplotype) types I, II and III. The good news is that it really isn’t your fault that you’re a fucking asshole.

All because I thought it would be cool to post my genome on MySpace in 2008.

Saletan:

doodahman:

2) The real impact of this one will be to scare people about genetic privacy.

Excuse me? And this is because? Given the example of Watson, it would appear that Mr. Saletan is implying that white folks wouldn't want anyone to know that they might have an African ancestor (before Lucy, that is).

And your beef, if you'd done the reading, is with Kathy Hudson of the Genetics and Public Policy Center. Is she, too, a bigot? Did you click the link? Did you read the article? Did you even stop to think about privacy as a legitimate issue in its own right?

Try looking up prejudice in the dictionary.

That's your answer? You didn't write a piece about medical privacey, asshole. You wrote a piece about a person who, lo and behold, turns out to be part African in "genome" after having disparaged the intelligence of Africans. Which was part of a long series of pieces about how, gosh, that seems to be supported by "scientific" research. Oh, but it's really about medical privacy now, is it?

Who the fuck are you kidding? You stepped in the deep shit a long time back and now you can't figure a way to get it off your shoes.

Try licking. It can't taste any worse than the shit that comes out of your mouth.

It’s not just insurance. Who knows what info we’ll be able to get from the human genome in 10, 20, 30 years.

First off, you don't need a genome to determine a person's degree of assholery. It's manifest on the outside, so I'm not sure what the genome reference adds. But specifics aside, there is truth in the fact that people will take some allegedly "objective" data without understanding it and use it to make some point that conforms to a preset notion with subjective origins. Take, for instance, Saletan.

But it would seem that unlike attempts to associate the false categories of "race" with the little understood quality of "intelligence", there is no large constituency of folks who have an interest in promoting the dissemination or use of that information. We're all subject to harrassment or other costs if this information is available-- unlike the Saletan series, which pits the alleged IQ "haves" (Asians, Jews and White folks) against the "have nots" (Africans.)

"[T]here is no large constituency of folks who have an interest in promoting the dissemination or use of that information."

Not a large one perhaps, but a small sophisticated one probably does.

It's not in my interest for you to see my genome, or Google history, or cell phone call patterns, shopping habits, etc. But it may be in my interest to see yours.

Our genome is just more info that we will have to keep track of and manage. Other people want to use our personal info to figure out how to sell us more stuff, set our insurance or other rates, steal our identities, grant us security clearances, profile us, etc.

As personal information becomes increasingly important sophisticated people will probably be able to maintain some type of advantageous information asymmetry and the rest of us get the shaft.

Of course, the ultimate effect of allowing the market to use genome data for pricing and coverage for medical care, for employment prospects and such will likely be universal healthcare.

It is a shame, no matter what the reason, that some of us can work 40 or more hours per week and not make enough to pay for our own and/or our dependants' healthcare. But universal healthcare as a response to allowing the market to use genome data for pricing and coverage for medical care, etc., shouldn't surprise anyone (and, so, you might wish to reconsider using "Of course, ..." next time you go to discuss this). Isn't universal healthcare, slipping in the way it seems to be doing, so very similar to the way things have been with and for outsourcing?

Think about it. A business that could and should be made at least to hold a Going-Out-of-American-Business Sale, with all proceeds reverting to the employees/taxpayers who've been so generous with their tax-breaks over the years, instead up and packs a few things and moves overseas, and then is permitted, at tax-time, to return and to act as though nothing in the relationship has changed at all.

You're right on greeneggsnham. As our knowledge and analysis becomes more sophisticated, there will be more and more reason to want to take a little peak into someones genome. I would be especially worried about effects on employment. You could potentially set up an automatic screen for potential health problems, psychiatric disorder tendencies, or poor attention to detail. Just toss out the resumes of anyone that has a few potentially bad genes.

A serious--but tongue in cheek--question: Is Watson now technically "African American" based on the long-standing 1/32 rule? After all, he isn't that phenotypically distant from the current chair of the Congresional Black Caucus

onetoke:

Did you answer my healthcare rehash one time?

Think about the universal halthcare for a bit. 62% of all healthcare expenses are paid for by the government already. Potentially, we are talking 1/3rd of the pie until we are there in entirety. For all intents and purposes, we are already there.

10 million people live in my state of Michigan. 500,000 (5%) of them spend 25% of their income on healthcare insurance. Another 15% of them spends anywhere between 10 and 25% of their income on healthcare. Above 10% of income and healthcare is considered unaffordable. Over 7 years, and another 600,000 have crossed that line.

What has changed? Taxes on businesses have gone down, which makes a deduction less equitable for companies. They would rather shuck it, than deduct it from gross profit. Healthcare insurance costs has increased well beyond inflation. People have been getting sicker because of poor lifestyle habits and also aging. If you really want private healthcare insurance; rather than decrease taxes on companies , keep them the same and allow a 1.25 - 2 times the cost of healthcare for a deduction from gross profits. That will even companies up with global competition, get the gov into subsidizing it without taking it over, and make companies more profitable.

Yea, companies are abandoning healthcare because the taxbreaks no longer make it worthwhile with lower taxes and increased global competition. Don't see the gov claiming we should tack that difference on to products coming back into the US, do you? Hell no, this is the $256 billion dollar WalMart we are talking about here. The transfer of healthcare costs at 70 cents on the dollar was no accident by GM and it will be renegotiated from here out.

Your point on companies leaving and returning to sell their product in the largest world market is well-taken and I have argued it for years. Time to address the inequities and claim back some of the cost savings taken as net profit.

doodahman:

2) The real impact of this one will be to scare people about genetic privacy.

Excuse me? And this is because? Given the example of Watson, it would appear that Mr. Saletan is implying that white folks wouldn't want anyone to know that they might have an African ancestor (before Lucy, that is).

It may not be so much that Saletan is racist, but that he assumes that most Americans are racist. (Certainly, one cannot get an elite education these days without having this notion constantly drummed into your head.)

I think it would be great if there were a way to out every American who had "an-African-American-in-the-wo­odpile" and now that the doctrine of political white-supremacy has been discredited I think most Americans who were outed would be glad to discover it.

Just think how much easier it would be for colleges and employers to meet their diversity quotas if people such as Dr. Watson were counted as African American. Just think how much easier it would be for such people to get their children into college (with generous scholarships as a bonus).

Tell a studious African American ild that he's acting white, and he'll be able to reply, "No, I'm acting just like Dr. Watson and the millions of other mixed-race people who become became prosperous and successful." African American children will never again suffer a shortage of good public role models.