Canada passing Genetic Non-Discrimination Act

The results of genetic tests are not simply about impending death. Every single behavioral or otherwise trait is influenced by genetics.

It should be narrowed down instead of so general.

why?

how about we start auditing companies financially to test their benefit to the state

how about we start auditing countries to test their contribution to the survival for mankind

Of course. Scientific analysis can potentially work to do that.

The problem is such things are usually extremely complex and hard to predict with current methodologies.

I'm sure we could improve things in an objective way if we scientifically analyze things like food products and begin to make changes or new restrictions based on things like empty calories, sugar, etc.

So yes, science can definitely be used. The thing is you would want as much information and data as possible. Not artificially restricted certain tests or variables from being analyzed.

Hiding information is never the answer when analyzing something. If it is noise, then prove it is noise. Otherwise factor it in. Intentional ignorance is not beneficial.

Genetic tests to reveal someone is psychotic or highly likely to be a murderer would probably be pretty nice to know.

I'll just give an example.

You are looking for a caretaker for your Mother. It might be important to know that the person taking care of them has a multitude of genes associated with psychopathy, violent behavior, and lack of empathy.

It might be very important for the safety of society or in choosing say someone who isn't e pedophile to be a child counselor for abused children.

I think it actually prevents people from discriminating against products of incest. Namely Canada's Muslim population considering a significant portion of them marry their first cousins. So just another anti Islamophobia law.

Theoretical example of a possible argument for not implementing law as is.

Hiring a babysitter:

Applicant A: Good resume.
Applicant B: Good resume.

With genetic testing

Applicant A: Good Resume
Applicant B: Good Resume, a multitude of genes showing a predisposition to child abuse and pedophilia.

Now. This is theoretical. Assuming you have a good government it would make sense to keep options open to such cases. By closing the door on them now it makes it much harder to get common sense changes in later.

I think the safety of say a child is more important than the right of someone to get a job caring for children.

When we talk about behavioral genetics and certain employment opportunities that involve the care of weak, young, or very old, etc we should probably put their safety above that of genetic privacy/rights.

I don't disagree with you but

>Hiding information is never the answer when analyzing something.

the same people who oppose or submit the opposite of this legislation in the US are the same organizations that would enforce intellectual property laws that slow human development, if every company shared the best software and research 99% of bullshit programming or research jobs would be moot and human effort would be better mobilized to research the latest and greatest instead of reinventing the wheel

>All these /pol/tards larping as scientists and researchers
Can you please go back? Your boy Trump is being testified against by Manafort as we speak. Your shilling powers are needed on the front lines.

>Banning genetic tests is similar to banning academic tests or criminal history
Brainlet detected. The latter two are based on deliberate, consciously-taken actions (the choice to study, the choice to commit crime) by an individual.

Prove free will.

You are making the assumption the world is not deterministic and there is some soul or non-physics based reason for people to do things.

>The latter two are based on deliberate, consciously-taken actions

this and epigenetics is context specific, the same genes tested a decade ago that yield good performance in a field may not yield good performance today, especially in a world where society changes radically every few decades

you are making the assumption about the long term ability of humans to determine

lets say for instance you have a genetically determined reason for having a short temper. Hypothetically: Say a MAOA-2R gene makes you quicker to anger.

Does this mean then your crimes aren't your fault?

The idea of "choice" versus "determinism" is false. There is no such thing as free will in this example. The choices people make are determined by genetics/environment. Not by some free independent will. There is no evidence EVER of human brains not acting in a completely predictable and determined way.

There is no "source" for free will that is known.

There are even low number of neuron brains that are completely simulated in computers for certain worms.

jesus fucking christ

You're actually talking about screening people and judging them based on perceived genetic tendencies, possibly dooming any prospects for them in the future. Nevermind the people that are pedophiles or violent people and have learned to overcome their tendencies and function normally in society.

Genetic determinism doesn't mean that genes are the main factor that "decide" how a person turns out. It's just the genetic portion of the total impact factors determing a certain behaviour.

epigenetics is a meme and the definition is so vague you can be referring to so many different definitions it's impossible to respond to it being used as an argument.

Being shot in the head can technically be called epigentics.

The point of genetic determinism is statistical.

Can you prove a Harvard PHD will out perform a high school graduate every time? Why are you allowed to hire the harvard PHD over the high school graduate? Because statistically you can see that they will do well. It's how resumes work. You are never guaranteed anything when hiring someone. You are just making the statistically best choice based on prejudice or preconceptions.

if this is the totality of your view on the human organization then you should be spending a lot less time bitching about government legislation and a lot more time researching a model of humanity as a self-re-replicating deterministic cellular automaton and considering the chemical optimum of how you should be dissolved

>tries to defend banning genetic science
go back to /pol/ you anti-science libtard. your kind is not welcome here.

Your logical reasoning is immature and low-tier.

The entire point of an application for employment is to decide how someone will turn out. If you can statistically determine an employee at your daycare will be 50x more likely to abuse a child. It's probably a good idea and in best interests of everyone involved to not hire them

I am giddy for transhumanism. It will be quite nice when an intelligence exists on earth that is completely self-aware of it's own deterministic nature.

It's quite terrible dealing with the current level of intelligence which barely accepts the concept of death.

Eugenics is immoral. No science is being censored. It's sort of banning people from building nuclear bombs. It takes knowledge of physics to build a nuclear device but denying people the ability to is not censoring physics.

>intelligence exists on earth that is completely self-aware of it's own deterministic nature

that model assumes something is determined to achieve that or that a society modeled 100% deterministically is determined to survive

The weirdest thing is that /pol/ tends to flip its shit at the idea that employers would demand to see their social media accounts or something, plus they think companies like 23andme are scams mining genetic data for the You-Know-Who, and yet they are actually defending outrageous and exploitative breaches of genetic privacy straight out of some dystopian novel.

I'm sure they think this only will only concern blacks too. They have not yet realized that if all the evidence points to them being low IQ unemployable misfits, it will likely be reflected in their own genetic test results. They have not yet realized that in the current environment, corporations are looking for things like genes coding for hypertolerance in people who will join their racially diverse H1B workforce (they're already employing people based on tolerance criteria of course, just not genetic predisposition for tolerance.)

>le no free will meme
Even supposing you are correct, what makes you think you have the ability to accurately predict what someone will do? And what makes you think genetics are the best predictor? Pic related.

Additionally, from a common sense standpoint, why should I listen to what some random faggots in white coats say I will or won't do? Again, referring to pic related, leading """"scientific"""" experts, citing studies, once decided that 40 micrograms per deciliter is a perfectly harmless amount of lead in the bloodstream. If you honestly choose to let your life's path be determined by clowns like that you're just a cuck plain and simple.

You are a carrier of cystic fibrosis.
Your wife is a carrier of cystic fibrosis.

You decide not to act on science and instead have a child who has cystic fibrosis. Will have to deal with incredible pain and cost society hundreds of thousands in hospital care.

Or

You can ignore retard low IQ morons saying "eugenics is immoral" get a genetics test of you and your wife. Learn you are carriers. Pay some amount of money for PGD or other options and not fucking torture and kill your child by being stupid.

Guess which is more moral fuckface?

your post doesn't make sense, try again.

Knowing you are deterministic does not change anything. Do you think being aware you have no free will actually changes how you would behave?

This act doesn't prevent people from getting genetic screens, it prevents people from being discriminated against based the results of genetic screening. Can you read fuckface?

Science exists by acknowledging it can be wrong.

Using a case of science being wrong and then fixed later is not a good example.

That is how science should function, by being open to changing to better states.

It's annoying when most people on Veeky Forums don't get what the fuck science means and instead thinks "science" means "absolute truth".

see
"eugenics is immoral"

If you had some brain cells. You would realize I was specifically responding to his post in which he states eugenics is immoral.

Which is quite off the topic as the thread is about employment which is related to euegenics but not quite related.

>equating banning discrimination based on genetic tests to "banning genetic science"
>committing obvious false equivalency on a board dedicated to math
Could you try to be at least a little bit authentic when you LARP? You're ruining my immersion here.

>Knowing you are deterministic does not change anything

you're assuming you know all the rules, or that the rules will continue to be reliable, forever

>Do you think being aware you have no free will actually changes how you would behave

most people find a marked difference in personality between hard determinists and people who believe they have free will, and everyone in between

Employment is by definition about finding the best applicant.

Not allowing an important field of science in that decision making shows an ignorance of reality.

>discrimination based on genetics
>not eugenics
pick one
also, it's only me fuckface

>brainlets talking about morality and good vs evil

wew

then get your definitions straight

Eugenics is about improving the genetic pool.

Discrimination is a common thing throughout society. People discriminate on what they buy, what they eat, who they fuck, and who they hire.

Discrimination is a product of looking for patterns which is the basic process of intelligence.

If you want discrimination-free hiring, then you have to randomly select from the applicants in a lottery type system.

Any other system is discriminatory and pre-judges.

Why say eugenics is immoral? Eugenics could take many non-coercive forms which I struggle to see non-control-freaks opposing. Eugenics is already legal, as we can choose who we breed with. We can specify the desired ethnicity of the child when using sperm or egg donation services. Shouldn't prospective parents have the rights over their children? Imagine if, taking donated eggs or sperm, you were unable to specify the ethnicity of the child, because the government made it illegal ostensibly for equality. Imagine if some private organization whose purpose is to provide the best sperm, according to some standard of intelligence or physical health, were shut down by the government because some ethnic group was not equally represented in the pool of donators. That's seems like dystopia to me, and something I think calling the umbrella term eugenics immoral in all its cases makes more likely.

People should be rewarded for hard work and dedication, not because they won the genetic lottery. clichéd but true.
There is no DNA test for hard work and dedication. There is no DNA test which determines this.

Also, how long till I can edit my DNA so I can insert a piece of junk DNA that I patented myself. I want to be able to sue any company for keeping my DNA sample on record. Maybe I can sue people if my skin flakes fall onto them too.

>brainlets think humanity will survive a future where dating will involve a biostatistic calculator provided by Google (TM)
>brainlets think genetics will matter in a world of nanotechnology and artificial intelligence

WEW

sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160719091622.htm

all behavior is influenced by genetics

Being able to choose who you reproduce with is not eugenics.
I guess morality is subjective but Canada doesn't believe in genetic discrimination. This isn't really about science anymore.

Yes that is what the thread is about, genius.

It's about the fact Canada is outlawing a specific field of science because of ignorance.

all behavior is influenced by the chemical composition of our bodies and environment

all behavior is influenced by the structure of spacetime

why waste time on the middle man

>all behavior is influenced by genetics
>in 10% of the population under the age of 17

the dataset will grow

yes, of course. This is about new predictive methods being outlawed because of ignorance.

Not him, but the part of the paper you posted that is helpful to your argument is not the title, it's the twin study that is referenced within. The twin study shows that around 60% of difference between the educational attainments of two clones is attributable to genetics. We aren't even close to being able to reliably screen people for a good amount of that 60%. Even if we could, that just shows that environment plays a huge role in shaping work ethic and studying. Therefore genetic screening even at its best wouldn't be too reliable for legislation.

so again, whats your concern with the middle man, any legislation that doesn't take the structure of spacetime into account is equally futile

>the dataset will grow

only tards will give away their biologic capital

>Using a case of science being wrong and then fixed later is not a good example
First off it seems you didn't understand the graph. The point is genetics are not the best predictor of violent tendencies. And therefore that you have no idea how to predict violent tendencies.

Also it is a fine example to show that letting scientists cuck you with their "knowledge" is wrong.

>"science" doesn't mean "absolute truth"
Interesting that you say this while trying to say we should let geneticists control our lives

And honestly I can tell you're LARPing because if you ever read even a single paper you'd know at least 9 out of 10 papers end with some variant of "further study is required"

Employment is by definition about finding the best applicant.

Believing that genetics are an important field of science in that decision making shows an ignorance of reality.

So, I take it you would not demand that an organization with the stated purpose of providing sperm or eggs highly likely to develop into the _best_ human by some standard of intelligence or physical health be shut down if some groups weren't equally represented in its sperm banks be shut down, correct?

There is an idea popular among some, that it is immoral that some parents are able to provide better educations for their children than others. They believe inheritance should be illegal, and children should be required to be educated only in state facilities, to ensure equality, that is, to drag some lucky children down to the common level for the sake of an insane ideal of fairness. These same people will try to tear down the hypothetical private organization I mentioned by making it illegal. My plea to you is, should this ever happen, you oppose such people and their effort to tear down the organization politically.

Yes, of course.

The main thing are these two faults:

Ignoring science is something we should do.
Thinking two people can be different automatically leads to us wanting to kill one of them.

Lysenkoism was more socially just than Mendelian genetics. That doesn't mean we should practice lysenkoism. If you IQ test your two children, you aren't going to suddenly want to kill the lower IQ one.

Of course. So then don't bother outlawing it.

again, you assume a genetically aware society will be a net positive

you could just end up bringing about a genetic form of postmodernism

In Canada and in much of the West, your personal health information is largely private. Outside of the contexts of healthcare and justice/law enforcement, disclosure of this information can be requested (by the employer for example) only with good reason, and only in a limited fashion. If your boss is asking for proof that you stayed at home with the flu, the doctor doesn't hand him your entire medical record. Doctors would only disclose information highly relevant to workplace safety. If your boss requests your dental health records for unclear reasons, or if he asks you to undergo testing for discriminatory reasons (get an homosexual tested for AIDS etc) it's grounds for a lawsuit.

Here's a more general overview:
ohrc.on.ca/en/iv-human-rights-issues-all-stages-employment/6-requesting-job-related-sensitive-information
"The employee does not have to disclose disability-related or other needs or medical information that do not relate to the essential duties of the job."
"In the past, employers often screened out applicants with disabilities based on medical information on application forms, or from pre-employment medical exams. The Commission takes the position that requiring such information as part of the application screening process violates subsection 23(2) of the Code."

"The employer may be placed in a vulnerable position if he or she directly receives any information about an applicant’s medical condition. This information leaves open the possibility for an allegation to be made that later decisions made by the employer, such as to hire someone else, or to discipline or terminate the employee, were based on that information.

Therefore, it is the view of the Commission that to protect the employer from allegations of discrimination, as well as the applicant or employee from discriminatory practices, medical information should remain with the physician and away from an employee's personnel file. When needed by the employer, the employee’s physician can share relevant information (for example, restrictions in the ability to perform essential duties), while excluding information that may identify a disability.
Some companies make sure that such information is kept separate from employment decisions by having designated staff, such as nurses, responsible for safeguarding any medical information that may be provided by an employee’s doctor and facilitating accommodation."

>mfw megacorporations just make themselves easier targets for viruses that target specific genomes

...

And this is just considering employers, other agents have even less reasons and rights to request personal health information.

In this sort of context it's quite easy to see why the law would punish requests to disclose genetic test results "as a condition of providing goods or services, entering into or continuing a contract or agreement, or offering specific conditions in a contract or agreement..." since in almost any conceivable case they should be, at most, asking the doctor if he has any relevant information to share. The doctor can use genetic test results if he has access to those, but the private person has no business demanding access to the test results. Hell, if I had to guess, I would say they couldn't even requests your MRI scans or something, since those are tools for the doctors to interpret, not to be misinterpreted by people who aren't healthcare professionals. If your doctor gives a statement that you have cancer or you broke your leg or whatever, that's that. If the doctor's word is in doubt that needs to be solved in the courts.

regulations are so disgusting

>Lysenkoism was more socially just than Mendelian genetics.
Not it wasn't. Lysenko was ignoring scientific fact and making fairy tales to replace current scientific theory, which is not what the Canadians are doing.

>Ignoring science is something we should do.
Nobody is "ignoring" science. They're simply accounting for the prejudice that such genetic tests will plant in people that can affect a person's life and future. What matters in the end is the total of genetics and environment, not just genetics, we settled that before. This is the reason we use exams, to test people's ability to use their genetic intelligence as well as their work ethic, rather than just running a bunch of IQ tests and genetic screens and going from there. Your proposed system would be extremely inefficient because it would be placing undue importance on genetics.

>Thinking two people can be different automatically leads to us wanting to kill one of them.
Not sure where this came from, I didn't say anything about that. I find it pretty obvious that this is fault, and you recognise it too, so I don't see the relevance.

>mfw people takes their values so seriously that reality becomes a giant ancap meme

This is just racism thinly veiled as Veeky Forumsence.

Please go back to /pol/

I'm not thinking about IQ tests via genetics. I'm talking about hypothetical examples of things like criminality, predisposition to violence or sexual assault, and things of the more psychological nature.

This is a hypothetical example. Hence it would occur at some point in the future as a result of future studies and data. I have also already given then examples.

- A pedophile or high risk of sexual assault adult taking care of children
- Psychopath or low empathy in charge of personal care of vulnerable

etc.

Identifying these traits might be easier via genetics than a standardized test. It's simply an argument why a full on ban of a methodology is stupid. They should not put something like this into law. The demand for such a law is nonexistent and it is over regulation. It will make it harder for future common sense uses of the technology to be used.

Even normal people seem to consider this common sense.

I googled "can employer ask for MRI scans" and found this for example:

mumsnet.com/Talk/employment_issues/1072245-Employer-asking-to-see-written-report-of-medical-condition

"The GP has decided to sign her off every time she's been for a review so far and her employers have received all of these notes from the GP.
However, her employers have now written to her requesting to see a detailed report about her condition and have asked her to consent to this 'within 7 days'.
My mum is not comfortable about this as it could (in theory) provide a 'blank cheque' for them to see a lot of information about her that she would prefer to remain private.
Today she went to her GP to ask what her view about this was and the GP said she thought it was a cheek and they have no right to know this information""

"It depends on the wording. If the employers are asking the GP for details on your mum's illness so adapations can be made, or to get an idea how much sick time she may need, then fair enough. But absolutely not to them having access to her notes.
Perhaps she could suggest they narrow down their query to the relevant areas?"

"I would think that because of confidentiality your mum is under no obligation to disclose any details of her illness? That's only up for discussion between her and her GP.
If her GP is writing saying she is unfit for work then your Mum's HR dept should accept that?"

"Even if a GP is compelled eg by police or court to disclose info they must stick exactly to what is relevant and and give no other details eg of past illnesses that are irrelevant."

Note that the last bit of common wisdom is wrong, the law has unsurprisingly given its enforcers much wider berth and there is no legal limit on the scope and relevance of the information the doctor can be asked to disclose by law. (Canadian law actually spells out this exception.)

You have zero understanding of how genetics works. You have pseudoscientific beliefs like 100% genetic determinism of complex human behavior.

It's pretty easy to argue if you can just use a strawman.

You have pretty damn dumb beliefs if you think it is 0% genetic determinism.

>someone born with extremely high genetic predisposition for being kind, compassionate, and upholding the law
>raised in abusive family that beat them every day as a child
>forced to steal to survive
>constantly got bullied in school so they had to learn to fight and grew up to be super aggressive psychopath

Well sir your genetic test shows you're a perfect candidate to run this daycare. Congratulations on the job.

It's not a strawman. You idiots always say things like "we can account for/ignore all environmental factors!" when in truth you never can. You can deny it all you, but this entire thread is about pretending we should enact political agendas based on the false belief in 100% genetic determinism.

...

What if after implementing this criteria the abuse rate drops by 80% nationwide?

The comparison that should be made is, the percentage of good hires out of total hires while taking only the standard information into account vs the percentage of good hires out of total hires while taking both the genetic and standard information into account. One specific hypothetical failure doesn't prove either decision process inferior to the other, just like some guy winning the lottery doesn't prove that playing the lottery is cost-effective.

It wouldn't because complex human behavior is not deterministic.

because it must be 100% or 0%?

So that means you can't use any criteria to judge something unless it is 100% determinant?

You have to look at false positives. Even at 80% accuracy (study showed 10% currently) that's 20% of the population wrongly being punished for things they didn't do. It's like being put in jail for a year because you had an uncle who was given the death sentence for murder.
What percentage of false positives makes this practice alright?

Also, once the practice is put in place there'll be no was of measuring false positives due to survivor bias. Banning the practice NOW prevents survivor bias from skewing future scientific endeavors.

The problem is where you draw the line. You might not want it to work that way, but if an employer doesn't like something about a genetic screen of an employee, they might reject him just because of that. It's irrational, but human employers aren't gods of pure logic, which is why a ban on the use of such screening technology when the science is immature and not fully understood is not a bad thing and protects the efficiency of the hiring process as well as contributing to social individuality. This matter will be reopened in the future anyway.

You're basically trying to promote predetermination or future crime. You can only judge a person based individually and based on actions they have already done.

We do this all the time. Someone has a quick temper or violent predisposition and you probably don't get drunk with them.

The person who gives you signs of being a creep is someone you don't let alone with a child.

This is nothing new.

Not really. The ban isn't necessary right now and is done out of blind ideology. It will still impact the future if there is a reasonable use of the technology.

>I want my personal opinions of people enforced my law!

Except your observation of undesirable traits means that the FINAL phenotype of a person is undesirable as calculated by BOTH genetic and environmental influence, rather than just a genetic screen.

>i am a racist therefor I want to be able to legally discriminate against people based on their race
>This is nothing new

Imagine if the government enforced non-discrimination

>No Ma'am, you can not hire that 19 year old female college student to take care of your little girl. Instead you have to hire that 40 year old man that has a creepy smile.
>Your bias in favor of the 19 year old female was found to be discriminatory and instead the 40 year old man must be home alone with your kid

Humans fucking see patterns. We know men commit more sexual crimes, hence we prefer females to take care of young children.

>Oh no, science is racist, we must force science to fit our so we can prove wrong a IMAGE BOARD

Therefor we should automatically assume all men are sexual predators?

That's your logic.

No. The logic is attempting to hire the best possible person for the job. In that you would use any and all information possible.

The government interfering especially when it comes to scientifically backed criteria is obscene.

>science is racist
except that's not that the data shows. The data shows the opposite. You're just seeing what you want to see and you're not being objective.

You know you could totally get sued for refusing employment to a "40 year old man with a creepy smile" in favor of a young woman?
I mean, he probably won't win because discrimination laws mostly pamper women and minorities, but if you turned down the creep in favor of a young man and you made it evident that you discriminated based on his age and appearance, it will actually play out like in your imaginary scenario. Welcome to the real world.

As a more relevant real world example, someone who decided to rent to a nice white guy in a suit instead of a black thug in gangsta clothes can already start preparing his defense, because he'll soon have to justify his decision and racial or vestimentary arguments are only going to sink him.

This thread is literally some 1984 type shit
Get assigned your job at birth based on your genetics
>guy wants to work around other people
>sorry your genetics say you'll rape someone if you're around other people we can only give yyou isolation job

>here you can only live in housing block D because your genetics say it will keep you most comfortable and lower your chances of getting angry
>Your body absorbs the nutrients for these fruits best so we're going to have you eat these only to keep you as productive as possible
I could go on but

there is also a nurture aspect to behavior. it isn't 100% genetics.

A good example of this is genetic presdisposition of schizophrenia requires environmental stress right after birtrhg they become schizophrenic

lol
>real world
In the real world people discriminate but hide the intent. Go ahead and tell me a 40 year old man will get any work as a babysitter vs a 19 year old college student female.