>>13785241>You're over simplifying. Dna for our relatives is similar but not identical.no fucking shit.
> I know you probably lack imagination, and you seem pretty arrogant and closed to discussion outside of your narrow field of view (probably a university student?) but it's reasonable to imagine that our dna could be used for things we don't agree with in 10, 20 or 30 years, especially given the accelerating pace in technology improvement.Your reading comprehension is pretty terrible and you might want to consider getting that checked out. Your projection is extremely obvious; your mention of arrogance is laughable given the arrogance in your reply.
>but it's reasonable to imagine that our dna could be used for things we don't agree with in 10, 20 or 30 years, especially given the accelerating pace in technology improvement.Yeah, this is extremely obvious from my reply to OP. You're mentioning something we've already passed on and assumed is the topic on conversation.
The point, if you actually used a little bit of brain power and reading comprehension, is that not sequencing your DNA because you are afraid of nefarious purposes is entirely nullified if you have close family who gets sequenced, because the technology is already at the stage where we can infer, based on genetic genealogy, the important bits of your sequence that would be used for nefarious purposes (predisposition to disease, blood pressure, IQ, etc) just from your extended family alone. That technology has skyrocketed in the past few years where we can identify likely people from 1st cousin sequencing. In 10 years, it's laughable to think they wont be able to construct, with a reasonable probability, your own DNA should your kids/cousins/dad/aunt/uncle gets sequenced, let alone in 10 years. Identical sequence? Of course not. The relevant SNPs that matter? of course. So the idea of "protecting" your individual sequence is idiocy.
