I only care about testing for genetic health issues. I don't want my DNA to be inserted in a database that can be cross-referenced to check for relatives, ancestry, etc.
Okay. Let's assume your top priority is to test for genetic health issues, I will also assume that you either plan on reducing the risk of future complications or you are factoring this information into account when deciding to get children (otherwise, why would you want this information?).
In the first case (reducing risk factors), chances that you will at least check positive for one thing are almost 1 (certain) and you don't need a test to know that. In almost all cases, limiting the risk will involve a) eating well b) stopping alcohol / smoking c) regular physical activity d) taking some Aspirin for the remainder of your life. You don't need the test results to start doing this. Either you sincerely want to live longer and shouldn't wait for genetic screening to take your matters into your own hands, or you think that test results will suddenly turn you into a monk. News flash: won't happen.
In the second case (whether or not to procreate): any decision you make on the hypothesis that your children will inherit it and that science will not have solved it in the next 50 years will very likely be a bad reason to not have children (there are many good reasons to not have children, though, but having a rare genetic conditions is not a good reason).
The only people who should not have kids are bad parents and people who don't want kids. Guess what? These two groups that probably have the highest amount of kids on Earth.
I mostly agree with your first point, but is there not a chance for more serious disease to be detected? In which case specialized preventative care is the best path forward? There is definitely something to be said about staying ignorant of these, however.
> The only people who should not have kids are bad parents and people who don't want kids.
I don't think people who are highly susceptible to birthing malformed children should have children either. Genetic testing helps figure out if you might be in that group.
Yes, I can agree with you, did not think of that and it seems to be a perfectly valid motive.
Still, I wonder: who would fall in the "highly susceptible" category? Wouldn't these people need to be tested prior to actually knowing they should be tested? (what would push someone to be tested for susceptibility of birthing malformed children before being tested?)
This is perhaps an off topic question, but I mean it seriously. What do you hope to gain from knowing your potential genetic health issues?
If the report showed you had a chance of developing say Parkinsons, how would that change your life now? Could you implement those changes regardless?
I mean, pretty much all genetic markers are just "risk". And lifestyle choices (smoking, drinking, sugar, exercise et al) seem to be well known, and "good for everything". So, knowing that, it seems like there's lots you can do regardless of genetics.
I confess, for me personally, I'm not really interested in my genetic risk factors. Much less my Neanderthal content. Hence the genuine question- what will it tell you thst you care about?
Thanks for spurring the thought. The main reason I'd like to find out is to avoid bringing a child into the world that might suffer from incurable disease.
Largely agree with your point on preventative actions being the same with or without testing, but there is a tail end that might warrant specialized action.
Sure, I get that things like Huntingtons would certainly be worth knowing about. But for genetics like that simply looking at your own previous generations would give you the answer there. (And of course, that assumes you have access to that, which clearly not everyone does.)
Having children is obviously a big responsibility, and every parent wants only the best for them. Doing genetic testing can at least feel like you've done your due diligence.
I would point out though that genetic diseases are a tiny tiny fraction of the things that can go wrong. The overwhelming majority of children turn out fine. But some don't. That's life I'm afraid. Genetic testing isn't a guarantee they'll be OK. I'd go so far as to suggest it's basically meaningless in that context (especially if you have access to parents, grandparents etc.)
I'm not sure which one of us you're referring to, but the primary "cost" as I see it is disclosing your DNA to some 3rd party, who are then free to use that DNA, or sell it, or whatever as they like.
So, in a sense, if you use a DNA service you are essentially putting your unique DNA marker "into the world", and it can be identified to you (especially if any of our relations have also been tested.)
While there may not be any immediate implications, that DNA might be used by law enforcement, insurance companies, employers etc (either now or in the future.) So there are potentially "high costs" - we just don't know what they are yet. But this bell cannot be unrung.
Balancing this possible harm are the possible benefits. Personally, I don't really see any compelling benefits, but my goal with this reply to the original question was to determine if I was missing something.
The mental cost of going there is just too high. For the first time in twenty+ years, I won't be attending any of the regular conferences in the US this year. Funny note: we just hired two Americans (unrelated) back to back, they will be moving here with their family. Reason given: "had to go live somewhere else".
Having a foreign and hostile both economic and military adversary fully controlling an app that is installed on 18 million smartphones in UK is a national security issue. Not cat videos. Too bad this concept has become too difficult to understand for most European "leaders" (and journalists...).
Which is a good thing. Why reward stealers? YouTube is not a free service and they have all the right to engage into aggressive practice once you decide to unlawfully bypass their ads.
Let's not confuse things here:
- deceptive UI/UX to encourage users to surrender their privacy
Many people who self-host email do so to avoid having years of all their personal email communications logs centralized at one third-party company with ether lax security or lax privacy.
It seems to me that you are proposing exactly this: routing all emails through one of these companies. How can this be a solution to "self-hosting"?
