MovieChat Forums > GATTACA (1997) Discussion > This movie is BASED ON FACTUAL and SICK ...

This movie is BASED ON FACTUAL and SICK HISTORY

posted 13 years ago by dmg783
48 replies | jump to latest

Eugenics (think the name Eugene) is fast becoming a new pseudo-science born of old 1800s BS RACIST science. Racists spent decades mapping the human genome to find the "lower people" but failed to find what they wanted other than obvious genetic diseases such as Down's Syndrome and Autism.

Eugenics is the "fake science of creating the perfect race." Think of Hitler. He is the most well-known eugenicist (non-science, but supported the theory) of all time. If you are a pro-eugenics believer, then you AGREE WITH HITLER on his most important theories. How do you feel *beep*

Eugenics is a pseudo-science aimed at perfecting the human DNA into humans with DNA produced by humans rather than natural sexual reproduction. It is a DISGUSTING, RACIST way of life.

Gattaca is the story of someone who is discriminated against due to his NATURAL REPRODUCTION rather then being a fertilized egg sitting in a tube with a BALD, GRAY-HAIRED GENETICIST who encourages perfect genetics and elimination of any natural problems.

Gattaca is one of the BEST MOVIES I HAVE EVER SEEN, surpassing 1984, destroying the book Brave New World, and remains underrated.

Those that run the New World Order purposely made Gattaca a box office bomb to prevent the radical ideas of genetically engineering humans into "perfect genetic creations that could live hundreds of years."

Read about Ted Turner, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates and THEIR SUPPORT of eugenics and genetic discrimination, along with MASSIVE DEPOPULATION of "In-valids." It's a sick world.

Gattaca is not fiction in a sense, but a reference to the sickening science of eugenics that keeps moving forward today.

Remember how Jude Law says "Call me Eugene" because it's his middle name?

This is a reference to EUGENICS. I recommend anyone with half a mind, half a heart, and half a a brain of intelligence to research the history of EUGENICS.

[–] wranger_243 12 years ago

In-valid spotted.

[–] Bleedred 11 years ago

Bahahaha!

Old thread, old...but GREAT movie.The bottom line is that anyone who automatically associates eugenics with "Hitler" needs a history and science lesson.

I don't know about you, but I'd do ANYTHING possible to ensure my (future) child is healthy (no diseases), attractive and fit (never once will self esteem or finding a partner be an issue),intelligent, and not prone to mental illness. Anyone who fails to see this is at best short shighted, and at worst, a moron who would be a prime candidate to "breed themselves out". It is the child who would suffer (and arguably society) for the parent's foolishness, or worse, selfishness. If the science is here, use it. And pick the mother/father of your future children wisely. They always say you can't pick your parents...but your parents should be looking out for their potential offspring.

There is nothing wrong with eugenics, provided it's used "correctly". If a person wants to prevent a child from being born with serious and/or deleterious illness or "defect" that only makes sense. Ever check out an NICU? Often many infants with horrible birth defects and no quality of life "live" tied to feeding tubes and machines, until they grow, and later die in a hospital bed in an instituation in diapers 30 years later. Sick. Previously those in society who were unhealthy and/or "defective" died. They, and their genes, died. Deformed infants were left to die the inevitable death that would occur before the "blessing" of modern medicine. Humans are turned off by most diseases and defects. In many ways, I think it is much more harmful to society to NOT practice some form of "eugenics".

Don't believe me? Ask how many women would chose a sperm donor with an IQ of 50, who's genetically overweight and very unattractive, socially awkward with a history of autism and criminal behavior, and has poor quality sperm due to having cancer as a child.

I feel bad, but it's nature to desire "good" genes. Hence why most most can agree on what is universally desirable. Ever wonder why some people have multiple partners whereas others can't even get one date??? If people don't think their DNA (physical appearance, intelligence, mental health) doesn't already separate social classes, they are fooling themselves. As a rule, the smartest, most attractive people do best in life, all things equal. And that IS something you can control for your future children, either through PGD (when indicated for disease) and/or by chosing a good mother/father for your child. On a smaller scale, "Gattaca" has always been...and always will be...

[–] rjrx 11 years ago

You sound just like one of those elitists morons. I believe this movie has a valid point, which it boils down that you choose your own destiny. Of course having an engineered offspring will give it a head start against many troubles in life. But the true value is that a person can achieve anything as long as he/she sets its mind for it. Now this is just a piece of fiction but it has some truth in it.

[–] septerra 10 years ago

You sound just like one of those elitists morons. I believe this movie has a valid point, which it boils down that you choose your own destiny. Of course having an engineered offspring will give it a head start against many troubles in life. But the true value is that a person can achieve anything as long as he/she sets its mind for it. Now this is just a piece of fiction but it has some truth in it.

He achieved his dream through fraud and deception. What if some calamity were to occur out in space and every person was required to pull his weight to ensure survival and Vincent starts to fall behind. The entire crew could be at risk.

In essence, I agree with the idea of what you said, and I wish it were true. As someone who wanted to be something since a kid, worked hard and succeeded to the point where I had my appointment letter in hand and then to have the offer withdrawn due to medical reasons, I completely empathise with Vincent. But nonetheless, were Eugenics real and I had been 'engineered', as they put it, I could have had what I came so close to achieving. It's a complex, emotional issue to have definitive opinions on.

[–] DanRichNC 12 years ago

Remember, they've found a cure for about every disease...in mice.

[–] randy-welch-1 12 years ago

Is that because mice run the Earth, as in in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? They make us heal all their diseases for them? Sneaky rodents.

[–] BelleCBelle 11 years ago

I love mice. I love you. I love Sam Rockwell and Mac Computers (whatever the heck that has to do with anything). GATTACA IS JUST A MOVIE!

"Time wounds all heels." Groucho Marx, Go West

[–] snorfinn 12 years ago

OMG THE NWO CONTROLS TEH INTARNETS N YOU ARE SO BRAVE FOR WRITING THIS!!½!!½½!½!

[–] omoxus 12 years ago

This must be true. I have a sneaky suspicion that my last blind date was a Eugenics experiment gone awry.

Im the Alpha and the Omoxus. The Omoxus and the Omega

[–] e_esoteric 12 years ago

I believe in the promise of Eugenics. The only problem historically is that the science did not really keep up and is not even present today yet. The criteria was faulty in the past (i.e. skin/hair color is really irrelevant).

However, the concept that the human species can be improved through selective reproduction is completely legitimate. Currently, those who would not survive through the swift forces of natural selection are now breeding, which contaminates the gene pool as a whole. This is an undeniable fact.

The process of evolution led to the advent of consciousness (and thereby logical abilities) in humans. In an ironic twist, this characteristic has now totally negated any further improvement.

If we want to improve ourselves as a species we must welcome some sort of selection based on intellectual/physical/talents ability. Otherwise our genetic pool stays stagnant or even deteriorates since it's usually those who are irresponsible who churn out babies without thinking of the consequences nor are they usually able to raise children in a safe, engaging, and loving environment.

This concept should not be as controversial as it is. Animal breeders and gardeners have long since realized this fact and that's why we have fruits and vegetables that are massive compared to their wild ancestors. Domesticated animals are much more docile, plump, and more productive due to selective breeding. Humans are no different, except for the criteria. We need to improve our species intellectually and physically. This is for certain if we are to ever improve. The only problem in the past, as I said, was that people like Hitler engaged in eugenics with a faulty foundation of "Aryan" ideals, which doesn't really make sense in the first place.

The criteria should be based on science that can determine qualities, perhaps in a few decades from now.

To be clear, I'm not advocating death camps where the genetically inferior are massacred. Let them live out their natural lives. But sterilization should be enacted. Reproduction should not be a universal right. I don't think I'm alone when I think that some parents simply should not have had babies or that there should be at least some kind of certification for being one.

I'm not being selfish about this, either. If it turns out that my own personal act of reproduction will be a detriment to the well-being of future generations, I would gladly sterilize myself. Eugenics is not about the individual. It's about the improvement of the entire human species.

[–] DocCasualty 12 years ago

The only problem in the past, as I said, was that people like Hitler engaged in eugenics with a faulty foundation . . .

But sterilization should be enacted.

If it turns out that my own personal act of reproduction will be a detriment to the well-being of future generations, I would gladly sterilize myself.

I think you are already demonstrating your detriment to the future. By all means, don't waste anytime sterilizing yourself.

"Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye." 2001: A Space Odyssey

[–] e_esoteric 12 years ago

As I said, I don't mind sterilizing myself based on scientific criteria. Personal opinion, however, does not fall within acceptable criteria for genetic selection. Again, discussions on the genetic health of the human species have no room for individualism; it only gets in the way.

I'm curious though since you are apparently against this. Why? Why are you afraid of the consequences of striving for genetic perfection? We as human beings may be the first species that may actually be able to direct our own path for reproductive selection, improving our genetic pool in the most efficient way possible. Natural selection is messy and wholly dependent on random mutations. We can do it better, and we should.

Most people who are against this don't see the big picture. A single individual's life is really not important in the large scheme of things. But this fact scares a lot of people, usually because it compels us to consider our individual lives and even our individual deaths as insignificant. It's not what we're taught growing up in society, but it is true. The sooner one realizes this fact, the sooner one can appreciate the greater importance of the betterment of the human species as a whole.

[–] DocCasualty 12 years ago

But sterilization should be enacted.
Reproduction should not be a universal right.

Those two statements alone present a big problem. You may have no problem denying an individual's rights, but I have a huge problem with that. I have an even bigger problem with placing a government in charge of that. The history to date has not been pretty and I'm not sure what safeguards could ever be put in place to guarantee we didn't revisit the worst of what attempting to create the master race has already shown us.

I firmly believe that we (humans) have yet to grapple with all of the ethical, moral and religious issues, let alone the biological ones, to even contemplate delving into this experiment. Who decides what are the most desirable traits? I've yet to see any guarantees of perfection resulting from this and there never will be. Polygenic inheritance and continued mutations alone will continue to be significant issues as time goes on. The issues raised by this movie alone should give one pause to think of the negative consequences that could result.

I believe in science and progress, however, one need only look to many of man's interventions into nature which ended in unpredicted disasters to consider where this could lead. With what we know now, I'd say the potential risks far outweigh the proposed benefits.

Here's an interesting article I ran across that's not too old: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/04/the-case-against-p erfection/2927/

"Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye." 2001: A Space Odyssey

[–] Bleedred 11 years ago

The question becomes, is it a "right" to assist someone to live and reproduce if they should have died if natural selection were to have taken place?

Three generations of welfare with an IQ of 65 should give most people pause. This is NOT a temporary fixable problem. No amount of funding or programs can overcome the fact that a good number of people on welfare aren't hurt in accidents, or between jobs, or going back to school. No, they are simply too stupid to support themselves. So instead of them "dying out", or perhaps only being able to produce 1 child, we give them a free pass to have multiple children with the same problem as the parents...and unable to break the cycle.

If you can't support YOURSELF, and rely on government aid, why should it be a "right" to have children that you can't support? Laws of nature and evolution defy this.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] brendanfoy 12 years ago

Designer children aren't far off in our future. We will soon see children aborted simply for having brown eyes instead of blue, dark skin instead of fair, and the morally depraved who fail to recognize the value in both human life and genetic diversity will rationalize forced sterilization and infanticide. The quest for perfection will be an exclusive and discriminating one.

[–] meccamega 12 years ago

To the original poster: What has Steve Jobs got to do with Eugenics? How does he actually support it?

[–] Bleedred 11 years ago

The simple question is, what is wrong with this? For argument's sake, although there is no real advantage for blue eyes (a mutation, and a recessive one at that), there is no harm (really) in "breeding out" brown eyes either. Personally, I prefer blue or green eyes.

So while most of us who support eugenics as it pertains to reducing disease and suffering in the population, it's rather annoying that the age old debate over "designer babies with blue eyes" comes up time and time again.

So I'll take you up on it. So what's wrong with wanting a child with blue eyes? Is it a crime for a person to try and naturally mate with a person who happens to have blue eyes? Or blonde hair? Some people appreciate those traits, and obviously a lot, as it's a common theme ad nausea.

It is REALLY such a bad thing to have a beautiful child, with whatever features YOU determine to be desired? If you don't like blue eyes, then ensure your child has brown. But often the only people who feel some sort of inferiority complex with this topic are people with brown eyes themselves. Which leads me to believe that often blue eyes ARE preferred, and requests for sperm donors with blue eyes proves my case. So let it be what it is.

I have green eyes. Love them. I'd prefer to have a child with green eyes. Blue would be fine. So would brown. In my case, I'm happy with my eye colour, so this topic is a non issue for me. If brown eyed people get so worked up about this topic, that alone would give me enough pause to avoid having a child with brown eyes and this inferiority complex syndrome...

[–] brendanfoy 11 years ago

Clearly you have no qualms with taking the life of the human fetus for a matter as trivial as eye color (or skin color and even sexual orientation I presume), so I'll skip over this and simply point to selective breeding among dogs as what could happen when we ignore the hard earned right to exist through evolutionary change: "pure bred" dogs can not survive. They are bred for a specific purpose or simply for looks and all are unfit for survival on their own. Trying to wipe out disease is one thing, but the less diversity we have in our genetic makeup means the less chances we as a species have of adapting to environmental and situational changes for continued survival. Children will literally become products of the previous generation's time.

Ever stop to wonder why people have brown eyes? Their eyes are far less sensitive to sunlight and their vision deteriorates at a slower rate than those with blue eyes. Blue eyed people also have a higher risk of developing melanoma. It's not a simple switch of color or as you oddly put it, an "inferiority complex" on the part of brown eyed people (never heard that one before) to consider.

And do you ever consider the child as having a say in the matter? Because they are the one who will have to deal with whatever consequences may result from whatever seemingly innocuous changes are made to them for superficial reasons.

You seem to strongly feel it is your right to genetically accessorize your child, and more than likely this will become the popular opinion with future generations. Perhaps that is the next step in our evolutionary development, self engineering, and the ultimate objectification of another's body sounds like a fitting end for our species. Eugenics has a disastrous history, but what is old will be new again under the sun.

[–] melskaya 12 years ago

Actually the US had a eugenics program in the early 20th century and provided much of the inspiration for Nazi Germany. One of our many skeletons.

[–] skay_baltimore 12 years ago

Eugenics, genetic manipulation, and pending massive depopulation/restructuring of countries and continents are probably some of the biggest keys to our current existence on this planet. No doubt about it. It's a very sick world, to be sure. The CDC acknowledges that over 100,000,000 polio vaccines were contaminated with carcinogenic material (SV40, a simian (monkey) virus resulting from having used kidney cells from monkeys to develop the "vaccine"), and one of the same individuals, Jonas Saulk, involved with that polio "project" was also involved with AIDS "research". The only real question is: is it too late?

The whole world is a very narrow bridge. The key is to be fearless. R' Nachman of Breslov