Blog # 10 Ethical Considerations to Justice

Ethical Considerations to Justice

     Our world is filled with villains and it’s very tempting to believe that we should go to whatever lengths are necessary to stop them from doing harm.  We have invented increasingly effective ways to combat crime and terrorism, yet along with our advances come the inevitable and unintended consequences. When asked whether you could accept new tools to combat crime even if they severely erode our 4^th amendment rights to privacy it may be easy to think that indeed you could. Your opinion may change however when it is you that has to cope with unfair and ill-considered practices that ruin your quality of life and impede the freedoms you believed as a United States citizen you were entitled to.  We cannot allow unethical means of combatting crime and terrorism to exist because then we all risk becoming the criminals we loathe. 

     Part of what makes our country amazing is the fact that we have the basic rights that every person is entitled to and that even those accused of crimes are ,”innocent until proven guilty.”  In “Minority Report” the technology called precrime actually convicted criminals before they could commit the act that would make them a criminal.  The main character John Anderton is accused of a crime before he even knows of the events that will lead him to the cross roads of making the decision.  He is then pursued for a crime that he has no idea why he will commit and that he indeed has no intention of committing.  How can we without second thought convict someone of a crime they have not even yet committed?  This shares an eerie similarity to the stop and frisk procedure used in New York City that has forced thousands of innocent New Yorkers to undergo humiliating searches of their personal effects in front of their peers for no other reason than looking  “suspicious”.  Being stopped is extremely uncomfortable and scary as a result of the undue force that many police officers tend to use. Over eighty five percent of those stopped are Latino and African-American and many feel they are stopped solely for the crime of being “black” (Stop & Frisk Policy – New York City Police Department).  These individuals can be compared to John Anderton because none of them have committed any crime other than being “suspicious” and yet they are treated as badly as common thugs and stopped with no explanation.  We also have innocent men and woman that are increasingly having their DNA entered into a massive database before they have even been convicted of a crime (F.B.I. and States Vastly Expand DNA Databases Soloman Moore). I believe this is an ugly smear upon our legal system and it’s a shame that they are getting away with it. Not only is this happening often but it is very difficult to have your DNA taken out of this database even after being proven innocent of whatever crime you were accused of or even in the circumstance that your DNA was taken in error.  We cannot allow accused persons to be treated as felons before they have even been convicted of a crime and by allowing it to happen we turn innocent people into victims of a flawed system.

     There are those that feel we should do whatever necessary to combat crime regardless of ethical implications.  They will argue that the inconvenience of the few does not outweigh the importance of the safety of us all.  It’s only natural that they will point to law enforcement’s promises us that these are the best ways to combat crimes. The New York City police department argues that without slightly imposing on our rights that we would live in a much more violent and dangerous city.  When asked about stop and frisk and why there are a disproportionate number of minorities stopped the police department quickly counters that the neighborhoods with the highest crime rates also happen to have a high minority population and that it is inevitable that minorities are going to be stopped more often.  They will cite Philadelphia’s recent surge in crime (Stop and Frisk Policy) to try to paint a picture of what could happen to our city if we limit the stop and frisk practice.  The argument for keeping the stop and frisk policy is clear.  What is not clear is whether people deserve to be treated as criminals even before committing a crime. 

   The stop and frisk procedure is especially worrisome because it gives police officers permission to stop anyone they deem as “suspicious” and search them.  What allows someone to be considered “suspicious” is especially vague and police officers as a result, are legally able to stop a person for whatever reason they wish to with little to no explanation.  To give an officer of the law so much power over another individual is dangerous because as humans police officers are prone to bias and use of undue force.  As someone who has undergone a very humiliating stop and frisk, I can attest that no person deserves to go through what I went through in the name of “crime prevention”.  Just a few years ago, as I ran to my local convenience store in a fervent pursuit of my nicotine fix, three unmarked police cars screeched to a halt at my side. A police officer grabbed my collar and shoved me onto the hood of his car and roughly patted me down.  When I asked with my signature sarcastic flare, “What illegal drugs did you find today officer?”  The officer smacked my rear roughly and laughed calling me a homo while snidely telling me that he found a “sweet ass” and that he bet that I enjoyed the pat down.  I was furious and totally humiliated. I could not believe that someone who was supposed to protect me was actually mocking me and that his fellow officers watching him allowed him to behave in such an unprofessional and cruel manner.  I asked for his badge number and he laughed in my face, got into his vehicle and drove off. No one deserves to be subjected to that type of reprehensible behavior but unfortunately mine is not a unique story.  Thousands of people across America are treated as second class citizens and treated poorly all because they fit the description of a suspicious person.

     We cannot risk the trust of our citizens in their state and their country by imposing on their 4^th amendment rights.  By using unethical means of law enforcement and treating people poorly based on what they may do and not what they have done, takes away one of the qualities that make us an amazing country.  It also gives people in power the license to mistreat and abuse the people they should be protecting because it feeds stereotypes and biases they may already have.  By using unethical means to combat crime we allow people to be degraded and disrespected in the name of justice and turn them into victims.  A justice system must be ethical because we risk submitting ourselves to the same criminality we are fighting.

Blog # 9 : Ethical Hurdles to Justice

     Our world is filled with villains and it’s very tempting to believe that we should go to whatever lengths are necessary to stop them from doing harm.  We have invented increasingly effective ways to combat crime and terrorism, yet along with our advances come the inevitable and unintended consequences. When asked whether you could accept new tools to combat crime even if they severely erode our 4^th amendment rights to privacy it may be easy to think that indeed you could. Your opinion may change when it is you that has to cope with unfair and ill-considered practices that ruin your quality of life and impede the freedoms you believed as a United States citizen you were entitled to.  We cannot allow unethical means of combatting crime and terrorism to exist because then we all risk becoming the criminals we loathe. 

     Part of what makes our country amazing is the fact that we have the basic rights that every person is entitled to and that even those accused of crimes are ,”innocent until proven guilty.”  In “Minority Report” the technology called precrime actually convicted criminals before they could commit the act that would make them a criminal.  The main character John Anderton is accused of a crime before he even knows of the events that will lead him to the cross roads of making the decision.  He is then pursued for a crime that he has no idea why he will commit and that he indeed has no intention of committing.  How can we without second thought convict someone of a crime they have not even yet committed?  This shares an eerie similarity to the stop and frisk procedure used in New York City that has forced thousands of innocent New Yorkers to undergo humiliating searches of their personal effects in front of their peers for no other reason than looking  “suspicious”.  Being stopped is extremely uncomfortable and scary as a result of the undue force that many police officers tend to use. Over eighty five percent of those stopped are Latino and African-American (New York Times – Stop & Frisk Policy).  These individuals can be compared to John Anderton because none of them have committed any crime other than being “suspicious” and yet they are treated as badly as a common thug.  We also have innocent men and woman that are increasingly having their DNA entered into a massive database before they have even been convicted of a crime. (F.B.I. and States Vastly Expand DNA Databases Soloman Moore)  I believe this is an ugly smear upon our legal system and it’s a shame that they are getting away with it. Not only is this happening often but it is very difficult to have your DNA taken out of this database even after being proven innocent of whatever crime you were accused of or even in the circumstance that your DNA was taken in error.  We cannot allow accused persons to be treated as felons before they have even been convicted of a crime, by doing so we turn innocent people into victims of a flawed system.

     Law enforcement promises us that these are the best ways to combat crimes. They argue that without slightly imposing on our rights that we would live in a much more violent and dangerous world.  When asked of stop and frisk and why there are a disproportionate number of minorities stopped they will counter that the neighborhoods with highest crime rates also happen to have a high minority population and that it is inevitable that minorities are going to be stopped more often.  They will cite Philadelphia’s recent surge in crime (New York Times –Stop and Frisk) to try to paint a picture of what could happen if we limit the stop and frisk practice.  As someone who has undergone a very humiliating stop and frisk, I can attest that no person deserves to go through what I went through in the name of “crime prevention”.  Just a few years ago, as I ran to my local convenience store in a fervent pursuit of my nicotine fix, three unmarked police cars screeched to a halt at my side. A police officer grabbed my collar and shoved me onto his car and roughly patted me down.  When I asked with my signature sarcastic flare, “What illegal drugs did you find today officer?”  The officer smacked my rear roughly and laughed calling me a homo while he was at it and telling that he found a “sweet ass”.  I was furious and humiliated and I could not believe that someone who was supposed to protect me was actually humiliating me and that the officers watching allowed him to do so.  I asked for his badge number and he laughed in my face, got into his vehicle and drove off.  No one deserves to be subjected to that type of reprehensible behavior but unfortunately mine is not a unique story.  Thousands of people across America are treated as second class citizens and even mocked all because they fit the description of a suspicious person.

     I reiterate that what makes our country great is the fact that we all have inalienable rights and we are all innocent until proven guilty.  By using unethical means of law enforcement and convicting people based on what they may do and no what they have done, takes away one of the qualities that make us an amazing country.  It also gives people in power the license to mistreat and abuses a system that is supposed to protect us not humiliate us and make us fear those that are here to protect us.  For a justice system to work it must be ethical or we risk turning innocent men and woman accused of crime into yet another victim but instead of a victim of crime they become victims of a flawed system.

Blog 8 : The Role of Determinism and Free Will

     "Minority Report" and "Oedipus the King" were both thought provoking texts that influenced the way I think about how our actions influence our lives. Belief in free will is to believe that we have control over what happens in our lives, whereas belief in determinism dictates that we have no control over our actions and that everything that occurs in our lives has been predetermined by factors that occured before we even existed.  Due to the fact that we have no control over what has happened before we were alive some believe this proves we have no control over what happens going forward.  It would seem to me that both texts are making conflicting arguments about humans and the role that they play in thier own lives. 
     "Oedipus the King" in my view made the argument for Hard Determinism.  Even though as the reader I believed that Oedipus made foolish desicions that led to his downfall, the characters in the play felt that there was nothing that could have been done to change his fate.  The future that Teirisius predicted came true word for word and by the end of the play it seemed to many that the Gods had played a cruel joke on Oedipus and that the very steps he took to prevent his cruel fate are what sealed it.  In "Free Will and Determinism" the author Michael Huemer tells us that hard determinists believe we have zero control over our lives.  That in order for us to have acted differently something would have had to be different at every previous moment stretching all the way back to the beginning of time. (pg. 105)  This argument makes perfect sense in the play because it's very likely that Oedipus' father could have changed his son's fate by deciding to not to try to murder him or even his ancestors could have changed his fate by choosing to not place so much faith in the words of prophets or oracles thus changing the decision that Oedipus' father made.  Determinism perfectly explains why no matter what Oedipus tried to do to change his fate he was doomed to the tragedy that would occur.
     "Minority Report" left me with a much more optimistic view on the role that humans play in the course of their lives.  While I feel that the movie certainly did not make an argument that humans have absolute control over their fates, by the end of the movie I was convinced that the decisions that we make are our own even when they are shaped by factors we have no control over.  The moment when John Anderton decided against killing the man whom he had all reason to believe murdered his son was pivotal for me.  Although the man still died because he killed himself, the prophecy fortold by the Precogs was proven wrong even though there was no minority report.  John didn't kill the man he was predestined to kill and this caused a tidal wave of events that would change the world.  I think "Minority Report" made an argument for Soft Determinism.  Soft determinism is the belief that free will and determinism go hand in hand and we need both to practice true free will.  If our actions were not determined by causes that came before us, than our actions would only be random occurrences and what is random is controlled by noone and we would be unable to claim free will. (Pg. 106 Huemer) John Andertons fate was dictated by the actions of people that came before him and decisions that he could never have hoped to know of, never mind hope to change.  Yet the decisions that he made were still his, even though the situation he was in was brought about by factors he had no control over.
     I found free will and determinism to be a pretty difficult subjects to grasp.  As a United States citizen I have honestly always felt the world is at my fingertips and that I absolute control over my world and how I live in it.  As a child growing up I always assumed that I could be anything that I could dream of and the only thing that shaped my life was me.  As I read "Oedipus the King", watched "Minority Report" and struggled with "Free Will and Determinism" I have discovered that this is not completely true.  While I refuse to believe in Hard Determinism because it's a belief that says I have no control over my life, it is easy to understand why people do believe in it.  There are so many factors are out of our control from the moment we are born.  We don't get to choose our parents, socio-economic background or even what personality traits we are born with.  Our personalities and even our goals are shaped by the people who raise us and sometimes by the neighborhoods we grow up in.  After a lot of contemplation I feel that humans are certainly equipped with free will, we just aren't quite as "Free" as we might believe we are. I'm left believing that determinism and our decisions both work together to shape our destinies. 

Blog # 7 : Allegory of the Cave & False Perceptions of Reality

     There are many instances throughout human history in which people have mistakenly believed something to be a fact and in the end were proven terribly wrong.  It would seem that "The Allegory of the Cave" grasps human behavior perfectly because when people are provided with concrete evidence that disproves something that they believe to be true, they are most likely going to turn a blind eye and ignore the facts. In their stubborn refusal to see the truth they may even accuse you of being crazy or of distorting facts to fit some sinister agenda.

     One of the most striking false persceptions that people have clung to for quite some time is that climate change was just some crazy thoery concocted by tree hugging scientists trying to pass their own agenda.  You had United States senators that would loudly dispute scientific evidence proving that climate change is a result of human behavior.  A major portion of the scientific community has been in agreement that something must be done before the world faces global catashtrophe due to our addiction to gas guzzling cars and just plain inefficient means of consuming energy.  It has taken years for people to finally come to a consensus that there is indeed something wrong with our enviroment.  There have been proven increases in temperatures world wide and glaciers around the world are melting at an increasingly alarming rate.  It seems that just about every other day we encounter articles in our daily newspapers about drastic changes occuring through out our planet that are speculated to have something to do with rising temperatures.  The most shocking thing I've found is that there are still those out there that adamantly refuse to believe the truth of what is happening to our world.  They argue that the planets temperatures have been fluctuating for billions of years and that this is a normal behavior for our planet.  They dispute the consensus of the scientific community as based on biased experiments and studies.  The truth is that people just refuse to change their everyday behaviors.  It is much more expensive to buy that energy efficient Prius or for our country to invest in renewable resources like wind and solar energy.  There are also still developing countries that are extremely dependant on "dirty" energy sources and they are developing so quickly that it's inconvenient and not cost effective to change the way energy is consumed.  In China the government actually reports unsafe breathing levels on a consistent basis and that should be proof enough that many countries are not doing nearly enough.  Forunately there has recently been a change in the attitudes of many on climate change people are now willing to work a little harder to improve our world. Yet there are still many people would rather live blindly in a fantasy where all is well instead of taking the energy to tackle the tough issues that stand before us.

Blog 6: Free Will Or Destiny?

        I believe that Oedipus’ free will enabled him to make horrible choices in his life that led to his demise.  Through out the entirety of “Oedipus the King” you find that Oedipus makes one rash decision after another, never taking a moment to simmer down and reflect on the consequences that might result from what he does or says. Oedipus the man was plagued by a stubborn belief in prophecy and a myriad of flaws such as arrogance and a lack of self-control.   During his mad dash from Corinth in an attempt to escape prophecy Oedipus literally comes to a cross roads in his life in which his ill thought out decision to massacre an old feeble man and his men ultimately leads to fulfilling the prophecy he was trying to escape.

     It is easy to believe in destiny or prophecy because it allows us to explain away our own explicit roles in all the things that go wrong with our lives.  In psychology we learn that people tend to find patterns in random events that have absolutely nothing to do with each other instead of taking a step back to think critically and realize that one thing may have nothing at all to do with the other. For example to this day we find people that read horoscopes in the daily paper and swear that they are one hundred percent accurate.  I believe the act of reading a horoscope itself taints our actions because our behavior changes due to whatever we read.  It’s easy to see why someone may swear that a horoscope was accurate when they spent their entire day trying to heed its advice.  It’s not  a surprise to see that they found something they think relates to the vague words they take as prophecy when in actuality it's just coincidence.  I feel we are the ones that actually give the horoscope or in Oedipus’ case the prophecy power because subconsciously we cause the things that make it true.

     There is an ancient polish proverb that states, “To believe with certainty we must begin by doubting.”  If Oedipus had taken this approach I truly believe that he would have avoided the calamity that engulfed his life.  He never took one moment to doubt the words of the prophet or to ascertain the consequences of his hasty decisions.  The second messenger tells us towards the end of the play, Line 1470 of Oedipus the King, “…brought on by choice and not by accident. What we do ourselves brings us most pain.”  I think this proves that Oedipus brought about his own downfall and that the prophecy was just one of the tools he used to do so.  That quote is as relevant to all of us as it was for Oedipus; many of us mistakenly believe that our actions are the result of our "destiny", socio economic background or controlled by some magic being that grants our wishes and dashes our dreams. When as human beings we have the ultimate power of free will and the ability to think critically even though many lack the wisdom to utilize these gifts to their full capacity.

Blog # 5 Genoism & Gattaca

Edemir Castano

ENGL 101 – 0768

Dr. Vasilieiou                                                                                                                                     

Essay #1

10/02/2012

Genoism and Gattaca

 

     Gattaca is a society where an entire population of people are discriminated against and not considered equals and I believe that makes it a dystopian society.  I feel in our age we deal with a lot of discrimination and inequalities. People all over the world dream of escaping a cycle of poverty they feel trapped in. Any society with the honor of being called a Utopia should have figured out ways to correct this issue and ensure that every person is given equal opportunities to succeed. I will describe why Gattaca can never be considered a utopia and explain what is fundamentally wrong with it as a society.

     Genoism is a word that is very relevant to the people living in Gattacan society.  This word pretty much means certain people are not treated equally or afforded the same opportunities to pursue their dreams due to not being born with a perfect genetic profile. While Genoism in the world of Gattaca is technically illegal it is widely practiced and people born of traditional means are called Invalids, while those conceived by genetically altering their genes with their parents’ best traits are called Valids because they are born in the “valid” way. The fact that they would even sub-group a person as an Invalid itself is divisive and derogatory. To further cement how the naturally born are treated differently they are not even covered by insurance and in many instances cannot attend school because of this. This shows a child born as an Invalid that they don’t belong from a very early age. The classification of Invalid is a declaration that this person is not valid or does not contain as much potential as the person born with a genetically altered DNA code. In fact because Invalids are seen as less capable and less deserving they are not even permitted the same occupational opportunities as Valids. They are forced to do the jobs that no one else wants and even with the laws against Genoism it’s widely accepted and understood that this practice is acceptable.

     The practice of discrimination against Invalids is so prevalent that a black market has sprouted where less successful or handicapped Valids can literally rent themselves out to Invalids so that the Invalid may have better opportunities. An Invalid that goes through this process is known as a “Degene-rate” (an Invalid who opposes their flawed genetic inheritance and borrows the DNA of a Valid to pursue a career they otherwise would not be able to attain). The Valid receives twenty percent of the increased income that the Invalid now makes because of the more attractive gene profile. This entire process is painstaking and very stressful. An Invalid subjects himself to meticulously scrubbing dead skin cells off of his or her body on a daily basis. They must also leave hair and skin samples of the person he or she is renting out around their work place. One eye lash or strand of hair discovered belonging to the Invalid could mean not only the end of their career but incarceration. The employers and citizens of the Gattacan society are methodical in their approach to discovering and verifying the gene profiles of the people they hire and associate with. There are even shops where you can have a person’s entire genetic profile mapped out for you in a matter of minutes with a quick swab and a few bucks. The fact that someone must be subjected to all of this for a fair shake at making something more of their life is unbelievable.

     In Science Fiction and Philosophy, author George J. Annas, hypothesizes that being able to label someone as “other” and sub human enables one to justify killing that person in the name of a just cause paving the way for genocide and war.  In Gattaca the categorizing of people as either Invalid or Valid does just that.  By dividing the population into these two groups the government makes it easy for both sides to build animosity for the other.  The Valids will clearly be tempted to feel superior to the Invalids and exert their dominance over the lesser population.  The Invalids are likely to resent the fact that they are treated poorly and viewed as inferior. It’s easy to envision them lashing out in violent ways causing further distrust and resentment between the two groups.  It wouldn’t come as surprise for a charismatic figure to take the feelings of oppression felt by the Invalids to incite terrorism or war to fight for equal rights.  The world of Gattaca could very well be on the brink of catastrophe.         

     There are some that will say that my declaration of Gattaca as a dystopian society is unfair.  They’ll remind us of the beautiful scene in which Irene takes Vincent to see the solar panels that provide energy to the citizens of Gattaca just as they start to soak up the mornings’ rays.  This futuristic society seems to have a very healthy environment and it also appears that they have managed to limit the occurrence of genetic diseases and disabilities but this still does not make Gattaca a perfect society.  Closer inspection will reveal that Gattaca has actually not completely eliminated disease at all.  Irene who was born genetically altered still has a health problem with her heart.  In one emotional scene she barely manages to keep up with Vincent as they run from police and she cries out that she shouldn’t be running like that because of her condition.  At another moment in the movie Irene seems disappointed when she feels that Vincent’s genetic profile is what everyone claims because in Gattaca her bad heart would probably be enough reason for Vincent to be opposed to a relationship with her if he were really a Valid.  At the end of the movie, the physician that analyzes Vincent’s urine sample confides that his son, “… wasn’t all that they promised.” Showing once again that even being genetically altered doesn’t guarantee perfection. He seems to have a renewed hope for his sons’ future after seeing what a “degene-rate” like Vincent can accomplish even with the odds against him.  These instances prove that science in Gattaca is flawed and its failures cause people to suffer.

     Even omitting these instances that prove the science behind Gattaca was not perfect; would anyone say it is okay to subject an entire group of people to a cycle where their genetic profile is the only factor that dictates their social status and success? That the only chance a person who hasn’t been genetically altered  has at scoring that dream job is by becoming a “degene-rate” and living an arduous existence where they’re always looking over their shoulder and have to give up a major portion of their income.  Never mind what happens when they decide to try to settle down to have a family because no Valid would ever subject their offspring to the potential of becoming Invalids. I find that this sounds more like the caste systems that once dominated the cultures of the ancient world.  A caste system is where a person is born into a specific group and would be in this group for life. It was virtually impossible to achieve any kind of social mobility and many times it was actually illegal to marry or fornicate with anyone outside of your caste. Anyone born into an inferior caste was bound by the whims of their noble superiors. This is why it’s impossible to consider Gattaca a utopian society; it has way too much in common with the flawed practices of the past. A utopia should be a place where everyone and anyone can express themselves and pursue their dreams.

Blog # 4 (Final Draft) Genoism & Gattaca

Edemir Castano

ENGL 101 – 0768

Dr. Vasilieiou 

Essay #1

10/02/2012

Genoism and Gattaca

Gattaca is a society where an entire population of people are discriminated against and not considered equals and I believe that makes it a dystopian society.  I will describe why in my opinion Gattaca can never be considered a utopia and what is fundamentally wrong with Gattaca as a society can never make up for the few things that the society may be doing right. Genoism is a word that is very relevant to the people living in Gattacan society.  This word pretty much means certain people are not treated equally or afforded the same opportunities to pursue their dreams due to not being born with a perfect genetic profile.  While Genoism in the world of Gattaca is technically illegal it is widely practiced and people born of traditional means are called Invalids, while those conceived by genetically altering their genes with their parents’ best traits are called Valids.  The fact that they would even sub-group a person as an Invalid itself is divisive and derogatory. It is a declaration that this person is not valid or contain as much potential as the person born with a genetically altered DNA code. To further cement how the naturally born are looked down upon, Gattacans refer to those born through traditional means as “degene-rates”.  Children born with negative traits or predisposed to certain illnesses are not covered by insurance and in many instances cannot attend school because of this.  In fact because Invalids are seen as less capable and less deserving they are not even permitted the same occupational opportunities as Valids. They are forced to do the jobs that no one else wants and even with the laws against Genoism it’s widely accepted and understood that this practice is acceptable.     The practice of discrimination against Invalids is so prevalent that a black market has sprouted where less successful or handicapped Valids can literally rent themselves out to Invalids so that the Invalid may have better opportunities. An Invalid that goes through this process is known as a Degener (an Invalid who opposes their flawed genetic inheritance and uses the DNA of a Valid to pursue a career they otherwise would not be able to attain). The Valid receives twenty percent of the increased income that the invalid now makes because of the more attractive gene profile.  This entire process is painstaking and very stressful. An Invalid subjects himself to meticulously scrubbing dead skin cells off of his or her body on a daily basis. They must also leave hair and skin samples of the person he or she is renting out around their work place.  One eye lash or strand of hair discovered belonging to the Invalid could mean not only the end of their career but incarceration.  The employers and citizens of the Gattacan society are methodical in their approach to discovering an employee’s or potential mates DNA, there are even shops were you can have a person’s entire genetic profile mapped out for you in a matter of minutes with a quick swab and a few bucks.  The fact that someone must be subjected to all of this for a fair shake at making something more of their life is incredible.     In Science Fiction and Philosophy, author George J. Annas, hypothesizes that being able to label someone as “other” and sub human enables one to justify killing that person in the name of a just cause paving the way for genocide and war.  In Gattaca the categorizing of people as either Invalid or Valid does just that.  By dividing the population into these two groups the government makes it easy for both sides to build animosity for the other.  The Valids will clearly be tempted to feel superior to the Invalids and exert their dominance over the lesser population.  The Invalids are likely to resent the fact that they are treated poorly and viewed as inferior. It’s easy to envision them lashing out in violent ways causing further distrust and resentment between the two groups.  It wouldn’t come as surprise for a charismatic figure to take the feelings of oppression felt by the Invalids to incite terrorism or war to fight for equal rights.  The world of Gattaca could very well be on the brink of catastrophe.     There are some that will say that my declaration of Gattaca as a dystopian society is unfair.  They’ll remind us of the beautiful scene in which Irene takes Vincent to see the solar panels that provide energy to the citizens of Gattaca just as they start to soak up the mornings’ rays.  This futuristic society seems to have a very healthy environment and it also appears that they have managed to limit the occurrence of genetic diseases and disabilities but this still does not make Gattaca a perfect society.  Closer inspection will reveal that Gattaca has actually not completely eliminated disease at all.  Irene who was born with her parent’s best traits still has a problem with her heart.  In one emotional scene she barely manages to keep up with Vincent as they run from police and she cries out that she shouldn’t be running like that because of her condition.  At another moment in the movie Irene seems disappointed when she feels that Vincent’s genetic profile is what everyone claims because in Gattaca her bad heart would probably be enough reason for Vincent to be opposed to a relationship with her if he were really a Valid.  At the very end of the movie, the physician that analyses Vincent’s urine sample confides that his son, “… wasn’t all that they promised.” He seems to have a renewed hope for his sons’ future after seeing what a “degene-rate” like Vincent can accomplish even with the odds against him.     Even omitting these instances that prove the science behind Gattaca was not perfect, is it okay to subject an entire group of people to a cycle where their children and their children’s children will never be able to fulfill their dreams because their genetic profile dictates their social status? That the only chance the Invalids have at scoring a position at their dream jobs are by becoming Degener’s and living an arduous existence where they’re always looking over their shoulder and have to give up twenty percent of their income.  Never mind what happens when they decide to try and settle down to have a family because no Valid would ever subject their offspring to the potential of becoming Invalids. Imagine a world where there are only two kinds of people; the people who have endless potential and in all likelihood will be able to pursue their dreams or you have people that won’t ever have a fair shot at doing anything more than what their society dictates. I find that this sounds more like the caste systems that once dominated the cultures of the ancient world.  A caste system is where a person is born into a specific group and would be in this group for life. It was virtually impossible to achieve any kind of social mobility and many times it was actually illegal to marry or fornicate with anyone outside of your caste.  They were bound by the whims of their noble superiors.  Does that sound like a Utopia to you?   To me it sounds a lot more like Gattaca.