A New Future—Or the Oldest Idea in History?

New Genetic Scoring System Raises Ethical Concerns: A Bold Vision for the Future or a Step Toward Techno-Fascism?

At a recent Global Technology Summit, Dr. Vetter unveiled a new, controversial system that could change the way society allocates resources, hires employees, and structures education. Known as GAN (Genetic Aptitude Number), the system promises to eliminate bias and streamline decision-making based purely on data—essentially, the “number” every individual would receive at birth reflecting their genetic potential.

“It’s not a test. It’s not an opinion. It’s pure data,” Vetter insisted, while presenting the system to an intrigued audience.

The GAN number, which will range between 1 and 10, will be assigned to every child at birth. According to Vetter, the number would reflect each individual’s genetic aptitude:

• A 9.2 would be fast-tracked into leadership positions or high-complexity roles.
• A 4.1 would be suited for manual labor or jobs requiring less intellectual engagement.
• A 2.5? Vetter explained, “Some people are simply not designed for high-complexity roles.”

The announcement immediately sparked debate, but Vetter remained firm. “For too long, we’ve built our world on false hope,” he declared. “GAN is about realism. Science. Efficiency.”

Behind him, a sleek infographic flashed, showcasing the practical applications of GAN:

• Governments could use GAN to allocate education funding.
• Employers could make better, more data-driven hiring decisions.
• Banks could adjust interest rates based on a person’s predicted potential.
• Universities could eliminate bias in admissions, relying purely on genetic scoring.

And then came the line that left the room in stunned silence:
“GAN eliminates bias. No more race, gender, or privilege. Just data.”

Global Reaction: Critics Call it Techno-Fascism

By the time Vetter stepped off stage, his TED Talk had gone viral, sparking a flurry of reactions online.

Many praised the system’s efficiency and potential to create a fairer world:

• “This is the fairest way to structure society,” one supporter wrote.
• “Finally, a system that rewards real ability,” another commented.

However, critics quickly seized on the inherent dangers of such a system:

• “If your GAN is too low, are you just useless?”
• “This is just rebranded eugenics,” one skeptic tweeted.
• “They’re literally ranking people like livestock.”

The Swiss government, where the system was first unveiled, quickly issued a statement assuring the public that GAN participation would be voluntary. But the warning signs were clear.

Within 48 hours, major Swiss banks began announcing they were exploring GAN-based lending models. One elite private school in Geneva even updated its admissions policy, stating:
“Applicants with a GAN of 8.0 or higher will be given priority consideration.”

Vetter Responds: “It’s Voluntary—For Now”

As the controversy escalated, Vetter held a press conference to clarify his stance.

When asked what would happen to people with lower GAN scores, he smiled, adjusting his cufflinks before replying:
“Society has always sorted people,” he said. “We’re just making it more efficient.”

Despite widespread concern, the first GAN pilot program is set to launch next year. For now, participation remains voluntary—but for how long?

As the world watches, questions remain: Will this genetic scoring system become the future of decision-making, or is it simply a dangerous step toward tech-driven fascism?

This is satire, of course. The real world is nothing like that…

But if you want to see how things actually work, here are some totally real, absolutely normal links that inspired this story:

The resurgence of eugenic ideologies in contemporary discourse has raised significant ethical concerns, particularly regarding immigration policies and societal attitudes toward marginalized communities.​

Eugenics and Immigration Policies:

Historically, eugenic principles have influenced immigration laws, aiming to control the genetic makeup of populations. The U.S. Immigration Act of 1924, for instance, was heavily shaped by eugenicists seeking to restrict entry of individuals deemed “genetically inferior.” This act established quotas to limit immigrants from specific regions, reflecting a desire to maintain certain racial and ethnic compositions. ​en.wikipedia.orgmigrationpolicy.org

In recent years, echoes of such ideologies have reappeared. Former President Donald Trump’s rhetoric, for example, included references to immigrants possessing “bad genes,” suggesting a genetic predisposition to criminal behavior. This perspective aligns with a deterministic view of human traits, reminiscent of early 20th-century eugenic theories. ​theguardian.comvox.com

Perceptions of Poverty and Social Hierarchies:

Eugenic thought has also historically intersected with societal views on poverty. The notion that poverty results from inherent genetic flaws rather than socio-economic factors has been used to justify discriminatory practices. Contemporary discussions reveal a resurgence of such ideas, often propagated through viral content online, which stigmatizes the poor by attributing their circumstances to genetic inferiority. ​bioethicstoday.org

Modern Manifestations:

The revival of eugenic ideologies is evident in various contemporary contexts:​academic.oup.com+3tandfonline.com+3publichealth.berkeley.edu+3

• Scientific Racism: An international network promoting “race science” has been uncovered, with funding from prominent figures. This network disseminates discredited theories about genetic superiority, influencing public discourse and policy. ​theguardian.com
• Pronatalism: Some right-wing figures advocate for increased birth rates among specific populations, intertwining eugenic concepts with demographic strategies. This movement emphasizes the reproduction of individuals deemed desirable based on certain traits, reflecting a controlled approach to population dynamics. ​

Ethical Implications:

The persistence of eugenic ideologies poses ethical challenges, particularly concerning human rights and equality. Associating genetic determinism with social issues like immigration and poverty can lead to policies that marginalize vulnerable groups. Recognizing and addressing these underlying biases is crucial to prevent the perpetuation of discriminatory practices under the guise of scientific legitimacy.​

In conclusion, while eugenics as a formal movement has been discredited, its underlying principles continue to influence certain contemporary ideologies. Awareness and critical examination of these perspectives are essential to uphold ethical standards and promote an inclusive society.​

Resurgence of Eugenic Ideologies in Modern Discourse