From: Damien Broderick (damien@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Wed Oct 28 1998 - 05:20:10 MST
At 11:24 AM 10/28/98 +1100, Jason Soon wrote:
>I too find this argument laughable and don't see how Damien could object
>to Max characterising it as such.
Let me beat this dead horse completely to death. As I mentioned in an
earlier post, I didn't pick up the idea of government coercion in Max's
original report. The reason I suggested an element of double-think in his
report was straightforward, but in error (due, I suspect, to the brevity of
Max's report). This list often enthuses over prospects of massive
interventions and improvements in the genome, yet Max *appeared* to be
saying that drastic genomic engineering, per se, was a laughable notion -
when posited by an ideological opponent.
I agree that pseudo-fears such as the farming of clones to serve as spares
or organ banks is preposterous, given the current climate of opinion, and I
said so in no uncertain terms in a scathing review (in the New York Review
of Science Fiction) of Michael Marshall Smith's scare-mongering best-seller
horror novel SPARES.
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:42 MST