From: Damien Broderick <d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au>
>I refuse to be flexible in this case. The damned movie was
>stupidly wrong-headed to the core, as far as I could make out. The
>notion it argued seemed to be (1) in the near future genomic
>engineering *really does work*, you actually can optimize your
>offspring to produce phenotypically superior beings, but (2) if a
>non-optimized human (limitations emblematized by poor vision) is
>sufficiently motivated, s/he can best one of those damned brave
>new world horrors *by sheer grit*. Yeah, right. Just like a house
>cat can beat a cheetah in a race *given the right spiritual
>attitude*.
I think the point was that you can have a very optimized genome,
but without the proper attitude it's wasted.
He defeated his brother in swimming by sheer force of will, his
brother was unable to comprehend how his genetically inferior
brother was keeping up with him and he suffered the consequences.
He got out psyched.
>It was a feel-good crock, despite its nice production values and
>decent acting. It set back the whole public discussion precisely
>because people thought it was saying something sensible and humane
>rather than indulging in Frankensteinian overkill or Huxleyan
>satire - although that's pretty much just what it was doing, drat
>it.
I found it very thought provoking and realistic. I know people who
are proto-GATTs, we used to call them yuppies. Ever been inside an
Arthur Anderson headquarters? It'd pass for GATTACA in a minute.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
Adler Planetarium www.adlerplanetarium.org
Life Extension Foundation, www.lef.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:43 MDT