From: animated silicon love doll (cheshire@velvet.net)
Date: Wed Jan 23 2002 - 17:27:20 MST
2002.01.23 5:07:20, Anders Sandberg <asa@nada.kth.se> wrote:
>This is actually why he is so dangerous. If he had just been screaming that
>technology is turning us inhuman, then he would have been yet another
>irrelevant luddite. But Rifkin writes in fairly clear manner, with a less
>obvious bias that still underlies everything he says. Quite a few journalists
>and other people have learned about genetics and other new technology from
>his books, and the books do not appear to be heavily biased to them - which
>results in them getting a bias in their understanding of their subject. Then
>they go on writing articles and making decisions based on this.
>
>We can learn a lot from that.
oh dear. yes, that is bad. anyway, though - i wouldn't know about the technology, period,
if it wasn't for him. i'm sure i would find out sooner or later - but since i am smart enough to
see that artificial wombs are good things (and i would hope everyone else here is, too!),
i'd say at least in the context of this list, the article had a positive effect.
cheshire morgan. we all create life, some of us with wombs,
some with smiles, some with patient hands.
we are all gods, if we choose to be.
-kitten.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:11:57 MST