Re: RE: BIOTECH: artificial wombs in six years?

From: animated silicon love doll (
Date: Wed Jan 23 2002 - 17:27:20 MST

2002.01.23 5:07:20, Anders Sandberg <> 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.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:36 MST