4 ms·

I'm not quite sure how you've come upon the conclusion that it's in any manner "unsubstantive", the comment is in fact underpinned by a well-known classical nov

I'm not quite sure how you've come upon the conclusion that it's in any manner "unsubstantive", the comment is in fact underpinned by a well-known classical novel, which almost exactingly describes this machine and this process in a distant future. Moreover it calls upon the subject matter quite directly, as the article suggests that it may in the future be adapted to humans, which is a particularly strong narrative element in "Brave New World" and through the device a number of, what are now at least, morally objectionable means and ends. E.g. the deliberate destruction of faculties through ethanol and hormone inoculation of fetuses in vitro, which is utilized to simplify the conditioning used in the fictional caste system. It also acts to alienate children and adults, which is also used as a mechanism for conditioning by desensitizing the adults to what is described as a fairly torturous process. Considering the level of alignment in general trends to the thematic aspects of the book, and considering the possible applications of this technology and its further development; even if it is mothballed for experimentation in human subjects now, still presents the hypothetical and moral hazards that Huxley proposed. These are all certainly points for discussion, and I'm sure others could corroborate even more interesting interpretations of possible and probable outcomes both positive and negative from "Brave New World" alongside other novels, literature of a more scientific nature, as well as philosophy. But since you assert it's "unsubstantive", I yield to your discretion.

alacombe 6y ago
The whole point is to avoid discussions and eliminate any concepts of either ethics or morality to be able to more easily control societies. The very root of progressivism / post-modernism / cultural-marxism is to prevent the idea of meaning and allow to redefine anything on the fly to fit the current interest of the Party. Today's Truth being different from yesterday's, which of course never existed and will prone you to cancellation.
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't post ideological battle comments to Hacker News, regardless of which side you're battling for or against. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys the curious conversation it's supposed to be for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: it looks like you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed, and we ban accounts that do it, for the reason I just explained: it destroys what this site is supposed to be for. If you'd please review the site guidelines and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.
  - alacombe 6y ago
    "When you got to shoot, shoot, don't talk." Ban me. Make my day. I'll be back. Block my IP. I'll use a VPN. Fingerprint my browser, I'll switch to a new browser. Short of making HN a registered vetted ideological echo-chamber (the very thing you despise), you won't be able to block me. In making so, you would just confirm your own bias, thus proving my point. Btw, my productivity and net worth will be grateful if you could.
dang 6y ago
Simply dropping the name of a novel, especially in a context where the name is a cliché, without adding any information is obviously an unsubstantive comment. If the comment had filled in some additional thoughts around it, it might have been more substantive. People often assume that an internet comment contains more information than it does because they're familiar with the surrounding thoughts in their own mind. But the rest of us, of course, don't have access to any of those. You have to share them explicitly.
- Tossitto 6y ago
  You don't fall into the target demographic, it's as simple as that. My comment was a gesture, openly inviting those who might wish to discuss the content of the article and the ramifications of the technology through the lens of "Brave New World", which in and of itself describes, by the virtue of its title, a wide breadth of topics which are at play in the narrative (which can be dissected manifold). I this way, I assert that I can communicate the whole architecture of the book and cut right away to the meat of the matter without entering into a lengthy expository analysis on how the book compares to the people who are intent on discussion in the same orientation. And as to how you're defining and establishing clichés in a novel technical process, I do not know, since the nature of novelty means there is no meaningfully recurrent pattern. And I must say I don't appreciate you wantonly imperiling the accessibility of my comment. Also I suggest you read the book, it's very good. The Island is also quite good, if you're interested. I can't speak to the rest of Huxley's work.
  - dang 6y ago
    I've read Brave New World. Huxley is interesting! I think we've got a confusion of levels here—I was not saying anything about Huxley or his book. My point is the entirely shallow and (I would have thought) obvious observation that an internet comment saying nothing but "It's a brave new world" in a biotech thread is a cliché and unsubstantive. If the comment had gone on to say something deeper or more specific about Brave New World in this context, that would obviously have been fine.
    - 6y ago

alacombe 6y ago

The whole point is to avoid discussions and eliminate any concepts of either ethics or morality to be able to more easily control societies. The very root of progressivism / post-modernism / cultural-marxism is to prevent the idea of meaning and allow to redefine anything on the fly to fit the current interest of the Party. Today's Truth being different from yesterday's, which of course never existed and will prone you to cancellation.

dang 6y ago
Please don't post ideological battle comments to Hacker News, regardless of which side you're battling for or against. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys the curious conversation it's supposed to be for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: it looks like you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed, and we ban accounts that do it, for the reason I just explained: it destroys what this site is supposed to be for. If you'd please review the site guidelines and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.
- alacombe 6y ago
  "When you got to shoot, shoot, don't talk." Ban me. Make my day. I'll be back. Block my IP. I'll use a VPN. Fingerprint my browser, I'll switch to a new browser. Short of making HN a registered vetted ideological echo-chamber (the very thing you despise), you won't be able to block me. In making so, you would just confirm your own bias, thus proving my point. Btw, my productivity and net worth will be grateful if you could.

dang 6y ago

Simply dropping the name of a novel, especially in a context where the name is a cliché, without adding any information is obviously an unsubstantive comment. If the comment had filled in some additional thoughts around it, it might have been more substantive. People often assume that an internet comment contains more information than it does because they're familiar with the surrounding thoughts in their own mind. But the rest of us, of course, don't have access to any of those. You have to share them explicitly.

Tossitto 6y ago
You don't fall into the target demographic, it's as simple as that. My comment was a gesture, openly inviting those who might wish to discuss the content of the article and the ramifications of the technology through the lens of "Brave New World", which in and of itself describes, by the virtue of its title, a wide breadth of topics which are at play in the narrative (which can be dissected manifold). I this way, I assert that I can communicate the whole architecture of the book and cut right away to the meat of the matter without entering into a lengthy expository analysis on how the book compares to the people who are intent on discussion in the same orientation. And as to how you're defining and establishing clichés in a novel technical process, I do not know, since the nature of novelty means there is no meaningfully recurrent pattern. And I must say I don't appreciate you wantonly imperiling the accessibility of my comment. Also I suggest you read the book, it's very good. The Island is also quite good, if you're interested. I can't speak to the rest of Huxley's work.
- dang 6y ago
  I've read Brave New World. Huxley is interesting! I think we've got a confusion of levels here—I was not saying anything about Huxley or his book. My point is the entirely shallow and (I would have thought) obvious observation that an internet comment saying nothing but "It's a brave new world" in a biotech thread is a cliché and unsubstantive. If the comment had gone on to say something deeper or more specific about Brave New World in this context, that would obviously have been fine.
  - 6y ago