__ Rants & Raves __
__ Cloning Around __
Dear Wired,
You blew my cover with yours.
Atena Sherry, age 3
__ Clone Drones __
The one great flaw of cloning is that it could result in human pabulum. Suppose most parents decide they want tall, blond, blue-eyed, athletic tots who grow up to be lawyers, doctors, engineers, and CEOs - in other words, the folks who bore us to death at parties. The people I know who are kind, funny, creative, generous, and interesting would miss the genetic boat since not one of them resembles Carl Jung's "blond beast." Cloneworld would be a dull place indeed. Technologically brilliant, dead at heart.
Paula Moran
__ That Great Flushing Sound __
I prefer my TV without bells and whistles, so I sure hope Hal Krisbergh is right ("Data Between the Lines," Wired 6.04, page 59). I find that my 286-12, sans bells and whistles, is a hell of a lot more useful than my Pentium.
Alas, the Net looks more like bad television every day, and whether or not Bill Gates knows anything about TV, I put my money on Microsoft. With Microsoft in charge, we can look forward to the day when the television interface is as bad as the content.
I doubt the folks in Redmond will stop with TV, though. I fully expect the day when we will not be able to urinate until we purchase the latest version of Microsoft Flush.
Christopher Dahle
__ Science Friction __
One of Seed's arguments for cloning humans is that "there's no way you can stop science."
If humanity had let science proceed unchecked in other fields, we might have personal chemical weapons, small-scale nuclear wars, and drug testing on humans today. Maybe we can't stop science. But we can certainly stop to think before using it.
Hugo Roy
__ Bad Seed __
The opinions of Richard G. Seed expressed in "Go Forth and Multiply" (Wired 6.03, page 150) are startling, not so much for their hubris and theologically bizarre content as for their total ignorance of molecular biology.
Whether it's wicked, desirable, or simply one more way to add to the population problem, cloning a human is entirely feasible and relatively simple. But the extension of plausibility to the other goals discussed in the interview is simply stupid. Does Seed mean to "reset" all the DNA in a person to "zero" by somehow re-creating the conditions found in oocyte cytoplasm in every cell of an adult body? It was obvious even to my B-student kid that this wouldn't be possible through cloning-like intervention and that it would probably be lethal, destroying the person's immunologic memory and de-differentiating all their cells.
The idea that this cloning technique could cure cancer is ludicrous. The problem with cancerous cells is that they are de-differentiated, that they've lost all their growth controls and behave like embryonic tissue. This is the same effect Seed hopes to create in all our cells!
And the idea that such a method could cure AIDS is also ludicrous. The deadly effect of AIDS is caused by its destruction of the immune system; Seed's technique would also destroy the immune system. By restoring a germlike configuration to all immune cells, he would wipe out the body's ability to produce specific antibodies and cellular immunity.
One final note: As the companion fictional article "Carbon Copy" (page 146) intelligently pointed out, human cloning techniques can't produce a "true" clone because the mitochondrial DNA from the egg cytoplasm will be different, matching the egg donor rather than the nucleus donor.
Thanks for presenting such a provocative and unsettling interview. Unless Seed gets a hold of some of my DNA, I remain the one and only ...
Helen F. Stanbro
__ Pop Gravity __
I was reading "Breaking the Law of Gravity" (Wired 6.03, page 170) while nuking some popcorn, when suddenly the magazine began to vibrate. It trembled more and more until it levitated right out of my hands! As soon as the popcorn was ready, the magazine crashed to the ground. It appears that microwaves also have a direct influence on the force of gravity. I have tried to replicate this incident, with no results other than multiple bags of burnt kernels.
Nevertheless, I applaud your willingness to address such a controversial topic. (Nothing new for Wired.) The piece gave me chills and did what a magazine article should do: spark curiosity.
Michael Righi
__ Strip Tease __
I really appreciate the new thin strip of paper affixed to the cover. It keeps the cover uncluttered, and I use it as a bookmark and for note-taking, which I later file for reference.
Ian Mosley
__ Wired Grows Up __
What's this? Wired 6.02 is missing the irreverent in-your-face, screw-the-media-establishment neon and bizarre page layouts. Is this a sellout? I think not. The new, more readable layout reflects a maturing of the publication, not a change of ideals.
Greg Hecht
__ Missed Beats __
I find it ironic that the remaining Beat fans believe their cause du jour - free thought and introspection - died with Allen Ginsberg and William Burroughs ("Cyberbeats," Wired 6.03, page 116). I am a simple, old-fashioned graphic novelist whose major influences include Jack Kerouac, Ginsberg, and Burroughs. At the same time, however, I am affected by the way Laurie Anderson, Peter Gabriel, and Brian Eno have transformed modern thinking with their artistic use of technology. We should look forward to the coming decade and the artists who will inspire us.
G. S. Kusiak
__ Gravitational Pull __
I have never seen Eugene Podkletnov's experiments, nor do I possess the knowledge to evaluate the theory behind his findings, but I want to believe!
I want humans to be able to toy with gravity, and I want a disowned Russian underdog working out of a small lab in Finland to give us this ability. I hope that someone will give him an opportunity to continue his research. He will either fly gloriously or crash spectacularly. Either way, the only ones with anything to lose are the zealots of old-guard physics. I will not cry for them, and neither will history.
Anders Breivik
__ R Is for Reality __
The "Encyclopedia of the New Economy" (Wired 6.03, page 105) was as vacuous as any of the "visionary" stuff Wired publishes month after dreary month.
On your empty-headed adulation of "free markets": Yes, Microsoft's rise is a testament to the power of ideas (worthless without the copyright laws that make them scarce commodities instead of public goods), but it's also a demonstration of the speed with which a flawed technology can be parlayed into a monopoly. Meanwhile, John Browning and Spencer Reiss write that the AT&T breakup is "the beginning of the end for old-fashioned telecom monopolies." Though the writers imply this shakedown flowed inexorably from technological change, it was more the work of a determined government agency and cooperative courts. Furthermore, it's the so-called unregulated banking systems ("free market" ones) that explain the need for bailouts.
On the notion that if we get the information technology right then everything will follow: We still have to eat, and it's not lack of IT that is driving much of the world's agriculture and its guardians into the ground. It's markets, built by a generation of government giveaways and forced open by international financial institutions and US power.
If we're going to think sensibly about the future, we need to start by recognizing the realities of life outside Silicon Valley.
Michael Foley
__ In Black and White __
I appreciate how your exuberant, postmodern graphic design has toned down over the past two years. Now you even print black letters on a (gasp!) white background. A little legibility is even creeping into the letters page, which used to be the least readable part of the magazine.
Bob Persing
__ In Living Color __
I've been reading Wired since 1.1 and have loved every issue. The last few, however, seem to have been missing something ... color! I want to be hit in the face every time I turn the page. I like the fact that sometimes I have to figure out how to read an article before I read it. Don't lower yourself to the level of the other digimags that collect dust in a pile on the corner of my desk. Bring back the color.
Mike Miller
__ Distribution of Health __
As a pediatrician, I often see the tragic results of new reproductive technologies ("The Blind New Science of Making Babies," Wired 6.03, page 73). The rise in multiple births brought on by these new technologies leads to an increase in children with chronic health problems due to premature birth. The McCaughey "miracle" is the exception to the rule.
One thing that has bothered me about this event is all the gifts the McCaugheys have received. Why should they get things that other large families don't get, just because they had so many kids at once? I also find it interesting that the religious white family from Iowa gets showered with attention and gifts while the poor black family in Washington, DC, gets nothing until a few companies are shamed into giving them things. What about the family in Saudi Arabia that can't even afford to take their children home from the hospital?
Steve Allen
__ Bugged by Wilson __
Ever since the publication of Sociobiology: The New Synthesis in 1975, Edward O. Wilson has ceaselessly promoted both himself and his vision of human behavior ("From Ants to Einstein," Wired 6.04, page 178), despite the ever-increasing body of work that refutes it. Wilson's work is built upon the basic assumption that human behavior boils down to a selfish instinct to ensure the transmission of one's own genes over those of others.
Sociobiology grew out of Wilson's studies of altruistic behavior in animals, such as ants, that are strongly dominated by instinct. Wilson extended this logic to other animals, and then to humans.
Unfortunately for Wilson, we're not insects. The conclusions of sociobiology have been debunked time and again, most notably by Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould. Humans are not dominated by instincts, but rather can exercise free will. Though genetics places some limits on what we can do, the complexity of our minds and the feedback between us, our technology, and our environment have freed us from reliance on the type of selfish altruism that Wilson proposes.
The fact that he's embraced the computer age doesn't give his ideas any more validity.
Brian Stovall
__ Ride the Moderate Wave __
After reading "Kaczynski's Logic" (Wired 6.04, page 61), I've concluded that the best we can do as denizens of this digital age is strike a careful balance between the extremes of not enough and too much technology. In Shockwave Rider, John Brunner describes two types of fools in the world: One says, "This is old and therefore good," while the other says, "This is new and therefore better."
Aurora Slyde
__ Undo __
The Price Is Wrong: Subscribers to the Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition pay up to US$49 annually, not $49 monthly ("Déjà Vu All over Again," Wired 6.04, page 62). ... We Were Kidding: "You Can't Always Get What You Want" is not really the kick-off song for Windows 98 ("Restart Me Up," Wired 6.03, page 76). ... Cropped Out: "Star Warps" (Wired 6.04, page 158) appeared courtesy the Smithsonian Institution/© Corbis.
__ Send your Rants & Raves to: __
Email: rants@wiredmag.com
Snail mail: Wired, PO Box 191826 San Francisco, CA 94109-9866
Editorial guidelines: guidelines@wiredmag.com
Editorial correspondence: editor@wiredmag.com
