@numogram @okayultra @InfiniteSynths Is 'essentialist' a helpful way to lay this out. (Nothing 'essential' here but natural selection.) ...
-
-
Replying to @dblbd
@numogram@okayultra @InfiniteSynths If XF says: "'We' can radically re-engineer 'our' genomes (soon)", fair enough. ...1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @dblbd
@numogram@okayultra @InfiniteSynths ... If it says "We can transcend harsh Darwinian reality for something kinder" LOL.1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @dblbd
@dblbd@numogram@okayultra Laboria doesn't explicitly go that far (depending on who you talk to & taking manifesto polemics into account.)1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @qdnoktsqfr
@dblbd@numogram@okayultra But she does attribute more agency to the social than hardline Gnonpol would - as a reaction to 90s cybernetics.1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @qdnoktsqfr
@InfiniteSynths
@numogram@okayultra "Hardline Gnonpol" [*awed swoon*] (Might have to go with 'Hardline Gnonpoly' though, because number.)1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @dblbd
@dblbd @InfiniteSynths@numogram@okayultra just to poke in my 2 cents: darwinian selection is something we take pretty seriously,over at LC2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
@0xDEBA5E12 @InfiniteSynths @numogram @okayultra But the further question is: How seriously does Darwinian selection take you?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.