Patenting Humans?

When I read 'Ultimate Therapy: Commercial eugenics in the 21st Century' By Jeremy Rifkin I became startled at learning one of the many interesting facts presented in the article. It could be one of the many facts, such as genetic engineering being discussed as inevitable. I became more focused on the fact that the author stated that most of the 30,000 genes in the human genome as well as most of our organs, tissues, and cell lines will become patented within ten years. These patents presumably being possessed by Scientific or pharmaceutical companies. Now what exactly does this mean? Does this mean that I cannot mention a gene or organ of my body without putting that pesky trademark (™)symbol next to it? Are words going to be nixed from my vocabulary based on the economic greed of companies and elite individuals? This seems to be as sad as Donald Trump trying to copyright the phrase "You're fired!"©

Infinite Monkey Theorem and Web 2.0

As I was reading through the selected articles where we had to choose one to blog about, I knew right away, as soon as I read it, which one i was going to choose. I had no exposure to the "infinite monkey theorem" before reading Andrew Keen's article "Introduction, The Cult of the Amateur" and it caught my eye as an interesting metaphor for Web 2.0 and it's seemingly limitless possibility for amateur creative content. I deduced that he must be using it as a metaphor rather than there being an actual direct link between the two after visiting the Wikipedia page describing the theorem in detail. Keen's article basically states that through the vastness and openness of the internet, the professional creative artist is eventually slowly being led to extinction by the amateur. The amateur, through the sheer mass of content they put out, is bound to come up with a couple masterpieces. Now the problem I have with this is that he seems to be suggesting that if a masterpiece would be created by an 'amateur' it would be a mistake and not worthy of merit. This thought, I think could not be more cynical or pessimistic. This profession is merely evolving. Our culture is simply expanding. A new niche has been created. The niche of the amateur and Keen had better get used to it because it's not going anywhere anytime soon. This new 'cult' as Keen so eloquently states is not a cult, but a mass of people creating and spreading their own virtual identity. As with all things some people's creations gain ground, get spread around, become viral in better words. It's the new, hot, hip, and surprisingly quick way to gain fame and infamy. Now just because one person is labeled as an amateur does not mean they do not have the intellectual creativity that any professional might posses. If nothing else they may posses a more truer version of creativity, one that is simply for the love of creating and not for financial or economic gain. So Andrew Keen, I'm not saying that I wholly disagree that this new age of content is destroying our culture, but like exercise; wherein the muscle must be destroyed before building itself back up, stronger and bigger than before, this destruction will make our culture richer and better off in the long run.

BB