[Tossitto]

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.

[dang]

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]

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]

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.

[alacombe]

> 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.

Nothing else has to be said. Simple people like us don't need hundreds of page long dissertation in peer-reviewed toilet papers journal to understand basic concepts...

[svsodbd]

A Brave New World is a widely known classic - that’s why the title has become a cliche.

Most dystopian movies resemble it more than 1984. Just search “Huxley” on HN.