[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...