Talk:Biopunk/Archive 1

message: It was quite hard to figure out I was looking for "biopunk" and not genepunk or clonepunk or all the others. I know this is a small genre, but is there any agreement on the name? Should the alternates be made to link to this page? Anyhow searching the net, here are the alternatives I found: biopunk, clonepunk, frankenpunk, genepunk, GMOpunk, ribopunk
Littlepinkpig 00:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read read Biopunk and Genome liberation by Annalee Newitz Loremaster 19:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well right, I read those earlier. They are interesting articles. But two articles, by one author, don’t make a movement, or even get a word in to the OED. So I'm not sure that really qualifies as subculture wide usage/agreement. For now I’d just link those other words to the biopunk page myself, but I don’t know how... (and I think I prefer the sound of ribopunk anyway.) Littlepinkpig 21:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Two articles about biopunk do not make a movement/culture. However, the two articles talk about a word associated with an emergent movement/culture that actually exist unlike any of the words you mentioned. Loremaster 22:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I figured out how to do redirects. So I've created pages for the more obvious portmanteaux. Hopefully people not already familiar with the genre will have an easier time guessing the name. Littlepinkpig 18:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biopunk?

message: Add Resident Evil series as another example of biopunk. - User:200.185.30.10 
:Done. --Loremaster 21:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the anti-megacorp theme in each RE game can be considered a punk element. --Loremaster 17:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the anti-megacorp theme is a main focus of the game series. It's survival horror, not biopunk. The goal and theme of the games are to survive. This is not a biopunk series. Calviin 15:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I'll remove it. --Loremaster 16:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: About the origin of the term, which I have not run across before: Any sources beyond the Newitz articles, which in any case focus not on literature but a fuzzily-defined emerging protomovement connected to the biosciences? I note that one of the books listed in the article here--Herbert's Eyes of Heisenberg--represents a kind of posthumous adoption 40 years after its publication. I've reviewed SF for something like 20 years, and I do get to hear of any movement or subgenre eventually, but biopunk hasn't poked its head up in my part of the field. It sounds like a nonce term to me, and I suspect that an article on biopunk as a science fiction subgenre is probably premature. RLetson 04:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should work on expanding the article, which has been a stub for a long time, and citing sources (Wikipedia:Citing Sources). --Loremaster 15:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Curious

message: I suggest taking Eduardo Kac out of the first sentence and adding a sentence or two on his ideas and work later in this section.  It's unbalanced with one proper name in the introductory sentence.--StN 21:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. However, the Biopunk movement section should provide more information on the figures and goals of the movement before giving voice to its critics. As it stands now, it looks as if we are reading a criticism section rather than a history/theory and practice section. --Loremaster 22:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's better to mention the advocates before the critics. I was just proposing not to name specific individuals in the first sentence.--StN 22:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movement 

message: I just moved the section Biohacker down and removed most of its speculative content. The term is certainly NOT used to described professionals in the field of molecular biology. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biohacker 

message: Who in the science fiction field uses the term? The OED SF Citations site lists just two examples since 1993 (http://www.jessesword.com/sf/view/608), but that's pretty thin evidence for a genre term--sounds more like a neologism that didn't make it. Genetic engineering and related biological motifs have certainly been part of SF since The Island of Doctor Moreau, but I'm not sure that all the works cited here as examples of "biopunk" are in fact that closely related. The non-literary part of this article sounds more like a manifesto for a movement than a neutral description, so I wonder whether there's some advocacy going on here. RLetson 05:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the fact that the term is used outside science fiction to 1) as a synonym for biohacker and 2) as a reference to a movement makes it notable but we should probably go through the science fiction section and delete those works that are not "truly" biopunk. As for non-literary part of this article, I've now edited it to provide description as neutral as possible rather than promote a manifesto.  --Loremaster 16:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish to argue that biopunk is not notable as a genre.  It differs from cyberpunk only in terms of technology, replacing cybernetics with biotechnology.  Other than that, it maintains all the themes of traditional cyberpunk;  rebellion against corrupt/oppressive government and/or corporations, the dangers of pervasive technology and modification of the human body, etc.  Ottens (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue of notability was raised when the article was only about biopunk as science fiction genre and then structured in way that gave it far more importance than other definitions for the word. I think biopunk is notable enough as a science-fiction sub-genre to have its own section in the Biopunk article. However, the factual accuracy of this section must be confirmed. --Loremaster (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is biopunk a notable genre term?

message: Not every movie with genetics is biopunk (as well as not every movie with robots or computers is cyberpunk), there are only Existenz is the true biopunk movie nowadays.
:Existenz is not the only "true" biopunk film although it is the best example of the genre. However, I agree with your general statement so we should probably go through the science fiction section and delete those works that are not "truly" biopunk.--Loremaster 16:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I nominate Ghost in the Shell for removal from that list. I doens't have any form of genetical engineering or biotech themes, so how anybody could put it on the list in the first place is rather supprising. 193.216.102.36 (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been removed. --Loremaster (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The list of movies

message: It does have genetic manipulation, totalitarian government and is in near future. 
Yet no one ever calls it biopunk.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.152.65 (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Something may be "biopunk" even if no one ever calls it "biopunk". Regardless, V for Vendetta has been added until someone disputes it. --Loremaster (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't "feel" like the common perception one has of biopunk, yet technically perhaps it ought to be considered so.  I'm in favor of removing it though I have no real argument other than that I don't believe it illustrates very well what biopunk is supposed to be about. Ottens (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favor of keeping it until someone makes a better case against it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... I do not see anything biopunk about the story or the film.  Is genetic manipulation really that important to the plot? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the major revelation of the film is that the main character was a product of human experimentation. However, I agree that compared to the film Ultraviolet genetic manipulation is not really important to the plot. --Loremaster (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The film was removed. --Loremaster (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is V for Vendetta biopunk?