Talk:Biopunk/Archive 1

Biopunk?

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)

Have you read read Biopunk and Genome liberation by Annalee Newitz Loremaster 19:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Suggestion

Add Resident Evil series as another example of biopunk. - User:200.185.30.10

Done. --Loremaster 21:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The zombies are manufactured by science, but RE doesn't have any punk elements. Hewinsj 14:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the anti-megacorp theme in each RE game can be considered a punk element. --Loremaster 17:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

OK. I'll remove it. --Loremaster 16:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

0wnz0red

0wnz0red seems a cross between cyberpunk and biopunk.

Curious

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)

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)

Movement

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)

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)

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)

Others, such as indigenous rights and public interest advocates, and legal scholars, who are otherwise sympathetic to a framework that would resist privatization and commercialization of naturally-occurring DNA sequences, nonetheless take issue with the open-source genomics model for a variety of reasons. The Nevada-based Indigenous People's Council on Biocolonialism, for example, has decried open-source genomics as a high-tech example of what it sees as a perennial misappropriation of tribal groups' biological resources, while the Council for Responsible Genetics (Cambridge, MA) is concerned about the invasion of privacy, discrimination and denial of health care it sees as likely to accompany completely open access to genetic databases.

Until the material defining and detailing the biopunk movement itself is expanded, I'm deleting the text above from that section. --Loremaster 15:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

New Jedi Order?

Are the New Jedi Order novels, particularly those focusing on the Yuuzhan Vong, examples of biopunk?--StAkAr Karnak 00:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read these novels but I doubt it but I guess the important question is how do *you* define biopunk? --Loremaster 03:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Biopunk vs Cyberpunk

Isn't that like asking, "How do *you* define the color blue?" There should be one definition. Upon reflection, I don't think biopunk qualifies as a subtheme of science-fiction. Cyberpunk is already a valid subtheme of science-fiction and easily covers the qualities of biopunk. What does biopunk offer that cyberpunk doesn't? --Calviin 16:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

1. To answer your first question: No, since it's obvious that people can and do have different yet compatible or conflicting understandings of the same concept. If that wasn't the case, there would be no disputes among contributors to Wikipedia. That being said, the reason why I asked StAkAr Karnak that question was simply to make him seriously think about what is and isn't biopunk.

2. I think the definition of bipounk in the article already answers your second question. Regardless, as you see from reading the article, biopunk is more than just a sub-genre of science-fiction.

--Loremaster 16:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your reply, "biopunk is more than just a sub-genre of science-fiction", I am questioning if it is at all a subtheme of science-fiction. And I'm now the third person I can see on this discussion page to ask this and the only supporter/defender has been you. --Calviin 16:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Rather than repeating or elaborting my defense of biopunk as science-fiction sub-genre, I think the best solution would be to include your critique of biopunk in the definition of the concept. --Loremaster 17:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Further reviewing, the cyberpunk article and the postcyberpunk article seem to have a potential, mild disagreement. Postcyberpunk included the topic of genetic engineering, while the article on cyberpunk does not. Genetic engineering does belong to the computerized technological science-fiction genres. As can be seen in the postcyberpunk movie, The Fifth Element, the character Leeloo is regenerated via a futuristic device that is explained as using genetic code to rebuild a person from even the smallest amount of genetic material. Since even modern genetics can't be employed without the use of technological advancements, this fact furthers the evidence that it is directly tied to computers and information technology. --Calviin 17:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It might be more appropriate to bring up this latter point on the Talk:Cyberpunk and Talk:Postcyberpunk pages. --Loremaster 17:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the point also has need to be discussed with Talk:Cyberpunk and Talk:Postcyberpunk, but the relevance to genetic engineering makes it appropriate here, since the only difference I understand between biopunk and cyberpunk is the question, "does biological technology apply to cyberpunk or its own individual subtheme, biopunk?" Genetic Engineering's direct reliance on information technology, as explained earlier, ties it to computer based themes, i.e. cyberpunk. --Calviin 18:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your conclusion. Two good references for the validity of differentiating biopunk and cyberpunk are GURPS Bio-Tech and GURPS Cyberpunk. It's worth reading the texts on the homepages of these sourcebooks. --Loremaster 18:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to step in, but I disagree with you there. GURPS Bio-Tech was spun off into a second book because there was enough material that they could separate it under a unifying topic. Otherwise GURPS Cyberpunk or any of the other technology based GURPS books would have been that much bigger, and they couldn't get you on the second purchase. If your going the Tabletop rpg route, Whitewolf includes biotech as a part of the cyberpunk portion of the World of Darkness, and it's been a while, but I'm fairly certain Shadowrun takes it into account too. I'm going to agree with Calviin in questioning whether this should be set apart as a separate genre, or simply made a subsection of the main Cyberpunk article. It could probably be condensed down to show the current direction that some cyberpunk has taken in representing new applications of technology.Hewinsj 18:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything both Calviin and you have said. My point is simply that biopunk can stand on its own as a science-fiction sub-genre by overwhelmingly emphasizing biotechnology and de-emphasizing cybernetics and cyberspace. --Loremaster 19:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So you don't disagree with anything I've said, and I've said that genetic engineering belongs with the cyberpunk sub-genre. But you also feel that biopunk can stand on its own by overwhelmingly emphasizing biotechnology and de-emphasizing cybernetics and cyberspace. That really does sound like an arguement for it to be a subsection of the main Cyberpunk article. If biopunk is just emphasizing one aspect that is already encompassed by cyberpunk, that's a perfect reason to "show the current direction that some cyberpunk has taken in representing new applications of technology." --Calviin 19:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What I am trying to say that we can have a biopunk-as-science-fiction-sub-genre sub-section in both in the Biopunk article and the Cyberpunk article. One reason for doing this is that we can expand it more freely in the former but not in the latter. --Loremaster 19:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Biohacker

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)

David Brin?

Would the series of books set in the Uplift Universe by David Brin count as Biopunk? TomDS 16:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I (and possibly other contributors to the Biopunk article) haven't read the Uplift series, please explain to us why you believe it is? --Loremaster 21:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is, which is why I'm asking. I know that even if it doesn't qualify for the Punk portion, it certainly qualifies for the Bio. I had some trouble understanding the Biopunk article, but only cause I don't know what qualifies something as -punk. TomDS 22:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that you are dealing with -punk story when the story focuses on low-life often involved in subversive activity. --Loremaster 22:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I just read the article and from the summary the Uplift books sound like a standard sci-fi story. It doesn't seem to have the subversive elements of the punk genre, or focus very heavially on any bio elements beyond the inclusion of forced evolution as a method of gaining status. My vote is no. Hewinsj 18:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Loremaster 19:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's a space opera with some features of biopunk.

OK. --Loremaster 16:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that its space opera with features of biopunk. Note that humans are the ultimate subversives in this series, as they apparently evolved without uplift, unlike every other known sapient. Humans eventually shake the foundations of a vast, alien clientilist society by uncovering the origins of the first Progenitors. Heuristo (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Is biopunk a notable genre term?

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)

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)

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)

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)

The list of movies

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)

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)

It has been removed. --Loremaster (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Is V for Vendetta biopunk?

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)

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)

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)

I'm in favor of keeping it until someone makes a better case against it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I do not see anything biopunk about the story or the film. Is genetic manipulation really that important to the plot? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

The film was removed. --Loremaster (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Culling list

I've removed some books i don't consider to be biopunk. Actually i think most of them are not. The section is already taged, so i think it better not to add ANY more to the list without a citation. If these books are really in this genre, reviews stating such should be EASY to find.--Yobmod (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Loremaster (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So i cited all the novels i could (simply googling "title"+biopunk). Those that came up with no references, i have now deleted. Will soon do the same for the films. Deletions include;

Maximum Ride series,

Moreau series

Signs of Life

Fairyland

If anyone can find a single (non-blog) review calling them biopunk, please re-add to article. Otherwise i will keep removing them. Yobmod (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/02/26/biopunk/print.html

I support your culling, which I should have done myself a long time ago. --Loremaster (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And it lasted nearly half a day before new uncited additions :-). Thanks for cleaning up the formatting. It helps having 2 people watching the page from opposite sides of the world.Yobmod (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcomed. --Loremaster (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)