Composition and Biotechnology

Sorry, Michelle Sidler, but I'm not buying your thesis that the rise of biotechnology is going to change the way we write. The content of our writing will be changed, and the methods we use to accomplish the writing will change. But I'm not afraid, and here's why.

Ultimately, writing is an activity that demands abstract thought. Mapping the human genome, while an impressive feat of science, is not going to change that fact. Perhaps science will find a way to improve people's capacity for abstract thought, as a result of the HGP's research. Perhaps science will find a biotechnical way for people to be better readers.

I can't go along with people who fear technology, and worry that it will "get ahead of us." Computers are awesome, and they can do a boatload of work in a short time. But this ability to do math, check spelling, or change formatting in the blink of an eye is processing work. It is not creative work. No computer can make the creative, intuitive, and non-logical leaps that the human mind can make. No computer can innovate. No computer can create true art. At best, computers can copy what they have been programmed with. They don't have the ability to think abstractly, or to think at all. They process information.

Certainly we will all have to get used to new words and phrases, and there's no denying that technical language is poised to flood our vocabularies. Of course we write about science in ways that betray our culture and create an "imperialist" view of the world - that's what we know how to do. Without doubt we can expect that technology will create more ways to read and write, which may be very helpful to those with limited language skills.

I believe we can withstand the onslaught of technology and still make art with our words, which is, after all, the job of the writer.