Our Neural Chernobyl
By Bruce Sterling, first published in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction
A man reviews a book written by an esteemed scientist, which detailedly describes a series of events collectively known as the “neural chernobyl,” and speculates about the future of this ongoing biological disaster.
Author
Published in
Words
Availability
Collections
Plot Summary
A man begins a review of an esteemed book, _Our Neural Chernobyl, _by prefacing it with the many scientific and technological disasters that framed the nineties. Allegedly, most of them were caused by the rapid spread of powerful industrial technologies to the developing world. The author of the book he is reviewing, Dr. Felix Hotton, is a shining exemplar of “Open-Tower Science,” a new school of “relaxed and subjective” scientific exploration. In chapter 1 of the book, Dr. Hotton discusses the breakthrough that brought the AIDS pandemic under control: recombinant DNA research. This led to cures for many other diseases being developed as well as the rise of a gene-hacking subculture on the individual level, he writes. An example of what a couple of smart young adults could do, equipped with this technology, the right apparatus, and brains: create an “implanted dope factory” by attaching drug-producing genetics directly into the human genome. It isn’t clear who exactly is responsible for the neural Chernobyl event, but whoever it was, they switched from the human drug factory manufacturing project to the easier, simpler mammalian dendritic growth factor genome in their early twenties, Dr. Hotton writes. In doing so, they mistakenly created a virus, much more virulent than the AIDS virus, that would essentially make nonhuman mammals much smarter than they are. The rest of the book follows the story of the virus, and how it spread to cats, dogs, raccoons, and more species throughout the rest of history. It also speculated about what would happen if the virus spread to monkeys and apes, which remain largely untouched by the virus for now. The review ends by criticizing the “objective” nature of today’s science and praising Dr. Hotton’s work.
Tags