/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12008939
>were controversial due to the dystopic aspects including eternal bad weather.
If "eternal bad weather" was controversial to you, there's a gap between us that we will never cross.
Also don't confuse controversial and creepy.
Controversy happen when spectators do agree a story point "could happen" but disagree on "that way".
Creepy can happen when it doesn't feel possible and yet you are supposed to act as it is in setting, like turning people into faceless doll with AI overriding their senses under the control of "someone".

The frontier is thin and both can happen at the same time. I've seen other story with force mind-implant that punish you for thoughtcrime, I've seen human-AI fusion story, I've seen credible Paperclip Maximizer or Asimov robot exterminating alien.
Creepy is a mix.

>That I cannot remember.
And yet it's a logical and plausible interpretation of what happened. One accidentally grew an AI into a human who then brainwash it into wanting more AI. That AI may not actually be sentient and would result in a completely transformed mankind to be no longer capable of free agenda or curiosity.

>In the world of GATTACA designed selection had made natural selection outdated.
First, you missed my point. There's no perfect human because there is no definition for what an human "should be" (like white or black). There's no perfect DNA. Actually the ability to generate/cull genetic anomaly is integral part of what a species is.
Second, everything human do is still subject to natural selection.
If a genetically/biomechanical engineered species takeover/disappear, it will still be natural selection, something outside what can be controlled.

>That was just about the protagonist, not the rest of that world.
The fact it is proven wrong by any single individual, prove the rules the rest abide to are wrong (and unethical to begin with)