Patenting Evolution

The concept of exoskeletalwear is an extension of what apparel has always been primarily for; to protect the body, and enhance the human form. Exoskeletalwear is a natural extension of corporal shielding reflecting the greater environmental velocities of our age, both literally and metaphorically. In this it extends the basic function of clothing to its next logical level. Although our artificial environment has become softer and more amendable to the body, there is a countervailing sentiment to test the body through physical rigor and re-present it in idealized form. The body-shaping industry, which includes physical exercise enterprises of all sorts, pharmaceutical and surgical augmentation and dieting regimens make up a significant portion of the post-industrial economy. It is through this logic that exoskeletalwear may be offered to the consumer.

 

That evolution is now commanded by culture and not nature was first encountered by this author in the writings of William Irwin Thompson in his book, Pacific Shift, 1986, and reinforced in Goontunalake's Merged Evolution, 1998. That evolution is now corporately led, was posited by Jeremy Riftkin in The Biotech Century, 1998, who cited the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Diamond v. Chakarbarty, 1981 ruling that new species were patentable, thus designating new forms of life as property. This has put evolution firmly in the hands of corporate entities, thus making genetic modification an industry, and new or altered forms of life product-lines.

 

Exoskeletalwear, as conceived here, is not seen as an outgrowth of the genetic revolution though the prospect of, say, the carapaces of certain shellfish or insects being cultured to human specifications can't be dismissed out of hand. The focus here though will be on armoring being fabricated from more conventional materials to be worn as apparel and not a permanent feature of the body.