Considering the vast number of dystopian novels that have been introduced into the world of literature, especially during the relatively recent past, it is easy to question just how original a novel addressing this topic can really be. When writing about such similar topics, authors will almost inevitably begin to repeat or build upon the ideas of previous authors, making the innovation of their ideas questionable. It is also easy for a reader to compare the different futuristic theories that authors present in an almost competitive manner. As we come closer and closer to the future that authors have attempted to theorize on, it is tempting to try pinpointing which will be the most accurate prediction. Two of the most praised dystopian novels, Huxley’s Brave New World and Orwell’s 1984, have certainly received their fair share of scrutiny in both of these categories. The written analysis entitled “The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984” discusses both of these issues. The more important discussion, however, within “Two Futures” and especially within our society, is not the creativity of an author or the differences that exist between two theories but rather the similarities that they share. It is the common thread that lies between opposing theories, the shared idea that is proposed by multiple sources, that will prove to be the greatest threat to our society.
In regards to 1984 and Brave New World, the common element between the two perverse civilizations is manipulation. In both novels, the minority of the population utilizes manipulation in almost every aspect of life to maintain control over the majority. The first element of life that both governments use to manipulate the people is the very reality that the people experience. They take advantage of the fact that reality, rather than being a concrete occurrence, is simply a perception unique to each individual. They have learned to warp this perception so greatly that they have succeeded in essentially altering each person’s reality and therefore their ability to protest wrongdoings. As is written in “Two Futures,” one of the greatest means of manipulation “…is to substitute for reality a fiction that then becomes absolute. Fiction-as-reality can be controlled and manipulated in a way that reality- always fluid and unpredictable- cannot.” Orwell’s government does so by altering the past while Huxley’s simply erases it, but both systems achieve the same goal. The ability to question evil is eliminated when the people are given nothing to compare it to.
The second aspect of life that is used as a means of manipulation is human desire. Both governments recognize the fact that basic desires can be one of the greatest tools in controlling a populace. Big Brother appeals to the desire for power. Fear, used as a generator of power, is used to both intimidate and entice the people. Huxley’s government uses comfort and luxury to lure the people. Not only does everyone live securely and stably, they even have the opportunity to seek extravagance in the form of unrestricted sex. In Orwell’s novel, “the intoxication of power is the equivalent, in Huxley’s future world, of the intoxications of sex and soma…In both cases, man must be intoxicated,” (“Two Futures”). The two novels describe very different methods of tempting the citizens, but the fundamental approach of appealing to want is present in both.
The final and most frightening liberty that is violated for the purpose of manipulation is the very beliefs that the people maintain. Even the thoughts and opinions of the people are not free from modification by the government. It is then impossible for individuals to contest any misdeeds because they are incapable of even maintaining a contradicting thought. In 1984 it is the development of Newspeak, and when necessary, a barrage of torture, that is ripping this freedom away. In Brave New World, it is the intricate and thorough conditioning process. Either way, “both states rely heavily on conditioning to guarantee the orthodoxy of the administrative caste…,” (“Two Futures”).
The study of dystopian novels can easily be muddled with arguments over issues such as originality or future accuracy. The challenge that readers face when assessing such works is that they must be evaluated in a manner different from other genres. These works are less a piece of literature than they are a warning. They are intended to caution current society to the dangerous potential that exists for the future. 1984 and Brave New World can be judged for their accuracy or picked apart for their repetitiveness. Neither of these issues, however, is relevant to the true value of the works. It is the recurring themes that appear in both that become the most significant. The fact that two intelligent authors have both warned of us such uninhibited manipulation should be what a reader grasps most strongly when analyzing such pieces. We should stop undermining the real value and purpose of these tales of caution by harping upon petty issues and begin to focus more upon the real issues that are at stake.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
In the Words of Aretha...
Differences between people have and hopefully always will exist in our world. Diversity is what defines us both as a human race and as individuals. If all people were to comply with a uniform standard, we would each lose our sense of individuality when given nothing to compare to. Variety is an integral piece of society. Unfortunately, it is these same differences that are the root of the most terrible tragedies we humans inflict upon ourselves.
Of all the values and ideals that I cherish, respect is central to them all. It is the key element of a society that is capable of allowing different cultures to flourish both within it and alongside of it. As I sat down to consider which cause I am most dedicated to, it was easy to think of many current political and societal conflicts which I have strong personal opinions about. The harder part was identifying which larger ideal connects all of these fleeting concerns because that is unmistakably the value which remains most important to me. A lack of respect and tolerance for opinions and lifestyles different from one’s own was apparent in many of the issues that I am committed to, and therefore respect seemed to be the most fundamental priority.
I’m not simply advocating the definition of respect that we have been taught in school. Respect in the form of raising your hand in class or being able to politely discuss the upcoming election is the customary parameter which is easy to follow and even easier to praise. This is respect in its simplest and easiest form; respect involving opinions alone. Respect becomes challenging, and even more imperative, however, when our emotions, morals, and lifelong standards are questioned and even threatened. This means respecting the beliefs of the extremist in the Middle East who kills in the name of his god, or the racist who shaves his head and tattoos a swastika to his arm.
This is when respect becomes more difficult to maintain and even to justify. How can it be the morally “right” thing to respect a person who commits heinous crimes and upholds evil beliefs? It is natural and admirable to want to spread ones own standards of right and wrong. Many peaceful religions advocate this and many commendable people attempt it. There is nothing more praiseworthy than attempting to change the world for the best as we see it, a deed that borders on the verge of being a human obligation.
However, it is when our ideas are presented as being a better solution to a wrong answer rather than an alternative to a previously existing “solution” that we have broken this integral respect. The human race cannot possibly define one moral code and so we must accept different, offensive, and even heartbreaking opinions as the values that others chooses to live by. This doesn’t advocate ignorance and acceptance of social ills and wrongdoings upon others. We can, and should, expose our own beliefs and opinions but not at the risk of impeding upon others. The only exception to this rule is when one person’s beliefs begin to prevent someone else from upholding their beliefs. When we see another’s freedom of expression being obstructed, we may be forced to break this code of respect in order to prevent the offensive party from robbing someone else of their liberties.
The world we live in today remains as diverse as it ever was, but we are finding ourselves increasingly connected through new technologies. It has become impossible to live within a sheltered bubble that houses only one style of living. One of the most dangerous threats to our global society is the assumption that one moral standard must be implemented. Those in power have the huge responsibility of observing respect and tolerance for the minority who disagree with them. To overcome the ever-growing conflicts arising between cultures, it is necessary that we accept all sets of beliefs as valid opinions.
Of all the values and ideals that I cherish, respect is central to them all. It is the key element of a society that is capable of allowing different cultures to flourish both within it and alongside of it. As I sat down to consider which cause I am most dedicated to, it was easy to think of many current political and societal conflicts which I have strong personal opinions about. The harder part was identifying which larger ideal connects all of these fleeting concerns because that is unmistakably the value which remains most important to me. A lack of respect and tolerance for opinions and lifestyles different from one’s own was apparent in many of the issues that I am committed to, and therefore respect seemed to be the most fundamental priority.
I’m not simply advocating the definition of respect that we have been taught in school. Respect in the form of raising your hand in class or being able to politely discuss the upcoming election is the customary parameter which is easy to follow and even easier to praise. This is respect in its simplest and easiest form; respect involving opinions alone. Respect becomes challenging, and even more imperative, however, when our emotions, morals, and lifelong standards are questioned and even threatened. This means respecting the beliefs of the extremist in the Middle East who kills in the name of his god, or the racist who shaves his head and tattoos a swastika to his arm.
This is when respect becomes more difficult to maintain and even to justify. How can it be the morally “right” thing to respect a person who commits heinous crimes and upholds evil beliefs? It is natural and admirable to want to spread ones own standards of right and wrong. Many peaceful religions advocate this and many commendable people attempt it. There is nothing more praiseworthy than attempting to change the world for the best as we see it, a deed that borders on the verge of being a human obligation.
However, it is when our ideas are presented as being a better solution to a wrong answer rather than an alternative to a previously existing “solution” that we have broken this integral respect. The human race cannot possibly define one moral code and so we must accept different, offensive, and even heartbreaking opinions as the values that others chooses to live by. This doesn’t advocate ignorance and acceptance of social ills and wrongdoings upon others. We can, and should, expose our own beliefs and opinions but not at the risk of impeding upon others. The only exception to this rule is when one person’s beliefs begin to prevent someone else from upholding their beliefs. When we see another’s freedom of expression being obstructed, we may be forced to break this code of respect in order to prevent the offensive party from robbing someone else of their liberties.
The world we live in today remains as diverse as it ever was, but we are finding ourselves increasingly connected through new technologies. It has become impossible to live within a sheltered bubble that houses only one style of living. One of the most dangerous threats to our global society is the assumption that one moral standard must be implemented. Those in power have the huge responsibility of observing respect and tolerance for the minority who disagree with them. To overcome the ever-growing conflicts arising between cultures, it is necessary that we accept all sets of beliefs as valid opinions.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Build-A-Baby
Designer Babies: It’s a concept that holds so much more significance than its catchy name implies. With the technological Big Boom that our world is facing today, these two words have so much more meaning than many people would ever have thought possible. Rather than referring to Versace diaper bags or Chanel strollers as one might think, the words have come to mean handcrafted and genetically altered human beings. It may be that the meticulously designed and highly coveted items of the future will be humans rather than handbags. The possibilities that accompany such a technological capability are stunning and frighteningly vast in far too many risky ways. Such an unfamiliar type of alteration to the human race opens up an infinite number of doors for never before encountered dilemmas, both moral and scientific. Although genetic engineering can be beneficial in preventing and eliminating genetic diseases, it is a practice whose potential for unexpected and extreme results is too dangerous to make continued experimentation worthwhile.
There are several aspects of genetic engineering that make it almost irresistibly tempting. The most prominent of the benefits is the ability to eliminate a child being born with either a genetic disease or a greater disposition to one. To save a family from the heartbreak of having a child who will never be able to lead a successfully independent life would be wonderful. To prevent them from having to tell their child that they will almost certainly face early Alzheimer’s at 40, or that they will likely be forced to deal with cancer during the course of their lifetime, seems as though it would be the ultimate scientific achievement.
However, a careful inspection of the possibilities of such a power and a further look down the road taint this appeal severely and show the darker side of opening Pandora’s Box. One of the greatest reasons to pause and reconsider such a step is the fact that it poses innumerable moral dilemmas. People must consider the long term effects of creating humans “superior” to natural individuals. Increased and excessive discrimination will become commonplace as certain traits that emerge as the more desirable features now become accessible by choice. If we are a world that already judges based upon circumstances completely beyond our control, it is frightening to think what extreme divides will split the human race when ideal traits can be selected by the more privileged.
The practice of molding our future children also diminishes and undermines one of the most important aspects of parenthood: unconditional love. One of the most important roles that a parent plays in a child’s life is providing them with a steady and unwavering acceptance and love that can be found nowhere else. Selecting the traits of a child implies that if they were born any “worse” they would not be loved equally. This kind of conditional love will shake a child’s self-worth and potentially lead to a shift in society’s concept of self-esteem as a whole.
The greatest moral dilemma that follows genetic engineering, however, is the question of whether humans deserve the responsibility of eliminating that which they find to be undesirable. It is our nature to want to make life as pleasant as possible, but do we have the right to discard that which we find distasteful for what we perceive to be the better option? Perfection does not exist for good reason. It does not lend itself to happiness but rather shallow complacency. It is overcoming and embracing what we initially perceive to be misfortunes that allows us to appreciate true joy. The manufactured humans that Huxley creates in his novel Brave New World exemplify the tragedy of complacency. When the “savage,” John, witnesses the empty contentedness of the conditioned Buxley, he sees wastefulness in this state: “’You’re more like you were at Malpais,’ he said, when Bernard had told him his plaintive story… ‘Because I’m unhappy again; that’s why.’ ‘Well, I’d rather be unhappy than have the sort of false, lying happiness you were having here,” (179). Although we may be ridding ourselves of difficult pain and suffering, we don’t know what positive things can eventually be born from that pain.
Genetic selection of children is equally unpredictable and ominous in scientific terms. One of the greatest benefits to pursuing this science is the possibility of eliminating many diseases. Ironically, disease may become an even greater problem following the beginning of its elimination. Instead of being exterminated, diseases will only become more concentrated in the lower classes. Only the wealthy will be able to ensure their health, leaving the poor equally sick. As disease becomes less prominent in the upper class, it is unlikely that an interest in finding a cure will remain. We will end up with an extreme divide between the upper and lower class and little chance of finding a solution for those in need.
The process of germline engineering also is particularly hazardous in regards to science because of its possibilities for recureence. With this process, there is the potential for humans to indefinitely alter mankind. (http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/gedanger.htm#GEHB) This sort of mindset is frighteningly similar to eugenics, not to mention biologically dangerous. In attempting to instill what we believe to be the most beneficial traits we could unknowingly destroy others that are detrimental to the race as a whole. Evolution requires randomness and necessitates a series of trials and errors to produce growth. When we begin to alter this random process we may very well be halting our progress as a species. Furthermore, removing “mistakes” from the human race will remove a great deal of its genius. History has shown us many remarkable pioneers whose accomplishments likely stemmed from their flaws. Beethoven, Einstein, and VanGogh would never have had a chance to contribute to our collective culture if perfection were necessary for life. Eliminating flaws from our race will only stunt growth and cause us to plateau as a society.
It is a driving desire to prevent pain in our lives and the lives of others that makes the exploration of genetic engineering appealing at a very strong level. Both morally and biologically, however, it is a power too risky for humans to control. The ability to eliminate disease will escalate into the specific formation of children. As author Gibbs writes, “Couples can screen out embryos for cystic fibrosis and cancer risk. Should they also be allowed to screen for blond, for smart, for straight or gay? We are on a road toward reproduction that doesn’t require eggs and sperm at all. This is a moral wilderness, full of hope and traps.” It is a complicated and emotionally charged conflict that we are beginning to enter. Despite our dearest wishes to create the best life for ourselves, however, we must realize that the responsibility of such a power is far too great and the possibilities far too unknown to consider genetic engineering to of benefit to mankind.
There are several aspects of genetic engineering that make it almost irresistibly tempting. The most prominent of the benefits is the ability to eliminate a child being born with either a genetic disease or a greater disposition to one. To save a family from the heartbreak of having a child who will never be able to lead a successfully independent life would be wonderful. To prevent them from having to tell their child that they will almost certainly face early Alzheimer’s at 40, or that they will likely be forced to deal with cancer during the course of their lifetime, seems as though it would be the ultimate scientific achievement.
However, a careful inspection of the possibilities of such a power and a further look down the road taint this appeal severely and show the darker side of opening Pandora’s Box. One of the greatest reasons to pause and reconsider such a step is the fact that it poses innumerable moral dilemmas. People must consider the long term effects of creating humans “superior” to natural individuals. Increased and excessive discrimination will become commonplace as certain traits that emerge as the more desirable features now become accessible by choice. If we are a world that already judges based upon circumstances completely beyond our control, it is frightening to think what extreme divides will split the human race when ideal traits can be selected by the more privileged.
The practice of molding our future children also diminishes and undermines one of the most important aspects of parenthood: unconditional love. One of the most important roles that a parent plays in a child’s life is providing them with a steady and unwavering acceptance and love that can be found nowhere else. Selecting the traits of a child implies that if they were born any “worse” they would not be loved equally. This kind of conditional love will shake a child’s self-worth and potentially lead to a shift in society’s concept of self-esteem as a whole.
The greatest moral dilemma that follows genetic engineering, however, is the question of whether humans deserve the responsibility of eliminating that which they find to be undesirable. It is our nature to want to make life as pleasant as possible, but do we have the right to discard that which we find distasteful for what we perceive to be the better option? Perfection does not exist for good reason. It does not lend itself to happiness but rather shallow complacency. It is overcoming and embracing what we initially perceive to be misfortunes that allows us to appreciate true joy. The manufactured humans that Huxley creates in his novel Brave New World exemplify the tragedy of complacency. When the “savage,” John, witnesses the empty contentedness of the conditioned Buxley, he sees wastefulness in this state: “’You’re more like you were at Malpais,’ he said, when Bernard had told him his plaintive story… ‘Because I’m unhappy again; that’s why.’ ‘Well, I’d rather be unhappy than have the sort of false, lying happiness you were having here,” (179). Although we may be ridding ourselves of difficult pain and suffering, we don’t know what positive things can eventually be born from that pain.
Genetic selection of children is equally unpredictable and ominous in scientific terms. One of the greatest benefits to pursuing this science is the possibility of eliminating many diseases. Ironically, disease may become an even greater problem following the beginning of its elimination. Instead of being exterminated, diseases will only become more concentrated in the lower classes. Only the wealthy will be able to ensure their health, leaving the poor equally sick. As disease becomes less prominent in the upper class, it is unlikely that an interest in finding a cure will remain. We will end up with an extreme divide between the upper and lower class and little chance of finding a solution for those in need.
The process of germline engineering also is particularly hazardous in regards to science because of its possibilities for recureence. With this process, there is the potential for humans to indefinitely alter mankind. (http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GEessays/gedanger.htm#GEHB) This sort of mindset is frighteningly similar to eugenics, not to mention biologically dangerous. In attempting to instill what we believe to be the most beneficial traits we could unknowingly destroy others that are detrimental to the race as a whole. Evolution requires randomness and necessitates a series of trials and errors to produce growth. When we begin to alter this random process we may very well be halting our progress as a species. Furthermore, removing “mistakes” from the human race will remove a great deal of its genius. History has shown us many remarkable pioneers whose accomplishments likely stemmed from their flaws. Beethoven, Einstein, and VanGogh would never have had a chance to contribute to our collective culture if perfection were necessary for life. Eliminating flaws from our race will only stunt growth and cause us to plateau as a society.
It is a driving desire to prevent pain in our lives and the lives of others that makes the exploration of genetic engineering appealing at a very strong level. Both morally and biologically, however, it is a power too risky for humans to control. The ability to eliminate disease will escalate into the specific formation of children. As author Gibbs writes, “Couples can screen out embryos for cystic fibrosis and cancer risk. Should they also be allowed to screen for blond, for smart, for straight or gay? We are on a road toward reproduction that doesn’t require eggs and sperm at all. This is a moral wilderness, full of hope and traps.” It is a complicated and emotionally charged conflict that we are beginning to enter. Despite our dearest wishes to create the best life for ourselves, however, we must realize that the responsibility of such a power is far too great and the possibilities far too unknown to consider genetic engineering to of benefit to mankind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)