Sean Osterman
Dr.Johns
10/8/08
Environmentalist and writer Edward Abbey states “Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” Though his ideas may not be as radical, Bill Mckibben, author of the book “Enough”, also follows along these beliefs. “Enough” is about how humans must halt growth and restrain ourselves before we lose the ability to make intelligent decisions.
“With some technologies, we can already draw the line: Germline genetic engineering would be a mistake.” This is a perfect example taken from page 119 where McKibben believes that we have gone too far with technology. McKibben compares technologies to drinking beer. “One beer is good; two beers may be better; eight beers you’re almost certainly going to regret.” This analogy also goes along with the idea that once we have enough technology, humans will ultimatly be unable to make choices for themselves. Growth will seem like a good idea in the beginning but at the end it will only cloud our decision making abilities.
In the 1980’s a couple of drug companies were given the right to sell HGH to the small population of children who were suffering from dwarfism. This was approved by the FDA under the idea that the market for HGH would be very minimal. Within a few years the market had become one of the largest selling drugs in the country. This was not due to a drastic increase in dwarfs, but the increase in the demand by parents for their children to be taller (McKibben 32). We obviously know these days that HGH has detramental results on a human body especially a childrens body. Being discovered in the early 80’s the users of HGH had no way to determine the negative outcomes of this drug. McKibben uses this example to warn humans. Germline engineering in theory can make the perfect human species, but we have no way to determine what the negative aspects that may come with this new technology.
“Once the game is under way, in other words, there won’t be moral decisions, only strategic ones.” McKibben believes that the start of germline egineering will cause a snowball effect, and once it starts it cannot stop; the only way to stop it to halt technological growth all together. According to McKibben we have gone too far with our advancing society and the results will be disasterous.
I disagree with Mckibben. The way society is today, only the extermly wealthy will have these so called “perfect” children. Looking down the road in a few generations we will find that the rich have only become richer and the middle class and poor will stay the same if not decending into an even harsher lifestyle. A day will come when germline egineering will be affordable for all income levels. This is where the government should step in and mandate how many qualities of a child a parent is allowed to change. If there is no control on this situation, the world will be filled of decisions based on competition rather than morals.
Technology is a never ending adventure. Advancing is a part of human nature and it always has been ever since man could think logically. We need to determine how to introduce these technologies into society. McKibben suggests to not even introducing them because the results will end with disaster. The proper way handle this situation would be to enforce stricter laws that have technologies be full proof before giving them to citizens. Humans are smart enough to determine what will be best for the survival of the species and only time will determine how to handle this situation.
3 comments:
Sean, Pretty good first draft
The 1st paragraph has a nice premise to it, but you never really state your thesis, which makes the body paragraphs confusing and out of order. The quote in the 2nd paragraph is very interesting and thought provoking, but I would expand on the quote more. I would mention how and why humans would be unable to make their own decisions, as this is a very important argument for your thesis. The 3rd paragraph states a good argument, but adding examples of anti-germline argument would make it even stronger. The 5th and 6th paragraphs are where you express your point of view and thesis. The concepts are solid, but you need to state your thesis earlier in your paper so that it has a better flow to it, and so your earlier body paragraphs help prove your thesis. Once you add your thesis in your opening paragraph, the last two paragraphs will have a stronger importance.
Sean Osterman
Dr.Johns
10/8/08
Environmentalist and writer Edward Abbey states “Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” Though his ideas may not be as radical, Bill Mckibben, author of the book “Enough”, also follows along these beliefs. “Enough” is about how humans must halt growth and restrain ourselves before we lose the ability to make intelligent decisions. Growing will only hurt the human species rather than help.
“With some technologies, we can already draw the line: Germline genetic engineering would be a mistake.” This is a perfect example taken from page 119 where McKibben believes that we have gone too far with technology. Genetic engineering will take away our ability to be human. The human species is a very diverse species with people ranging in size, shape, color and most importantly, personality. Different personalities lead to a diverse culture and society. Mckibben argues that germline engineering will take away childrens ability to decide what is fun and interesting to them.
McKibben compares technologies to drinking beer. “One beer is good; two beers may be better; eight beers you’re almost certainly going to regret.” This analogy also goes along with the idea that once we have enough technology, humans will ultimatly be unable to make choices for themselves. There will be no diversity with germline engineering, only perfect athletes with an IQ well above the average human of todays world. Growth will seem like a good idea in the beginning but at the end it will only cloud our decision making abilities.
In the 1980’s a couple of drug companies were given the right to sell HGH to the small population of children who were suffering from dwarfism. This was approved by the FDA under the idea that the market for HGH would be very minimal. Within a few years the market had become one of the largest selling drugs in the country. This was not due to a drastic increase in dwarfs, but the increase in the demand by parents for their children to be taller (McKibben 32). We obviously know these days that HGH has detramental results on a human body especially a childrens body. Being discovered in the early 80’s the users of HGH had no way to determine the negative outcomes of this drug. McKibben uses this example to warn humans. Germline engineering in theory can make the perfect human species, but we have no way to determine what the negative aspects that may come with this new technology.
“Once the game is under way, in other words, there won’t be moral decisions, only strategic ones.” McKibben believes that the start of germline egineering will cause a snowball effect, and once it starts it cannot stop; the only way to stop it to halt technological growth all together. According to McKibben we have gone too far with our advancing society and the results will be disasterous.
I disagree with Mckibben in the how germline engineering will effect our society. With the way society is today, only the extermly wealthy will have these so called “perfect” children. Looking down the road in a few generations we will find that the rich have only become richer and the middle class and poor will stay the same if not decending into an even harsher lifestyle. A day will come when germline egineering will be affordable for all income levels. This is where the government should step in and mandate how many qualities of a child a parent is allowed to change. If there is no control on this situation, the world will be filled of decisions based on competition rather than morals.
Technology is a never ending adventure. Advancing is a part of human nature and it always has been ever since man could think logically. We need to determine how to introduce these technologies into society. McKibben suggests to not even introducing them because the results will end with disaster. The proper way handle this situation would be to enforce stricter laws that have technologies be full proof before giving them to citizens. Humans are smart enough to determine what will be best for the survival of the species and only time will determine how to handle this situation.
Jim - this is a solid response, but it might have been strengthened if you had fleshed things out a little more. Your response seemed intelligent but hurried.
Sean - This paper ends on a interesting note; I certainly wasn't expecting that you were going to reject McKibben and Abbey. You could have made effective use of Silver at the end. Maybe more importantly, you don't prepare well for your own views in the last couple paragraphs; they seem like an afterthought, rather than being integrated into the structure of the paper. They needed to be there in the first paragraph.
Your discussion of McKibben is ok, but your focus is almost too narrow - you show the unsurprising fact that he opposes too much growth in germline engineering, but you don't really demonstrate that he therefore opposed growth *in general*.
That makes the ending all the more jarring, because you jump from an (accurate) discussion of his opposition to growth in one area to your *general* argument for growth.
Every part of the paper is interesting and reasonable, but they don't flow together as well as they might - structure is the issue here.
Post a Comment