Julia Sandoval
Dr. Adam Johns
February 23, 2009
Dr. Adam Johns
February 23, 2009
Jimmy Corrigan: The Smartest Kid on Earth… Whose Life is Devoid of any
Significant Meaning and who lives a Sad and Pointless Existence
Everyone has a fear that the thing they love will one day become meaningless to them. Have you ever had a favorite song that, as you play it over and over again, you begin to drown it out and utter the words only out of habit? Or that special person who you fear might ultimately annoy you to the point of separation with his constant questions or loud chewing? Momentarily, all these things are completely tolerable. It is a completely human tendency to get accustomed to things to the point that they lose meaning. But isn’t it better that you knew them even once? Just the fact that something did give you joy is reason enough to cherish it. The exceptions are when it is something that really, truly gives a person extreme joy and satisfaction. That sport you just cannot stop playing and that book you can never put down. It is the “flow” that keeps us motivated (McKibben 51). This drives us out of ambition and comfort alike and is totally unique to human nature. Do you think a robot would climb a mountain more than once just because? Probably not, once they have the pride of the job well done, what else would be the point? If humans lose collective meaning in the things they love, there is little ability left to love at all.
The risk we take in reconstructing the DNA of future generations is greater than we even know. With our culture growing and expanding, we cannot risk dehumanization, which is what genetic engineering is at its core. For instance, think of the most boring person you know. Now, imagine that he or she genetically engineered his or her daughter. How creative do you think that person would turn out to be? What improvements in society could they make? The loss of individuality is so imminent that it is frightening. If parents aren’t creative enough to engineer their children in a way that the children can grow and expand their thoughts and contribute creatively to the culture of the future, the children won’t. And this will go on for generations and generations until everyone is smart, attractive, athletic, and the same .
Another aspect that this loss of meaning could influence is loss of meaning in regards to religion and politics. If every person is the same cognitively and socially, there is no doubt that power shifts will be challenged. If everyone had the capacity to run a government, there is no need for a true leader. War is inevitable and the stakes will be even higher. Religion also will be greatly affected, for people will find the flaws in them and it is easy to think that they will change radically, if not be eliminated completely from human existence. What I’m talking about is that in this aspect, people will have no direction, it will be him for himself and that is it. For every person. One of the things that McKibben talks about is that the meaning of human existence is that basically, humans exist to take care of each other and live happily (McKibben 94).
In the case of Jimmy Corrigan, he is an example as to what our existence could become. He basically lives for no one. He takes care of no one and definitely does not live happily. He is what we could become if we decide to proceed with genetic engineering. He lives for himself by himself. But of course, this sounds like a strong willed, personal choice, doesn’t it? He sounds by this statement to be a hardened man who needs no one to fulfill his life. But in fact, this does not happen by choice for Jimmy; as it would not also for future genetically engineered people. They would not have decided to live on their own with no companionship, it would’ve happened because of our influence, out of their control. We can only imagine that we, free willed, free-thinking humans of today, would become the icons that future humans would lament and admire. Like Superman, WE are free, WE help each other, WE are happy. Jimmy would have a high regard for us, as would the future dehumanized generations.
The robots, more physically like supermen, would have nothing to drive them. Yes, they can help people, but it would mean nothing to them. Loss of meaning is in every sense of the word the worst thing we can do to anyone. Just think, if one day you discovered a new sport that just thrilled you to your very core, and someone came up and magically made that thrill disappear, would you continue to play it? Probably not, and you would probably miss it. That is what we would be doing to our future generations. “It is better to have loved and lost, than to have never loved at all,” is a true statement, at least to me. But how terrible to think that that statement in itself would lose its meaning and that the people of the future wouldn’t even be able to comprehend it.
McKibben, B. Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age. New York: Times Books, 2004.
Ware, F.C. Jimmy Corrigan, The Smartest Kid on Earth. Pantheon Books, 2000.
2 comments:
After reading this, I can definitely tell that you are trying to use less summarization in your paper. And without as much filler information in your paper, there is obviously proportionally more pressure to deliver on the content- your own ideas. You chose a personal format to write in, a good choice as it is probably the simplest manner to deliver your ideas organically.
My only true issue with your paper is that, at the end, I don't feel convinced of your point- that meaning is lost in what I'll call "post-human" lifeforms. I think this is because somewhere within your personal argument, the logical argument was lost. For example, the sentence "With our culture growing and expanding, we cannot risk dehumanization, which is what genetic engineering is at its core," is really only your opinion. There is no place in which you say how genetic engineering equates to dehumanization, and that is not the only example of a lack of substantiation.
Additionally, aspects of this paper remind me of the first paper I wrote this year, I was writing for an audience that agreed with me. Preaching to the choir if you will. Fortunately, I think the process of adding more to your argument will relatively easy, I'm sure you have these ideas and just didn't feel the need to write them. Plus, I think the best ideas of your paper are at the end of the fourth paragraph, I'd be interested to see if you could develop them more.
Overall, I just wanted a more logical argument. Not a tough fix. Good luck with your revision!
Oh and sorry for earlier this week, I know I didn't give you enough time to critique my paper.
Chris - this is a good response.
Julia - I fully agree with Chris's assessment here: this paper is interesting, mostly well written, and highly opinionated, but it doesn't even attempt to convince the other side in any way that I can see. His examples are good; here's another one. "Like Superman, WE are free, WE help each other, WE are happy." To me, it's far from apparent that most people in the world are "free." Are war refugees free, from Palestine to Afghanistan to the Congo? Are they happy? What about the hundreds of millions of people in southern Asia who labor continually to eke out a bare subsistence? Are they free and happy? Maybe you are - but you're not convincing me that even you are, or that I am, let alone any number of counterexamples. That issue characterizes the whole paper: you don't even explain your own opinions, let alone argue in detail that we ought to share them.
That doesn't mean that there isn't good material here, especially at the beginning. Nor does it mean that you're wrong - but it does mean that as an essay this doesn't work very well.
Post a Comment