Jessica Titler
ENGCMP 0200
Essay 2, Option 3
The concept of Utopia has long been a preoccupation of mankind. For thousands of years, philosophers and authors have been taking pen to paper in order to draft their own personal version of mankind’s most ultimate paradise. Yet, there has been little agreement in the academic sphere as to what this Utopia that mankind strives to attain should consist of. One of the earliest texts concerning mankind’s paramount setting, written in approximately 380 BC, can be found in Plato’s The Republic. In The Republic, Plato envisions a paradise of supreme justice, with little art or poetry present in society (“Plato” 1). More than two thousand years later, author James Hilton presents a very different view of mankind’s ideal environment. In Lost Horizon, published in 1933, Utopia is represented by a paradise called Shangri-La, located high in the mountains of Tibet. “Shangri-La is an ageless society, whose inhabitants keep their youth and live far beyond the span of humans from the outside world” ("James Hilton." 1). It is a land of extreme beauty that places the utmost emphasis on the importance of art and knowledge.
These two examples show the glaring problem with creating an ideal world for humanity to inhabit: that which is ideal for one man may not be ideal to another. The difficulty in crafting a penultimate environment for mankind to live in is in defining what, exactly, is the ultimate. No matter the technology or resources available, what would fulfill the needs of one group to perfection may leave another left wanting. To borrow from a clichéd, but valid, phraseology, what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander. The desires of humanity are not uniform between individuals and, thus, there is little way to provide for all in a way that creates an earthly Utopia. To create a planetary environment that simultaneously satisfies the needs of every human being in existence fully is impractical, because the needs of humanity are varied and often conflicting. It is for this reason that the establishment of a Utopian planet is impossible.
A recent attempt at portraying mankind’s Utopia can be found in Lee Silver’s Challenging Nature: The Clash of Science and Spirituality at the New Frontiers of Life. Silver, as a preeminent molecular biologist and an expert in the field of biotechnology, presents his Utopia in a unique way. Rather than simply describe the world that he sees as idyllic and assert the shortcomings of the current state of humanity, he expounds on the method by which humanity may achieve the ideal. To Silver, the attainment of an ideal world is possible with biotechnology, if only mankind can overcome his spiritual side.
Yet, this stipulation in and of itself presents a problem. For the majority of human beings across the globe, religion is an integral part of life. It guides decision making, lifestyle, and belief systems. To rid humanity of religion, especially Judeo-Christian religion, would depreciate the quality of life for many individuals across the globe. Regardless of whether or not religion is a valid institution in a scientific context, it does serve a purpose to mankind and, if abolished for scientific purposes, its loss would be grieved by many.
The science of Silver’s argument is difficult to dispute, especially for one who is less than proficient in the exact terms of molecular biology. He describes the creation of stunning technological breakthroughs that will improve mankind’s quality of life with precision and accuracy, clearly outlining the ways in which man can achieve his dreamworld. Yet, there is still one inherent flaw in his belief that an ideal world can be created with the use of biotechnology at the sacrifice of organized religion and spiritualism; he fails to acknowledge that, for many, the requisite removal of a soul or loss of spirituality would diminish any sense of idealism whatsoever.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
WORKS CITED
"James Hilton." 2002. Contemporary Authors Online. Gale. 3 Feb. 2009 [http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/583/497/53986318w16/purl=rc1_CA_0_H1000045722&dyn=4!xrn_1_0_H1000045722?sw_aep=pl1947#Writings].
"Plato." 2003. Student Resource Center Gold. Gale. 3 Feb. 2009 [http://find.galegroup.com/srcx/retrieve.do?subjectParam=Locale%2528en%252C%252C%2529%253AFQE%253D%2528su%252CNone%252C18%2529plato%2Bthe%2Brepublic%2524&contentSet=GSRC&sort=Relevance&tabID=T001&sgCurrentPosition=0&subjectAction=DISPLAY_SUBJECTS&prodId=SRC-1&searchId=R1¤tPosition=1&userGroupName=pl1947&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&sgHitCountType=None&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C18%29plato+the+republic%24&inPS=true&searchType=BasicSearchForm&displaySubject=&docId=EJ2101101253&docType=GSRC].
Jessica, this is yet another excellent post. Your argument is clear and concise, and I really appreciate how you draw examples from outside sources, and it helps convince the reader to agree with you.
As for flaws, I only see one of some concern. In the prompt Dr. Johns writes “you should be articulating your own point of view.” I don’t really see that when I read your essay. Rather, it feels as if I’m standing back from everything analyzing the human race. This isn’t necessarily bad, but I don’t feel as if it addresses the prompt. You’ve told us what Plato, Silver and Hilton all think about utopias, what do you think?
Other than this, I think your essay is fine, but I’m going to end with a question for your thought, just something to ponder a little bit, that probably isn’t worth incorporating into your essay, but relates to it. What if someone came up with a different solution for placing people in their utopias, and they had a way to make each individual’s vision come true (i.e. upload their consciousnesses to a computer)? Would this change your views on the possibility of an ideal world being possible for all people?
The concept of Utopia has long been a preoccupation of mankind. For thousands of years, philosophers and authors have been taking pen to paper in order to draft their own personal version of mankind’s most ultimate paradise. Yet, there has been little agreement in the academic sphere as to what this Utopia that mankind strives to attain should consist of. One of the earliest texts concerning mankind’s paramount setting, written in approximately 380 BC, can be found in Plato’s The Republic. In The Republic, Plato envisions a paradise of supreme justice, ruled by philosopher-kings, with little art or poetry present in society (“Plato” 1). More than two thousand years later, author James Hilton presents a very different view of mankind’s ideal environment. In Lost Horizon, published in 1933, Utopia is represented by a paradise called Shangri-La, located high in the mountains of Tibet. “Shangri-La is an ageless society, whose inhabitants keep their youth and live far beyond the span of humans from the outside world…the most exquisite things are to be found here--from collections of art, to music, to knowledge, to religion.” ("James Hilton." 1). It is a land of extreme beauty that places the utmost emphasis on the importance of art and knowledge, contrasting sharply with Pluto’s artless concept. As seen in just these two of hundreds of examples, the exact composition of a Utopian society is not equal in all men’s minds. Just as Hilton feels art is an essential element of Utopia, so does Pluto see it to be a nonentity in mankind’s paradise.
This comparison shows the glaring problem with creating an ideal world for humanity to inhabit: that which is ideal for one man may not be ideal to another. The difficulty in crafting a penultimate environment for mankind to live in is in defining what, exactly, is the ultimate. No matter the technology or resources available, what would fulfill the needs of one group to perfection may leave another left wanting. To borrow from a clichéd, but valid, phraseology, what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander. The desires of humanity are not uniform between individuals and, thus, there is little way to provide for all in a way that creates an earthly Utopia. To create a planetary environment that simultaneously satisfies the needs of every human being in existence fully is impractical, because the needs of humanity are varied and often conflicting. It is for this reason that the establishment of a Utopian planet is impossible.
A recent attempt at portraying mankind’s Utopia can be found in Lee Silver’s Challenging Nature: The Clash of Science and Spirituality at the New Frontiers of Life. Silver, as a preeminent molecular biologist and an expert in the field of biotechnology, presents his Utopia in a unique way. Rather than simply describe the world that he sees as idyllic and assert the shortcomings of the current state of humanity, he reveals his concept of Utopia implicitly for the most part, but instead expounds explicitly on the method by which humanity may achieve the ideal. His focus is on the misraculous possibilities biotechnology offers mankind, and, at times, on the impediments to these possibilities caused by widespread Western belief in Judeo-Chrisitan religions and other spirit-based sects. To Silver, the attainment of an ideal world is possible with biotechnology, if only mankind can overcome his spiritual side.
Yet, this stipulation in and of itself presents a problem. For the majority of human beings across the globe, religion is an integral part of life. It guides decision making, lifestyle, and belief systems. It provides followers with a blueprint for life, meaning for their existence, and comfort in times of difficulty or hardship. To rid humanity of religion, specifically Judeo-Christian religion, would depreciate the quality of life for many individuals across the globe. Regardless of whether or not religion is a valid institution in a scientific context, it does serve a purpose to mankind and, if abolished for scientific purposes, its loss would be grieved by many. If Utopia, an existence full of only that which provides contentment and avoids dissatisfaction were to exist, could it do so without religion, mankind’s “security blanket” of sorts?
The science of Silver’s argument is difficult to dispute, especially for one who is less than proficient in the exact terms of molecular biology. He describes the creation of stunning technological breakthroughs that will improve mankind’s quality of life with precision and accuracy, clearly outlining the ways in which man can achieve his dreamworld. Yet, there is still one inherent flaw in his belief that an ideal world can be created with the use of biotechnology at the sacrifice of organized religion and spiritualism; to implement these technologies at the cost of mankind’s soul may lead to a more basic unhappiness than present in the common man’s existence without them. In, Challenging Nature: The Clash of Science and Spirituality at the New Frontiers of Life, Silver fails to acknowledge that, for many, the requisite removal of a soul or loss of spirituality would diminish any sense of idealism whatsoever.
James - Your response was pretty good, but also pretty brief - I'd have liked to see you push those thoughts/questoins just a little farther.
Jessica - The details of your writing are, as usual, very good. I think the third paragraph is especially great. Like James, though (although for somewhat different reasons), I don't feel like you're really engaging with the prompt fully. You critique the idea of Utopia in in general for two paragraphs, then have a great paragraph describing Silver's utopianism (I couldn't have said it better myself), then critique him, rather vaguely, because you assume that he's in favor of the elimination of religion, and that people wouldn't like this.
The problem with this approach is that (in opposition to the prompt) you're dodging all of the relevant details of the prompt. Silver has a great deal to say on the role of and genetic basis for religion in human life; you make an extremely general claim (Silver wants to eliminate religion) which ignores the complexities of certainly more than a hundred pages in the book - where he, for instance, details what he sees as the genetic basis of religion (is he implicitly arguing we should eliminate the relevant genes?), and says a great deal about religious beliefs (especially Buddhism) which he believes are fully compatible with his worldview. The devil is in the details - and you ignored all the relevant details.
Post a Comment