Religion, A Strong Institution?

James Toye

1/27/09

Dr. Adam Johns

ENGCMP 0200

When asked about their spiritual beliefs, many people respond by stating the name of a religion, perhaps that of their parents, but not all of them really mean it. At times in my life, I’ve been one of these people, telling people that I’m Roman Catholic, offering no deeper explanation of my beliefs. While I was raised in the traditions of the Church by my mother, I came to realize that I did not agree with everything that was preached. However, I still agree with the majority of the teachings of the Church, namely in the existence of a greater power and respect of mankind. Yet, with the dawn of genetic engineering, the dusk of the concept of the human soul and religion would seem to be drawing near. Is this true? I do not think so.

In his book, Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality, Dr. Lee M. Silver, of Princeton University, challenges part of my view. Dr. Silver undoubtedly does everything in his power to benefit the human race, however, he does not share my belief in a higher power; he is an atheist. In the previous sentence, the word atheist feels as though it has a negative connotation; however I urge the reader not to take it as such, rather consider it as a major difference between Silver and I, a difference to be discussed as this essay progresses. He is a professor of molecular biology, and works constantly to discover how we as human beings, in the most literal sense, exist. His work has left him skeptical of faith, and he believes that nothing is left to chance, rather that the world operates simply on probability, nothing less, nothing more, and thus he is very critical of religion, and challenges it often in his book.

As far as Christianity goes, Silver believes there are a few main types, one being the fundamental Christians, who take the Bible as the literal word of God. He also acknowledges the presence of more moderate Christians, who take the stories of the Bible as allegories, which is where I loosely group myself (Silver 93). He insists that this view of Christianity is inherently flawed, since moderate Christians still believe that humans are made in the image of God. But why does this not have to be true? Why is Silver so determined to prove that religion is wrong? Can he just not cope with people disagreeing with his view, or is it due to his childhood where he was forced into a religious life that he did not want?

Silver argues his point in the same section of the book, quoting the late Pope John Paul II who made a speech preaching individual tracks of evolution, one for the physical being, the other for the spiritual. According to the Pope, the spiritual evolution of humans culminated instantly, at the time when our physical evolution reached where it is now. Silver disagrees with this argument, citing an undergraduate student’s question about a random mutation making a pre-human become “human” (Silver 94). Now, I find it interesting that Silver, who bases his opinions on probability, as he mentions in an example concerning the birth of his daughter, can completely reject a theory that still has some chance of being viable (Silver 24). Sure, it is unlikely that one mutation caused the development of the human species, but what if there were multiple mutations caused by multiple cosmic rays, that occurred at the same time or times very close to each other? There is still a chance that such an event could have transpired, and who is to say that a Greater Being could not have helped these events occur in order to create something that is in His image?

Silver continues his argument by trying to define when the soul enters the body, or when human life begins. He consults many religious sources, some of which are Catholic bishops. He reports that they all believe that human life begins at conception (Silver 106). Then Silver throws a curveball to the reader, in the coming world of genetic engineering, what if a viable human is produced from one sex cell, be it an egg or a sperm? Does it have a soul, and in turn, is it a human being? When we can churn out human after human without sexual intercourse being involved, will there be a place for faith in a greater Creator in the world?

I believe there will be. There will always be a place in the world for an institution to teach people to be civil, respectable human beings, and because of this, religion will never truly be obsolete. Whether the Catholic Church will remain the same, no one really knows, but personally, I believe that it will continue to exist, perhaps with a few changes in its dogma, specifically relating to when a human being is given a soul. However, no matter how much any religion changes, it, faith, and the concept of a human soul will still be strong institutions in human society for the rest of human existence.

Works Cited

Silver, Lee M. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006

The questions that religion cannot answer

Hamid A. Campbell
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200
01.27.2009
The questions that religion cannot answer



In a world where scientific knowledge is abundant and natural phenomena can be easily explained and quantized, it is difficult to invest one’s total faith into a greater power. With the amount of knowledge increasing as quickly as it is currently increasing, and the miraculous capabilities that science possesses expanding as rapidly as they are currently expanding, the need for faith will soon come to an end. Every natural mystery that could possibly occur will be explained with a simple mathematical equation, and the modern-day miracles that we identify as acts of God will be easily modeled in physical chemistry laboratories. With no more inexplicable mysteries to solve, it is quite possible that the very need for belief in a higher power will soon cease to exist.

In his thought-provoking book, Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality, Lee M. Silver, a professor of microbiology at Princeton University, discusses the Darwinian theory that “no species originated at a single moment in time.” Furthermore, he states that human beings are “no different from any other species” in that they, too, evolved from simpler living things that could be traced back to the “single common ancestor of life on earth” (Silver). Let’s assume that this claim is true. This would then mean that every organism that exists must be connected to each other through membership in the same genetic family. That is, you and I are both related to our dogs, which are related to the fish in the sea, which are related to the birds in the sky, and so on.

The Christian faith entails absolute belief in creationism, the doctrine that holds that at the beginning of time, God created everything that exists from absolute nothingness. The Holy Bible strictly dictates the events that began time. Christians (who comprise approximately thirty-six percent of the world’s population) believe that at the beginning of time, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Creator created man “from the dust of the ground” and breathed into him “the breath of life” (World Almanac Books). Upon noticing the man’s loneliness, the Creator induced a deep sleep on the man, removed from his body one of his entire ribs, and “made a woman from [the man’s] rib.” Christians believe that Adam and Eve were the first two inhabitants of the Earth that God created, and that they are the sole ancestors of the entire human race. This view remained unchallenged by the science world until 1859 when Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882), an English naturalist, published his controversial book entitled On the Origin of Species in which he presents his theory of continuous biological evolution through a process of natural selection, openly challenging the notion of absolute humanness. After two decades of research in the Galapagos Islands, he acquired sufficient evidence and obtained a theoretical model on which to base his claim that extinct species evolved gradually into other species, some of which eventually went extinct themselves or gradually evolved into further species. The fundamental question that remains unanswered in the minds of many, including myself, is “who are we to believe: religion or science?”

This question is not one the can be answered with a single word, nor can it be raised without an ensuing heated debate and a few hurt feelings and tears. The subject is intensely sensitive to devoted followers of various religions who identify themselves by their respective religions, and therefore by their respective religious beliefs. Religious folk often fail to even consider the possibility of a scientific explanation of our role in the universe and the origin of humankind. I have personally struggled with attempting to answer this question for myself. Being raised in a Christian household in which my parents were arguably religious fanatics, I was dragged off to church at least four days each week. I attended Tuesday night prayer, Wednesday night choir rehearsal, Thursday night Bible study, Friday youth nights, Sunday school, and regular church services. I got involved in the church at a very young age, often taking on several roles such as playing the organ, directing the choir, teaching Sunday school, and doing community outreach. It wasn’t until I reached the age of fourteen and took my first course in biology that I began to question the role of God and science in the existence of the universe and the life that inhabits it. Being a person who looks for logical and rational answers, it became difficult for me to believe that a single Creator composed everything that exists in a single week and watches me every day from no specific point in space, as I had always been told that He exists equally everywhere. And even if this Creator did create the beautiful blue oceans and “placed the stars up in space to decorate the sky,” who exactly created the Creator? And who exactly created the guy who created the Creator? If the universe is infinitely large, then where exactly do the realms of Heaven and Hell exist among this limitless expanse? As I get older, the concept of a greater power becomes more illogical and irrational to me. The Darwinian theory that I am complexly related to my pet dog seems more convincing.

Since the beginning of time, religion has filled in the gaps that science could not fill. The rising and setting of the sun was once attributed to Helios and a flaming chariot. Earthquakes and tidal waves were the wrath of Poseidon. Science has now provided answers to almost every question that man can ask, proving these gods to be false idols in the process. It can be argued that science soon will prove all Gods to be false idols. With the mounting evidence and logic of Darwin’s theory of continuous biological evolution, it is a mystery to me how anyone can place their complete faith in a single superior entity. Maybe people are afraid of completely disassociating themselves from the beliefs that were instilled in them as children. It is equally possible that people simply fear an afterlife of Hell, in which they will eternally burn for not having believed in God during their natural lives. However, I feel that the complete elimination of religion poses dangers, as people would abandon their morals and engage in lifestyles destructive to themselves and others, leading to a world of evil and utter chaos. Imagine a world in which no one feared the ultimate consequences of their words and actions. The inhibitions that people place on themselves to reduce what I like to call their “sin counts” (such as gunning down the guy who cut you off on the highway, or having reckless, dangerous sex) would no longer be off-limits. Without the personal restrictions that religion provides, the decline of mankind would both begin and end quickly.

The battle between science and religion has been ongoing since the Scientific Revolution of the sixteenth century when scientists like Nicolas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, and even Galileo Galilei challenged the power of the church. Interestingly enough, all of these scientists remained devout Christians and tried to soften the church’s position on science by proclaiming that science did not undermine the existence of God, but rather reinforced it. Galileo once wrote that when he looked through his telescope at the spinning planets, he could hear God’s voice “in the music of the spheres.” He held that science and religion were not enemies, but rather allies—“two different languages telling the same story” (Brown). This presents another question: is it possible to believe in both God and science? While it is perfectly possible that God created a single speck in a limitless empty space that over billions of years evolved into a universe, our solar system, our planet, and eventually you and I, this is not what the Holy Bible tells us. The battle between science and religion seems to have no visible end, as religious devotees will remain steadfast in their faith, and science will continue its attempt to answer the questions that religion cannot answer.


Works Cited
Brown, Dan. Angels & Demons. New York: Atria Books, 2000.
Silver, Lee M. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006.
World Almanac Books. The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2009. Pleasantville: Reader's Digest Trade Publishing, 2008.

Assignment for Group #1 (due Tuesday)

Notes: Regardless of which option you follow, you should write in the form of an essay with a clear thesis statement, and use detailed textual support (page references and/or quotes).

Option 1: Take one precise passage, in which Silver poses a direct challenge to religious belief -- possibly your own. Without distorting or ignoring the facts as you understand them (you may go beyond Silver, but stick to *scientific* sources, not random junk from the internet), discuss what impact you imagine this *particular* set of scientific facts will have upon religion in the decades and centuries to come. I believe this assignment will allow most of you to write about what interests you.

Option 2 Showing detailed awareness of Silver’s book, especially of the material in part 2, write an essay in which you propose a definition of “human nature” or “the human” which you both agree with and are prepared to argue survives Silver’s various challenges to conventional understandings of human behavior.

Should we fear what we can control?

Stephanie Errigo
Dr. Adam Johns
Option #3

Should We Really Fear What We Can Control?

For years upon years we have talked about the threats of technology including the real and surreal images of what will happen as it continues to progress. Should we fear robots and nanotechnology? Should we shove these things to the side and only concern ourselves with the problems that face us today such as the real estate market or the economic crisis? How much is too much to worry about? If all we focused on in our lives was the threat of technology and how scared we are of it overtaking us we would get nowhere, though Frankenstein does help us gain a better understanding for where Bill Joy is coming from in his article in Wired magazine.

The main overview of Frankenstein includes many aspects of what kind of person we may perceive Victor Frankenstein to be. We could see him as the evil in the book or even as just a coward who ran from their problems. Whatever we see Frankenstein as; the book shows us that technology can be a scary thing. Victor thought that his creation was the greatest thing until he brought it to life. In the book it states, “His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! – Great God!” (Shelley, 58) The quote comes from before Victor brought the monster to live. A few sentences later he goes on to say, “…But now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.” (58)

As the book goes on Victor abandons the monster, and becomes fearful of everything that it is capable of doing. Maybe if he would have treated the monster with care and not ran from him, he could have prevented all of the bad things that happened such as his brother being killed and ultimately saved himself. Joy is justified in many ways in what he presents in his article by the book Frankenstein.

In Joy’s article, “Why the future doesn’t need us,” he says, “How soon could such an intelligent robot be built? The coming advances in computing power seem to make it possible by 2030. And once an intelligent robot exists, it is only a small step to a robot species – to an intelligent robot that can make evolved copies of itself. “(Joy, 7) Bill Joy is a computer genius who has made many advances in today’s software, and he fears technology taking over? Something is obviously wrong with this picture. It makes me think of a strong connection to Frankenstein in which Joy could have seen his creation as beautiful when he first came up with it, but later he saw that the more that technology advances, the worse things can become. It also makes me wonder if the monster in Frankenstein would have been able to self-replicate that there would have been much more destruction done. If the future is like what Bill Joy fears and Victor Frankenstein also feared, we are in deep trouble.

Who’s to say that we can’t control these things from happening? We indeed did create all of the technology that is out there. Joy may see the world as being a Frankenstein scenario where the technology we create is abandoned and that’s how it goes about taking over. Frankenstein gives us a better outlook on what Joy may be thinking. Victor feared what he had created after he brought it to life, but not before. Who knows what will happen in years to come? We can only hope that we create doesn’t overtake what we have become.

A Heart of Darkness

Evan Kelly
1/19/09
Topic #3

The adjective evil, has a variety of definitions with a pretty constant overall theme. Anything that is morally wrong, harmful, or injurious is defined as evil by the dictionary. As an excited student striving to produce a work that had been basically unimaginable, Victor Frankenstein was a zealous scientist. For nearly two years he fanatically toiled on the monster that would soon become his mortal enemy and while I do not believe this to be morally wrong, my feelings changed when upon the monster’s first breath, Frankenstein turned and ran in horror from his creation. The ultimate reason for Frankenstein’s evil nature was his guilt.

Frankenstein is not evil in the same way that I would describe a cold-hearted killer. His evil comes from the internal struggle that he is tortured by. His first sign of evil is present when he hides in disgust from the monster that he had created. “I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.” This is the beginning of many guilty feelings for Frankenstein. In this case he feels guilt because he took the creation of life into his own hands, but instead created what he often refers to as a wretch. He felt guilty that the being that he had imagined as beautiful and world renowned, was in reality hideous. Frankenstein abandoned his “child” and left him unprotected in a brutal world.

All who came into contact with the monster were instantly frightened and violent. Even when the monster saved a child from the river, he was rejected and attacked. “This was then the reward of my benevolence! I had saved a human being from destruction, and as a recompense I now writhed under the miserable pain of a wound that shattered the flesh and bone.” There is no wonder, as the monster stated, that his emotions were turned to violence and rage. And these feelings were the indirect outcome of the overpowering guilt that compelled Frankenstein to abandon his creation.

While Frankenstein appears to be innocent and victimized throughout the narration, the reader must keep in mind that this account is told by Walton who viewed Frankenstein in not only a sage like, but also a loving manner. He described to Margaret, the “lustrous eyes” of Frankenstein. He remembered when Frankenstein had told him not to believe the monster’s persuasive words, but when he finally did meet the monster, there was no bloodshed. Instead the monster left to find himself a peaceful deathbed in the Arctic. While Frankenstein appeared innocent in many ways during the story, it is very possible that Walton portrayed him in a much brighter light, than he was in reality.

We see Frankenstein’s guilt overwhelm him in two separate cases. Each sends him into a feverish coma. The first time that he suffers is when he realizes that the sole purpose of his life for the past two years was to unleash a monster on the world. The second time is when the monster murders Clerval. Frankenstein’s fever is brought on by the enormous weight of guilt that is placed on his shoulders. If he had not ignored the monster’s demands Henry would have still been alive. Instead, Frankenstein decided not only to stop building the second monster, but also to tear it apart in front of his enemy’s eyes. “As I looked on him, his countenance expressed the utmost extent of malice and treachery. I thought with a sensation of madness on my promise of creating another like to him, and trembling with passion, tore to pieces the thing on which I was engaged. “ This action was the most selfish act that Frankenstein committed in the entire story. He had heard the beast tell him his story, and knew that while the monster had hurt people, there had been a reason. Frankenstein tore apart the second monster just because of his disgust in the appearance of the first. I become miserable when I am left alone for a few days, but even during this time I can go out in public without being attacked and ran from. The misery that the monster is forced to endure was brought on by Frankenstein. When Frankenstein decided not to help, he became the only one to blame for the following series of events.

Frankenstein’s selfishness is seen throughout the entire book. He had too much pride to warn anybody about the monster until it was too late. If he had told Henry at the beginning of the story, then it is very possible that the whole tragedy could have been avoided. The monster was basically powerless when he was created. He did not know how to control his body, nor did he know anything of the outside world. He could have just as easily become a crime fighter as he became a killer, if he had mentors. After William was killed, for Frankenstein not to explain that the monster was the culprit, was harmful and morally wrong. Because of his silence, Justine was killed. Guilt overcame him once again, but he still endured in solitude. Only after his wife was murdered and his father died in grief did Frankenstein announce the existence of his monster. Maybe it was because he was scared that his family would reject him, that Frankenstein remained silent. But, it wasn’t until after all of his connections to the world were extinguished that he decided to come forward. Frankenstein was the indirect culprit for each and every one of the monster’s kills. In appearance the monster was the fiend, but Frankenstein had the real heart of darkness.

Addressing Hysteria

Austin Hixson
Seminar in Composition (ENGCMP 0200)
Dr. Adam Johns
January 20th, 2009

The relationship between mankind and the technology in which mankind has created is one of progress, humility, and ultimately, fear. Yet, even though many of the advances of modern technology have taken a turn towards the more dangerous and risky side of things, we are not at the point where we must halt the technology race and prepare ourselves for imminent destruction at the mercy of our own creation.
Bill Joy’s essay “Why The Future Doesn’t Need Us” is a testimony for such a termination of advancement. Joy, who has been a pivotal part of some of the largest leaps forward in our modern age has now taken a position of forewarning against the role of technology in the future of our human race. Each and every technological advancement and achievement that Joy has been a part of has done nothing but bring great things to the computer science field; and now Joy feels it necessary to warn us of the dangers of these achievements. In this, there is no sense. Likewise, Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein tells a story of what can happen when the responsibility of consequence is absent; when one becomes drunk of his own power and unable to visualize the ceiling effect that has so often saved many from the harm of our own ability. It is as if Bill Joy has read the story of Frankenstein and somehow concluded that this is the point in which mankind is, at present.
My conclusion, however, is quite different. Although, I am not ready to say that the state of technology thus far has not harmed anyone or anything, I am, however, certain that it has not reached the point in which it is an unendurable threat to the human race. It is Joy’s intense “Luddite” stance that seems to almost discredit his argument as extremist. The man who has been so revolutionary to the cause of technological advancement and so consistent in his ability to further along our capabilities in the computer science field has essentially gone “rogue” and would rather see his contributions be decommissioned and entered into a technology museum than implemented into new, promising technologies. It is this ironic aspect of Joy’s argument that first lead to my questioning of its validity.
Victor Frankenstein did not realize the significance of his experimentations until, ultimately, it was too late. The state of his research had gotten to the point of no return, and had Frankenstein not gone through with his research, it very well could have been far too late anyways due to the lack of introspection throughout the entire process of experimentation and scientific advancement. I do understand Joy’s concerns; it is not the reality of these concerns in which I find the basis of my argument. Moreover, it is the lack of rationale behind the ideals that Bill Joy shares with other fellow “Luddites” of the 21st century. Certain things can almost be viewed as inevitable throughout modern times. Weapons will be further-developed and become more complex, and the effects of the saturation of modern medicine will be seen throughout society. Yet, putting these two observations aside, it still remains the inability of mankind to make any sort of technology, outside of the arms and medical arena, dangerous to a human. As much as many engineers and programmers would like, it still remains impossible to engineer a robot that is anywhere near the state of stand-alone intelligence, and thus, anywhere near being considered “dangerous” to a human. It is facts like these that put certain concerns to rest; concerns that have been raised by the Luddite community.
Bill Joy has made clear his stance on the advancement of technology in the 21st century. Joy’s argument has a clear parallel with the story of Frankenstein, where the time has come in which humankind’s negligence toward the power of technology has resulted in a dangerous and hostile creation. We, however, continue to thrive alongside our technological advancements, all the while remaining well aware of our responsibility to treat technology with the respect it deserves. It is this respect that will take us to new realms and will keep us from becoming overly fearful of something that can surely create endless possibilities for the advancement of human nature.

THE FUTURE IS YET UNKNOWN

Jessica Titler
January 20, 2009
Essay Option #2


In reading portrayals of the future, it must be remembered that one is studying an exercise in fiction and prediction. In this way, Bill Joy’s essay Why the future doesn’t need us should not be considered an article of pure nonfiction. In creating a future world, or predicting elements of a future world, a degree of fiction is inherent. Though mankind has searched for a key to unlock the secrets of the future for millennia, there is as of yet no means of predicting future events with complete accuracy. Though Joy makes a compelling argument and creates a realistic future that may be produced by technological advances, his is not the only possible future.
Often a reader forgets this in reading experts’ prophecies of future developments and events. It is in doing so that a reader makes a grave error. Rather than understanding the possibility presented as one option of many, the prospect is viewed as definite and one bases opinions and actions on this. Were readers to understand Joy’s foresight as definite, all technological development may halt or become severely impaired. This would be a dishonor to both future generations and to Bill Joy himself. Taking his forecast as a fixed outcome, his intention is not met. Joy presents one possibility for the future and, though he feels it is inevitable, recognizes that the destruction of mankind is not the only possible result of technological advances. For example, Joy states, “Any changes to such a system will cause a cascade in ways that are difficult to predict; this is especially true when human actions are involved.” It is nearly impossible, with the intricacies and unpredictable nature of human behavior, to predict what the result of unknown future technologies may be.
Although Joy is inarguably an expert in the field of technology and is an authority on the subject of current technology, he has no true means of determining the definite future of technology or the exact path that that technology will take in its development. As a visionary inventor of software, he is more than capable of guessing the next step in the evolution of technologies already in the making, but not necessarily the discoveries they will lead to or how these technologies will be used by our progeny.
In his essay, Joy examines possible outcomes of the improvement of three main technologies: genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics. Prior to even evaluating the effects produced by these three, he makes the supposition that the current path of their development will be that which they continue to follow. As advances are made and knowledge of these expands, they may very well become vastly different than expected at this point. For instance, Joy claims that, “By 2030, we are likely to be able to build machines, in quantity, a millions times as powerful as the personal computers of today…” This claim is reminiscent of many past predictions, such as those that called for flying cars by the year 2000 (I have yet to see any nearly a decade beyond that). Doubtlessly, the development of technology is highly unpredictable.
Supposing the development of these technologies is not significantly altered from current expectations, Joy’s further assumptions are not certain, either. He feels that robots, predicted to be a superior species, will cause the destruction of the human species, an opinion shared by others such as Dyson and Moravec. Yet, it is entirely possible that this will not be the case. While it truly is entirely possible that there may be a robotic end in store for mankind, it is also entirely possible that mankind will survive, overcoming any robotic mutinies or threats. Throughout history, mankind has shown his resiliency and an outstanding ability to withstand condtions that threaten survival of the species, conquering bacterial and viral menaces time and time again. What is the evidence that this may not be the case when the foe is one we have ourselves devised?
It is this uncertainty and bias that must be kept in mind when reading any forecast of the future and it is with these in mind that any forecast must be taken with a grain of salt. Bill Joy’s Why the future doesn’t need us is, thus, a work of nonfiction that is complemented with elements of fiction—predictions, prophecies, and forecasts of the future. These are not definite or assured to occur. It is imperative that this must be acknowledged when reading a work such as Joy’s or else there exists a danger of misconstruing the author’s purpose or becoming deceived by interpreting a possibility as a certainty.

Albert Wu
Engcmp 0200

Frankenstein: Uncharacteristically Good?

I associate being evil with blind ambition, greed, selfishness, malicious intent, and immoral criminal acts without any regard for responsibility and without any sense of remorse. Albeit Frankenstein displayed characteristically evil traits throughout the entirety of his narration, it is because of the latter part of the criteria that Frankenstein’s character isn’t a villain.

Frankenstein was forthright with his ambitions, and his greed was palpable while narrating his story. He wanted to be recognized as a revolutionary, as a god in science. After reaping the fruits of his sublime experiment, however, Frankenstein became overwhelmed with senses of horror and guilt. Frankenstein said, “Remorse extinguished every hope, I had been the author of unalterable evils, and I lived in daily fear lest the monster whom I had created should perpetrate some new wickedness.” In this instance, Frankenstein expresses not only the regret he felt for creating the monster, but also his concern for the safety of humanity. In addition, Frankenstein’s original intent wasn’t to create a threatening monster, rather he thought his “present attempts would at least lay the foundations of future successes.” His intentions weren’t pernicious by any degree, he wanted to provide framework for future science. Similar to Neil Armstrong’s words, he thought his actions would be “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” (mankind loosely defined to mean scientific development, of course). The anguish Frankenstein felt, in conjunction with his original intent, are uncharacteristic of someone who is truly evil.

Another instance where Frankenstein displayed his altruism was when he was creating the monsters companion. He expressed his reluctance to continue making the second monster when he said, “I shuddered to think that future ages might curse me as their pest, whose selfishness had not hesitated to buy its own peace at the price, perhaps, of the existence of the whole human race.” In this case, Frankenstein could have selfishly acquired peace of mind and happiness if he had consented to the monsters request for an other. However, his sense of responsibility towards the harmony of future generations caused him to abandon the project. He was cognizant of the dire repercussions, but chose to listen to his principles and selflessly sacrificed his own happiness. His actions, again, are contrary to what I think define someone who is evil.

As a result of sacrificing his own content and refusing to create a companion for the monster, Frankenstein contributed to his own demise. The unrelenting sense of guilt and responsibility towards the welfare and memory of his family resulted in an inescapable cycle of self-destruction, crippling paranoia, and a blind ambition to kill the monster. The dreams Frankenstein had of his family and home reinforced his sense of obligation to kill the monster. The monsters facetious messages exacerbated Frankenstein’s pursuit. While pursuing the monster, Frankenstein admits, “He had escaped me; and I must commence a destructive and almost endless journey across the mountainous ices of the ocean, - amidst cold that few of the inhabitants could long endure and which I, the native of a genial and sunny climate, could not hope to survive.” Frankenstein was entirely aware that further pursuit would kill him, but he chose to continue despite the war of attrition the monster was waging. The same obsessive behavior that lead to the creation of the monster, lead to Frankenstein’s demise.

Good Versus Knowledge

Julia Sandoval
Dr. Johns
ENGCMP 0200
January 17, 2009

The idea of good versus evil has long been explored. These two extremes have especially and most specifically been associated with the creation of man. Created as a human with a divine connection to God, Adam was made for the prospect of good. He lived a good life in paradise with his counterpart, Eve, but once he tasted of the fruit of knowledge, or evil as it has also been expressed, his life in paradise and connection with his creator was terminated and he lived his life with hardships and sin. Influenced by the innate desire for knowledge, Adam could not resist the temptation to become an equal to his creator and disregard everything that he had learned and promised initially. In Mary Shelley’s work Frankenstein, she develops the character Victor Frankenstein in such a way that, in his innate quest for knowledge and to be somewhat of an equal to the divine creator, he delves into a world of evil generated by this very pursuit. Though at the same time, in his effort to stop the beast and prevent further turmoil, his evilness is exempted and his goodness shines through.
Victor Frankenstein was a man inspired by the laws of nature and the fundamentals of science. From a young age he excited himself with the research and philosophies of Agrippa, Magnus, and Paracelsus. From these men sparked his interest in electricity. Upon seeing the effects of lightning on a tree, Victor found the true power of this enigmatic phenomenon. “We found the tree shattered in a singular manner. It was not splintered by the shock, but entirely reduced to thin ribbons of wood. I never beheld anything so utterly destroyed” (Shelley 42). Victor was amazed by the power of one single bolt of electricity. It had the capabilities to destroy something so large, to such a reduced state. With this he devoted his studies not to natural science, but to the unnatural: the science that in his day was then already deemed impractical and erroneous. It was here that he decided that his quest for knowledge would be in “the spirit of good” (Shelley 43), yet he did not anticipate the horrors that would come.
His pursuit of knowledge consisted of thorough examination of anatomy and chemistry. He examined the bodies of the deceased with much apathy and took little heed to the desecration and disrespect he was paying to the dead. This is not surprising, given his atheistic upbringing. He was never religious and never knew the consequences or to what extent his endeavors might backfire. His greedy and incessant pursuit of creating life was the first example of the evil that had grown inside him. “A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me” (Shelley 55). His sole desire was to be god-like to this new race.
One cannot say that Victor Frankenstein is evil purely because he yearned to be superior in his capabilities concerning life and death. In his pursuit to take a deceased body and shock life into it, he found the meaning of it. As already mentioned, he was, in the most basic assumption, an atheist; he gave little thought to what life would be like without a soul. He created a being that was unlike the human form yet capable still of human emotion and thought processes. In his second attempt to give life to female and dead body, he refrained and terminated the project because he realized that there would be a very probable chance that the female would not promise to avoid human interaction as the male did. Also, it would be inevitable that the demons would want to reproduce; thus inflicting greater danger to the human race.
For all the instances that Victor Frankenstein appears to be a malignant and evil man, he does perform virtuous actions. He holds himself responsible for the actions of his creation and feels personal guilt after the death of his younger brother William, and the death resulting from the accusation and incarceration of Justine. “I wished to see him (the monster) again, that I might wreak the utmost extent of abhorrence on his head, and avenge the deaths of William and Justine” (Shelley 95). Upon hearing the monster say, “I will be with you on your wedding night” (Shelley 173), he ultimately decides to battle the monster; unfortunately, he had misunderstood the monster’s true intentions and was horrified to find his beloved Elizabeth dead on the night he had indeed been dreading. Following the death of Elizabeth, yet another life is taken; his father dies a few days later due to shock. The goodness and selflessness of Victor is now completely present; be it because of a psychological obsession or a true act of avengement, he swears to devote his life to destroying the monster once and for all.
When Victor does die, it is aboard the ship with Captain Walton. He dies without successfully eliminating the monster and his wrath from the world. But in dying, the monster returns to his maker, weeping, and vows to never inflict pain on mankind again. By his action of dying the final product is in fact what he had aimed to do while living. The monster goes off to die alone, in an act that he deems self-sacrificial. So it is by dying that Victor stopped the monster. His final action brought good; and despite the lives that were taken because of his creation, he did successfully avenge the deaths of those whom he loved.

Works Cited
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. London: Penguin Books, 1992.

The Price of Being Evil

Melanie Siokalo
Tues 6- 8:30
The Price of Being Evil
To intentionally inflict pain on a human being or any other living thing is my definition of evil in the simplest sense. If examples were to be given, Victor Frankenstein would be at the top of the list. Not only did the main character of Mary Shelley’s classic thriller, Frankenstein, cross the line between moral and immoral but also intentionally caused pain to the monster he had created. He abandoned the very thing he gave life to and then further inflicted pain on the creature by refusing to create the only thing the monster had asked for, a companion. Frankenstein is portrayed as a hero through Robert Walton’s words, but not even this glory can hide the monstrous and evil acts of Victor Frankenstein.
Frankenstein was so obsessed with being viewed as a “science god”, that he never actually thought about the consequences that might follow from creating a being unnaturally. Because he didn’t actually finish this thought process, the monster ultimately hurts everyone around Frankenstein, torturing Frankenstein in the way Frankenstein tortured the monster. Frankenstein does not have the capability to understand the depth of his creation. He was so selfish to think that this monster in the very first moments of being alive would create evil all around it. He right away runs and hides like a criminal on the run. Only an evil human being itself would not give a chance to understand the monster he gave life to. Frankenstein leaves the monster in the most precious moments of any living thing’s life. Frankenstein leaves the monster lying on the table with no sense of the world around it. “His jaws opened, he muttered some inarticulate sounds, while a grin wrinkled on his cheeks. He might have spoken, but I did not hear; one hand was stretched out, seemingly to detain me, but I escaped and rushed downstairs” (59). Frankenstein was so caught up in his fear that he was unable to understand that the monster was just reaching out for help. The grin on his face was a sign of happiness and new life. But like any other coward, Frankenstein ran away from his creation. What Frankenstein was unable to comprehend was the fact the monster was more human and moral than his creator himself.

Not only did Frankenstein not provide the attention and love that any newborn needs, he created more misery for the monster by not creating a companion for it. It can be said that Frankenstein is quite hypocritical. While in school, all Frankenstein wanted was a companion like the one he found in Henry Clerval .So who is he to deprive the monster of the only thing Frankenstein ever wanted? Not only does he therefore inflict further pain on the monster, but also ultimately on himself. Frankenstein is responsible of the deaths of all his closest friends and family because he knowingly ignored the monsters only wish. He furthermore is selfish that he attempts to publically blame the monster for all the murders that are occurring. Here in the story is where Frankenstein had the chance to redeem himself and come clean with his creation. But he so cowardly blames the monster for all the pain that he has gone through.

What kind of human would intentionally cause harm on something it had created? The answer to the question is, well, an evil one. To me evil is not only intentionally causing pain on something, but furthermore being selfish and not understanding the depth of your creations. So essentially, Frankenstein is evil in every sense of the word.

Acts of Evil

Julie Vandervort
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200

Immoral actions, causing harm to others, selfishness, bad intentions; these are all traits that I associate with evil. Because Frankenstein posses all of these traits at one point or another throughout the novel, I believe he is ultimately evil. Frankenstein did not have any moral reasons for creating the monster. “Imposing life into an inanimate body” doesn’t serve any purpose nor does it benefit anyone or anything (58). Frankenstein created the monster for his own selfish reasons. He wanted to see how far he could push the boundaries of science and he ultimately regretted it. He ended up hurting his family, friends, and even himself because of his creation. Frankenstein became obsessed with finding the monster and ending its life. Little did he know, his creation wasn’t just a terrorizing monster, it had feelings and it even learned to communicate with others and fend for itself. However, it didn’t change the fact that the monster was responsible for the death of Frankenstein’s friends and family members. I think Frankenstein failed to thoroughly think through the consequences of his actions.

I don’t think of Frankenstein as an evil person when he is creating the monster because he didn’t know the consequences of his actions and I don’t think he realized how badly everything would turn out. I really believe he was just trying to test the boundaries of science. Who wouldn’t want to be known for something as innovative as creating a human and giving it life? I do not believe his intentions were evil but, I think he needed to think though the consequences that would come with giving life to something.

Frankenstein creating the monster is similar to a mother giving birth to a child. A mother would not abandon her child minutes after giving birth to it. Therefore, Frankenstein shouldn’t have abandoned his monster minutes after bringing it to life. The monster was scared and confused, it needed someone to be there for it and teach it the ways of life. Instead, he abandoned the monster, which in turn caused Frankenstein’s family and friends to suffer. In my opinion, Frankenstein didn’t even have a logical reason for the abandonment of the monster. Moments before bringing the monster to life Frankenstein describes it as beautiful and luxurious. He describes “his teeth of pearly whiteness” and how its “hair was of lustrous black” (58). However, after the creature comes to life Frankenstein is “unable to endure the aspect of the being [he] had created”, and rushes out of the room (58). When the monster found Frankenstein in his bedroom “he muttered some inarticulate sounds, while a grin wrinkled his cheeks” and “one hand was stretched out” (59). This act terrified Frankenstein and made him escape to the courtyard.

Frankenstein didn’t even consider the possibility that the monster was probably scared and confused and just needed some companionship. Frankenstein refers to the monster as a “demonical corpse”, a “wretch”, and “a thing such as even Dante could not have conceived” (59). He didn’t even give his creation a chance. The fact that everyone shunned the monster because of his appearance led the monster to kill. In my opinion, Frankenstein is responsible for the deaths because he abandoned his own creation. I also think that creating the monster in the first place was unnecessary. It was selfish on Frankenstein’s behalf. However, since he created the monster he should have taken responsibility for it.

We Must Heed Joy's Warning

Glenn Goss

Dr. Adam Johns

19 January 2009

Fear is one thing that every human faces.  Much of the fear we encounter is created by our own minds; just as many of the inventions and creations we make will instill fear in us at a later time. Technological advancements are thought to be great accomplishments, examples of the leaps and bounds made by mankind.  Who would think that someday these accomplishments could in fact take us over?  This is a very distinct possibility.  Frankenstein by Mary Shelley foreshadows the things predicted to happen by Bill Joy in his essay, Why the future doesn't need us.  We cannot just ignore his many warnings, we must act now.  

Our carelessness as a whole will, one day, lead us to our demise.  For example, the invention of the first antibiotic, penicillin, was very effective in curing infections and diseases.  Overuse of this medication throughout the years has resulted in various strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics.  Now our doctors must resort to experimental and toxic medications to treat illnesses that were once easily curable.  A second example of human carelessness is pollution.  Fuel emissions from our vehicles and energy sources are eating away the ozone layer and destroying the atmosphere.  This poses as a major problem.  With the ozone layer continuing to dissipate, the earth's temperature is rising.  Global warming, or the green house effect, could potentially disrupt the world's weather patterns, resulting in climate changes and melting of the polar ice caps.  The effects of these changes would be catastrophic.  

Notice, the things that are going to cause the extinction of the human population in this world are the result of advancements in technology.  Misuse and accidents involving this technology could be devastating.   This is the argument in Joy's essay, and I believe it to be a valid and meaningful one.  Robotic technology and computers will one day be so advanced that they will be able to have minds of their own.  Joy states, " Stories of run-amok robots like the Borg, replicating or mutating to escape from the ethical constraints imposed on them by their creators, are well establishes in our science fiction books and movies."  The day of intelligent robots found in these science fiction books and movies may not be too far off.  One of Joy's most prominent worries is that this robotic and computer technology that will soon be generated will be able to self replicate. A discovery was made regarding a 32-amino-acid peptide that could auto-catalyze its own synthesis.  This may hint at a route to self-replicating molecular systems on a basis far wider than Watson-Crick base pairing. (Joy)  Imagine the human population taken over by self-replicating robots, our own creations.  The technology inside of them is so advanced that they come up with their own way to self-replicate.  The creators, never having planned for such things, have no way to stop this replication.  It's the same concept as rapid cell growth causing cancer.  Doctor's can occasionally control it, but soon the cancer takes  over our entire body.  Scientists could control the replication of the robots up to a point, but soon they would become overwhelmed leaving us all helpless.

The events in Frankenstein could act as a sign to exercise extreme caution when developing new technologies.  Frankenstein's experiment-gone-wrong resulted in a monster.  This parallels one of Joy's arguments in his essay, stating that gray goo replicators could stem from a simple laboratory accident.  After the creation of the monster, he escapes and wreaks havoc on all he comes encounters.  Similarly, the creation of highly intelligent robots would be uncontrollable, much like the way the monster was in Frankenstein.  Victor Frankenstein lost complete control of the monster after he created it.  Today's modern scientists and engineers would be rendered helpless if they were faced with a technological crisis involving self-replicating robots.  We all must heed Joy's many warnings of what is to come in his essay.  If we do not exercise some realism, we may wind up helpless human beings, overtaken by creations of our own minds.

Joy, Bill.  Why the future doesn't need us.

Shelley, Mary.  Frankenstein.

Assignment for Tuesday (Group #2)

Option #1: The same as Option #1 last week.

Option #2: The same as Option #2 last week.

Option #3: Is Victor Frankenstein ultimately good or ultimately evil? If you decide that he's evil, explain when he crosses the line - when creating the monster? When abandoning the monster? When making a deal with the monster? If he's good, why do things end up so badly? The question may seem general, but you should make your paper very specific by focusing on - and quoting - precise moments in the text, and by being clear with your definitions (e.g. - what do good and evil mean for you, anyway?).

Note: Since you've had the benefit of reading papers from last week, as well as commenting on them, expectations will certainly be higher this week, especially for options 1 & 2.

Revised Group Assignments

This list reflects adds and drops, as well as I've been able to figure it out. If you're not on this list, let me know!

James Toye, Jessica Titler
Hamid (Anthony) Campbell, Evan
Phill Oostdyk, Glen Goss
Ryan Lynn, Julie Vandervort
Andy Vogel, Austin Hickson
*, Albert Wu
Bailey Moorhead, Alisha
Stephanie, Melanie Siokalo
Christopher Owens, Julia Sandoval

Note 1: Albert is temporarily without a partner. If nobody adds the class for next week, I'll need to fix this in some moderately complicated way (involving triangles instead of pairs).

Note 2: Stephanie is in group 1, Alisha in group 2. Stephanie - this means that you need to write the first paper as soon as you can get around to it. Alisha - this means you need to comment on Bailey's paper by tomorrow.

If you have any questions, contact me!

Argument of a Realist

Christopher L. Owens
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCOMP 0200
13 January 2009
Argument of a Realist

Though the evidence of mankind’s exponential technological development is undeniable, the long-term consequences of this ascendance are highly disputable. Bill Joy in his futurist essay Why the future doesn’t need us, assumes the stance of technological watchdog and proposes that the development and distribution of certain emerging information and technology should be limited to prevent what he believes to be a potentially imminent cataclysm- human extinction. However, as witnessed in Mary Shelley’s opus, Frankenstein, the primordial human desire for knowledge and mastery of the environment, the core facets of human existence, will realistically overcome any cry for halt. In such demanding climbs, few turn back when so close to the precipice.


Why the future doesn’t need us primarily focuses on three likely 21st century technological breakthroughs in robotics, genetics and nanotechnology and how self-replicating technology presents a novel threat to humanity (Joy). Bill Joy suggests that exploration in these areas should be curtailed as fear of rather unlikely negative consequences dictates his conservative decision-making, essentially a risk-averse viewpoint. He is not a Luddite in the sense of being completely against technological change for its own sake, but irrationally wishes to stunt the greater development, which would likely produce much more good than harm, because he fears the most negative of possible outcomes.



Shelley, however, created an extreme example of the results of new science, yet more importantly a realistic portrayal of scientists in Victor Frankenstein. Both his greatness and his flaws used as reminders of his humanity. His desire to study the creation of life clearly outweighed any fears of abomination. He like many other scientists would pursue this knowledge to its very limit. Curiosity, the essential need to know controlled his every action and this models one of the most critical facets of human nature. As Frankenstein noted, “the energy of my purpose alone sustained me” (Shelley 57). And, unlike other species, humans have the unique ability to gamble on likely consequences. Humanity’s collective development has included many blunders and achievements, but this special trait as demonstrated in Frankenstein is the stuff that differentiates human thinking.



Hopefully it has become clear that the idea of limiting knowledge or study of Joy’s dangerous subjects or any other contradicts what has made humanity so successful to this point. It is possible that man may create abominations not fully understood as Victor Frankenstein did, but for millennia humans have benefited from the extreme majority of technological breakthroughs, so to assume a risk-averse mindset would be foolish. People will continue to learn and search and seek and likely as their existence demands as long as the majority ignores irrational fear and continues to think in a logical, risk-neutral, realistic manner.

A Warning for the Future

James Toye
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200
11/13/09

Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein was written as a precautionary tale about the dangers of technology that sparked the entrance of a new genre, concerning the side effects of technological improvement, into popular literature. In her novel, Shelly foresees problems with what is now known as genetic engineering. Although there have been no major consequences of the science yet, her precautions are still echoed by all the authors of the genre, including Bill Joy, who, in his essay Why the future doesn’t need us, also warns about the dangers of new technologies that could not have been imagined in Shelly’s time. Both of the authors agree that one of the goals of mankind is to pursue and gain knowledge; however, they also both agree that if they are put into the wrong hands, or used for the wrong purposes, the effects will be destructive, rampant, and perhaps even unstoppable.

Both authors use similar devices to argue their points. In Frankenstein, Shelly has her protagonist’s creature turn against its creator and humanity as a whole, causing destruction and horror wherever it is. The creature sees evil in humans or at the least sees our inferiorities, and through its superiority decides that we are not fit to survive. Joy echoes this same Darwinian warning in his essay, but at a much greater level, stating that rather than being stoppable like Frankenstein’s creature, that if the products of nanotechnology become sentient, they could, if they deemed it necessary, “replicate swiftly, and reduce the biosphere to dust in a matter of days,” causing much more destruction than the creature ever did (Joy). He continues to persist that the day when the necessary technology for something of that is discovered moves ever closer, perhaps even as close as the year 2030 and thus far, very little has been done to prevent the wrong outcome from happening.

Joy identifies three main technologies of the twenty-first century as potential threats to human existence, genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics. He argues that as we advance technologically we will become more dependent on these things, which will become superior then us, and in turn will cause us to become obsolete and eventually extinct. As he quotes George Dyson’s book Darwin Among the Machines, “In the game of life and evolution there are three players... But nature I suspect, is on the side of the machines,” Joy expresses that although humans may be the pinnacle of natural selection at this moment, we have the potential of creating something that can potentially render us unnecessary to the biosphere (Joy). He relates technology and the dawn of robotics to the raising of the land bridge between Central America and South America and the extinction of the pouched animals that lived there. Just as the non-pouched mammals overcame the pouched ones in South America, or as Frankenstein’s creature seems to overcome humanity, robots may do the same thing, and prove that they are superior to mankind.

Both Shelly and Joy agree that technology can be very beneficial for human society, but both also agree that in the wrong hands, it can be extremely hazardous to the general populous. Joy gives an all too probable example; that a terrorist cell gets control of a robotic virus or a mass of nanobots that destroys a large population of people. Shelly approaches the situation differently and asks the reader to imagine that one scientist, intending to do something good for the world, accidentally has his experiment go awry and in turn causes a disaster. While the Frankenstein dilemma is eventually solved, the chances of there being enough time for a robotics, genetics, or nanotechnology issue being solved, simply because as Joy points out, at the time we will rely too heavily on whatever it is that we need to stop, to be able to create a solution without that source of technology, or if we do use that source of technology to solve it, we might cause another problem of the same or greater magnitude.

No technology is inherently good or evil; rather it can be used in either fashion. Any of the main technologies of the twenty-first century have practical purposes in today’s society, and as we are told in Why the future doesn’t need us, are being developed by private corporations, rather than the federal government, as the technologies of the previous century were. They go unregulated, at a pace far faster than any technological improvement has gone before, potentially developing radical, world-changing things that can be easily mass-produced with easily attainable materials by anyone possessing the knowledge of how to make them. No reliable countermeasures have been set up, or even conceived of to prevent the destruction of humanity and the world as it is today, and yet the maddening search for knowledge relentlessly continues, with little concern of the side effects of it. Now, more than ever, are the lessons in Frankenstein important and relevant to society, as Joy shows us in his essay.

Unfounded Fear

For every action there is an equal an opposite reaction.  Although the
application of the laws of physical science to other realms of the human
experience should be approached with caution, Newton’s third law seems to
hold true when applied to technological advancement.  Penicillin is
prescribed to cure bacterial diseases; antibiotic resistant strains of
bacteria evolve.  Trains, cars, and planes drastically decrease
transportation time; the emissions produced cause pollution and global
warming.  For every technological advancement, an obstacle is created,
whether it be ethical, physical, or simply the human desire of further
achievement.  Despite these negative consequences, humanity also benefits
from technological achievement.  Although humans would not suffer from
antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria had penicillin not been so
frequently prescribed during the 20th century, we would be suffering from
illnesses easily cured by these drugs.  The robots described by Bill Joy
may be turn out to be dangerous, but they also hold immense positive
potential.  Similar to Shelley’s Frankenstein, Joy inspires fear in the
reader by focusing on possible negative consequences of technology in the
future, but it must be noted that Frankenstein is a work of fiction, while
Joy’s essay is non-fiction.  What the reader must realize is that the
technology that is the topic of Joy’s essay is not one hundred percent
evil.  Though the monsters of both writings may seem entirely of a
destructive nature, Frankenstein’s creature is not made with the intent of
helping humanity while most of the technology that is the topic of Joy’s
essay is.  The fact that Joy’s essay is conventionally non-fiction may
lead the reader to believe his fear for the fate of mankind is completely
legitimate, when in reality other factors must be considered.
Frankenstein voices legitimate concern in regard to the consequences of
the advancement of technology in a purely cynical sense, but considering
the technology discussed in Bill Joy’s essay, “Why the future doesn’t need
us,” would produce both positive and negative consequences for humanity,
his fear should be regarded with skepticism by the reader.

Victor Frankenstein creates his monster because of his passion for finding
the secret of life, not out of passion for developing solutions to
humanity’s problems; thus, he creates a purely destructive monster.  As
shown by his isolation from his friends and family during his creation of
the monster, Frankenstein is oblivious to consequences his creature may
have on his fellow humans.  Shelley is not attempting to create a
believable monster to inform her readers of an impending threat of
humanoid creatures made from bits of corpses, rather, she is warning her
readers of the possible negative consequences of technological advancement
when people proceed recklessly on their quest for knowledge.  This fear is
absolutely legitimate.  Certain scientific advancements have caused great
destruction because future consequences were not considered, or at least
not considered to a great extent.  An example Bill Joy uses is the atomic
bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II.
Allied scientists worked furiously to beat the Axis nations in obtaining
nuclear weapons and then the American government made the hasty decision
to drop the bombs on Japan, rather than simply test the bombs to
demonstrate military power to the world.  Many deeply regretted this
decision because of the massive life loss and subsequent arms race.
Frankenstein warns against this foolhardy quest for technology.  By
reading this novel, the reader understands that the threat of negative
technological consequences is present, but also realizes that the
technology in this book is obviously entirely destructive, in contrast to
technology developed with the intent to aid humanity.

By understanding that Frankenstein is a fiction work, the reader can
understand that while Joy’s fear is founded, there are differences between
the technologies, and therefore the consequences of the technologies, in
the two essays.  The technology of Joy’s essay, robotics, genetic
engineering, and nanotech, will have positive and negative consequences,
but this stands in stark contrast to the fictional destructive technology
of Shelley’s Frankenstein.  The reader will understand by contrasting the
two writings that Joy’s non-fiction essay is biased against further
advancements in technology and that his fear must be regarded with
skepticism because he does not fully explore what positive consequences
may come about from technological development.  He states humans are in
danger of becoming extinct if our pattern of technological advancement is
continued, but he fails to consider advancements that may lengthen our
lifespan or strengthen our bodies, which is why the reader should not be
completely convinced humans are to become extinct in the near future.

Fear Of The Unknown

Phill Oostdyk
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200

Whether it is realized or not, the unknown is something that every human seems to fear. A new mother fears giving birth for the first time. A freshman fears his first day of high school. Fear of the unknown future always comes to the forefront. It is human nature for a person to know everything about them and around them. When someone is faced with the unknown, the first reaction is, if even for a second, fear.

In Frankenstein, there is fear in the unknown of the technology he developed. Frankenstein blindly creates something not acknowledging his fear of the unknown. When the monster is brought to life and the idea becomes reality, the fear finally sets in. Not understanding what the monster is or what it will do strikes fear into Frankenstein’s heart. His fear initially prevents Frankenstein from sharing the news of his new monster. His fear even keeps him from understanding his creation. Not giving into to any intial fear that Frankenstein may of had allowed him to create life. If Frankenstein's fear had not set in at the end, he could of stepped back and appreciated what he accomplished, both for himself and the human race.

Joy portrays the same type of fear in his essay, only as a before the fact emotion. He fears the unknown of having artificial intelligence and nanotechnology in existence. He fears the self-replication capability of this technology. Joy fears that their existence would lead to the end of the human race. If this technology comes to fruition and his fears are right, then Joy’s fears would be justified. But what if Joy's fears are not? What if this technology could lead to saving millions of human lives? This future technology could be the best thing to happen to the human race, but it might also not. That is the unknown of invention. That is the fear of the unknown. Listening to this fear unknown inhibits the growth of the technology.

What if everyone gave into their fears? Most kids would not make it to high school. Some women wouldn't give birth. If every scientist gave into their fear of future technology, then there would never be any. People should not give into their fears. The unknown is the thing that people are scared of and prevent the feeling. Fear must be overcome to bring about change. If it is not, then we would still be riding horses, using candles, and cooking over open fires.

Today, new technology has the same effect. People like to live their lives in the status quo. Over coming the fear, though, can bring about good things. An elderly woman could take a chance of falling on ice and hurting herself because she wanted to go to teller instead of facing her fear and using a the ATM or a debit card. The excuse may be because she is too old to learn how to use the new machines, but it may not be the wisest choice. Although they do not admit it as fear, it is there.

This is not an essay to promote the complete blindness to this fear. It will always be there, in everybody to varying degrees. This is just to say that the fear should be acknowledged, listened to if need be, and push past it. Irrational blindness to fear of the unknown could lead to chaos. Joy is listening to his fear, but so much that it would prevent technological progress. This future technology could be the answer to things like human disease. If Joy's fear is heeded to the point of preventing progress, then we may never find cures to some diseases.

Over coming one's fears is not also beneficial to the whole, as in new technology. Over coming one's fears could also be beneficial to one's self. Fear can be a prohibitive and restrictive emotion. Listening to your fear is one thing, giving in to it is a is another. If people let it hold them back, then there would be no pilots, astronauts, or deep sea divers. If pushing past your fear can involve the little things like elderly people using modern technology or even starting a new job.

Fear of the unknown can hold people at bay and prevent them from venturing forward. Most people would not enter a dark cave because they do not know what is inside. However, if everyone followed this, no caves would ever be explored. The same is with technology. If every scientist read Joy’s essay and agreed with it, no one would invent the technology. The fact of the matter is that we need to both listen this fear of the unknown and respect it, but push past it and not let it prohibit us. If humans hold onto this fear, then we get nowhere.

Prometheus as a Cautionary Tale

Ryan Lynn
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200
12 January 2009

In Greek mythology, there are countless stories of divine beings interacting with the mortals that inhabit the Earth. They help unknowing heroes to defeat mythical creatures or point them in the right direction so they can fulfill their destiny. Prometheus, the Titan, is a prime example of this divine intervention. Prometheus was a Titan who stole fire from Mount Olympus and brought its light and warmth to mankind. However, this act did not go unnoticed and Prometheus was punished for his crime. He was bound in chains to a rock upon which an eagle would proceed to eat his liver for all eternity, for his liver would grow back each day. This act of Prometheus demonstrates that putting certain technologies in mankind’s hands is not without its consequences. Prometheus should not be a model onto which mankind looks to, mankind needs to consider the costs of acquiring high-level technology.

In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Victor Frankenstein thirsts for knowledge. However, upon quenching his thirst, Frankenstein immediately rejects his own creation. He had stumbled upon a way to reanimate long dead flesh into a living being. The appearance of his creation was hideous, and not even its creator could look upon it. Over time, Victor lost track of this monstrosity. When Victor receives word of his little brother’s death, he accounts this tragedy to his own creation. The actual person accused of the murder is condemned, and Victor’s soul is tainted with the death of two humans. Frankenstein’s monster is his own “Promethean Fire”, in that having achieved a pinnacle in knowledge; it resulted in the death of humans and weighed heavy on his soul. He was filled with guilt, misery, and remorse. As Frankenstein threatens his creation, “…I may extinguish the spark which I so negligently bestowed” (102). He suffers as Prometheus did chained to his rock and wishes to undo his creation and regrets having made his discovery. This proves that there are advances in technology that mankind is not ready for, and if they are, they must first weigh the consequences of such advancement instead of foolishly throwing themselves into achieving its creation and immediately suffering afterwards.

The essay “Why the future doesn’t need us” by Bill Joy expresses Joy’s worries of technology advancing too rapidly and possibly leading to mankind’s extinction. Joy is conscious of the possible flaws that come with advances in robotics and nanotechnology. For example Joy states that “[e]ventually a stage may be reached at which…machines will be in effective control…people…will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide”. Joy is saying that machines may become so advanced that our very survival would depend on them, which in turn could lead to the extinction of humans because the shutting down of the machines would lead to a certain death. Here, the “Promethean Fire” is the ability to create robots that make their own decisions and have an essentially conscious mind. Human extinction is a possible consequence of such advancement and a very notable one. Not only is human extinction a concern, but the replacement of humans with robots as the dominant species on the planet. George Dyson states “[i]n the game of life and evolution there are three players…human beings, nature and machines…[b]ut nature..is on the side of the machines”. This statement means that humans are going to be inevitably replaced by machines and this process cannot be stopped. There are also ethical issues that arrive with this technology, “[i]f we were to reengineer ourselves into several separate and unequal species…then we threaten the notion of equality…”. Human ethics comes into play, because if we are all engineered differently, how could we all be equal? This is another consequence of this technology that must be considered. Mankind is accelerating quickly towards these goals, but we may not be ready to deal with the negatives that come from achieving them.

Joy’s essay and Frankenstein both describe extremely powerful advances in technology. The story of Prometheus employs a very simple form of technology. Even though this piece of technology aided mankind greatly, the consequences were severe. We should look towards the story of Prometheus as an example of how technological advances can easily lead to adverse consequences. Prometheus represents what course of action should not be taken regarding technology. While new technology is tempting to the human mind, it must always be preceded with caution.

Works Cited

Joy, Bill. "Why the future doesn't need us". 11 Jan. 2009
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html.

"Prometheus." Encyclopedia Mythica. 2009. Encyclopedia Mythica Online.
12 Jan. 2009 .

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. London: Penguin Books, 1992.

Prometheus as a model for the future?

Andy Vogel

Dr. Adam Johns

ENGCMP 0200

1/11/09

The Greek god Prometheus substantially advanced human technology and knowledge by giving humans fire and teaching them arts and sciences. However, he did this by recklessly disobeying Zeus, the most powerful god in Greek mythology. As punishment, Prometheus was chained to a rock and had his liver eaten by an eagle every day and regenerated every night (“World Mythology Dictionary: Prometheus”). The dire consequences of Prometheus’ risky actions make him a poor model for future attainment of scientific knowledge and technology.

Prometheus’ story parallels Bill Joy’s essay Why the future doesn’t need us, where Joy predicts what will happen in a future with too much reliance on technology. Prometheus gave human civilization a huge boost in technology and knowledge but never told them how to use it ethically and safely. Because of this, humans began using their new technology to cause harm. Fire was the basis for many later inventions such as guns and bombs that made civilization suffer. Humans today are also discovering better technology without considering the safety and ethical concerns that accompany it. They are attempting to create extremely complex robots when, as Joy says, they “obviously have so much trouble making relatively simple things work” (Joy). Without a full knowledge of how the robots operate, creating them would be a dangerous endeavor. In fact, the new technology is so dangerous to society that the philosopher John Leslie believes that the risk of human extinction is at least 30% (Joy). The potential for accidental destruction that fire brought humans is also imitated on a much larger scale by the potential of 21^st -century technology. Fire can destroy a town or forest through a careless mistake. An accident with self-replicating technology in the near future could destroy the whole world in a “gray goo problem” (Joy). Joy’s predictions show another similarity to Prometheus with his belief that humans will lose their freedom. While Prometheus was physically imprisoned by a chain, humans could become so dependent on machines that they become powerless and lose all freedom. The many similarities between Prometheus and the pessimistic predictions from Joy show that Prometheus would not be a good model for future technological advancement.

Parallels between Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Prometheus also show the danger of having Prometheus as a model for the future. Victor Frankenstein’s monster discovers fire just as Prometheus gave it to humans. The monster enjoys the warmth and better food that it provides but then burns himself. This symbolizes the ability of technology to both provide benefits and be a danger. Just as humankind obtained a large body of knowledge from Prometheus, Frankenstein discovers a huge part of science: the secret of life. Frankenstein realizes, however, that this new knowledge is actually bad. He says to Walton, “You seek for knowledge and wisdom, as I once did; and I ardently hope that the gratification of your wishes may not be a serpent to sting you, as mine has been.” Thus, an important part of future technological progress is knowing when additional knowledge is actually going to be harmful. There will reach a point where this occurs because, as Frankenstein says, “In other studies you go as far as others have gone before you, and there is nothing more to know; but in scientific pursuit there is continual food for discovery and wonder.” Prometheus, however, is a symbol of the unrelenting effort to discover truth because of the torture he endured after giving humans technology. While this makes him seem admirable, he can also be interpreted as a stubborn figure bent on creating technological progress for humans at all costs. For him, this meant dealing with Zeus’ wrath. For humans today, technological progress at all costs means gaining knowledge and implementing robots and other technologies until the planet is destroyed or humans are extinct. This shows that a Prometheus-like attitude for the future cannot be tolerated.

The simple fact that Prometheus suffered greatly for his actions should be enough in itself for humans to avoid his influence. If humans try to emulate his way of creating progress, they would be on a course for suffering as well. Also, the similarities of Prometheus’ story with Frankenstein’s sufferings and Joy’s dire predictions show that a future modeled on Prometheus would be extremely dangerous.

Works Cited

Joy, Bill. "Why the future doesn't need us". 11 Jan. 2009

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html.

"World Mythology Dictionary: Prometheus". 11 Jan. 2009

http://www.answers.com/topic/prometheus.

Are we really willing to take such a risk?

Hamid A. Campbell
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200
01.13.2009
Are we really willing to take such a risk?

While the acquisition and passage of knowledge is essential to an ideal, functional society, the possession of too much knowledge can have dire, irreversible consequences. This idea is the central theme of Mary Shelley’s 1818 gothic novel, Frankenstein. In the novel, Shelley implicitly argues that new scientific knowledge and rapid technological advancement pose a threat to humankind. Bill Joy’s essay, Why the future doesn’t need us, also explores the idea of limitless knowledge and its possibly dangerous outcomes, particularly in the twenty-first century, as the risk that we take in discovering and applying such novelties that may render man obsolete is the effective endangerment of the human species. Both Shelley and Joy seem to be apprehensive of the fate of mankind as a result of its very own creations, and the abuses and misuses that abundant knowledge enables. While Frankenstein is a work of fiction and Joy’s article purely an expression of concern from a scientific standpoint, both documents support each other by cautioning the reader of the eventual destruction and disasters that science and technology could impose upon humankind.

Joy’s article explores the threats of science using a variety of examples, the strongest of which is his comparison between the displacement of the South American marsupials by the North American placentals over the course of a few thousand years and the possible displacement of mankind by the technology for which it so longingly pines. Inhuman creations of man, such as robots, would be highly intelligent and complex, causing their human creators to develop an unhealthy dependence on them and to entrust these omniscient machines to “make more of their decisions for them,” effectively eliminating the necessity for human knowledge and logic in the future, thus the title of his article (Joy). Joy proposes that machines will compete vigorously with their human counterparts for matter, energy, and space, inevitably driving their inferiors to extinction, as did the North American placentals to the South American marsupials. This idea is also embodied in Frankenstein, in which a creature manufactured by the central character, Victor Frankenstein, begins to wreak havoc upon man, instilling fear in every person with whom he comes into contact and eventually causing the deaths of those close to Frankenstein either directly or indirectly.

The events in Frankenstein certainly shed light on and validate the fears of Joy. The unfortunate chain of events in the novel certainly arouses fears in the reader and should cause one to take Joy’s essay seriously. The novel forces the reader to contemplate the long-term risks of the present science and technology that seems to fascinate us. In his article, Joy takes care to convey his fear that “things [are moving] too fast,” expressing his concerns about the consequences of rapidly expanding technology. He expands this view by focusing on the twenty-first century technologies (genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics) and the ease with which they can be accessed by individuals and small groups, such as terrorists. Such technologies will not require elaborate facilities nor rare materials, but “knowledge alone will enable the use of them” (Joy). If Victor Frankenstein, a scientist looking to advance the field by pioneering the creation of his own being, and a man who possesses a tremendous amount of scientific knowledge, ultimately created something that caused as much damage as it did, can you imagine the destruction that such incredible knowledge can inflict upon mankind if placed in the wrong hands?

Humankind cannot afford to invest its fate in dangerous technologies, technologies that may or may not prove to be our friends in the future. The quest for knowledge is certainly one that should be embarked upon in a cautious manner, as the very knowledge that we seek could eventually be the initiator of our demise. In a world that is rapidly and ever changing, attention must be paid and care must be taken to ensure that the progress that science and technology allows us to make does not pose a fatal threat to humans, primarily progress in robotics, nanotechnology, and other fields that involve the creation of supernatural materials, devices, and beings.

The common misconception of new technologies is that they will all do a world of good all of the time. It has been postulated that nanotechnology and the manipulation of matter at the atomic and subatomic levels could create a “utopian” future of limitlessness, in which materials and goods could be more cost-efficiently produced, and just about any imaginable disease or ailment could be cured. While this is certainly an attractive idea, let us consider the negative ramifications of such advancement. In fields such as nanotechnology and molecular electronics, in which the most basic and elementary particles in nature are altered, it is much easier to create destruction than it is to be productive. The danger is implicit in Murphy’s Law, which broadly states that “anything that can go wrong, will.” Nanotechnological devices can be built to selectively destroy only certain demographics, such as a certain group of people or geographic region, providing this field with clear terrorist and military uses. In science, the slightest mistakes or miscalculations, even by the most brilliant and respected scientists, can sometimes mean a great, irreversible amount of danger and destruction, as evidenced by the monster in Frankenstein. Are we really willing to take such a risk?

Works Cited
Joy, Bill. "Why the future doesn't need us." Wired April 2000.

Assignment #1 (for Group 1)

You should have your initial draft posted by noon on Tuesday.

Option #1: Write an essay on how Frankenstein helps us understand Bill Joy's essay. Frankenstein is, in part, concerned with the threats posed by new sciences and technologies, and is usually understood as being the first (or at least, first important) document in that genre, while Joy's essay is a very contemporary document in that genre.

The exact argument is up to you, but here are a couple examples.

1. The fact that the terrible things anticipated in Frankenstein haven't actually happened should make us evaluate Joy's essay with a grain of salt - in short, he's wrong, or at least he exaggerates.
2. The terrible things anticipated in Frankenstein have, in fact, come to pass (at least in some sense - you might use nuclear arms or genetic engineering as an example) - which should cause us to take Joy's argument very seriously.

Option #2: In conventional terms, Frankenstein is fiction and Joy's essay is non-fiction. Yet, Joy tells stories in order to make his points, and Shelley makes arguments, at least implicit ones. In this option, you should argue that we should understand Frankenstein as an argument, or Joy's essay as a piece of literature. You should both provide multiple examples from your text making your case, and explain what changes, or why it matters, when we reverse our habits in this way.

Option #3: Do some basic research on the figure "Prometheus" and what he represents (note that the subtitle of Frankenstein is "A Modern Prometheus"). Using both Joy and Shelley, argue that we should/should not take Prometheus as a desirable model for the future, especially in scientific/technological matters.

Note: If you use any outside sources, you must attempt to cite them correctly. Here's a quick guide to citation: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/557/01/
At this early point, I will not be penalizing you for incorrect formatting when you're citing sources - I simply expect you to cite them when you use them, whether you get the details right or not.

Group Assignments

Hi everyone,

Here are the group assignments. I have you arranged into pairs; if you're on the left side of the pair (before the comma), you're in group 1: that means that you're writing a paper for next Tuesday. If you're on the right side (after the comma), you're in group 2: that means that you are commenting on some else's paper next weak.

For those of you in group one: I'll have the prompt posted some time tomorrow.

For those of you in group two: we'll spend some time in class next week talking about your duties.

For everyone: just to clarify, readings are listed on the syllabus when they are due - so you're reading 16-124 of Frankenstein, as well as Bill Joy's essay, which you'll find here (the address is also on the syllabus) for next week. Bring a printed copy of Joy's essay, as well as your copy of Frankenstein, to class (again, as instructed on the syllabus).

Now, here are the group assignments/pairings:

James Toye, Jessica Titler
Hamid Campbell, Evan
Phill Oostdyk, Glen Goss
Ryan Lynn, Julie Vandervort
Andy Vogel, Dawn Hickson
Caitlin Leleck, Albert Wu
Bailey Moorhead, Timothy Fay
Dan Nickoli, Melanie Siokalo
Christopher Owens, Julia Sandoval

We still haven't heard from one or two people; whoever hasn't sent in an email, or whoever adds the class, is going to be in group 1.

Note that I have the assignments arranged in pairs to indicate who will be commenting on whose blog entries for the first couple weeks.

If anyone has any questions, post them here!

Introduction

Welcome! You have successfully located the class blog. As a reminder, the very first thing you need to do is send me an email (my email address is at the top of the syllabus) including three things:

1) Your name
2) That you are in Seminar in Composition
3) That you need an invitation to the class blog

I will take care of adding all of you to the class blog by tomorrow morning. Shortly thereafter, you'll get an email (not from me personally - from Blogger a.k.a. Google, with instructions). If you have difficulty signing up, or never get the email, send me another email asking for help.

If you signed up to be in Group #1, you need to get started on the reading and the assignment right away; the assignment will be posted by Thursday afternoon at the latest.