Dr. Adam Johns
Seminar in Composition
October 6, 2008
Growth and Maturation
In “Enough” Bill McKibben argues against genetic engineering and other technologies that would completely alter human existence as we know it. McKibben argues that humans have developed far enough and do not need to go through major changes such as becoming “posthuman”. This excess growth would be what Edward Abbey was talking about when he said, “ Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” Maybe mankind should be content with the level that we are at right now, we could consider the level that we have reached as being maturity.
Throughout “Enough” McKibben shows his belief in the quote by Abbey. One example of his support of this theory is when he discusses human beings having limits. He says, “It’s the ability to limit ourselves—in Kohak’s words, ‘the recognition that something may be perfectly understandable and yet be wrong’—that makes us unique among the animals.”(208) In this statement McKibben is talking about limiting growth. Humans are able to control advancement and determine when their curiosity and knowledge are satiated. That is one of the things that defines mankind. It is not necessary for humanity to continue to improve on an exponential scale. Maybe society has reached an asymptote. Mankind can determine our limits regarding technology such as germ line genetic engineering. Everything that is more advanced than what we currently have does not have to be accepted. Some things are simply unnecessary.
Another example of McKibben’s support for the beliefs of Edward Abbey is his use of the analogy between the growth of mankind and the growth of individuals. He sums up the growth of man on an individual level saying, “They grow for a while than they stop growing. This is the process that a biologists calls would call maturation.”(219) He also discusses how once we reach a certain age we stop growing because we have reached our adult size. McKibben compares this to humanity as a whole saying, “Having grown very slowly for a long time, and then gone through a stupendous five-hundred-year growth spurt, we might at least consider the possibility that we are big enough.”(220) In this passage McKibben is stating that man has reached a good status in the world, where we live long and prosperous lives and do not need to change. The life of mankind now is not extremely difficult, most people in the developed world do not struggle to survive and “‘enhancement’ isn’t headed for the poor of the Third World soon, nor are any of the other technologies we’ve been discussing.”(137) With this knowledge why is it necessary for us to alter our existence.
I agree with the opinions of Bill McKibben and Edward Abbey, growing just to grow is pointless and unproductive. Human beings have come along way since the beginning of the Renaissance, our lifespan has increased dramatically and so has our standard of living. Our lives are more prosperous than they have ever been, this could be a signal that we have reached maturity or are near that point. One of the parts of maturity is making decisions regarding your future. This process is similar to the one presented by Bill Joy in “Why the Future Doesn’t Nee Us”. In this article Joy discusses how a decision must be made regarding GNR technologies. A decision also must be made regarding all technology and where we want to take it. Does technology need to satisfy all of our wants or does it just need to satisfy our needs. If it just has to satisfy our needs than we have no need for things such as germ line engineering. As McKibben said when discussing important goals like curing the ill and feeding the hungry, “These things lie within our present powers or within the steady, foreseeable, noncontroversial, progress of science and medicine. They don’t require a post human future.”(225)
Just as humans stop growing once they have reached physical maturity, mankind as a whole may have stopped growing. This means that subtle changes can still be made just as the ones made in individuals as they age. These subtle changes include the important things like solving problems affecting the world instead of focusing on completely changing our world. We can improve our society rather than change it. Changing life as we know it would be “cancerous growth” that would most likely lead to more problems for future generations. There is no point in “growth for the sake of growth”, but if we direct what we do in the future to solve our current problems there would be a purpose. We could wipe out the things that plague or society such as illnesses, starvation and unsanitary living conditions. These three items are all real problems not invented problems like wanting to have the sense of smell of a dog, or wanting super-human strength. All positive growth has a purpose and whether we have finished growing or are almost done we need to direct our focus to tangible issues. As far as other technology goes we can simply use our ability to set limits and sat, “enough”.
3 comments:
First of all I think your paper has some great ideas and I really liked how it was organized, succinct, and easy to follow. Secondly:
I think that your introduction could have more specifically outlined what you were going to say in your paper. You could have more clearly stated that you think that McKibbon agrees with the Edward Abbey quote. I do think that your introduction did express well what you thought the quote meant as a whole. However, it may have been better to make it clear if this was what McKibbon believed as well.
Your second paragraph does explain that McKibbon believes Abbey’s quote and I liked the quote you included about humans having limits; it was very appropriate. I think that one thing you could have changed was just to make it clearer if what you are writing is what McKibbon believes or what you believe. That being said, I think it is a good idea to include your own personal opinion on the subject as well (which you did later on in the paper).
The third paragraph had good ideas about the individual vs. mankind but I think it could have been expanded a little more. For example, you could have included information about things such as germ line engineering threatening choice and also how it would undermine the possibilities of the community as a whole. Also, you could have talked more about McKibbon’s belief in the collapse of the community. What are some examples of why he believes there is a collapse of the community? (ex. High divorce rates, neighborhoods being disconnected). Also, what does McKibbon think about the collapse of the individual? There is some good info on page 46 about this. (Keep in mind that these are just ideas, feel free to reject them).
For your fourth paragraph I really liked how you included your own personal opinion. I think that is important since it is such a controversial topic. One thing you could add are including an example of how “our lives are more prosperous than they have ever been”. Another thing that I really liked is the question you brought up about if technology should satisfy our wants or just our needs.
Your conclusion sums up your paper pretty well. One thing I noticed was that it was a little contradictory because you talk about changing certain things such as curing diseases and unsanitary living conditions but you included previously information about how “the life of mankind now isn’t extremely difficult….” I would consider just clearing this up by including somewhere in the paper other than the conclusion that you believe that not all change is bad and that certain changes do need to be made that would improve mankind as a whole (maybe add this in your paragraph about the individual vs. mankind). It just seemed a little random that you all of a sudden started talking about “tangible issues” in the conclusion without having mentioned them elsewhere in the paper. Also, to just tie everything together you may want to include a summarizing sentence or two about McKibbon and Abbey’s beliefs. One final thing that I think would be interesting to add to your paper is if you think there were any ways that McKibbon’s viewpoint on growth of mankind might be different than that of Edward Abbey? (just a thought) Overall, you have really good ideas and I think this paper has the potential of being very successful!
Andre Cedeno
Dr. Adam Johns
Seminar in Composition
October 6, 2008
Growth and Maturation
In “Enough” Bill McKibben argues against genetic engineering and other technologies that would completely alter human existence as we know it. McKibben argues that humans have developed far enough and do not need to go through major changes such as becoming “posthuman”. This excess growth would be what Edward Abbey was talking about when he said, “ Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” McKibben shows his belief in this statement as he questions the continued technological growth of mankind. Maybe mankind should be content with the level that we are at right now, we could consider the level that we have reached as being maturity.
Throughout “Enough” McKibben shows his belief in the quote by Abbey. One example of his support of this theory is when he discusses human beings having limits. He says, “It’s the ability to limit ourselves—in Kohak’s words, ‘the recognition that something may be perfectly understandable and yet be wrong’—that makes us unique among the animals.”(208) In this statement McKibben is talking about limiting growth and the fact that Humans are able to control advancement and determine when their curiosity and knowledge are satiated. That is one of the things that defines mankind. It is not necessary for humanity to continue to improve on an exponential scale. Maybe society has reached an asymptote. Mankind can determine our limits regarding technology such as germ line genetic engineering. Everything that is more advanced than what we currently have does not have to be accepted. Some things are simply unnecessary.
Another example of McKibben’s support for the beliefs of Edward Abbey is his use of the analogy between the growth of mankind and the growth of individuals. He sums up the growth of man on an individual level saying, “They grow for a while than they stop growing. This is the process that a biologists calls would call maturation.”(219) He also discusses how once we reach a certain age we stop growing because we have reached our adult size. McKibben compares this to humanity as a whole saying, “Having grown very slowly for a long time, and then gone through a stupendous five-hundred-year growth spurt, we might at least consider the possibility that we are big enough.”(220) In this passage McKibben is stating that man has reached a good status in the world, where we live long and prosperous lives and do not need to change completely. The life of mankind now is not extremely difficult, most people in the developed world do not struggle to survive and “‘enhancement’ isn’t headed for the poor of the Third World soon, nor are any of the other technologies we’ve been discussing.”(137) With this knowledge why is it necessary for us to alter our existence?
I agree with the opinions of Bill McKibben and Edward Abbey, growing just to grow is pointless and unproductive. Human beings have come along way since the beginning of the Renaissance, our lifespan has increased dramatically and so has our standard of living. Our lives are more prosperous than they have ever been, this could be a signal that we have reached maturity or are near that point. One of the parts of maturity is making decisions regarding your future. This process is similar to the one presented by Bill Joy in “Why the Future Doesn’t Nee Us”. In this article Joy discusses how a decision must be made regarding GNR technologies. A decision also must be made regarding all technology and where we want to take it. Does technology need to satisfy all of our wants or does it just need to satisfy our needs. If it just has to satisfy our needs than we have no need for things such as germ line engineering. As McKibben said when discussing important goals like curing the ill and feeding the hungry, “These things lie within our present powers or within the steady, foreseeable, noncontroversial, progress of science and medicine. They don’t require a post human future.”(225)
Just as humans stop growing once they have reached physical maturity, mankind as a whole may have stopped growing. This means that subtle changes can still be made just as the ones made in individuals as they age. These subtle changes include the important things like solving problems affecting the world instead of focusing on completely changing our world. We can improve our society rather than change it. Changing life as we know it would be “cancerous growth” that would most likely lead to more problems for future generations. There is no point in “growth for the sake of growth”, but if we direct what we do in the future to solve our current problems there would be a purpose. We could wipe out the things that plague or society such as illnesses, starvation and unsanitary living conditions. These three items are all real problems not invented problems like wanting to have the sense of smell of a dog, or wanting super-human strength. All positive growth has a purpose and whether we have finished growing or are almost done we need to direct our focus to tangible issues such as the ones previously mentioned. As far as other technology goes we can simply use our ability to set limits and say, “enough”.
Kate - excellent, detailed feedback.
Andre - You have a thesis, but it's weakly worded. In fact, the introduction doesn't really prepare us at all for the strengths of the paper.
*Starting* with the image of the asymptote would have been much more effective, I think. That's a great way of visualizing and developing your thesis. I'll push what Kate said a little farther, too - there's no reason why you couldn't have had an introduction which effectively put you, Abbey, and McKibben all together as believers in growth-as-asymptote. Your material is strong, but you don't introduce it well, and as a consequence it is less than ideally organized throughout.
Post a Comment