Kaitlyn Sisk
Edward Abbey states “growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” Because Abbey was an influence on McKibben, McKibben completely agrees with this quote and backs it up in his book “Enough.” In his book, McKibben argues that more is not better and notes that environmentalists have called humans “a grim and uncontrollable race, a cancer cell metastasizing unchecked across the defenseless fabric of nature”(112). The ironic thing is, cancer is a horrible thing, but if germline engineering were the only way to stop it, would McKibben change his mind about it? Probably not.
The title of his book is enough to show that McKibben thinks it is time to stop the human race from progressing any further. He draws the line at somatic gene therapy, and anything past that, which would be germline engineering, is evil. Germline engineering is more extensive in modifying genes. With it, it is possible to change a human to be any way you want, for example health, looks, IQ, or athletic ability can all be modified. McKibben is worried that the meaning of life will disappear and people will not know who they are because they were genetically modified. If your genes were tampered with, you will be different. But you will still be you. There are so many factors that determine who you are, not just genes. So even if you are modified, maybe the difference is that you find it easier to learn things or you are less susceptible to cancer or other diseases.
McKibben argues against genetically modifying children’s genes to become smarter, faster, or better. This modification is somewhat unnecessary, but he also argues against modifying children’s genes so they do not have to suffer from diseases. McKibben says he had a friend named Kathy who had cystic fibrosis. She constantly had to have mucus pumped from her lungs and died at the early age of 15. He wishes there was a cure… only if that cure did not involve germline engineering. This was shocking to me- it seems so cruel to only wish for a cure if they do it the way you want them to. He is so worried about the what-ifs. Just in case people decide to start using germline engineering for something else besides curing diseases, McKibben wants to totally stop it.
McKibben says that you can’t enjoy life forever, but our greatest human instinct is to survive. Can anyone, anyone that isn’t depressed or ill, honestly say they want to die? McKibben is basically saying that sometime in the future, immortality will be possible, but we should not let that happen. He believes that “death is us” (148). Evolution of humans has gone so far that there is a possibility that survival of the fittest can now be survival for eternity. This is just the next step in evolution, why try to stop it? McKibben says that with immortality, people will get bored, art will die, and people will not enjoy life. There is no way of knowing this. He is again concerned about the what-ifs. Well what if instead of people being bored, they become less stressed, happier, and more at peace? Instead of people looking forward to the afterlife they believe in, they could truly enjoy their actual, real life forever. And if their afterlife is for all eternity, why aren’t they worried about getting bored when they die?
McKibben gave the statistic that “One person out of every thirty is a cancer survivor” (132). To some, maybe that looks optimistic, but honestly, I was sort of shocked to see McKibben using this to prove that we are comfortable with the medicine we have now. That means twenty-nine out of thirty people die of cancer, and only one survives. How would you feel if you or your loved one was not that surviving one out of thirty? Now looking at the quote “growth for the sake of growth” again, I would say that the way McKibben is arguing against growth is unlike this. The growth he is arguing against is progression. I’m sure there will be some point where we have to say enough, but only for certain aspects of certain things. There will always be room for progress of some kind. Even McKibben says, “Enough is not a possibility for our species” (203).
3 comments:
I really liked the quote you used in your introduction and how you related the "cancer cell" topic back to Edward Abbey's quote.
In your second paragraph you write, "If your genes were tampered with, you will be different. But you will still be you." Do you really think a person will still be themselves if their genes are tampered with? Like you said, their health, looks, IQ, and athletic ability can all be genetically modified. Do you think they will still think and act the same way if they were not modified?
I liked your use of the example of Kathy and cystic fibrosis in your third paragraph. I think the reason why McKibben feels that he *must* say "no" to using germline engineering to cure fatal diseases is because he's afraid that our society will not be satisfied with just the ability to cure diseases. He's afraid that they will not be able to say "Enough" and will stop when they've accomplished one goal.
In your next paragraph when you say "there is a possibility that survival of the fittest can now be survival for eternity" the only counterargument that I can think of is the poor people who won't be able to afford genetic engineering and therefore won't be able to survive for eternity. Maybe McKibben is worried about these people who will be left behind and will die out, which will cause the people who achieve immortality to be the very powerful and very rich people of our society.
I think you made a strong argument against McKibben's statistic in your conclusion. The only question that now remains is whether or not we *will* be able to say "Enough" when the time goes or whether McKibben's fears of what will happen to our society will come true.
Overall, I think you have a really good essay. Maybe just consider some of the "What if's?" that McKibben is so concerned about and try to incorporate his viewpoints and arguments into your essay.
Edward Abbey states “growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” Because Abbey was an influence on McKibben, McKibben agrees with this quote and backs it up in his book “Enough.” In his book, McKibben argues that more is not better and notes that environmentalists have called humans “a grim and uncontrollable race, a cancer cell metastasizing unchecked across the defenseless fabric of nature”(112). The ironic thing is, cancer is a horrible thing, but if germline engineering were the only way to stop it, would McKibben change his mind about it? Probably not.
The title of his book is enough to show that McKibben thinks it is time to stop the human race from progressing any further. He draws the line at somatic gene therapy, and anything past that, which would be germline engineering, is evil. Germline engineering is more extensive in modifying genes. With it, it is possible to change a human to be any way you want, for example health, looks, IQ, or athletic ability can all be modified. McKibben is worried that the meaning of life will disappear and people will not know who they are because they were genetically modified. If your genes were altered, you will be different, no doubt, and although McKibben argues that this is a bad thing, the way you are different is not a negative thing. Your parents want the best for you and you would be smarter, healthier, better looking, happier, and just a better human being in any way they choose. But you will still be your own person. There are so many factors that determine who you are, such as experiences and your environment, not just genes. So even if you are modified, maybe the difference is that you find it easier to learn things or you are less susceptible to cancer or other diseases. So although genetically modifying children to become better, for example better looking, is not the ideal way to use genetic modification, it is not as bad as McKibben makes it out to be so we should not hold back progress because of the chance that it will be used to modify genes for things other than health.
McKibben argues against genetically modifying children’s genes to become smarter, faster, or better. This modification is somewhat unnecessary, but he also argues against modifying children’s genes so they do not have to suffer from diseases. McKibben says he had a friend named Kathy who had cystic fibrosis. She constantly had to have mucus pumped from her lungs and died at the early age of 15. He wishes there was a cure… only if that cure did not involve germline engineering. This was shocking to me- it seems so cruel to only wish for a cure if they do it the way you want them to. He is so worried about the what-ifs. Just in case people decide to start using germline engineering for something else besides curing diseases, McKibben wants to totally stop it. McKibben is saying enough far too soon.
McKibben says that you can’t enjoy life forever, but our greatest human instinct is to survive. Can anyone, anyone that isn’t depressed or ill, honestly say they want to die? McKibben is basically saying that sometime in the future, immortality will be possible, but we should not let that happen. He believes that “death is us” (148). Evolution of humans has gone so far, from the survival of the fittest, to living comfortably, and now the possibility of immortality. McKibben says only the rich and powerful will be able to afford genetic engineering. Therefore, I believe the natural process of natural selection will occur. I’m only being realistic when I say that we should not hold back all humans from evolving because some people will not be able to afford it. That’s like stopping the sale of cars because some people can’t afford them and that’s not fair. But it is fair. That would be hindering the whole society because of one group of people. This is just the next step in evolution. McKibben says that with immortality, people will get bored, art will die, and people will not enjoy life. There is no way of knowing this. He is again concerned about the what-ifs. Well what if instead of people being bored, they become less stressed, happier, and more at peace? Instead of people looking forward to the afterlife they believe in, they could truly enjoy their actual, real life forever. And if their afterlife is for all eternity, why aren’t they worried about getting bored when they die?
McKibben gave the statistic that “One person out of every thirty is a cancer survivor” (132). To some, maybe that looks optimistic, but honestly, I was sort of shocked to see McKibben using this to prove that we are comfortable with the medicine we have now. That means twenty-nine out of thirty people die of cancer, and only one survives. How would you feel if you or your loved one was not that surviving one out of thirty? Now looking at the quote “growth for the sake of growth” again, I would say that the way McKibben is arguing against growth is unlike this. The growth he is arguing against is progression. At some points we may have to say enough, but only for certain aspects of certain things. There will always be room for progress of some kind. Even McKibben says, “Enough is not a possibility for our species” (203). We will always be striving for better, and we should continue to do so.
Lauren - You have some good details, and your questions about the second paragraph are good. Remember to focus on what can be productively changed, and not just on what's good.
Katie - Your opening paragraph is smart, focused, and well written, but it *does* take McKibben out of context - this isn't a view he agrees with, at least on the surface. Using quotes taken out of context is playing with fire...
You similarly misread/misquote McKibben on cancer at the end - he's pointing out that one out of every thirty people *living* is a cancer survivor - this says nothing about those people who will ultimately die of cancer.
Despite those nitpicks, the most substantial issue here is structure. You are answering things in the order that the prompt raises them, rather than thinking through which structure would make the most effective essay. Lauren raises a related issue, by pointing out some of the difficulties she had with the second paragraph. This would make far more sense as an essay is you had paid more attention from the start to the structure of the argument, presumably foregrounding what *you* have to say from the beginning. Your own views are interesting, but you don't really have a coherent statement of how Abbey's argument relates to McKibben's and in turn to yours.
Short version: this isn't well structured, although your arguments against McKibben do have their merits.. A good thesis would have been a nice start.
Post a Comment