Kristine Latham
September 30, 2008
English Composition
Dr. Adam Johns
What are people for?
Humans are an evolutionary mistake. After thinking over what people could possibly be for, I have finally concluded that we simply have no purpose. It just so happened that at some point along the line our caveman ancestors reproduced mutated DNA. Something about the mistake made it easier for the species to survive, and so the ones who had the mistake in their DNA were the ones to reproduce, thus passing the gene to the next generation. There never was a master plan for the human species, there especially was no master plan for every individual. Humans are no more than the product of genetic malformations; malformations that allowed our species to dominate other species. Humans have large complex brains, opposable thumbs and the capabilities of written language. These characteristics lead us to be a dominating species that got lucky with our DNA mutations. Since humans are the first known species that has all of these things the myth about a purpose began. People began to think about why we can think so well and why we seem to dominate the entire Earth. Not only are we, as a species, devoid of purpose but we have created a monster that may or may not kill us all.
If someone offered you something that has the potential of either killing the entire species or making humans immoral would you be for or against it? What if someone offered you something that would either eliminate all of your physical and emotional pain or disable you permanently would you take the risk? The limits on the benefits of technology are endless while the consequences are the biggest threat of all: extinction.
In the Bill Joy’s article Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us he expressed his beliefs that technology will lead to the demise of humans. This would mark us the very first species to cause our own extinction. He goes on to prove that due to our species history in making war and the new found means of terrorism it is possible for our species to kill ourselves out. Deadly weapons have been created through technology. Likewise, technology has created the ability to clone one’s self and to alter DNA. The combination of free access to deadly weapons and the ability to clone one’s self into a walking destruction has the potential of killing off the species.
Lee Silver, author of Challenging Nature, believes that nature is random and cruel. It was random that the human species came to be. It was random how the human species has died from natural destruction and disease. Silver presents that perhaps, it does not have to be random how humans become extinct. While technology is extremely dangerous and potentially devastating, we might as well try it because either we will die thanks to moody Mother Nature or do to our own inadequacies. Technology can make our lives easier, longer and less painful. It would be foolish to ignore these advantages simply out of fear of offsetting some sort of balance or plan. There is no plan, we are a genetic mutation. It was an accident that we came to dominate the world. So why should we hold back from experimenting with what else we could become. Imagine a life in which work is obsolete because there is an unlimited about of food and shelter. Now consider this a possibility. As soon as we let go of the belief that we were planned and admit to being accidents we can begin to explore the boundaries of genetics.
Bill Mckibben likes to be challenged. In his book Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age, he continuously refers back to the importance of competition through the example of running. So far, there has been no other species that has been on this planet for all of time. There is a challenge to survive as a species that drives all earthly happenings.
But what does it even mean to be human? It means that we, just like every other species, are forced to reside on this earth, but since we’re human we get to dominate. Why stop with domination of other species? What if we used technology to make the ultimate challenge: making a perfect life. What if technology was so wide spread that people could alter DNA at their will? The sky is the limit. Perhaps taking the evolutionary process into our own hands could be a good thing. We could make a life that has no worries, pain, regrets or sadness. We could reach a point where not only do humans dominate but they also have complete control over the world.
Life is random, unpredictable and challenging. The question that we are all faced with as we approach a time of rapid and novel technological growth is whether or not we like life the way it is. Would our lives be bettered if we accept the challenge of technology instead of backing down due to fear? Is it so important that we roll the dice, or should we instead choose the face we’d like? While technology is dangerous and potentially devastating, couldn’t lack of technology be just as dangerous and potentially devastating? Are there not times when doing nothing is just as bad as doing the wrong thing? Silver, McKibben and Joy alike recognize that technology is unstoppable. So let us take this final challenge, let go of our fears, and fight for survival.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The first challenge that came to my mind was a quick and important counter argument that I don't think was covered very well if at all in this essay: religion. People will say that our "genetic mutations" that enabled our survival were an act of God, that He willed our DNA to change to ensure our survival. I feel like its vaguely covered, but adding that in would have cut short the religious before they could have even opened their mouths to argue.
I don't know if you would have taken this approach, but I think Dr. Johns said that this essay was assigned to allow us a more personal experience with an essay. I do not mean this to be an attack or anything, but do you have a reason to live? Is there some greater purpose in your life other than just living? I'm fairly certain there is considering you're here at Pitt, but whilst you covered the broad scope of human life very well, there are those (like me) who believe in the overwhelming importance of the individual. After all, individuals make up society. Therefore, I would challenge this paper by arguing with the emotional, aesthetic, and intrinsic values each of us place into our lives, we find meaning. I believe if you argued against the value of the individual more and maybe countered the possibility that a higher power ensured our survival, this would be an even more powerful essay.
Those are just some arguments that you could include into your paper, but I feel that you really covered the impending doom that technology symbolizes very well. You have very valid points in this paper, but I think some direct citations from the various texts may strengthen it even more. However, I still feel that you strongly made your point concerning technology.
(Watch your spelling and grammar as well).
Kristine Latham
September 30, 2008
English Composition
Dr. Adam Johns
What are people for?
Humans are an evolutionary mistake. After thinking over what people could possibly be for, I have finally concluded that we simply have no collective purpose. It just so happened that at some point along the line our caveman ancestors reproduced mutated DNA. Something about the mistake made it easier for the species to survive, and so the ones who had the mistake in their DNA were the ones to reproduce, thus passing the gene to the next generation. There never was a master plan for the human species, there especially was no master plan for every individual. Humans are no more than the product of genetic malformations; malformations that allowed our species to dominate other species. Humans have large complex brains, opposable thumbs and the capabilities of written language. These characteristics lead us to be a dominating species that got lucky with our DNA mutations. Since humans are the first known species that has all of these things the myth about a purpose began. People began to think about why we can think so well and why we seem to dominate the entire Earth. Not only are we, as a species, devoid of purpose but we have begun to question the importance of happiness.
Lee Silver, author of Challenging Nature, believes that nature is random and cruel. Silver enforces the idea that we have no predestination determined by God. It was random that the human species came to be. It was random how the human species has died from natural destruction and disease. Silver presents that perhaps, it does not have to be random how humans become extinct. While technology is extremely dangerous and potentially devastating, we might as well try it because either we will die thanks to moody Mother Nature and an unreliable God or do to our own inadequacies. Technology can make our lives easier, longer and happier. It would be foolish to ignore these advantages simply out of fear of offsetting some sort of balance or plan. There is no plan, we are a genetic mutation. It was an accident that we came to dominate the world. So why should we hold back from experimenting with what else we could become. Imagine a life in which no one faces the devastation of losing a loved one. Now consider this a possibility. As soon as we let go of the belief that we were planned and admit to being accidents we can begin to explore the boundaries of genetics.
Bill Mckibben likes to be challenged. In his book Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age, he continuously refers back to the importance of competition through the example of running. Mckibben questions “what human excellences are we supposed to be celebrating” (5)? If we are genetically engineered will there still be a drive for competition? Yes. We can root back to our species original quest and ultimate challenge: survival. In order to evolve, it is essential to be adaptive, so if we decide to stop changing and growing along with our environment we will become stagnant. No one ever said the competition has to be against humans. With genetic engineering, our competition can be all other life forms. So when Mckibben worries about a genetically engineered sixteen year old girl who will question where her questions come from and if her happiness is from her genes or her life (47) he is questioning whether or not we should provide people with unlimited happiness. I think that it is selfish to not try. Everyone is entitled to the possibility of happiness. It is not fair for some people to spend their entire lives being manic depressives. I for one think that no matter how much serotonin is in your synapses, happiness still comes from those surrounding you, thus no matter what has been done to our genes, we will still have the drive to seek out others that complete us, the competition with ourselves to be more compassionate than before.
Personally, my goal in life is to be happy and to have a meaningful positive impact on the world. I attend college in hopes of one day being a surgeon that can contribute to the battle for survival. If I can make just one person a day feel less pain I will have made an accomplishment. If I can save just one life, then I will actually save countless people. Our lives are interconnected; everyone has at least one person in this world that depends on them for something. When someone dies, every person they ever knew loses a little piece of themselves. I am lucky enough to have a supportive family, a few close friends, and someone to love. It is these people that I live for. It is from each other that we form an individual purpose. It is challenges like making my sister smile when she goes through a break up that are truly valuable. And it is the accomplishment of making the most important people in the world to me smile that encourages me to go forth to the next day.
Life is random, unpredictable and challenging. The question that we are all faced with as we approach a time of rapid and novel technological growth is whether or not we like life the way it is. Would our lives be bettered if we accept the challenge of technology instead of backing down due to fear? Is it so important that we roll the dice, or should we instead choose the face we’d like? While technology is dangerous and potentially devastating, couldn’t lack of technology be just as dangerous and potentially devastating? Are there not times when doing nothing is just as bad as doing the wrong thing? I would give up everything that I have for another day with the love of my life. I would trade in anything you asked if it meant having my sister and best friend feel happy and loved. Silver and McKibben recognize that technology is somewhat inevitable. But even if it wasn’t, why would you want to stop people from being happy and together longer? So let us take this final challenge, let go of our fears, and fight for survival and happiness.
Dana - some good feedback. While a personal response wasn't absolutely necessary, I think the original paper does make us ask some of those questions
Kristine - There's a lot to like here. Your response to Silver is clear, compact, and effective. Your response to McKibben is fascinating; your choice of the theme of competition is very smart. I'd argue, though, that there was a *lot* of room to develop this section. Just as an example: earlier you assert (following mainstream biology, including Silver) that there is no such thing as a collective purpose. Then, discussing McKibben, you imagine that humans won't compete among one another, but only against other species. Think about this for a second. You are now imagining people acting collectively in a way that arguably contradicts your earlier claim that we have no collective purpose. This is interesting, provocative, and by no means complete.
Although I liked Dana's idea of incorporating a personal aspect in the abstract, I'm not sure I'm crazy about how it worked out. When writing about yourself, you need to risk something - there needs to be something at stake. This is overly vague and abstract - such that it doesn't really seem personal at all.
Dana's also right that some of your proofreading mistakes, e.g. do/due, periods when you should have question marks, etc., can be distracting.
Post a Comment