Steve Clark
English Compostion
Dr. Adam Johns
8 October, 2008
Mechanism of Growth
Growth, while a very simple subject to understand, is a very complex idea to relate to one’s own feelings. As I look back on my history, I have “grown” so much over the past few years. I’ve matured from a mere child, to a teenager, to a young adult, to a full-grown adult, all in the course of 10 short years. Edward Abbey, a noted environmental activist explains growth [“for the sake of growth”] as the “ideology of the Cancer Cell.” Edward Abbey’s quote miscalculates the benefits of growth, and visualizes it solely on a single track. Businesses, especially in America’s Capitalist system, have one goal, and that is expansion. Unfortunately, many big businesses take advantage of this goal, and expand to a point where it is almost damaging to the nation. This is where Abbey’s quote applies, and may even be true, but there are so many “growths” that mankind must go through. Bill McKibben fluctuates on this point quite a few times in the book. On one hand, he is trying to stop this biological growth, but on the other, he argues that these growths are beneficial to a certain extent. McKibben would certainly disagree with Edward Abbey that all growth is bad, and would most like agree with me that humans have plenty of room for expansion, if only they keep it within reasonable bounds.
The main point of “Enough” is that humans need to train themselves to be acknowledge when enough is enough. He poses several anecdotes, for example the cloning of human embryos, or the improvement of a cow to make less fatty, leaner meat, that all point at the same general idea. Expansion and growth are necessary, but can easily be taken too far. Near the beginning of the book, he makes the point that if humans had the ability to rewrite genetic code to remove birth defects and diseases, what would stop them from taking that even further, and producing genetically enhanced “Post-Humans”? Unfortunately, I have to agree with him. If humans discover the ability to rewrite genetic code for the things aforementioned, I can’t see them stopping there; or anywhere for that matter. Again, to reference Abbey’s quote, this growth could potentially become a “cancer cell”, leaching on all of the human race, until ultimately leaving it in ruins.
Bill McKibben often changes his point of view from the ruin of the human race, to the ruin of the human individual. This is where I think I separate from both McKibben and Abbey. As the human race improves, the individual improves. Not necessarily that I think people should abandon the human race, and focus on their own lives, but the two work together. As individuals become better, the race benefits as a whole. McKibben says that we will “elevated to the status of individuals” while simultaneously being “reduced to the status of individuals.” (46)Much like what Abbey is trying to say, as one small entity expands too far, the encompassing society drops proportionally. I, however, do not see this as the case. Take, for example, the Large Hadron Collider. Physicists in the field have been working individually to unlock the secrets of the universe for hundreds of years. Each passing generation brings in smarter and better Physicists and Mathematicians(i.e., the discoveries of past generations have led to more availability of information, and therefore more knowledgeable people). This passing of generations has culminated in what is potentially the greatest collective scientific invention in all of history. And it all stems from the fact that the improvement of individual Physicists have led to an improvement of Physics as an entity.
While we may differ on this key area, I think McKibben would ultimately agree that humans have room left for expansion, and need to do so, such that they keep it within reasonable bounds. In other words, just like I said before, and even McKibben’s book title, we need to be able to realize when enough is simply enough. I, for one, have faith in humanity, and think that they will be able to set an artificial ceiling on genetic research. In the last chapter of his book, McKibben mentions the “paradigm” of modern science as one of “eternal progress”, but that there is a whisper in the backs of our heads “whispering” the demise of humanity, should we choose to expand past our limits. (211) I don’t see genetically superhumans capable of running hundreds of miles without tiring simply because genetic research says that it’s possible. I loved reading all of the anecdotes in his book because it gave me a sense that my generation will see some of the greatest biological advancements ever made. Cancer, AIDS, various viruses, and virtually any health threat you can conceive of could be weakened with these advancements. Bill McKibben, I’m sure, would agree that this growth is most certainly not that of a “Cancer Cell”.
As times change, humans are forced to adapt. It is the most basic principle of Darwinian Theory. Those species which cannot adapt to changing climates, habitats, and in this case: technologies, will ultimately become extinct. Humans may have reached their pinnacle in terms of adaptation; it is quite obvious that this new genetic research is not going to save humanity from extinction, but it can make ensure that future generations live a much more carefree life than we live today. Two hundred years ago, it was almost uncommon for a child birth to go completely without complications. As methods have improved, and knowledge of the process of child birth has been gained, we have vastly improved the percentage of successful child births. Abbey’s quote relates directly to his greatest enemy: Corporate Business. Unfortunately, this research could eventually end up in the hands of Corporate America, at which time it may become the truth. However, as it is now, we must embrace these technologies, and I think McKibben agrees with that. It’s only if and when a wrong turn is made, and they end up in the wrong hands that we must begin to worry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Your second and fourth seem as if you are arguing pretty much he same point. I think the distinction is that in the second you're talking about how messing with the genetic code is dangerous and could be like that of a cancer cell and in the forth, though you agree with that danger, you think humanity will know where to draw the line. Maybe you could try to make this dstinction more clear. Also toward the end of forth I do like how you said how curing viruses and all that good stuff is surely not the growth of the cancer cell.
In the third paragraph: Your first sentence confuses me. He often changes his view? Maybe you could reword this or give an example. I think the way you go back and forth from what you think to what McKibeen thinks to what Abbey thinks makes it hard to tell one from another. McKibben and Abbey feel that as the human race improves so does the individual, and you feel it should be the other way around and the improvement of the individual leads to the improvement of society? But you even said that the improvement of individuals came from advances in science that make more information available.
Growth, while a very simple subject to understand, is a very complex idea to relate to one’s own feelings. As I look back on my history, I have “grown” so much over the past few years. I’ve matured from a mere child, to a teenager, to a young adult, to a full-grown adult, all in the course of 10 short years. Edward Abbey, a noted environmental activist explains growth [“for the sake of growth”] as the “ideology of the Cancer Cell.” Edward Abbey’s quote miscalculates the benefits of growth, and visualizes it solely on a single track. Businesses, especially in America’s Capitalist system, have one goal, and that is expansion. Unfortunately, many big businesses take advantage of this goal, and expand to a point where it is almost damaging to the nation. This is where Abbey’s quote applies, and may even be true, but there are so many “growths” that mankind must go through. Bill McKibben fluctuates on this point quite a few times in the book. On one hand, he is trying to stop this biological growth, but on the other, he argues that these growths are beneficial to a certain extent. McKibben would certainly disagree with Edward Abbey that all growth is bad, and would most like agree with me that humans have plenty of room for expansion, if only they keep it within reasonable bounds.
The main point of “Enough” is that humans need to train themselves to be acknowledge when enough is enough. He poses several anecdotes, for example the cloning of human embryos, or the improvement of a cow to make less fatty, leaner meat, that all point at the same general idea. Expansion and growth are necessary, but can easily be taken too far. Near the beginning of the book, he makes the point that if humans had the ability to rewrite genetic code to remove birth defects and diseases, what would stop them from taking that even further, and producing genetically enhanced “Post-Humans”? Unfortunately, I have to agree with him. If humans discover the ability to rewrite genetic code for the things aforementioned, I can’t see them stopping there; or anywhere for that matter. Again, to reference Abbey’s quote, this growth could potentially become a “cancer cell”, leaching on all of the human race, until ultimately leaving it in ruins.
Throughout his book, McKibben often changes his point of view from the ruin of the human race, to the ruin of the human individual. For example, he mentions at first how individuals will lose their drive to compete, and their will to be “human”. Later on, he brings that point to a much broader plane and argues that sports in general will falter because of the lack of human competition amongst athletes. This is where I think I separate from both McKibben and Abbey. As the human race improves, the individual improves. Not necessarily that I think people should abandon the human race, and focus on their own lives, but the two work together. As individuals become better, the race benefits as a whole. McKibben says that we will be “elevated to the status of individuals” while simultaneously being “reduced to the status of individuals.” (46)Much like what Abbey is trying to say with his cancer cell metaphor, as one small entity expands too far, the encompassing society drops proportionally. I, however, do not see this as the case. Take, for example, the Large Hadron Collider. Physicists in the field have been working individually to unlock the secrets of the universe for hundreds of years. Each passing generation brings in smarter and better Physicists and Mathematicians(i.e., A college freshman Physics student today knows more than the greatest Physicists of the day, 2 hundred years ago). This passing of generations has culminated in what is potentially the greatest collective scientific invention in all of history. They predict that more unique information about the universe will be discovered at the LHC within the next couple of years than in all of experimental Physics before it. The LHC is the result of a collective effort of thousands of the world’s top Physicists and Engineers working together on a single project. And it all stems from the fact that the improvement of individual Physicists have led to an improvement of Physics as an entity.
While we may differ on this key area, I think McKibben would ultimately agree that humans have room left for expansion, and need to do so, such that they keep it within reasonable bounds. In other words, just like I said before, and even McKibben’s book title, we need to be able to realize when enough is simply enough. I, for one, have faith in humanity, and think that they will be able to set an artificial ceiling on genetic research. In the last chapter of his book, McKibben mentions the “paradigm” of modern science as one of “eternal progress”, but that there is a whisper in the backs of our heads “whispering” the demise of humanity, should we choose to expand past our limits. (211) I don’t see genetically superhumans capable of running hundreds of miles without tiring simply because genetic research says that it’s possible. I loved reading all of the anecdotes in his book because it gave me a sense that my generation will see some of the greatest biological advancements ever made. Cancer, AIDS, various viruses, and virtually any health threat you can conceive of could be weakened with these advancements. Bill McKibben, I’m sure, would agree that this growth is most certainly not that of a “Cancer Cell”.
As times change, humans are forced to adapt. It is the most basic principle of Darwinian Theory. Those species which cannot adapt to changing climates, habitats, and in this case: technologies, will ultimately become extinct. Humans may have reached their pinnacle in terms of adaptation; it is quite obvious that this new genetic research is not going to save humanity from extinction, but it can make ensure that future generations live a much more carefree life than we live today. Two hundred years ago, it was almost uncommon for a child birth to go completely without complications. As methods have improved, and knowledge of the process of child birth has been gained, we have vastly improved the percentage of successful child births. Abbey’s quote relates directly to his greatest enemy: Corporate Business. Unfortunately, this research could eventually end up in the hands of Corporate America, at which time it may become the truth. However, as it is now, we must embrace these technologies, and I think McKibben agrees with that. It’s only if and when a wrong turn is made, and they end up in the wrong hands that we must begin to worry.
Lauren - Solid feedback. Good analysis of details, but I'd like to have seen you relate these details to the paper as a whole.
Steve - Your initial focus on the meaning(s) of "growth" is both nice and effective. I'd like to have seen a single sentence clearly placing your own beliefs in relation with those of Abbey and McKibben, though.
I think the material in the third paragraph is fantastic - insightful, detailed, and well organized. What I don't like is that you don't prepare us for it well; this might have easily been the beginning of the paper. Your real intro is fine, but why not start with a bang, when you have great material like this? And Lauren is right, even in this version - while I agree about his shifting focus, I think you could have used a few sentences to unpack it in greater detail.
To go back to the paper as a whole. Everything here is good, thoughtful material - analyzing Abbey (or McKibben) in terms of corporate business is a good idea, as is your potentially incisive discussion of McKibben's shifting discussion of growth.
Each paragraph has a somewhat different focus, though, and while they connect, they don't really form a clear single argument - we almost, but not quite, simply have a set of extremely promising beginnings here.
Post a Comment