Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Selection Augmentation

Colin Conner

Dr. Adam Johns

Seminar in Composition

8 October 2008

Selection Augmentation

 

In Bill McKibben’s  “Enough” one of the glaring points that he is trying to make can be represented by George Eliot’s quote,  “The strongest principle of growth lies in the human choice.”  Bill McKibben feels that once genetic engineering is perfected and legal that humans will lose their natural right to choose, everything will be decided for them.    This is a very scary idea because growth without choice is blind growth.  I feel that this is the reason that McKibben would agree with Edward Abbey when he says,  "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."  Not only does McKibben feel that technological growth is out of control, but he also feels that with the direction we are headed our ability to make decisions about how we live our life will be diminished.

Abbey’s quote explains how growing just because you can usually doesn’t lead to good results or great achievements.  There is a point where stopping the increase in technology is a good thing.    In  “Enough” this is represented when McKibben says,  “Judging when you’ve reached this  “enough point is, admittedly, no easy trick.  You might stop short and miss some real improvement; you might overshoot and hit some wall.  Is the fifth beer the one that’s going to make you feel really good, or the one that’s going to make you puke?  (And as with beer, so with technology   once you’re drunk or bedazzled, it’s harder to resist the next step.)”  (McKibben 119).  Sure just increasing technology to cure people with crippling diseases is a great thing, but once you get to that point, where do you stop?    If you cure Alzheimer’s disease, then won’t you want to build off of that and make sure that you never forget anything?    I agree with McKibben when he says,  “Having a good memory is better than having a poor one, so having a perfect memory would be the best of all   let’s stick a chip in there, or a new gene.  But perhaps being able to forget is one of the great gifts we have been given, by evolution or by God or by great good luck  (McKibben 118).  This is the point where I would say  “enough,” this is unnecessary growth in the field of genetic engineering and nanotechnology.  I think it is true that being able to forget is a great gift because if you have a traumatic experience in your childhood that you can never get over because it keeps being recalled in your memory, then you will suffer for all of your life.  Being able to have the choice to remember or forget something is a significant trait that us humans have.  

            Bill McKibben feels that certain growth in small amounts is a good thing, as long as people still have the ability to choose.  When talking of genetic engineering he says,  These are the most anti-choice technologies anyone’s ever thought of.  In widespread use, they will first rob parents of their liberty, and then strip freedom from every generation that follows.  In the end, they will destroy forever the very possibility of meaningful choice  (McKibben 190).  This technology would limit choice because you would be built for a certain life from birth.    We should have the ability to make certain decisions in our life such as what sports you want to play, where you want to go to college, what you would like to have as a career, but those may all be decided for us before we even take our first breath in this world.  We do have one unique, often overlooked, trait that McKibben recognizes in us,  We aren’t special.  Except for one thing…what makes us unique is that we can restrain ourselves.  We can decide not to do something that we are able to do.  We can set limits on our desires.  We can say,  ‘Enough’”  (McKibben 205).    We are the only ones who can decide when the blind growth has reached the breaking point, and do what we can to prevent reaching that point; we just have to speak up.

            Right now there seems to be no stopping point.  The way that technology is increasing at an exponential rate, the sky is the limit.  This could affect one large part of our American culture:  Sports.  If we were able to enhance everyone, we would have perfect athletes that would dominate their sport until they were the only ones left.  This would take all the challenge out of participating and trying to get better because you could never be as good as someone who was genetically engineered.    Simon Eassom explains this the best when he says that,  “most sport may become Evel Knievel-ish pageantry:  “‘Roll up, roll up, let’s see somebody who’ll break six seconds for the hundred meters.’”  Spectacle will survive, and for many fans that may be enough.  But the emptiness will be real  (McKibben 5).  Unless there is some sort of ending point to the growth of technology it will continue to grow and have the potential to harm just like a  “cancer cell.

3 comments:

Chris Gorham said...

Alright, I think we're going back to the old way so I'm just gonna do the paragrapgh by paragraph thing and then summarize at the end. First paragraph is pretty strong in my point of view. The two quotes you use are quotes that can make people think and keep reading. It also sets up your paper pretty well. Your second paragraph is another strong one. The beer relation to technology makes it easy to put technology in a simpler context. Which upcoming beer or technological advance is going to destroy us. The next paragraph also does a good job of coming back to your main point, the ability to make decisions about our life. Life would not be as meaningful if it were not for all the decisions we had to make along the way that shaped us in every way. In the last paragraph I'm wondering if its necessary that you mention sports. Its like a sub sub category of your main point and it kind of seems awkard placed there in the last paragraph. Maybe it would be better with the paragraph about parents being able to make their kids better. You go from talking about sports and then jump right into the last sentence summarizing your main point. I'd try working a little on the last paragrapgh so that it's more clear and powerful. Good paper though. By the way, sorry I took so long to get to this.

Colin Conner said...

Colin Conner
Dr. Adam Johns
Seminar in Composition
8 October 2008
Selection Augmentation

In Bill McKibben’s “Enough” one of the glaring points that he is trying to make can be represented by Edward Abbey’s quote, "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." Bill McKibben feels that we need to have a goal in sight when we are increasing our biotechnologies. Right now scientists have the attitude that the sky is the limit with these technologies and that in no way can this be harmful to humanity. One way that McKibben says these technologies can hinder us is taking away our ability to choose. He feels that once genetic engineering is perfected and legal that humans will lose their natural right to choose, everything will be decided for them. This is a very scary idea because growth without choice is blind growth. Not only does McKibben feel that technological growth is out of control, but he also feels that with the direction we are headed our ability to make decisions about how we live our life will be diminished.

Abbey’s quote explains how growing just because you can usually doesn’t lead to good results or great achievements. There is a point where stopping the increase in technology is beneficial. In “Enough” McKibben represents this idea when he says, “Judging when you’ve reached this “enough point” is, admittedly, no easy trick. You might stop short and miss some real improvement; you might overshoot and hit some wall. Is the fifth beer the one that’s going to make you feel really good, or the one that’s going to make you puke? (And as with beer, so with technology – once you’re drunk or bedazzled, it’s harder to resist the next step.)” (McKibben 119). Too many improvements is also just as dangerous as having too many beers and can lead to irreversible consequences, even death. Sure just increasing technology to cure people with crippling diseases is a great thing, but once you get to that point, where do you stop? If you cure Alzheimer’s disease, then won’t you want to build off of that and make sure that you never forget anything? I agree with McKibben when he says, “Having a good memory is better than having a poor one, so having a perfect memory would be the best of all – let’s stick a chip in there, or a new gene. But perhaps being able to forget is one of the great gifts we have been given, by evolution or by God or by great good luck” (McKibben 118). This is the point where I would say “enough” to the unnecessary growth in the field of genetic engineering and nanotechnology. The ability to forget is a great gift because if you experience a traumatic event in your childhood, you will not want that to hinder you for the rest of your life. Being able to have the choice to remember or forget something is a significant trait that we humans have.

Bill McKibben feels that certain growth in small amounts is a good thing, as long as people still have the ability to choose. When talking of genetic engineering he says, “These are the most anti-choice technologies anyone’s ever thought of. In widespread use, they will first rob parents of their liberty, and then strip freedom from every generation that follows. In the end, they will destroy forever the very possibility of meaningful choice” (McKibben 190). This technology would limit choice because we would be built for a certain life from birth. We should have the ability to make certain decisions in our life such as what sports we want to play, where we want to go to college, what we would like to have as a career, but those may all be decided for us before we even take our first breath in this world. The inability to choose for ourselves would dehumanize us. We do have one unique, often overlooked, trait that McKibben recognizes in us, “We aren’t special. Except for one thing…what makes us unique is that we can restrain ourselves. We can decide not to do something that we are able to do. We can set limits on our desires. We can say, ‘Enough’” (McKibben 205). We are the only ones who can decide when the blind growth has reached the breaking point, and do what we can to prevent reaching that point; we just have to speak up. We were made with ability to decide what we want and what we do not want so that nothing like genetic engineering could redefine what it means to be human.

Right now there seems to be no stopping point. The way that technology is increasing at an exponential rate, the sky is the limit. This could affect one large part of our American culture: Sports. If we were able to enhance everyone, we would have perfect athletes that would dominate their sport until they were the only ones left. This would take all the challenge out of participating and trying to get better because you could never be as good as someone who was genetically engineered. Simon Eassom explains this the best when he says that, “most sport may become Evel Knievel-ish pageantry: “‘Roll up, roll up, let’s see somebody who’ll break six seconds for the hundred meters.’” Spectacle will survive, and for many fans that may be enough. But the emptiness will be real” (McKibben 5). If we allow genetic engineering to get to that position it will be a 180-degree turn from where we as humans now stand. We will be an extinct species that will never be looked at again. Unless there is some sort of ending point to the growth of technology it will continue to grow and have the potential to harm us just like a “cancer cell.”

Adam Johns said...

Chris - You certainly show that you understand Colin's paper, but you don't actually have that much in the way of productive suggestions.

Colin - The introduction is a little on the vague side. If McKibben believes we should have a goal in sight, what's the goal? And do you agree or disagree with him?

Your focus on forgetfullness is interesting, but if this is really what you want to write about, it should be more front and center than it is here.

The third long paragraph seems more like a paraphrase of McKibben than an argument of your own. Certainly by this point - and ideally at the beginning - you should have laid out clearly both the continuities and the differences between you, Abbey, and McKibben.

I agree with Chris's point about the argument on sports. If this was important, it needed to be at the beginning; there would have been nothing wrong with making this a paper *about* sports, but it appears like an afterthought here.

Your grasp of McKibben is strong, and your agreement with him is apparent. What's missing is a clear case for what you have to *add* to the conversation.