James Toye
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200
11/13/09
Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein was written as a precautionary tale about the dangers of technology that sparked the entrance of a new genre, concerning the side effects of technological improvement, into popular literature. In her novel, Shelly foresees problems with what is now known as genetic engineering. Although there have been no major consequences of the science yet, her precautions are still echoed by all the authors of the genre, including Bill Joy, who, in his essay Why the future doesn’t need us, also warns about the dangers of new technologies that could not have been imagined in Shelly’s time. Both of the authors agree that one of the goals of mankind is to pursue and gain knowledge; however, they also both agree that if they are put into the wrong hands, or used for the wrong purposes, the effects will be destructive, rampant, and perhaps even unstoppable.
Both authors use similar devices to argue their points. In Frankenstein, Shelly has her protagonist’s creature turn against its creator and humanity as a whole, causing destruction and horror wherever it is. The creature sees evil in humans or at the least sees our inferiorities, and through its superiority decides that we are not fit to survive. Joy echoes this same Darwinian warning in his essay, but at a much greater level, stating that rather than being stoppable like Frankenstein’s creature, that if the products of nanotechnology become sentient, they could, if they deemed it necessary, “replicate swiftly, and reduce the biosphere to dust in a matter of days,” causing much more destruction than the creature ever did (Joy). He continues to persist that the day when the necessary technology for something of that is discovered moves ever closer, perhaps even as close as the year 2030 and thus far, very little has been done to prevent the wrong outcome from happening.
Joy identifies three main technologies of the twenty-first century as potential threats to human existence, genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics. He argues that as we advance technologically we will become more dependent on these things, which will become superior then us, and in turn will cause us to become obsolete and eventually extinct. As he quotes George Dyson’s book Darwin Among the Machines, “In the game of life and evolution there are three players... But nature I suspect, is on the side of the machines,” Joy expresses that although humans may be the pinnacle of natural selection at this moment, we have the potential of creating something that can potentially render us unnecessary to the biosphere (Joy). He relates technology and the dawn of robotics to the raising of the land bridge between Central America and South America and the extinction of the pouched animals that lived there. Just as the non-pouched mammals overcame the pouched ones in South America, or as Frankenstein’s creature seems to overcome humanity, robots may do the same thing, and prove that they are superior to mankind.
Both Shelly and Joy agree that technology can be very beneficial for human society, but both also agree that in the wrong hands, it can be extremely hazardous to the general populous. Joy gives an all too probable example; that a terrorist cell gets control of a robotic virus or a mass of nanobots that destroys a large population of people. Shelly approaches the situation differently and asks the reader to imagine that one scientist, intending to do something good for the world, accidentally has his experiment go awry and in turn causes a disaster. While the Frankenstein dilemma is eventually solved, the chances of there being enough time for a robotics, genetics, or nanotechnology issue being solved, simply because as Joy points out, at the time we will rely too heavily on whatever it is that we need to stop, to be able to create a solution without that source of technology, or if we do use that source of technology to solve it, we might cause another problem of the same or greater magnitude.
No technology is inherently good or evil; rather it can be used in either fashion. Any of the main technologies of the twenty-first century have practical purposes in today’s society, and as we are told in Why the future doesn’t need us, are being developed by private corporations, rather than the federal government, as the technologies of the previous century were. They go unregulated, at a pace far faster than any technological improvement has gone before, potentially developing radical, world-changing things that can be easily mass-produced with easily attainable materials by anyone possessing the knowledge of how to make them. No reliable countermeasures have been set up, or even conceived of to prevent the destruction of humanity and the world as it is today, and yet the maddening search for knowledge relentlessly continues, with little concern of the side effects of it. Now, more than ever, are the lessons in Frankenstein important and relevant to society, as Joy shows us in his essay.
3 comments:
Briefly, I want to begin by pointing out some of your essay’s merits. First, you do a very good job of discussing the texts without adding information superfluous to someone who had already read them. It is difficult to analyze these without adding too much background information, but you do this well. One of your most well-written sections was, I believe, the end of the third paragraph. It is a persuasive argument and relates both texts to each other and your point very well.
As for criticism, the biggest problem with your essay is that there is no focal argument. I really could not guess as to what your thesis is or very closely guess what you are attempting to argue. If I had to guess, I would assume it is best expressed by your last sentence, “Now, more than ever, are the lessons in Frankenstein important and relevant to society, as Joy shows us in his essay.” If this is indeed the central point, I feel that you need to do a better job of introducing this idea early in the text and distributing it throughout your essay effectively.
I also feel that a few sentences were a bit tedious to read, as they are so long. For example, the second and third sentences of the final paragraph are difficult to read and, in the case of the second one, difficult to understand. This problem is also present in the fourth paragraph, especially in the latter half of it.
As well, I think you need to revise your argument in the second sentence of the second paragraph, as it is not entirely accurate, as you will see upon reading the rest of the novel. The creature does not remotely feel that humans are unfit to live. Although it is possible to interpret it this way after reading only the first half of the story, upon reading the monster’s narrative, it is obvious he loves mankind, despising only his creator. Additionally, I would question the choice of the word “Darwinian” in the following sentence, as the second one does not concern a particularly “Darwinian” subject.
As for grammar and spelling errors, there are only a few. Most importantly, the author of Frankenstein spells her surname “Shelley,” not “Shelly.” Next, in the last sentence of the first paragraph, it should read “…that if it is put…” because knowledge is singular. In the third paragraph, there should be a colon following the word existence in “…threats to human existence…”, the second sentence should read “…will become superior to us…”, and the fourth sentence should say “…have the potential to create something…”
James Toye
Dr. Adam Johns
ENGCMP 0200
11/13/09
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was written as a precautionary tale about the dangers of technology that sparked the entrance of a new genre, concerning the side effects of technological improvement, into popular literature. In her novel, Shelley foresees problems with what is now known as genetic engineering. Although there have been no major consequences of the science yet, her precautions are still echoed by all the authors of the genre, including Bill Joy, who, in his essay Why the future doesn’t need us, also warns about the dangers of new technologies that could not have been imagined in Shelley’s time. Both of the authors agree that one of the goals of mankind is to pursue and gain knowledge; however, they also both agree that if they are put into the wrong hands, or used for the wrong purposes, the effects will be destructive, rampant, and perhaps even unstoppable. It is vital that their warnings should be heeded with the rapid advancement of technology.
Both authors use similar devices to argue their points. In Frankenstein, Shelley has her protagonist’s creature turn against its creator and humanity as a whole, causing destruction and horror wherever it is. The creature sees the evil in humans through their distrust and inability to accept him and decides that the pain inflicted upon him should be returned to the person that exposed him to it. Joy echoes this same warning in his essay, but at a much greater level, stating that rather than being stoppable like Frankenstein’s creature, that if the products of nanotechnology become sentient, could, if they deemed it necessary, “replicate swiftly, and reduce the biosphere to dust in a matter of days,” causing much more destruction than the creature ever did (Joy). He continues to persist that the day when the necessary technology for something of that is discovered moves ever closer, perhaps even as close as the year 2030 and thus far, very little has been done to prevent the wrong outcome from happening.
Joy identifies three main technologies of the twenty-first century as potential threats to human existence: genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics. He argues that as we advance technologically we will become more dependent on these things, which will become superior to us, and in turn will cause us to become obsolete and eventually extinct. As he quotes George Dyson’s book Darwin Among the Machines, “In the game of life and evolution there are three players... But nature I suspect, is on the side of the machines,” Joy expresses that although humans may be the pinnacle of natural selection at this moment, we have the potential to create something that can potentially render us unnecessary to the biosphere (Joy). He relates technology and the dawn of robotics to the raising of the land bridge between Central America and South America and the extinction of the pouched animals that lived there. Just as the non-pouched mammals overcame the pouched ones in South America, or as Frankenstein’s creature seems to overcome humanity, robots may do the same thing, and prove that they are superior to mankind.
Both Shelley and Joy agree that technology can be very beneficial for human society, but both also agree that in the wrong hands, it can be extremely hazardous to the general populous. Joy gives an all too probable example; that a terrorist cell gets control of a robotic virus or a mass of nanobots that destroys a large population of people. Shelley approaches the situation differently and asks the reader to imagine that one scientist, intending to do something good for the world, accidentally has his experiment go awry and in turn causes a disaster. While the Frankenstein dilemma is eventually solved, the chances of there being enough time for a robotics, genetics, or nanotechnology issue being solved are slim to none. This is simply because as Joy points out, at the time we will rely too heavily on whatever it is that we need to stop in order to create a solution without that source of technology.
No technology is inherently good or evil; rather it can be used in either fashion. All of the main technologies of the twenty-first century have practical purposes in today’s society. Joy explains in Why the future doesn’t need us, that they are being developed by private corporations, unlike the federally developed technologies of the past. They go unregulated, potentially developing radical, world-changing things that can be mass-produced with easily attainable materials by anyone with the knowledge of how to make them. No reliable countermeasures have been set up, or even conceived of to prevent the destruction of humanity and the world as it is today, and yet the maddening search for knowledge relentlessly continues, with little concern of the side effects of it. Now, more than ever, are the lessons of Frankenstein important and relevant to society, as Joy shows us in his essay.
Works Cited
Joy, Bill. "Why the future doesn't need us". 11 Jan. 2009
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html
Jessica - this is a good, detailed response. I'm very happy with it, but ideally I would have liked to see it more clearly structured (nothing is ever perfect)!
James - Your argument is clearer, perhaps, than it was in the original version, but it’s still an enormous claim. Rather than focusing on the general idea that we should be cautious, you might have made it more specific - what’s an example of where, when and how we should be more cautious? What are the specific implications of the large lesson you see in Joy & Shelley?
Your second paragraph is interesting. One thing you might have develoepd, but didn’t, was that Victor’s specific fear re: the monster is self-replication, the same as with Joy - that would have clarified the similarities you see. The third paragraph is a little wordy, but also does a nice job of demonstrating another core similarity of the two texts - the possibility that humanity will be out-competed (which depends on the earlier idea of self-replication).
By the fourth paragraph, although it does have some good points, I feel like you’re simply comparing and contrasting elements of the two texts that interest you. That’s a legitimate starting point, but at the end of the day you need to revise your work to make a coherent argument, and you’re not doing that here.
Your final paragraph is really devoid of meaning - you’re asserting truisms that anyone, pretty much, can comfortably agree with, rather than trying to draw any sort of specific conclusions from the two texts.
Jessica’s analysis remains essentially correct in the final version: you have some good ideas, and you have some good things to say about the two texts, but at the end of the day your argument is so vague - almost vacuous - that it can hardly be called an argument. It’s a *trivial* argument, in other words.
Post a Comment