Question 3: Frankenstein continues to occupy the popular imagination as a monstrous scientist. Analyze some of the ways in which Frankenstein continues to haunt discussion of recent technologies.
Technologies help to improve human lives but also destroy human’s identities. Catherine Waldby’s ‘The Instruments of Life: Frankenstein and Cyberculture’ brings out the notion of monstrous imagination of Frankenstein’s monster of Mary Shelley’s story. In order to examine why Frankenstein’s monster launches a wide discussion in society, I would conduct searches of online materials through Yahoo and Google search engines, and six sources written by Sanstone, Gelardi, Sack, Grubbe, Locke and Richard are used for the question.
[1] I think Sanstone’s article is useful as she gives a general picture of the concept of cyborg, which helps me to organize the structure of my essay, as well as elaborate the ideas with its examples. In Sanstone’s article, she tries to explain the concept of cyborg in two dominant perspectives: ‘the cyborg as a reconceptualized post-human body and the cyborg as machine-controlled monster.’ Base on the view of scholars like Clynes, Kline and Haraway, the cyborg is an extension of human body, which is believed to be positive to human body by enhancing human’s capabilities. On the other hand, as cyborg is an integrated entity of machine and human, Santone states the monstrous images of machine / human relationship, which is origin from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Some scholars such as Sherry Turkle and Sandy Stone stress that human heavily rely on technology, which leads to the significant role of machine towards human daily lives. One of the examples is the alternative identities on the internet. In the cyberspace, human characteristics such as race, gender and age are disregarded, and it helps to reconstruct the identity without physical human body. Sanstone also mentions that the reason of ‘human regards cyborg as monster’ is a reflection of technology-phobia. Since the intelligence and automation of cyborg may take over the human brain, cyborg has the potential to liberate to be ‘human’ and even uncontrolled like Frankenstein’s monster or the Terminator.
[2] From Gelardi’s article, I believe that it can explain human’s fears towards technology / humanity in both gender and identity aspect respectively. Gelardi’s article shows the reason why Frankenstein’s monster is imaged as monster by focusing on the genderlessness of Frankenstein’s monster. In the discussion of monstrous image of Frankenstein’s monster, he says that the emergence of Frankenstein’s monster blurs the distinction between human and monster, and the identity of Frankenstein’s monster is ambiguous. It is regarded as a part of human being because of its physical human body; yet, it was not born in human’s womb but created by human dead body with advanced technology in a laboratory. Moreover, Gelardi also points out that even though Frankenstein’s monster looks masculine, its gender is still uncertain. Similar to Haraway’s concept of cyborg, Frankenstein’s monster is created by technology and does not have its biological sex, as well as has no original unity (i.e. not simply born and raised with a family). All these characteristics are conflicting to human being, which threatens human with technology / humanity.
[3] Sack’s article is about the question of the human nature and artificial intelligence, shows that the technology is too powerful to duplicate the ‘human nature’. Sack states that it is easier for us to define the differences between us and them from artificial beings such as cyborgs and replicants, since machine is supposed not to have emotion and spirit. However, with the development of artificial intelligence, machine is indistinguishable from human. Therefore, human starts to worry about the computer acts like a person, and himself as being like a computer. Therefore, Sack uses the example of ELIZA to explain how the ‘Wired-style community’ disregard the man-machine relationship. ELIZA is a computer program could carry on a textual conversation with people by varies replies. Scientists and researches have attempted to merge some human characteristics like the senses, perception and social discourse with computer. As the result, the artificial human perception and sensation of cybernetics would eliminates the artificial / natural boundary and challenges human identity.
[4] In order to give a further explanation on human’s phobia of cyborg or technology, I would use Grubbe’s article as an example to show how technology burring and threatening the human nature. Grubbe’s article gives various living examples on how the technology functioned on human body. Being an expert of biomechanics and tissue engineering, Dr. Meloy and Dr. Warwick shares his experience on implantation of human body. Dr. Meloy pinpoints that it is common to use tools to replace lost functions of human body. For instance, robotic legs, knees and ankle can replace amputated or paralyzed legs, and it is believed that with the aid of machine, the artificial legs will be better than human legs for running in the next decade. It seems that people who disabled benefited from biomechanics, Grubbe states that some people worry that technology would goes nuts, or people would misuse these technology. One of the obvious examples is the creation of fighting machines for military use.
[5] I found that Locke’s article ‘Literary Examples of Man’s Fear of Machine’ is useful, which offers a further discussion on human’s fear on machinery out of control. Locke stresses that machines can be very powerful by enhancing the ability of human being as well as guarding men from harm; on the contrary, it is also resulting in people lacks self-reliance and being manipulated by machines. According to Locke, some writers have realized the rebellion of technology, and express human’s fear of machines through their works. Those storylines are usually about people afraid of machinery rebellion, or people begin to lack social interaction by relying machine for living. At the end of the article, Locke cites a scholar’s saying that “A machine… can be the great Liberator of human drudgery, but it can also be the monster of Doctor Frankenstein's genius", which reaffirms that human should not neglect the hidden machinery crisis with technology flourishes.
[6] Richard’s article ‘Clones, Genes and Faustian Technology’ explores the issue of reproductive cloning in both positive and negative way. In fact, cloning technique is widely used in farming but not animal cloning. However, it is suggested that human cloning should be practiced in order to cure some disease. Though the cloning technology, humans can choose the genes they like based on their genetic structure. Nonetheless, in the aspect of morality, Richard states that human cloning brings out the problem of genetic variability and demean the human nature, which is regarded as diminishing human dignity and morally unacceptable.
In short, the six sources I chose show the reasons why human afraid of the images of cyborg or man-machine as technologies are too powerful, which is similar to the monstrous images of Frankenstein’s monster with negative impacts to society.
Bibliography:
[1] Santone, Jessica (2003) ‘cyborg’ http://humanities.uchicago.edu/faculty/mitchell/glossary/cyborg.htm (accessed 29 March 2008)
[2] Gelardi, R. Adrienne (2006). ‘Parallels Between Frankenstein and the Cyborg’
http://www.kristinscott.net/gelardi.html (accessed 29 March 2008)
[3] Sack, Warren. (1998) ‘Artificial Human Nature’. http://project.cyberpunk.ru/idb/artificial_human_nature.html#fnB11 (accessed 29 March 2008)
[4] Grubbe, H. Charlotte. (2007) ‘The Blade Runner Generation’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article2079637.ece (accessed 30 March 2008)
[5] Locke, Amber. ‘Literary Examples of Man's Fear of Machine’http://www.mindmined.com/public_library/nonfiction/amber_locke_mans_fear_of_machine.html (accessed 30 March 2008)
[6] Richards, J. Robert (2004) ‘Clones, Genes and Faustian Technology’ http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777190263/ (accessed 30 March 2008)
Monday, March 31, 2008
Critical Annotated Webliography by Cody Wan
Guiding Question 3:
Frankenstein continues to occupy the popular imagination as a monstrous scientist. Analyse some of the ways in which Frankenstein continues to haunt discussions of recent technologies.
Introduction
In the beginning, technology is helping people to improve our daily life and raise our living standard. However, after we are increasing the technology skills such as cloning animal, creating the robots army, genetic engineering, xeno-transplantation and vitro fertilization techniques. We find that there are still many unknown area in it and those technology are challenge us what is the human purity. When the novel – Frankenstein has been written by Mary Shelley, it is a stock narrative for technology out of human control. As Catherine Waldby said that “The monstrosity of the creature’s body implies the monstrosity of our own.”, actually, the fear of technology mostly is coming from our human ourselves. Therefore, Frankenstein continues to haunt discussions of recent technologies such as biomedicine and bioscience.
Source One – Charity Battles Imaginary Killing Machines
Source from Wired.com, accessed March 28, 2008, written by Sharon Weinberger. This article is talking about the autonomous robots to become killing machines or killer robots. Because many countries are using robots to do landmines, however the robots are the cluster bombs exist in the world. Nowadays, some of the science and technology organizations are making the machine-gun wielding military robots are remotely controlled by soldiers. The US Department of Defense want the robots work without supervision, that mean they can use their artificial intelligence to make their own decisions about when to pull the trigger. In this article, the writers think that there is nothing wrong to develop the technology. It is because the technology can help us to improve our life and protest our human body. However, we should set up some restrictions and have a healthy discussion on how to control these systems. I think it is a good example to show human are afraid those robots out of human control.
Source Two – Technology Fear Factor
Source from KurzweilAI.net, accessed July 21, 2002, written by Daintry Duffy and Sari Kalin. This article has taken notice on different factors of technology fear. There are three futurists – George Gilder, Ray Kurzweil, and Jaron Lanier. They are agreeing that technologies can be used in good and bad ways. They points out that the most dangerous technology is artificial intelligence, biotechnology and nanotechnology. Although those technologies can help us discover miracle drugs, it also can help the terrorists to build super dangerous weapons. Another main point is we are more focus on the privacy and encryption. In the past society, everyone knew what everybody was doing. At now, we are expanding the domains of privacy and encryption and keep the communication private, like terrorists. Privacy is becoming more and more pervasive. Therefore, the technologies are more easily to apply in the destructive purposes. So the main method to solve the fear is using the technology in correct place. Those above writers are suggest that the human should build up our humanity more powerful and keep connection to humanity. Those scholars’s speaking can reinforce the point that technology is dangerous without human control and the solving methods are we.
Source Three – Show your high-tech ID, How does technology shape who we are?
Source from TechnologyReview.com, accessed October 25, 2001, written by Alan Leo. This article makes all the fear of technology to be close to our own identity. It points out that human are always talking an identity, but the identity as something we create. Some fellow scholars discussed how our identities shape and are shaped by new technologies in it. There are contains different new technologies to identify our identity. For example: using the gene and the genome to identify our identity, demonstrated a system to identify people by the way they talk, walk and spot the suspicious behaviors. Unfortunately, those of the new technologies cannot perfectly to identify our identity. It is because the machines can have the same human being such as the robot called Gizmo, it behaves more like a “creature” than tool. Gizmo reacts like a human with facial expression, body language and responds to positive and negative feedback. It shows that the technologies are harm the most basic human purity – identity and are shaped by the technologies.
Source Four – Science: consider it your friend or your enemy?
Source from CSUN.EDU, accessed and written by unknown. This paper talks about technology can help us to cure many human illnesses, but it has been considered harmful to society and extremely influential to civilization. The simply explanation is many of us cannot go out without a mobile phone now. As J. Michael Bishop said that science today is increasingly mistrusted and under attack. Moreover, the science has influenced our lives in ways never imagined before, science developed instruments of war and used for the destruction of humanity, as in Hiroshima with the atomic bomb. Society has become completely depended on technology. Many of us are relying on our technologies. It feels like a part of us. However, it is causing a great harm to our children. Because the children will believe that the virtual toys can know what they feel and understand their thoughts. They think that the toys and games have a brain. They are difficult to distinguish between real and fantasy. Many children believes the robots to be “Sort of alive”, they thinks that the robots have personalities just like humans do. Therefore, it shows that the creatures as a “copy of human”. Those are the simulacrum of our humanity. The technologies will bring out the social problems.
Source Five – New Robots Clone Themselves
Source from Livescience.com, accessed May 11, 2005, written by Michael Schirber. This post told us the new technique in robot, some researchers have built a simple self-replicating robot. Before, we will use the reproduction to discriminate which is technology and human. At now, the robots can make a copy of itself. The self-replicating robots can take care of themselves without any human help. That mean the robot can live alone of themselves, their life become stronger and durable. In the future, if the human cannot control the robots, the robot will have the opportunity to take control of the world. Technologies become more powerful than before.
Source Six – Forward Thinking
Source from ACMqueue.com, accessed December, 2006, written by Charlene O’Hanlon. It told that the humans are not flexible creatures, are technologies. When human feel fear, human are often held back by this scary feeling. Furthermore, too much fear will prevent us from discovering our true talents. However, the technology doesn’t know what fear is. When technology becomes smarter than human a day, man and machine have the same level intelligence. Then technology will evolve to surpass man. But it doesn’t mean human should lose our emotion, should not lose our humanity.
Conclusion
Most of us agree that the creature seems as monster and harm objects in the world. However, who is the creator, is human. If we fear of the technology, we should fear of ourselves. Therefore, human should take the responsibility to control the technologies and use it in right place. On the other hand, the most fears element is the technology product become more similar to us. The technologies such as robot have the similar social practice with us. Then the technology is creating new forms of life. So some of the people argue that the machines should follow our social rules or not. Moreover, it is causing many of social problems, the most influence group is the children. That why we start to fear and discuss of the humanity and technology.
Notes for Written Sources
Waldby, Catherine. “The Instruments of Life: Frankenstein and Cyberculture.” Prefiguring Cybercultures: An Intellectual History. Eds. Darren Tofts, Annemarie Jonson and Alessio Cavalaro. Sydney: Power Publications, 2002 28-37.
Notes for Online Sources
1) Sharon, Weinberger. (2008) “Charity Battles Imaginary Killing Machines.” Retrieved from March 28, 2008, source from http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/03/charity-will-ba.html
2) Daintry, Duffy and Sari, Kalin.(2002) “Technology Fear Factor.” Retrieved from
July 21, 2002, source from http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0510.html
3) Alan, Leo. (2001) “Show your high-tech ID, How does technology shape who we are?” Retrieved from October 25, 2001, source from http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/12633/
4) CSUN. (2008) “Science: consider it your friend or your enemy?” Retrieved from unknown, source from
http://www.csun.edu/~sa822008/paper3.html
5) Michael, Schirber. (2005) “New Robots Clone Themselves” Retrieved from
May 11, 2005, source from http://www.livescience.com/technology/050511_self_replicator.html
6) Charlene O’Hanlon. (2006) “Forward thinking” Retrieved from December, 2006, source from http://www.acmqueue.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=448
Frankenstein continues to occupy the popular imagination as a monstrous scientist. Analyse some of the ways in which Frankenstein continues to haunt discussions of recent technologies.
Introduction
In the beginning, technology is helping people to improve our daily life and raise our living standard. However, after we are increasing the technology skills such as cloning animal, creating the robots army, genetic engineering, xeno-transplantation and vitro fertilization techniques. We find that there are still many unknown area in it and those technology are challenge us what is the human purity. When the novel – Frankenstein has been written by Mary Shelley, it is a stock narrative for technology out of human control. As Catherine Waldby said that “The monstrosity of the creature’s body implies the monstrosity of our own.”, actually, the fear of technology mostly is coming from our human ourselves. Therefore, Frankenstein continues to haunt discussions of recent technologies such as biomedicine and bioscience.
Source One – Charity Battles Imaginary Killing Machines
Source from Wired.com, accessed March 28, 2008, written by Sharon Weinberger. This article is talking about the autonomous robots to become killing machines or killer robots. Because many countries are using robots to do landmines, however the robots are the cluster bombs exist in the world. Nowadays, some of the science and technology organizations are making the machine-gun wielding military robots are remotely controlled by soldiers. The US Department of Defense want the robots work without supervision, that mean they can use their artificial intelligence to make their own decisions about when to pull the trigger. In this article, the writers think that there is nothing wrong to develop the technology. It is because the technology can help us to improve our life and protest our human body. However, we should set up some restrictions and have a healthy discussion on how to control these systems. I think it is a good example to show human are afraid those robots out of human control.
Source Two – Technology Fear Factor
Source from KurzweilAI.net, accessed July 21, 2002, written by Daintry Duffy and Sari Kalin. This article has taken notice on different factors of technology fear. There are three futurists – George Gilder, Ray Kurzweil, and Jaron Lanier. They are agreeing that technologies can be used in good and bad ways. They points out that the most dangerous technology is artificial intelligence, biotechnology and nanotechnology. Although those technologies can help us discover miracle drugs, it also can help the terrorists to build super dangerous weapons. Another main point is we are more focus on the privacy and encryption. In the past society, everyone knew what everybody was doing. At now, we are expanding the domains of privacy and encryption and keep the communication private, like terrorists. Privacy is becoming more and more pervasive. Therefore, the technologies are more easily to apply in the destructive purposes. So the main method to solve the fear is using the technology in correct place. Those above writers are suggest that the human should build up our humanity more powerful and keep connection to humanity. Those scholars’s speaking can reinforce the point that technology is dangerous without human control and the solving methods are we.
Source Three – Show your high-tech ID, How does technology shape who we are?
Source from TechnologyReview.com, accessed October 25, 2001, written by Alan Leo. This article makes all the fear of technology to be close to our own identity. It points out that human are always talking an identity, but the identity as something we create. Some fellow scholars discussed how our identities shape and are shaped by new technologies in it. There are contains different new technologies to identify our identity. For example: using the gene and the genome to identify our identity, demonstrated a system to identify people by the way they talk, walk and spot the suspicious behaviors. Unfortunately, those of the new technologies cannot perfectly to identify our identity. It is because the machines can have the same human being such as the robot called Gizmo, it behaves more like a “creature” than tool. Gizmo reacts like a human with facial expression, body language and responds to positive and negative feedback. It shows that the technologies are harm the most basic human purity – identity and are shaped by the technologies.
Source Four – Science: consider it your friend or your enemy?
Source from CSUN.EDU, accessed and written by unknown. This paper talks about technology can help us to cure many human illnesses, but it has been considered harmful to society and extremely influential to civilization. The simply explanation is many of us cannot go out without a mobile phone now. As J. Michael Bishop said that science today is increasingly mistrusted and under attack. Moreover, the science has influenced our lives in ways never imagined before, science developed instruments of war and used for the destruction of humanity, as in Hiroshima with the atomic bomb. Society has become completely depended on technology. Many of us are relying on our technologies. It feels like a part of us. However, it is causing a great harm to our children. Because the children will believe that the virtual toys can know what they feel and understand their thoughts. They think that the toys and games have a brain. They are difficult to distinguish between real and fantasy. Many children believes the robots to be “Sort of alive”, they thinks that the robots have personalities just like humans do. Therefore, it shows that the creatures as a “copy of human”. Those are the simulacrum of our humanity. The technologies will bring out the social problems.
Source Five – New Robots Clone Themselves
Source from Livescience.com, accessed May 11, 2005, written by Michael Schirber. This post told us the new technique in robot, some researchers have built a simple self-replicating robot. Before, we will use the reproduction to discriminate which is technology and human. At now, the robots can make a copy of itself. The self-replicating robots can take care of themselves without any human help. That mean the robot can live alone of themselves, their life become stronger and durable. In the future, if the human cannot control the robots, the robot will have the opportunity to take control of the world. Technologies become more powerful than before.
Source Six – Forward Thinking
Source from ACMqueue.com, accessed December, 2006, written by Charlene O’Hanlon. It told that the humans are not flexible creatures, are technologies. When human feel fear, human are often held back by this scary feeling. Furthermore, too much fear will prevent us from discovering our true talents. However, the technology doesn’t know what fear is. When technology becomes smarter than human a day, man and machine have the same level intelligence. Then technology will evolve to surpass man. But it doesn’t mean human should lose our emotion, should not lose our humanity.
Conclusion
Most of us agree that the creature seems as monster and harm objects in the world. However, who is the creator, is human. If we fear of the technology, we should fear of ourselves. Therefore, human should take the responsibility to control the technologies and use it in right place. On the other hand, the most fears element is the technology product become more similar to us. The technologies such as robot have the similar social practice with us. Then the technology is creating new forms of life. So some of the people argue that the machines should follow our social rules or not. Moreover, it is causing many of social problems, the most influence group is the children. That why we start to fear and discuss of the humanity and technology.
Notes for Written Sources
Waldby, Catherine. “The Instruments of Life: Frankenstein and Cyberculture.” Prefiguring Cybercultures: An Intellectual History. Eds. Darren Tofts, Annemarie Jonson and Alessio Cavalaro. Sydney: Power Publications, 2002 28-37.
Notes for Online Sources
1) Sharon, Weinberger. (2008) “Charity Battles Imaginary Killing Machines.” Retrieved from March 28, 2008, source from http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/03/charity-will-ba.html
2) Daintry, Duffy and Sari, Kalin.(2002) “Technology Fear Factor.” Retrieved from
July 21, 2002, source from http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0510.html
3) Alan, Leo. (2001) “Show your high-tech ID, How does technology shape who we are?” Retrieved from October 25, 2001, source from http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/12633/
4) CSUN. (2008) “Science: consider it your friend or your enemy?” Retrieved from unknown, source from
http://www.csun.edu/~sa822008/paper3.html
5) Michael, Schirber. (2005) “New Robots Clone Themselves” Retrieved from
May 11, 2005, source from http://www.livescience.com/technology/050511_self_replicator.html
6) Charlene O’Hanlon. (2006) “Forward thinking” Retrieved from December, 2006, source from http://www.acmqueue.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=448
Jessie's Webliography
Question 1: Judy Waczman argues that Donna Haraway's figure of the cyborg has taken on ‘a life of its own’ in popular culture, science fiction and academic writing. In what ways has it been taken up by feminists?
In order to answer the question that how Donna Haraway's figure of the cyborg been taken up by feminists, first, I read the reading of Judy Waczman so as to get the general idea of this topic. Then, I searched with the keywords such as ‘cyborg’, ‘feminist’ and ‘Donna Haraway’ etc. in the online search engines Google and Yahoo as well as in online journal websites. In the process of searching the relevant materials for my guiding question, I found that there have some external links after an article. Some of them are useful and relevant so it can reduce my time to search again in the online search engines or online journal websites. I have also tried to search the materials in HKU Libraries. However, the online sources cannot be accessible on the weblog because the electronic resources have restricted access.
Slavoj Zizek's article‘The Cyberspace Real’ introduces Peter Hoeg's novel called The Woman and the Ape, staging sex with an animal as a fantasy of full sexual relationship. The role of man and woman is that the animal ape is as a rule male whereas the cyborg is as a rule woman. This novel is about the fantasy of Woman-Machine, just likes Blade Runner. The man wants his feminine partner to be a programmed doll rather than a living being whereas the woman wants a strong animal partner. Slavoj argues that the scene of a male ape copulating with a female cyborg is confronting us with an unbearable scene of the ‘ideal couple’. In this kind of science fiction novel, it seems that woman is being marginalized because a living being cannot win acceptance. On the contrary, a cyborg is preferred.
Rosi Braidotti has pointed out some feminist visions on science fiction in her article 'Cyberfeminism with a difference'. Many feminists have turned to both writing and reading science fiction in order to assess the impact of the representation of sexual difference. Braidotti thinks the post-human plight implies a blurring of gender boundaries does not always have advantage of women. To a certain extent, she has the same point of view with other feminists. For example, she has argued that sciene fiction horror films play with fundamental male anxieties and displace it by inventing alternative views of reproduction, thereby manipulating the figure of the female body. She has also mentioned the cyberpunk and argued that it is male dominated. Cyberpunk dreams about the dissolution of the body into the Matrix. Braidotti called feminists and herself as riot girls that they have been persecuted and repressed by Big Mama all their life. The female image is just the image of the caring, nurturing and self-sacrificing. Women cannot be expected to share easily in the fantasy of a return to the Matrix. She has a complaint about lacking of space and time to develop and express their wishes. However, she is still willing to sit down to a good talk in order to negotiate margins of mutual toleration.
‘You Are Cyborg’ written by Hari Kunzru, is discussed the notion of cyborg based on Haraway's document ‘The Cyborg Manifesto’. Feminists around the world have seized on the possibility that women and men can all be reconstructed if they are not natural but are constructed, like a cyborg. And Kunzru mentioned that Cyberfeminism is based on the idea that it is possible to construct your identity, your sexuality, and even your gender in conjunction with technology. Being a cyborg is not just about the freedom to construct yourself but is about networks. Modern citizens are taught to think of themselves as beings who exist inside their heads. We are a collection of networks. We receive a lot of information from the networks and make up our ‘world’. Kunzru said that human beings in the '90s show a surprising willingness to understand themselves as creatures networked together. And the way we talk shows that we know we are really cyborgs. However, Kunzru challenges whether there is a need to seriously believe in this idea. For Haraway, feminist concerns are inside of technology, not a rhetorical overlay. Feminists are talking about cohabitation, such as between organisms and machines.
Kate Phillips has dealt with the concept of Haraway's Cyborg in relation to Feminism in her paper, 'Haraway's Cyborg and Feminism'. The Feminism that mentioned in her paper is referred to the movement to critique the power systems and social structures. Phillips argued that the mind/body split concept conceived by Descartes is problematic in which men were seen to be the rational creatures (the mind), while women were seen as being firmly rooted in the body. She also disagrees with the idea of sensuality towards body. In Feminism, there is a call for reclamation of the body and mind. The use of Cyborg as the tool to accomplish the goal is well proved. Besides, Phillips finds something interesting that some feminists both give in and critique in relation to cyberspace, the Cyborg, technology, and the way in which these may blur boundaries. For her, the Cyborg is ‘decentered.’ ‘Decentering’ is a postmodern concept that means a ways of seeing multiplicities and critiquing the social systems of oppression by seeing the linking's between them. She also states that a Cyborg, while frightening in its implications, is also the most powerful liberator that we can imagine.
Krista Scott's essay ‘The Cyborg, the Scientist, the Feminist & Her Critic’, has explained why feminists should concern with Haraway's vision of the cyborg. Scott has the same concern with Haraway that is some feminists are too quick engaging in ‘anti-science metaphysics and demonology of technology.’ Activists should not mount a defense against technoscience. Cyborg can represent a more positive thing for Scott. She indicated that Haraway hopes to use the cyborg to represent ‘lived social and bodily realities in which people are not afraid of their joint kinship with animals and machines, not afraid of permanently partial identities and contradictory standpoints.’ To satisfy the problem of cyborg politics upon feminist identities, Scott tends to make an attempt to devise some kind of naturalized self. As identities seem contradictory, partial and strategic, it is difficult to name one's feminism by a single adjective.
Maria Fernandez and Suhail Malik cooperated to write an article, ‘Whatever Happened to the Cyborg Manifesto?’ in order to express their objection against Haraway's ‘The Cyborg Manifesto’. From Fernandez's point of view, the Cyborg Manifesto urged feminists to embrace new technologies as tools for feminist ends was a compelling antidote to the harmful notion that women belonged exclusively to ‘nature’. Malik has even pointed out five complaints towards the notion of cyborg in the article. He thinks that the tendentious appropriation of techno-scientific development as ‘cyborgian’ prohibits a creative understanding of organico-machinic nexus.
In conclusion, I found six online sources for my critical annotated webliography. I would like to discuss the overall feminist thinking on Donna Haraway's concept of the cyborg first. Many feminists disagree with Haraway's idea. However, I still found that there are different opinions towards the notion of the cyborg. I will remain neutral during arguing this guiding question. Therefore, I adopt a comprehensive point of view of feminists, some of my sources are agree with the notion of the cyborg that becomes important and prominent and some are not. The second article is the most important source and in accordance with my direction.
References
Zizek, Slavoj. ‘The Cyberspace Real’, European Graduate School Faculty, http://www.egs.edu/faculty/zizek/zizek-the-cyberspace-real.html [accessed 31 March 2008].
Braidotti, Rosi (1996). ‘Cyberfeminism with a difference’, http://www.let.uu.nl/womens_studies/rosi/cyberfem.htm [accessed 31 March 2008].
Kunzru, Hari (1997). ‘You Are Cyborg’, Wired Magazine, Issue 5.02, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffharaway.html [accessed 31 March 2008].
Phillips, Kate (2007). ‘Haraway’s Cyborg and Feminism’, Associated Content, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/226769/haraways_cyborg_and_feminism.html [accessed 31 March 2008].
Scott, Krista (1997). ‘The Cyborg, the Scientist, the Feminist & Her Critic’, The Feminist eZine, http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/philosophy/Cyborg-Scientist-Feminist.html [accessed 31 March 2008].
Fernandez, Maria and Malik, Suhail (2001). ‘Whatever Happened to the Cyborg Manifesto?’, Mute Magazine, http://www.metamute.org/en/Whatever-Happened-to-the-Cyborg-Manifesto [accessed 31 March 2008].
In order to answer the question that how Donna Haraway's figure of the cyborg been taken up by feminists, first, I read the reading of Judy Waczman so as to get the general idea of this topic. Then, I searched with the keywords such as ‘cyborg’, ‘feminist’ and ‘Donna Haraway’ etc. in the online search engines Google and Yahoo as well as in online journal websites. In the process of searching the relevant materials for my guiding question, I found that there have some external links after an article. Some of them are useful and relevant so it can reduce my time to search again in the online search engines or online journal websites. I have also tried to search the materials in HKU Libraries. However, the online sources cannot be accessible on the weblog because the electronic resources have restricted access.
Slavoj Zizek's article‘The Cyberspace Real’ introduces Peter Hoeg's novel called The Woman and the Ape, staging sex with an animal as a fantasy of full sexual relationship. The role of man and woman is that the animal ape is as a rule male whereas the cyborg is as a rule woman. This novel is about the fantasy of Woman-Machine, just likes Blade Runner. The man wants his feminine partner to be a programmed doll rather than a living being whereas the woman wants a strong animal partner. Slavoj argues that the scene of a male ape copulating with a female cyborg is confronting us with an unbearable scene of the ‘ideal couple’. In this kind of science fiction novel, it seems that woman is being marginalized because a living being cannot win acceptance. On the contrary, a cyborg is preferred.
Rosi Braidotti has pointed out some feminist visions on science fiction in her article 'Cyberfeminism with a difference'. Many feminists have turned to both writing and reading science fiction in order to assess the impact of the representation of sexual difference. Braidotti thinks the post-human plight implies a blurring of gender boundaries does not always have advantage of women. To a certain extent, she has the same point of view with other feminists. For example, she has argued that sciene fiction horror films play with fundamental male anxieties and displace it by inventing alternative views of reproduction, thereby manipulating the figure of the female body. She has also mentioned the cyberpunk and argued that it is male dominated. Cyberpunk dreams about the dissolution of the body into the Matrix. Braidotti called feminists and herself as riot girls that they have been persecuted and repressed by Big Mama all their life. The female image is just the image of the caring, nurturing and self-sacrificing. Women cannot be expected to share easily in the fantasy of a return to the Matrix. She has a complaint about lacking of space and time to develop and express their wishes. However, she is still willing to sit down to a good talk in order to negotiate margins of mutual toleration.
‘You Are Cyborg’ written by Hari Kunzru, is discussed the notion of cyborg based on Haraway's document ‘The Cyborg Manifesto’. Feminists around the world have seized on the possibility that women and men can all be reconstructed if they are not natural but are constructed, like a cyborg. And Kunzru mentioned that Cyberfeminism is based on the idea that it is possible to construct your identity, your sexuality, and even your gender in conjunction with technology. Being a cyborg is not just about the freedom to construct yourself but is about networks. Modern citizens are taught to think of themselves as beings who exist inside their heads. We are a collection of networks. We receive a lot of information from the networks and make up our ‘world’. Kunzru said that human beings in the '90s show a surprising willingness to understand themselves as creatures networked together. And the way we talk shows that we know we are really cyborgs. However, Kunzru challenges whether there is a need to seriously believe in this idea. For Haraway, feminist concerns are inside of technology, not a rhetorical overlay. Feminists are talking about cohabitation, such as between organisms and machines.
Kate Phillips has dealt with the concept of Haraway's Cyborg in relation to Feminism in her paper, 'Haraway's Cyborg and Feminism'. The Feminism that mentioned in her paper is referred to the movement to critique the power systems and social structures. Phillips argued that the mind/body split concept conceived by Descartes is problematic in which men were seen to be the rational creatures (the mind), while women were seen as being firmly rooted in the body. She also disagrees with the idea of sensuality towards body. In Feminism, there is a call for reclamation of the body and mind. The use of Cyborg as the tool to accomplish the goal is well proved. Besides, Phillips finds something interesting that some feminists both give in and critique in relation to cyberspace, the Cyborg, technology, and the way in which these may blur boundaries. For her, the Cyborg is ‘decentered.’ ‘Decentering’ is a postmodern concept that means a ways of seeing multiplicities and critiquing the social systems of oppression by seeing the linking's between them. She also states that a Cyborg, while frightening in its implications, is also the most powerful liberator that we can imagine.
Krista Scott's essay ‘The Cyborg, the Scientist, the Feminist & Her Critic’, has explained why feminists should concern with Haraway's vision of the cyborg. Scott has the same concern with Haraway that is some feminists are too quick engaging in ‘anti-science metaphysics and demonology of technology.’ Activists should not mount a defense against technoscience. Cyborg can represent a more positive thing for Scott. She indicated that Haraway hopes to use the cyborg to represent ‘lived social and bodily realities in which people are not afraid of their joint kinship with animals and machines, not afraid of permanently partial identities and contradictory standpoints.’ To satisfy the problem of cyborg politics upon feminist identities, Scott tends to make an attempt to devise some kind of naturalized self. As identities seem contradictory, partial and strategic, it is difficult to name one's feminism by a single adjective.
Maria Fernandez and Suhail Malik cooperated to write an article, ‘Whatever Happened to the Cyborg Manifesto?’ in order to express their objection against Haraway's ‘The Cyborg Manifesto’. From Fernandez's point of view, the Cyborg Manifesto urged feminists to embrace new technologies as tools for feminist ends was a compelling antidote to the harmful notion that women belonged exclusively to ‘nature’. Malik has even pointed out five complaints towards the notion of cyborg in the article. He thinks that the tendentious appropriation of techno-scientific development as ‘cyborgian’ prohibits a creative understanding of organico-machinic nexus.
In conclusion, I found six online sources for my critical annotated webliography. I would like to discuss the overall feminist thinking on Donna Haraway's concept of the cyborg first. Many feminists disagree with Haraway's idea. However, I still found that there are different opinions towards the notion of the cyborg. I will remain neutral during arguing this guiding question. Therefore, I adopt a comprehensive point of view of feminists, some of my sources are agree with the notion of the cyborg that becomes important and prominent and some are not. The second article is the most important source and in accordance with my direction.
References
Zizek, Slavoj. ‘The Cyberspace Real’, European Graduate School Faculty, http://www.egs.edu/faculty/zizek/zizek-the-cyberspace-real.html [accessed 31 March 2008].
Braidotti, Rosi (1996). ‘Cyberfeminism with a difference’, http://www.let.uu.nl/womens_studies/rosi/cyberfem.htm [accessed 31 March 2008].
Kunzru, Hari (1997). ‘You Are Cyborg’, Wired Magazine, Issue 5.02, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffharaway.html [accessed 31 March 2008].
Phillips, Kate (2007). ‘Haraway’s Cyborg and Feminism’, Associated Content, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/226769/haraways_cyborg_and_feminism.html [accessed 31 March 2008].
Scott, Krista (1997). ‘The Cyborg, the Scientist, the Feminist & Her Critic’, The Feminist eZine, http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/philosophy/Cyborg-Scientist-Feminist.html [accessed 31 March 2008].
Fernandez, Maria and Malik, Suhail (2001). ‘Whatever Happened to the Cyborg Manifesto?’, Mute Magazine, http://www.metamute.org/en/Whatever-Happened-to-the-Cyborg-Manifesto [accessed 31 March 2008].
Critical Annotated Webliography
Question 3: Frankenstein continues to occupy the popular imagination as a monstrous scientist. Analyze some of the ways in which Frankenstein continues to haunt discussions of recent technologies.
In order to analyze the ways that how Frankenstein continues to haunt the recent technologies, first, I used the Electronic Resources which provide by the University of Hong Kong Library. Those databases that I chose are ProQuest, Academic Search Premier, and the Search Engine, such as Yahoo (Hong Kong, Google (Hong Kong) and the E-Newspaper which found in Yahoo Hong Kong News. There were over twenty items after I searched from the database and over one thousands items from the Search Engine. After I read those items and I found the most suitable one to answer the question. “The Probable Future World Forecasted in Mary Shelly’s ‘Frankenstein’ and H.G. Wells’ ‘The Time Machine’, the search term which use in the Google is Frankenstein and technology. “Frankensteins and Cyborgs: Visions of the Global Future in an Age of Technology”, the search term is Frankenstein, humanity and technology in Academic Search Premier. Using the word Frankenstein, technology and humanity in Yahoo, and the article of “Frankenstein Complex: Man's Obsession with & Fear of Technological Advancement” is one of the most suitable one. I used the term “robot” for “Again Japan looks to robots” in Yahoo Hong Kong News. For the database “ProQuest”, I used the search term of “technology, humanity, Frankenstein and cloning” for the article “Cows and Cloned Babies Tax Us” and “Is Rush Into Cloning Another False Scientific Dawn?”
The Probable Future World Forecasted in Mary Shelly’s ‘Frankenstein’ and H.G. Wells’ ‘The Time Machine’ was one of the sources which provide the background information from the story of Frankenstein and how the story creates the name of “monster”. Although people recognize the story of Frankenstein, some of them do not recognize this story. In the article, the author mentions that Mary Shelley gave “a warning of the danger in technological development of modern science of us.” The modern science cannot support those technologies that in the story, however, the scientists develop those technologies in the recent time. And it provides “negative consequences” for the recent scientists.
Frankensteins and Cyborgs: Visions of the Global Future in an Age of Technology mentions how the Frankenstein gives the ideas to the scientists in the development of the machines and gives different examples how the technologies development. It also talks about “what kind of technology” and “what kind of humanity” in the recent and the future time. The examples of the technologies development give the support for an essay. There are the negative aspects for the usage of the recent technology. This is talking about the problems of the technology in the essay.
In Frankenstein Complex: Man's Obsession with & Fear of Technological Advancement, Frankenstein is affecting the ideas of the film producer and the improvement of the technology. “Robotics are by no means new to mankind” because of the film “I Robot”. The monster was created by Frankenstein and it is the same as the scientists create or improve the technology of the robot. In addition, the robot, which use in the house working, we think that they are not dangerous, however, it may not true, just like the story of “I Robot”. The human may have the same situation that we watch in the “I Robot”. The truth is we do not have the ability to control vanguard technology as the technology is powerful. It is one of the negative aspects that the technology is developed too fast.
There is one more example for the robot. Japan is one of the countries which develop different kinds of robots and Aging Japan looks to robots talks about what the robot reduce the government expenditure and the robot is useful in Japan. Toyota, the world's largest car company, would like to produce more robots as the government will subsidize the development of those machines. It is the positive way that people who like to develop the robot technology and they use the robot in daily life. In Japan, there is aging population so one of the robots will look after the elderly. "Robots can be useful, but they cannot come close to overcoming the problem of population decline," the robots will solve numbers of problems while they cannot solve the aging population. It is comparison of the negative way for the robots.
The problem of technologies development is the cloning of the animals and human. Cows and cloned babies tax us is about the cows carry human gene that may destroy after the high court ruling in New Zealand. The cloning sleep, Dolly, was shocked in 1997. The cloned animals affect our morality and rise up the problem of cloning children. The parents like to “order” their children which have better appearance and intelligence. It is the conflict between those who support the cloning animals and oppose the cloning animals. The development of the technology occur the problems that the parent reply on the technology for choosing their children. Maybe everyone is a copy cat from the cloning gene. There is no more unique person in the world. And everyone is the same. It is very frightened as everyone is looking at the same.
In Is rush into cloning another false scientific dawn? there are two different of cloning, “reproductive (making a new animal or human) and thera-peutic (making new cells which can be used for medical purposes including, hopefully, replacing defective cells in humans).” People think that reproductive cloning animals is a new term and it is not. In the 17th century, it was “sheep-blood transfusions” and the scientists consider different methods on cloning animals. We discover that the cloning animals is not the prefect one, the cloning animals still get diseases. The scientists think it was improvement about the cloning animals and reduce the diseases in the world. Is it really solving the problem? It may carry out the other diseases and spread it out. So, people afraid the new disease comes out and it is unsupportable.
All of the source give statements how Frankenstein affect the technologies development and technology how to affecting our daily life. In the recent period, the scientists would like to improve the system of the robots. Robots could helps the human and do everything. Although the robots do different kinds of works in our society, they cannot solve the aging population in the developed countries. The cloning of the animals carry human gene is affecting our morality. Moreover, the true is we cannot control the technology as it is powerful. So, it is fear concerning the technology and humanity.
Reference List:
K, C. (2007). Frankenstein complex: man’s obsession with & fear of technological advancement. Retrieved March 18, 2008, from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/381828/frankenstein_complex_mans_obsession.html.
Graham, E. L. (2003). Frankensteins and cyborgs: visions of the global future in an age of technology. Studies in Christian Ethics, 16(1). Retrieved March 20, 2008, from Academic Search Premier.
Leader. (2002, January 5). Is rush into cloning another false scientific dawn?. The Scotsman, pp. 13. Retrieved March 20, 2008 from ProQuest.
Liu, K. L. (2003). The probable future world forecasted in Mary Shelly’s ‘Frankenstein’ and H.G. Wells’ ‘The Time Machine’. Retrieved from March 18, 2008, from http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=zh-TW&lr=&q=cache:DVn74DKsF3gJ:www.knu.edu.tw/knu1/web/teach/cge/%25E6%2595%2599%25E8%2582%25B2%25E9%2583%25A8%25E7%25AC%25AC%25E4%25BA%258C%25E6%25A2%25AF%25E6%25AC%25A1%25E8%25A8%2588%25E5%258A%2583/5/paper/03/Frankenstein%2520and%2520The%2520Time%2520Machine.pdf+Frankenstein+and+technology
Waikato (2001, May 7). Cows and cloned babies tax us. Waikato Times, pp. 6. Retrieved March 20, 2008 from ProQuest.
The Standard (2008, January 10). Aging Japan looks to robots. The Standard. Retrieved March 21, 2008 from http://hk.news.yahoo.com/080109/318/2mqj8.html.
In order to analyze the ways that how Frankenstein continues to haunt the recent technologies, first, I used the Electronic Resources which provide by the University of Hong Kong Library. Those databases that I chose are ProQuest, Academic Search Premier, and the Search Engine, such as Yahoo (Hong Kong, Google (Hong Kong) and the E-Newspaper which found in Yahoo Hong Kong News. There were over twenty items after I searched from the database and over one thousands items from the Search Engine. After I read those items and I found the most suitable one to answer the question. “The Probable Future World Forecasted in Mary Shelly’s ‘Frankenstein’ and H.G. Wells’ ‘The Time Machine’, the search term which use in the Google is Frankenstein and technology. “Frankensteins and Cyborgs: Visions of the Global Future in an Age of Technology”, the search term is Frankenstein, humanity and technology in Academic Search Premier. Using the word Frankenstein, technology and humanity in Yahoo, and the article of “Frankenstein Complex: Man's Obsession with & Fear of Technological Advancement” is one of the most suitable one. I used the term “robot” for “Again Japan looks to robots” in Yahoo Hong Kong News. For the database “ProQuest”, I used the search term of “technology, humanity, Frankenstein and cloning” for the article “Cows and Cloned Babies Tax Us” and “Is Rush Into Cloning Another False Scientific Dawn?”
The Probable Future World Forecasted in Mary Shelly’s ‘Frankenstein’ and H.G. Wells’ ‘The Time Machine’ was one of the sources which provide the background information from the story of Frankenstein and how the story creates the name of “monster”. Although people recognize the story of Frankenstein, some of them do not recognize this story. In the article, the author mentions that Mary Shelley gave “a warning of the danger in technological development of modern science of us.” The modern science cannot support those technologies that in the story, however, the scientists develop those technologies in the recent time. And it provides “negative consequences” for the recent scientists.
Frankensteins and Cyborgs: Visions of the Global Future in an Age of Technology mentions how the Frankenstein gives the ideas to the scientists in the development of the machines and gives different examples how the technologies development. It also talks about “what kind of technology” and “what kind of humanity” in the recent and the future time. The examples of the technologies development give the support for an essay. There are the negative aspects for the usage of the recent technology. This is talking about the problems of the technology in the essay.
In Frankenstein Complex: Man's Obsession with & Fear of Technological Advancement, Frankenstein is affecting the ideas of the film producer and the improvement of the technology. “Robotics are by no means new to mankind” because of the film “I Robot”. The monster was created by Frankenstein and it is the same as the scientists create or improve the technology of the robot. In addition, the robot, which use in the house working, we think that they are not dangerous, however, it may not true, just like the story of “I Robot”. The human may have the same situation that we watch in the “I Robot”. The truth is we do not have the ability to control vanguard technology as the technology is powerful. It is one of the negative aspects that the technology is developed too fast.
There is one more example for the robot. Japan is one of the countries which develop different kinds of robots and Aging Japan looks to robots talks about what the robot reduce the government expenditure and the robot is useful in Japan. Toyota, the world's largest car company, would like to produce more robots as the government will subsidize the development of those machines. It is the positive way that people who like to develop the robot technology and they use the robot in daily life. In Japan, there is aging population so one of the robots will look after the elderly. "Robots can be useful, but they cannot come close to overcoming the problem of population decline," the robots will solve numbers of problems while they cannot solve the aging population. It is comparison of the negative way for the robots.
The problem of technologies development is the cloning of the animals and human. Cows and cloned babies tax us is about the cows carry human gene that may destroy after the high court ruling in New Zealand. The cloning sleep, Dolly, was shocked in 1997. The cloned animals affect our morality and rise up the problem of cloning children. The parents like to “order” their children which have better appearance and intelligence. It is the conflict between those who support the cloning animals and oppose the cloning animals. The development of the technology occur the problems that the parent reply on the technology for choosing their children. Maybe everyone is a copy cat from the cloning gene. There is no more unique person in the world. And everyone is the same. It is very frightened as everyone is looking at the same.
In Is rush into cloning another false scientific dawn? there are two different of cloning, “reproductive (making a new animal or human) and thera-peutic (making new cells which can be used for medical purposes including, hopefully, replacing defective cells in humans).” People think that reproductive cloning animals is a new term and it is not. In the 17th century, it was “sheep-blood transfusions” and the scientists consider different methods on cloning animals. We discover that the cloning animals is not the prefect one, the cloning animals still get diseases. The scientists think it was improvement about the cloning animals and reduce the diseases in the world. Is it really solving the problem? It may carry out the other diseases and spread it out. So, people afraid the new disease comes out and it is unsupportable.
All of the source give statements how Frankenstein affect the technologies development and technology how to affecting our daily life. In the recent period, the scientists would like to improve the system of the robots. Robots could helps the human and do everything. Although the robots do different kinds of works in our society, they cannot solve the aging population in the developed countries. The cloning of the animals carry human gene is affecting our morality. Moreover, the true is we cannot control the technology as it is powerful. So, it is fear concerning the technology and humanity.
Reference List:
K, C. (2007). Frankenstein complex: man’s obsession with & fear of technological advancement. Retrieved March 18, 2008, from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/381828/frankenstein_complex_mans_obsession.html.
Graham, E. L. (2003). Frankensteins and cyborgs: visions of the global future in an age of technology. Studies in Christian Ethics, 16(1). Retrieved March 20, 2008, from Academic Search Premier.
Leader. (2002, January 5). Is rush into cloning another false scientific dawn?. The Scotsman, pp. 13. Retrieved March 20, 2008 from ProQuest.
Liu, K. L. (2003). The probable future world forecasted in Mary Shelly’s ‘Frankenstein’ and H.G. Wells’ ‘The Time Machine’. Retrieved from March 18, 2008, from http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=zh-TW&lr=&q=cache:DVn74DKsF3gJ:www.knu.edu.tw/knu1/web/teach/cge/%25E6%2595%2599%25E8%2582%25B2%25E9%2583%25A8%25E7%25AC%25AC%25E4%25BA%258C%25E6%25A2%25AF%25E6%25AC%25A1%25E8%25A8%2588%25E5%258A%2583/5/paper/03/Frankenstein%2520and%2520The%2520Time%2520Machine.pdf+Frankenstein+and+technology
Waikato (2001, May 7). Cows and cloned babies tax us. Waikato Times, pp. 6. Retrieved March 20, 2008 from ProQuest.
The Standard (2008, January 10). Aging Japan looks to robots. The Standard. Retrieved March 21, 2008 from http://hk.news.yahoo.com/080109/318/2mqj8.html.
Critical Annotated Webliography
Qs.3. Frankenstein continues to occupy the popular imagination as a monstrous scientist. Analyze some of the ways in which Frankenstein continues to haunt discussions of recent technologies.
Our technology is developing too fast in nowadays, it seems technology is become more powerful than human. A fear of the technology would be occurred as the technology has surpassed our humanity. Will the technology replace and take control with the human in the future?
The writer Orlin Damyanov point out in the article [1] Technology and its dangerous effects on nature and human life as perceived in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and William Gibson's Neuromancer as our technology is developing too fast in nowadays, it seems technology is become more powerful than human. A newborn fear would be occurred. Will technology take over and control us in the future? As at the being, Frankenstein was created by human and he is obey and serve the human. However, at last, he has the power to destroy his creator and to resist the human society. It means that technology is becoming a danger thing. If technology was become too powerful, it may lose control and would cause the danger effect. If we haven’t got any solution and take the well balance within the two, technology may cause dangerous effects on nature and our human life. In a worse, the Frankenstein --technology would replace the human and take control with the human in the future.
From John J. Fanning article [2] How Does Technology Affect You? He point out that, technology is totally affect us. As in his article he told us that at Japan's largest telephone company, Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corporation (NT&T) have developed some startling new technology, which call "Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation (GVS) ". It can turn humans into remote controlled automatons, as the human brain can be works on the electrical impulses. From this GVS system, we can see that the technology is totally controlling us. We can enter the command to the GVS system and it may release the electrical impulses to then human brains so the human call receive the electrical impulses and take action with this command. As he said “this mind-controlling technology had deprive humans of control over their own mind and body should be worthy of debate as to its very existence.” This is a danger thing that the technology is more powerful than human. As at the beginning, technology is created by human but in nowadays, the situation has been reversed. It seems it is similar to the case of Frankenstein, technology has became resisted human, and technology has been took control of the human. It is the time that we should concern about this moral question of the technology is totally affected or it should said that the technology is totally taking control us.
From [3] Technology vs. Humanity, which is written by a psychotherapist --Michael J. Hurd from the Capitalism Magazine, he point out that the technology has surpassed our humanity. Although the technology is devise and give birth by the human, however, in nowadays, our technology has seems surpassed our humanity. As we were rely in these technologies too much, such as mobile phone, saving medicine, etc. If we hadn’t get these things in our daily life, we seems we will not still alive. The Technology is become so powerful and it seems it is over controlling us. Our daily life is controlling by these technologies. Therefore, at the end of Michael J. Hurd article, he remind us we should not rely on the technologies so much as we may lose our humanity if we were so fascinated in it. He believes that our human mind is the best. As I will talk his point to discuss about we should not let them to over controlling us and we need to talk a balance between the technology and our humanity.
[4] Will technology change humanity, or has it already? is written by Robin Pierro from Canada Free Press. As Robin Pierro was concerning of the people who were following the technology tend so insensitively due to the fast growing of the technology would let us lose our humanity. Nowadays, technology is seems controlling us. As most of the people would like to keep follow the updated technology things such as mobile phone, mp3 players, etc. It seems the technology has became a dominant role. It guides the people to work with it. The technology has been changing our humanity already. The writer said, “People already rely on machines to do things for them to much. Our species is becoming incompetent, because we have machines to do everything for us. In the future I just see it, people will become so lazy and incompetent, and machines will take over.” We may lose control of all other technology advances. As we don’t want to be like that in the future, we should stop and slow down a bit to think about our relationship between technology and us. We should take a balance for it and don’t just follow the tend so dead so we may not let the technology over controlling us.
[5] Humanity Among Technology is written by the free article sharing website—hypnodean.com by Dean Montalbano. In the article, he shares the opinion that we should keep our humanity in this technological world. Nowadays, we can do everything we want at home as we just need to go online and click a button for pay the bill, go shopping and chat with friends, etc. He brings up the idea that our home is just like a personal castle, we trapped ourselves at home and it is also trapped by the technology as he said much of our humanity has gotten swept aside. It decrease the chance for us to communicate with people face to face, it decrease the chance for us to enjoy our natural environment such as our sunshine, the fresh air from the outside, etc. Why we don’t take a chance to talk with people face to face rather than talk with them through the electromagnetic waves. Do we dependent on the technology too much? It seems technology is control over us, so our humanity has been gotten swept aside by the technology. Therefore, we should talk some time to have self-examination to our humanity among technology.
[6] If We Fear Technology, We Really Fear Ourselves is written by Dr William Reville from The Irish Times. As Dr William Reville thinks that technology is natural just as same as natural as human, if we fear the technology, it is fear ourselves. The technology has been appear at the very being of our world such as the people would use a tool to hunt an animal at the past so technology was appearing in a very natural way. However, as our technology was developing in a fastest way, our mind of fear has been appeared. We feared about the technology will over controlling us in the future. At last, Dr William Reville said we no need to fear about our technology because it is natural just as same as natural as human, so we should accept that technology is a natural product of human activity and a natural extension of the human capacity. As we all come from natural, so we should appreciate and to make a well use of our technology.
References:
[1] Orlin Damyanov , Technology and its dangerous effects on nature and human life as perceived in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and William Gibson's Neuromancer
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5972/gibson.html (accessed 27 March 2008)
Our technology is developing too fast in nowadays, it seems technology is become more powerful than human. A fear of the technology would be occurred as the technology has surpassed our humanity. Will the technology replace and take control with the human in the future?
The writer Orlin Damyanov point out in the article [1] Technology and its dangerous effects on nature and human life as perceived in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and William Gibson's Neuromancer as our technology is developing too fast in nowadays, it seems technology is become more powerful than human. A newborn fear would be occurred. Will technology take over and control us in the future? As at the being, Frankenstein was created by human and he is obey and serve the human. However, at last, he has the power to destroy his creator and to resist the human society. It means that technology is becoming a danger thing. If technology was become too powerful, it may lose control and would cause the danger effect. If we haven’t got any solution and take the well balance within the two, technology may cause dangerous effects on nature and our human life. In a worse, the Frankenstein --technology would replace the human and take control with the human in the future.
From John J. Fanning article [2] How Does Technology Affect You? He point out that, technology is totally affect us. As in his article he told us that at Japan's largest telephone company, Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corporation (NT&T) have developed some startling new technology, which call "Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation (GVS) ". It can turn humans into remote controlled automatons, as the human brain can be works on the electrical impulses. From this GVS system, we can see that the technology is totally controlling us. We can enter the command to the GVS system and it may release the electrical impulses to then human brains so the human call receive the electrical impulses and take action with this command. As he said “this mind-controlling technology had deprive humans of control over their own mind and body should be worthy of debate as to its very existence.” This is a danger thing that the technology is more powerful than human. As at the beginning, technology is created by human but in nowadays, the situation has been reversed. It seems it is similar to the case of Frankenstein, technology has became resisted human, and technology has been took control of the human. It is the time that we should concern about this moral question of the technology is totally affected or it should said that the technology is totally taking control us.
From [3] Technology vs. Humanity, which is written by a psychotherapist --Michael J. Hurd from the Capitalism Magazine, he point out that the technology has surpassed our humanity. Although the technology is devise and give birth by the human, however, in nowadays, our technology has seems surpassed our humanity. As we were rely in these technologies too much, such as mobile phone, saving medicine, etc. If we hadn’t get these things in our daily life, we seems we will not still alive. The Technology is become so powerful and it seems it is over controlling us. Our daily life is controlling by these technologies. Therefore, at the end of Michael J. Hurd article, he remind us we should not rely on the technologies so much as we may lose our humanity if we were so fascinated in it. He believes that our human mind is the best. As I will talk his point to discuss about we should not let them to over controlling us and we need to talk a balance between the technology and our humanity.
[4] Will technology change humanity, or has it already? is written by Robin Pierro from Canada Free Press. As Robin Pierro was concerning of the people who were following the technology tend so insensitively due to the fast growing of the technology would let us lose our humanity. Nowadays, technology is seems controlling us. As most of the people would like to keep follow the updated technology things such as mobile phone, mp3 players, etc. It seems the technology has became a dominant role. It guides the people to work with it. The technology has been changing our humanity already. The writer said, “People already rely on machines to do things for them to much. Our species is becoming incompetent, because we have machines to do everything for us. In the future I just see it, people will become so lazy and incompetent, and machines will take over.” We may lose control of all other technology advances. As we don’t want to be like that in the future, we should stop and slow down a bit to think about our relationship between technology and us. We should take a balance for it and don’t just follow the tend so dead so we may not let the technology over controlling us.
[5] Humanity Among Technology is written by the free article sharing website—hypnodean.com by Dean Montalbano. In the article, he shares the opinion that we should keep our humanity in this technological world. Nowadays, we can do everything we want at home as we just need to go online and click a button for pay the bill, go shopping and chat with friends, etc. He brings up the idea that our home is just like a personal castle, we trapped ourselves at home and it is also trapped by the technology as he said much of our humanity has gotten swept aside. It decrease the chance for us to communicate with people face to face, it decrease the chance for us to enjoy our natural environment such as our sunshine, the fresh air from the outside, etc. Why we don’t take a chance to talk with people face to face rather than talk with them through the electromagnetic waves. Do we dependent on the technology too much? It seems technology is control over us, so our humanity has been gotten swept aside by the technology. Therefore, we should talk some time to have self-examination to our humanity among technology.
[6] If We Fear Technology, We Really Fear Ourselves is written by Dr William Reville from The Irish Times. As Dr William Reville thinks that technology is natural just as same as natural as human, if we fear the technology, it is fear ourselves. The technology has been appear at the very being of our world such as the people would use a tool to hunt an animal at the past so technology was appearing in a very natural way. However, as our technology was developing in a fastest way, our mind of fear has been appeared. We feared about the technology will over controlling us in the future. At last, Dr William Reville said we no need to fear about our technology because it is natural just as same as natural as human, so we should accept that technology is a natural product of human activity and a natural extension of the human capacity. As we all come from natural, so we should appreciate and to make a well use of our technology.
References:
[1] Orlin Damyanov , Technology and its dangerous effects on nature and human life as perceived in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and William Gibson's Neuromancer
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5972/gibson.html (accessed 27 March 2008)
[2] John J. Fanning, How Does Technology Affect You?
http://www.chiefengineer.org/content/content_display.cfm/seqnumber_content/2325.htm (accessed 28 March 2008)
[3] Michael J. Hurd, Technology vs. Humanity on Capitalism Magazine ( 2001) http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=152 (accessed 28 March 2008)
[4] Robin Pierro, Will technology change humanity, or has it already? (2005)
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/robin022805.htm (accessed 25 March 2008)
[5] Dean Montalbano, Humanity Among Technology on hypnodean.com (2008)
http://www.hypnodean.com/humanity.htm(2/2008) (accessed 25 March 2008)
[6] William Reville, If We Fear Technology, We Really Fear Ourselves on The Irish Times (1999) http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=1988 (accessed 25 March 2008)
Eileen's Critical Annotated Webliography
Frankenstein continues to occupy the popular imagination as a monstrous scientist. Analyze some of the ways in which Frankenstein continues to haunt discussions of recent technologies.
Frankenstein is a classical novel written by Mary Shelley in 19th century. Frankenstein and the monster he created become a typical image of fear about technology. Nowadays, Frankenstein still occupied the important position in discussion about technology. It represented the fear between humanity and technology and induced different debate over religion, morality and technology. Google search engine is used to locate most of the online sources, especially Google Scholar which provided different kinds of scholar research by using the keywords of “Frankenstein and technology, cloning, fear, humanity”. Different discussion about Frankenstein showed on the search engine including the discussion of reproductive technology, the debate of Christianity and Frankenstein and other perspectives.
Damyanov gave complete background information of Frankenstein, the relationship with technology and compared with other science-fiction, Neuromancer in “Technology and its dangerous effects on nature and human life”. It talked about the theme of Frankenstein and the message that Shelley wanted to bring out. In this research paper, it mentioned that Frankenstein gave us warning about inherent dangerous in the development of modern science. As modern science and technology will increase the inequality between human and nature, they will destroy the nature and caused different problems such as moral responsibility. Modern technologies such as genetic engineering increase the chances to manipulate life. The essay provides a good starting point for us to understand about Frankenstein and its relationship with technology. It has compared two classical science-fictions in different period which showed a similar theme and message as both explore the dark side of technology and science development which clarify the importance of moral science and technology research.
In “Biotechnology and the fear of Frankenstein”, it mentioned that the story of Frankenstein is always used to discuss about biotechnology. Although Frankenstein is a story wrote in 19th century, it has a relevance to nowadays technology. Campbell illustrated the difference between “scientific fact” and “science-fiction”. It discussed about 1970s rDNA revolution caused the fear of Frankenstein as Frankenstein myth realized and are not just fantasy of a novel. As people can change or control the nature of human by biotechnology including DNA or genetic technology, it terrorizes the human sense of identity, uniqueness and primacy. At the same time, Campbell pointed out that the ambition of Frankenstein to trace the sources is good, but careful and caring science and technology is needed to avoid turning the success into monstrosity just like Frankenstein. This paper is contained an in-depth discussion about Frankenstein. It is very useful to see the relationship between biotechnology and the story of Frankenstein, the fear of people about the biotechnology nowadays as Frankenstein myth may become real.
Vurdubakis and Bloomfield stated that Frankenstein is a common metaphor in the debate of reproductive technologies. They discussed about reproductive technologies comprised the role and effect of technology in human affairs in “Frankenstein Unbound?”. It examined that the media representation of science lead to the people thought of science and technology. As Frankenstein occupied an important fear imagination of technology, it increased the unease in human heart which faced about the rapid development of science and technology. Also, the paper mentioned about human bodies becomes the site for bio-technology took place of and the biotechnology has the power to re-shape the nature of humanity and the society, e.g. cloning caused moral controversy and struggle. As cloning may involve commercial interest, it will result a new monster myth and moral concern. This paper analyzed how the media representation of science and technology influence human perspective. It illustrated the new concerns and the new monster myth which caused by reproductive technologies effectively.
In another way, Frankenstein becomes a term which represented the reproductive technologies such as cloning, advanced cell. In “Frankenstein’s Minister”, Saletan mentioned about the new moral problem. As advanced cell technology can cure diseases and immortalize cells, it caused another new moral problem such as dissolving human nature. Moral challenges on reproduction are mostly focused on stem cell technologies. Some scholars argued that those experiments are under law protection which the stem cells were only capable of forming many tissues, but not an entire body. However, Saletan stated that the collapsing distinction of organisms and non-organisms created a moral challenge. In fact, the moral challenge is also depended on the definition of organism. This passage has another view on biotechnology ethics as most of the ethicists and people are emphasized on the moral problems in cost, but not in benefit. Also, biotech companies should be played a careful role on dealing with the science and technology. Otherwise, it may make Frankenstein myth realized.
In the blog called “Harmonious Glow Writings”, the author, Wheeler, compared the similarity between Frankenstein and cloning. She used religious perspective to discuss Frankenstein and cloning. In her view, cloning is modern Frankenstein including different types of technologies such as DNA and reproductive cloning. Cloning refers to the processes used to create copies of DNA or cells to create a new organism whereas Frankenstein assembled the body ingredients into new specie. The blog obtained the opposition view of Christian. As she stated that cloning let the scientist become the creator just like Frankenstein is the creator of the monster, human tried to take God’s place. But clone is created in unnatural way. And the debate of creator: God or human existed. In fact, there are many debates on Frankenstein and religion. It mostly related to the morality of reproduction technology and the perspective of Christian. As Christian think that reproductive technology violated their principles and morality, they always held the opposition point of view.
Against Nature is a program broadcasted by UK and it has a different point of view on technology. This part of program, “How Irrational Fears Are Paralysing Scientific Research” is interviewed different scientists and most of them think media representations of science promote fear and anxiety to the public. (Against Nature, 1997) The ethics committees supported to tighten the control of science in order to protect the nature. But, at the same time, many scientific researches are banned and influence the development of science and technology. The scientists mentioned that people should be frightened about the banning of valuable researcher. In their perspective, Frankenstein science should be protected as the fear of Frankenstein caused the people disagreed with the scientific research, e.g. John Gillot, the author of Science and the Retreat from Reason considered Frankenstein as hero. They think that the restriction obstruct the development of science and technology, such as finding the way to cure cancer. It is interesting that the program expose the different opinion of the scientists. And it raised a question that is the fear of Frankenstein being exaggerated? The truth is people ignored the benefit of the technology development and keep on attacking the science. Although the modern technologies make the scientist look like modern Frankenstein, some technology such as cloning has benefit to cure cancer and other disease if it used properly.
According to the research, the discussion about Frankenstein is mainly related to the fear between humanity and technology. Most of the sources used Frankenstein as a metaphor to illustrate the problem of modern science and technologies such as reproductive technology and cloning. And the discussions are mostly extending to the topics about moral issues, humanity and religion. On the other hand, some sources explored the other side of opinion. The scientists and some scholars think that the negative representation of Frankenstein influenced the public and reinforced their fear. However, their fear will retain the scientific and technological progress. So, there are different ways to discuss Frankenstein and recent technologies, both positive and negative.
References:
Against Nature. (1997). How Irrational Fears Are Paralysing Scientific Research: Environmentalists Are The New Enemies of Science. Retrieved from March 30, 2008, from http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog3.htm
Campbell, C. S. (2003). Biotechnology and the Fear of Frankenstein. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 12. Retrieved from March 29, 2008, from http://journals.cambridge.org.eproxy2.lib.hku.hk/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=170174&jid=CQH&volumeId=12&issueId=04&aid=170172
Damyanov, O. (1996). Technology and its dangerous effects on nature and human life as perceived in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and William Gibson’s Neuromancer. Retrieved March 30, 2008, from http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5972/gibson.html
Saletan, W. (1998). Frankenstein’s Minister: Ethicists Diffle While Biotechnology Remarks Human Beings. Retrieved from March 29, 2008, from http://www.slate.com/id/10137
Wheeler, H. (2007). Frankenstein vs. Cloning – Man: Created or Cretor. Retrieved from March 29, 2008, from http://harmoniousglow.blogspot.com/2007/06/frankenstein-vs-cloning-man-created-or.html
Vurdubakis, T. & Bloomfield, B. P. (2004). Frankenstein Unbound? Monster Myths and Metaphors in the Debate over New Reproductive Technologies. Retrieved from March 30, 2008, from http://www.wickedness.net/Monsters/M2/vurdubakis%20paper.pdf
Frankenstein is a classical novel written by Mary Shelley in 19th century. Frankenstein and the monster he created become a typical image of fear about technology. Nowadays, Frankenstein still occupied the important position in discussion about technology. It represented the fear between humanity and technology and induced different debate over religion, morality and technology. Google search engine is used to locate most of the online sources, especially Google Scholar which provided different kinds of scholar research by using the keywords of “Frankenstein and technology, cloning, fear, humanity”. Different discussion about Frankenstein showed on the search engine including the discussion of reproductive technology, the debate of Christianity and Frankenstein and other perspectives.
Damyanov gave complete background information of Frankenstein, the relationship with technology and compared with other science-fiction, Neuromancer in “Technology and its dangerous effects on nature and human life”. It talked about the theme of Frankenstein and the message that Shelley wanted to bring out. In this research paper, it mentioned that Frankenstein gave us warning about inherent dangerous in the development of modern science. As modern science and technology will increase the inequality between human and nature, they will destroy the nature and caused different problems such as moral responsibility. Modern technologies such as genetic engineering increase the chances to manipulate life. The essay provides a good starting point for us to understand about Frankenstein and its relationship with technology. It has compared two classical science-fictions in different period which showed a similar theme and message as both explore the dark side of technology and science development which clarify the importance of moral science and technology research.
In “Biotechnology and the fear of Frankenstein”, it mentioned that the story of Frankenstein is always used to discuss about biotechnology. Although Frankenstein is a story wrote in 19th century, it has a relevance to nowadays technology. Campbell illustrated the difference between “scientific fact” and “science-fiction”. It discussed about 1970s rDNA revolution caused the fear of Frankenstein as Frankenstein myth realized and are not just fantasy of a novel. As people can change or control the nature of human by biotechnology including DNA or genetic technology, it terrorizes the human sense of identity, uniqueness and primacy. At the same time, Campbell pointed out that the ambition of Frankenstein to trace the sources is good, but careful and caring science and technology is needed to avoid turning the success into monstrosity just like Frankenstein. This paper is contained an in-depth discussion about Frankenstein. It is very useful to see the relationship between biotechnology and the story of Frankenstein, the fear of people about the biotechnology nowadays as Frankenstein myth may become real.
Vurdubakis and Bloomfield stated that Frankenstein is a common metaphor in the debate of reproductive technologies. They discussed about reproductive technologies comprised the role and effect of technology in human affairs in “Frankenstein Unbound?”. It examined that the media representation of science lead to the people thought of science and technology. As Frankenstein occupied an important fear imagination of technology, it increased the unease in human heart which faced about the rapid development of science and technology. Also, the paper mentioned about human bodies becomes the site for bio-technology took place of and the biotechnology has the power to re-shape the nature of humanity and the society, e.g. cloning caused moral controversy and struggle. As cloning may involve commercial interest, it will result a new monster myth and moral concern. This paper analyzed how the media representation of science and technology influence human perspective. It illustrated the new concerns and the new monster myth which caused by reproductive technologies effectively.
In another way, Frankenstein becomes a term which represented the reproductive technologies such as cloning, advanced cell. In “Frankenstein’s Minister”, Saletan mentioned about the new moral problem. As advanced cell technology can cure diseases and immortalize cells, it caused another new moral problem such as dissolving human nature. Moral challenges on reproduction are mostly focused on stem cell technologies. Some scholars argued that those experiments are under law protection which the stem cells were only capable of forming many tissues, but not an entire body. However, Saletan stated that the collapsing distinction of organisms and non-organisms created a moral challenge. In fact, the moral challenge is also depended on the definition of organism. This passage has another view on biotechnology ethics as most of the ethicists and people are emphasized on the moral problems in cost, but not in benefit. Also, biotech companies should be played a careful role on dealing with the science and technology. Otherwise, it may make Frankenstein myth realized.
In the blog called “Harmonious Glow Writings”, the author, Wheeler, compared the similarity between Frankenstein and cloning. She used religious perspective to discuss Frankenstein and cloning. In her view, cloning is modern Frankenstein including different types of technologies such as DNA and reproductive cloning. Cloning refers to the processes used to create copies of DNA or cells to create a new organism whereas Frankenstein assembled the body ingredients into new specie. The blog obtained the opposition view of Christian. As she stated that cloning let the scientist become the creator just like Frankenstein is the creator of the monster, human tried to take God’s place. But clone is created in unnatural way. And the debate of creator: God or human existed. In fact, there are many debates on Frankenstein and religion. It mostly related to the morality of reproduction technology and the perspective of Christian. As Christian think that reproductive technology violated their principles and morality, they always held the opposition point of view.
Against Nature is a program broadcasted by UK and it has a different point of view on technology. This part of program, “How Irrational Fears Are Paralysing Scientific Research” is interviewed different scientists and most of them think media representations of science promote fear and anxiety to the public. (Against Nature, 1997) The ethics committees supported to tighten the control of science in order to protect the nature. But, at the same time, many scientific researches are banned and influence the development of science and technology. The scientists mentioned that people should be frightened about the banning of valuable researcher. In their perspective, Frankenstein science should be protected as the fear of Frankenstein caused the people disagreed with the scientific research, e.g. John Gillot, the author of Science and the Retreat from Reason considered Frankenstein as hero. They think that the restriction obstruct the development of science and technology, such as finding the way to cure cancer. It is interesting that the program expose the different opinion of the scientists. And it raised a question that is the fear of Frankenstein being exaggerated? The truth is people ignored the benefit of the technology development and keep on attacking the science. Although the modern technologies make the scientist look like modern Frankenstein, some technology such as cloning has benefit to cure cancer and other disease if it used properly.
According to the research, the discussion about Frankenstein is mainly related to the fear between humanity and technology. Most of the sources used Frankenstein as a metaphor to illustrate the problem of modern science and technologies such as reproductive technology and cloning. And the discussions are mostly extending to the topics about moral issues, humanity and religion. On the other hand, some sources explored the other side of opinion. The scientists and some scholars think that the negative representation of Frankenstein influenced the public and reinforced their fear. However, their fear will retain the scientific and technological progress. So, there are different ways to discuss Frankenstein and recent technologies, both positive and negative.
References:
Against Nature. (1997). How Irrational Fears Are Paralysing Scientific Research: Environmentalists Are The New Enemies of Science. Retrieved from March 30, 2008, from http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog3.htm
Campbell, C. S. (2003). Biotechnology and the Fear of Frankenstein. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 12. Retrieved from March 29, 2008, from http://journals.cambridge.org.eproxy2.lib.hku.hk/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=170174&jid=CQH&volumeId=12&issueId=04&aid=170172
Damyanov, O. (1996). Technology and its dangerous effects on nature and human life as perceived in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and William Gibson’s Neuromancer. Retrieved March 30, 2008, from http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5972/gibson.html
Saletan, W. (1998). Frankenstein’s Minister: Ethicists Diffle While Biotechnology Remarks Human Beings. Retrieved from March 29, 2008, from http://www.slate.com/id/10137
Wheeler, H. (2007). Frankenstein vs. Cloning – Man: Created or Cretor. Retrieved from March 29, 2008, from http://harmoniousglow.blogspot.com/2007/06/frankenstein-vs-cloning-man-created-or.html
Vurdubakis, T. & Bloomfield, B. P. (2004). Frankenstein Unbound? Monster Myths and Metaphors in the Debate over New Reproductive Technologies. Retrieved from March 30, 2008, from http://www.wickedness.net/Monsters/M2/vurdubakis%20paper.pdf
Critical Annotated Webliography
Q3. Frankenstein continues to occupy the popular imagination as a monstrous scientist. Analyse some of the ways in which Frankenstein continues to haunt discussions of recent technologies.
The haunt discussion of recent technologies has always based on the produce of Frankenstein. To improve our living standard and letting human beings to make more progress, scientists tried to clone mammals in experiments and researches before human cloning is succeeded. In answering this question, I will first discuss how Frankenstein was important to cloning. The reasons human cloning will then be discussed. However, many people think that human cloning will bring lots of harm to us. Lots of problems still need to be solved before human cloning is really succeeded.
1. Frankenstein's Footsteps: Science, Genetics and Popular Culture
This article article talks about how the book report the recent ideas of biomedical science is being affected, e.g. cloning, vitro fertilization and recombinant DNA. A sheep called Dolly was first created by cloning which is similar to the Frankenstein’s method to give a life to it; Creating life artificially had reinforced the public’s interests. After a few years, a child was given birth in America by vitro fertilization; in 1975, some biologists restricted recombinant DNA experiments. Others argued that “modern Dr. Frankensteins have found a way to create brand-new forms of life.” And believing that the recombinant DNA research was approved and a cartoon shoed a mad scientist created Frankensteinian monsters very rush.
2. Frankenstein and Human Cloning
This project is referring to how Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein affects cloning. The first cloning was in 1997 which a sheep was called Dolly being born. Except cloning from sheep, cloning other mammals would be very common and even human cloning. Some people may think that cloning is unethical and unmoral. Religious studies believe it is threatening our existence. Some others believe that cloning can bring lots of benefits to us. There are medical benefits and scientific benefits. The author did not support either one side about the debate of human cloning. We may consider should we against or accept human cloning and had a better understanding about cloning and how it is harmful or beneficial to humankind and our existence.
3. The Benefits of Human Cloning
The third article talks about the benefits of cloning. The author listed several benefits includes rejuvenation, infertility, defective genes, plastic, reconstructive and cosmetic surgery etc. not only the scientists support human cloning, but also other normal citizens over the world. For example, cloning can help those couples who are infertile to have a second child or even the first child. If these couples suffer painfully from unable of having children, human cloning can reduce the time and money consumed by them to have a baby. Also, those couples who have given birth to children with serious diseases and the children finally died, cloning can help them free from these diseases. Heart attack and cancers are very famous killers in many countries. Cloning can let us differentiate cancer and inject the healthy heart cells to the patient’s hearts and avoid from dying too soon and extend their lives.
4. Cloning & Genetics
This article includes two sources titled with “Beyond Cloning: Where’s the rest of me?” and “Scientists take a giant step towards cloning humans”. These two sources give us examples of how scientists attempt and success in cloning. In Cleveland, the scientists cloned monkeys and did researches on it. Some believes that full-body transplant can help people to replace the old bodies and become youth. There are still questions bringing out in the successfulness of human cloning. On the other hand in Hawaii, they cloned mice successfully. They believe that the scientists have made a huge step towards human cloning’s success as the genes and mechanics are similar between human being and mice. In succeed of cloning mice, human cloning will also be worked.
5. Cloning is wrong; Cloning is unnecessary
In this article, people claimed the harmfulness of cloning to human beings. In doing researches of cloning, creating a new embryo is necessary. It is unethical to create a new embryo and then destroy it in helping of another life. Cloning would also be harmful to women in killing lots of the eggs per clone. If they use animals’ eggs to do research, it is wrong. Also, the article mentioned that cloning is unnecessary in helping people for better life. Lots of benefits can also be gained by stem cells without human cloning which takes time, researches and money to do so.
6. Obituary for the first human clone, and for cloning
The author of this article from the blog mentioned that human cloning has been outdated. Though a cloned human embryo was created a few months ago, it was then out of concern over the world that very few people mention it again anymore. A new technique “reprogramming” has started by the scientists without creating or destroying any embryo. It reduces the use of stem cells and brings less harm to humans. Even the professor who first cloned the sheep Dolly is walking away from human cloning towards reprogramming. The author proves that many of the scientists are doing research on reprogramming and leaving human cloning. Reprogramming is regarded as more ethical and effective with less harm to humans and our humanity will not be downgraded.
Conclusion
These sources first help in defining how Frankenstein affected the recent technologies. Every biomedical science was being ignored and misunderstood by different professionals. The appearance of Frankenstein helps approving lots of these sciences like cloning and recombinant DNA. This book can strongly support about the nature of biomedical science. Cloning was the hottest issue in the past years. There are lots of pros and cons towards this issue. These sources provide support and spaces for us to consider should we against or accept human cloning and had a better understanding about cloning and how it is harmful or beneficial to humankind and our existence. The discussion of cloning is not only enthusiastic in America, but also in other western countries. The article from Dr. David Van Gend who is an Australian doctor proves that cloning has been left behind and other new technologies are being brought.
References:
1. Robert S. Schwartz, M.D. "Frankenstein's Footsteps: Science, Genetics and Popular Culture". http://www.amazon.com/Frankensteins-Footsteps-Science-Genetics-Popular/dp/0300074174 (accessed on 29 March 2008)
2. J. Wilson and C. Sullivan. “Frankenstein and Human Cloning”. http://webhome.idirect.com/~zendo/FrankenClone.html (accessed on 29 March 2008)
3. Simon Smith. “The Benefits of Human Cloning”.
http://www.humancloning.org/benefits.php (accessed 30 March 2008)
4. Salon Magazines and London Times. “Cloning & Genetics”. http://www.countdown.org/end/cloning_03.htm (accessed on 30 March 2008)
5. Australian for Ethical Stem Cell Research. “Cloning is wrong; Cloning is unnecessary”. http://www.cloning.org.au/ (accessed on 30 March 2008)
6. Blog of Dr. David Van Gend. “Obituary for the first human clone, and for cloning”. http://davidvangend.blogspot.com/ (accessed on 30 March 2008)
The haunt discussion of recent technologies has always based on the produce of Frankenstein. To improve our living standard and letting human beings to make more progress, scientists tried to clone mammals in experiments and researches before human cloning is succeeded. In answering this question, I will first discuss how Frankenstein was important to cloning. The reasons human cloning will then be discussed. However, many people think that human cloning will bring lots of harm to us. Lots of problems still need to be solved before human cloning is really succeeded.
1. Frankenstein's Footsteps: Science, Genetics and Popular Culture
This article article talks about how the book report the recent ideas of biomedical science is being affected, e.g. cloning, vitro fertilization and recombinant DNA. A sheep called Dolly was first created by cloning which is similar to the Frankenstein’s method to give a life to it; Creating life artificially had reinforced the public’s interests. After a few years, a child was given birth in America by vitro fertilization; in 1975, some biologists restricted recombinant DNA experiments. Others argued that “modern Dr. Frankensteins have found a way to create brand-new forms of life.” And believing that the recombinant DNA research was approved and a cartoon shoed a mad scientist created Frankensteinian monsters very rush.
2. Frankenstein and Human Cloning
This project is referring to how Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein affects cloning. The first cloning was in 1997 which a sheep was called Dolly being born. Except cloning from sheep, cloning other mammals would be very common and even human cloning. Some people may think that cloning is unethical and unmoral. Religious studies believe it is threatening our existence. Some others believe that cloning can bring lots of benefits to us. There are medical benefits and scientific benefits. The author did not support either one side about the debate of human cloning. We may consider should we against or accept human cloning and had a better understanding about cloning and how it is harmful or beneficial to humankind and our existence.
3. The Benefits of Human Cloning
The third article talks about the benefits of cloning. The author listed several benefits includes rejuvenation, infertility, defective genes, plastic, reconstructive and cosmetic surgery etc. not only the scientists support human cloning, but also other normal citizens over the world. For example, cloning can help those couples who are infertile to have a second child or even the first child. If these couples suffer painfully from unable of having children, human cloning can reduce the time and money consumed by them to have a baby. Also, those couples who have given birth to children with serious diseases and the children finally died, cloning can help them free from these diseases. Heart attack and cancers are very famous killers in many countries. Cloning can let us differentiate cancer and inject the healthy heart cells to the patient’s hearts and avoid from dying too soon and extend their lives.
4. Cloning & Genetics
This article includes two sources titled with “Beyond Cloning: Where’s the rest of me?” and “Scientists take a giant step towards cloning humans”. These two sources give us examples of how scientists attempt and success in cloning. In Cleveland, the scientists cloned monkeys and did researches on it. Some believes that full-body transplant can help people to replace the old bodies and become youth. There are still questions bringing out in the successfulness of human cloning. On the other hand in Hawaii, they cloned mice successfully. They believe that the scientists have made a huge step towards human cloning’s success as the genes and mechanics are similar between human being and mice. In succeed of cloning mice, human cloning will also be worked.
5. Cloning is wrong; Cloning is unnecessary
In this article, people claimed the harmfulness of cloning to human beings. In doing researches of cloning, creating a new embryo is necessary. It is unethical to create a new embryo and then destroy it in helping of another life. Cloning would also be harmful to women in killing lots of the eggs per clone. If they use animals’ eggs to do research, it is wrong. Also, the article mentioned that cloning is unnecessary in helping people for better life. Lots of benefits can also be gained by stem cells without human cloning which takes time, researches and money to do so.
6. Obituary for the first human clone, and for cloning
The author of this article from the blog mentioned that human cloning has been outdated. Though a cloned human embryo was created a few months ago, it was then out of concern over the world that very few people mention it again anymore. A new technique “reprogramming” has started by the scientists without creating or destroying any embryo. It reduces the use of stem cells and brings less harm to humans. Even the professor who first cloned the sheep Dolly is walking away from human cloning towards reprogramming. The author proves that many of the scientists are doing research on reprogramming and leaving human cloning. Reprogramming is regarded as more ethical and effective with less harm to humans and our humanity will not be downgraded.
Conclusion
These sources first help in defining how Frankenstein affected the recent technologies. Every biomedical science was being ignored and misunderstood by different professionals. The appearance of Frankenstein helps approving lots of these sciences like cloning and recombinant DNA. This book can strongly support about the nature of biomedical science. Cloning was the hottest issue in the past years. There are lots of pros and cons towards this issue. These sources provide support and spaces for us to consider should we against or accept human cloning and had a better understanding about cloning and how it is harmful or beneficial to humankind and our existence. The discussion of cloning is not only enthusiastic in America, but also in other western countries. The article from Dr. David Van Gend who is an Australian doctor proves that cloning has been left behind and other new technologies are being brought.
References:
1. Robert S. Schwartz, M.D. "Frankenstein's Footsteps: Science, Genetics and Popular Culture". http://www.amazon.com/Frankensteins-Footsteps-Science-Genetics-Popular/dp/0300074174 (accessed on 29 March 2008)
2. J. Wilson and C. Sullivan. “Frankenstein and Human Cloning”. http://webhome.idirect.com/~zendo/FrankenClone.html (accessed on 29 March 2008)
3. Simon Smith. “The Benefits of Human Cloning”.
http://www.humancloning.org/benefits.php (accessed 30 March 2008)
4. Salon Magazines and London Times. “Cloning & Genetics”. http://www.countdown.org/end/cloning_03.htm (accessed on 30 March 2008)
5. Australian for Ethical Stem Cell Research. “Cloning is wrong; Cloning is unnecessary”. http://www.cloning.org.au/ (accessed on 30 March 2008)
6. Blog of Dr. David Van Gend. “Obituary for the first human clone, and for cloning”. http://davidvangend.blogspot.com/ (accessed on 30 March 2008)
Critical Annotated Webliography
Q3. Frankenstein continues to occupy the popular imagination as a monstrous scientist. Analyse some of the ways in which Frankenstein continues to haunt discussions of recent technologies.
Before starting to write the webliography, the first thing I need to do is to read the required readings to have a basic concept why ‘Frankenstein’ is related to today’s technology although it is only a fiction. People are fear that the ‘Frankenstein science’ today would bring harm to our society. Then I start searching in the search engine ‘Google’. I use the key words ‘Frankenstien’, ‘Cloning’, ‘Reproduction’ and ‘Fertilization’. Various types of articles come out. Most of them have a clear perspective against the idea of ‘Frankenstein science’. Only a few of them support these new kinds of technology.
The article of Kai Li Liu [1] provides a comprehensive view of why the idea of Frankenstein should be banned. It analysis what the story of ‘Frankenstein’ inspire us. The story was not only a science fiction, but also a warning. Mary Shelley, believes that a newly born technological society results in exploitation of nature, which means that “a morally irresponsible scientific development can release a monster and destroy human civilization.” (Liu, 2003) Similar to our reality, we got the technology to manipulate life forms like cloning and vitro fertilization. She advice us should be very careful with it and should not create something that would harm our lives. Although the aim of advanced technology is to bring us convenient, there is also a great impact on moral values. Finally the writer emphasis that breaking the nature can be dangerous. We should think deeply what the story told us. The purpose of choosing this article is the investigating of the fiction itself. It also provides us a clear understanding and good background information about the side effects of technology. The write don’t tell us why we shouldn’t rely too much on technology directly, but by using the content to hint us.
‘A Warning As Science Catches Up On Cloning’ [2] is an article examining different science fiction movies to illustrate one point – ‘Do not play around with the creation of life or you will come to a bad end.’ (Caryn, 1997) For example, Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’, is a warning about the technology. Although it is conceived in 1816, its warning still resonates today and brings fear to the society. In another story, “Multiplicity”, when the master orders his clone to do housework, this clone orders clone 2 and clone 3 to do for him. This proves that copy can never better than the original. Also, the writer claims that, the motive of these cloning comedies is to tell us human nature is preferable. This essay is suitable is it reflects the side effects of cloning through various cloning comedies.
The article ‘Frankenstein vs. Cloning – Man: Created or Creator’ [3] is an interesting topic. From a God’s believer angle, they believe all the thoughts against God are unacceptable. First of all, the writer thinks that the novel ‘Frankenstein’ and the concept of cloning are similar. And cloning is the modern Frankenstein. Cloning means the reproduction asexually, which is controversial to the church. Harmony points out that scientists have the desire to be God. They want to be the creator but cloning is only imitating something that already exists. Unlike God creates everything with his imagination at the beginning. Therefore human cannot compare with God. Furthermore, Eve listened to serpent and believes eating the apple can made her as great as god. That’s why Adam and Eve were punished. This proves that try to gain the power of God will results in extinct. Like the story of ‘Frankenstein’, the creator was killed. The writer re-emphasis that human is the created, while God is the creator. The article provides a strong argument. It discusses the matters of the newly technology from a different perspective, not form the normal citizen, or scientist perspective, but from the Christian’s view, which is very unique.
Mariam Durrani [4] expresses her feeling on human cloning through a story. The success of the first fully cloned mammal, Dolly, was celebrated by most of the scientists. They saw this success as the step of entering the realm of human cloning. But the writer disagrees with their point, because the scientists didn’t mention the hundreds of sheep sacrifice. Although the scientists mentioned the technology of human cloning was not for making human babies, but for therapeutic cloning. The inconsistent opinion of different countries shows the fear of such technology. On the other hand, the scientific company Clonaid, found by a religion called Raelians, declared that they had the motive to human cloning. Although they guaranteed that they only want a healthy baby, the writer worry about the situation. Mariam states that these cloning human are not natural. Human isn’t composing of muscles and nerves only, human are very complicate, their souls cannot be created. This article is suitable because it shows the fear of human cloning. Although cloning is a great step in science, most of the people ignore the consequence if the experiment is fail.
Unlike the previous articles, “Frankenstein for Cloning Tech” [5] is supporting the idea of cloning. People have different views on cloning. To the scientist, the science of cloning can save many people’s life, including those are dying, handicapped, by transplanting the organs of the clones to them. On the other hand, people argue clones also have lives and they should not sacrifice for saving another person. They should be treated as individual. What the writer wants to say is, those people who disagree with cloning are not objective enough. Frankenstein, the scientist in the novel, just saw his invention as a failure. But he hasn’t notice that his creation, which involve body repairing, has scientific value and beneficial to our society. He can use his idea to help many people. Cloning also offer positive results. Because Victor has a negative view, that’s why there is an unfavorable consequence. The writer emphasis having a positive point of view helps making a wise decision. The article is very valuable because it teaches us every thing has both sides. We cannot have bias in making decision. If we try to think on the opposite side, we may find the merit of cloning.
In Julian Savulescu and John Harris [6] article, a few reasons were given to those accepting natural reproduction should also accept cloning, as natural production is a creation lottery same as reproductive cloning. About 80% embryos perish in natural reproduction. Even the embryos can survive, some babies may be born disable. The death of embryos and the production of disable babies are unavoidable. On the other hand, it is possible for not producing spare embryos during assisted reproduction. The deaths of spare embryos can be avoided. That’s why people accept natural reproduction should accept cloning also, because it is more safety and efficiency. On the other hand, if people deny the way using genetic testing to choose the best people, they should not say that human by natural reproduction is superior to those from new ways of reproduction. The writer claims sometimes natural does great harm. For example, natural disease, floods, fire, can cause serious damage to human life. We should not prioritized and glorify natural. The reason for choosing it is because it provides a very strong and persuasive point for choosing cloning.
From the articles collected, the perspective from both sides, supporting or challenging the idea of ‘Frankenstein’ can be seen. For the supporting sides, the writers tell us don’t always think about the side effects, try to look at the positive. While the opposing side use the novel to show us the implied meaning inside, cloning should be banned, otherwise it will cause harm to our society. All the points and examples given by these articles are valuable and suitable for my webliography.
References
[1] Kai Li, Liu, “The probable future world forecasted in Mary Shelly’s ‘Frankenstein’ and H.G. Wells’ ‘The Time Machine’”
<http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:P9XjcT6HH-YJ:www.knu.edu.tw/knu1/web/teach/IGECC/%E4%B8%AD%E5%BF%83%E5%AD%B8%E5%A0%B1/03/Frankenstein%2520and%2520The%2520Time%2520Machine.doc+The+probable+future+world+forecasted+in+Mary+Shelly&hl=zh-TW&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=hk>, June 2003, [accessed 28 March 2008]
[2] James, Caryn, “A Warning As Science Catches Up On Cloning”
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04EFDD1631F935A15751C0A961958260> 26 February 1997, [accessed 28 March 2008]
[3] Harmony, Wheeler, “Frankenstein vs. Cloning – Man: Created or Creator” <http://harmoniousglow.blogspot.com/2007/06/frankenstein-vs-cloning-man-created-or.html> 21 June 2007, [accessed 29 March 2008]
[4] Mariam, Durrani, “The 21st Century Frankenstein”
<http://wc.arizona.edu/papers/95/69/03_3.html> 28 November 2001,
[accessed 28 March 2008]
[5] “Frankenstein for Cloning Tech.” <http://azninja66.tripod.com/Rafeng/essay.html> [accessed 30 March 2008]
[6] Julian, Savulescu and John, Harris, “The Creation Lottery: Final Lessons from Natural Reproduction: Why Those Who Accept Natural Reproduction Should Accept Cloning and Other Frankenstein Reproductive Technologies” <http://www.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/Resources/Cloning_StemCell/creation_lottery_harris_savulescu.pdf> [accessed 28 March 2008]
Before starting to write the webliography, the first thing I need to do is to read the required readings to have a basic concept why ‘Frankenstein’ is related to today’s technology although it is only a fiction. People are fear that the ‘Frankenstein science’ today would bring harm to our society. Then I start searching in the search engine ‘Google’. I use the key words ‘Frankenstien’, ‘Cloning’, ‘Reproduction’ and ‘Fertilization’. Various types of articles come out. Most of them have a clear perspective against the idea of ‘Frankenstein science’. Only a few of them support these new kinds of technology.
The article of Kai Li Liu [1] provides a comprehensive view of why the idea of Frankenstein should be banned. It analysis what the story of ‘Frankenstein’ inspire us. The story was not only a science fiction, but also a warning. Mary Shelley, believes that a newly born technological society results in exploitation of nature, which means that “a morally irresponsible scientific development can release a monster and destroy human civilization.” (Liu, 2003) Similar to our reality, we got the technology to manipulate life forms like cloning and vitro fertilization. She advice us should be very careful with it and should not create something that would harm our lives. Although the aim of advanced technology is to bring us convenient, there is also a great impact on moral values. Finally the writer emphasis that breaking the nature can be dangerous. We should think deeply what the story told us. The purpose of choosing this article is the investigating of the fiction itself. It also provides us a clear understanding and good background information about the side effects of technology. The write don’t tell us why we shouldn’t rely too much on technology directly, but by using the content to hint us.
‘A Warning As Science Catches Up On Cloning’ [2] is an article examining different science fiction movies to illustrate one point – ‘Do not play around with the creation of life or you will come to a bad end.’ (Caryn, 1997) For example, Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’, is a warning about the technology. Although it is conceived in 1816, its warning still resonates today and brings fear to the society. In another story, “Multiplicity”, when the master orders his clone to do housework, this clone orders clone 2 and clone 3 to do for him. This proves that copy can never better than the original. Also, the writer claims that, the motive of these cloning comedies is to tell us human nature is preferable. This essay is suitable is it reflects the side effects of cloning through various cloning comedies.
The article ‘Frankenstein vs. Cloning – Man: Created or Creator’ [3] is an interesting topic. From a God’s believer angle, they believe all the thoughts against God are unacceptable. First of all, the writer thinks that the novel ‘Frankenstein’ and the concept of cloning are similar. And cloning is the modern Frankenstein. Cloning means the reproduction asexually, which is controversial to the church. Harmony points out that scientists have the desire to be God. They want to be the creator but cloning is only imitating something that already exists. Unlike God creates everything with his imagination at the beginning. Therefore human cannot compare with God. Furthermore, Eve listened to serpent and believes eating the apple can made her as great as god. That’s why Adam and Eve were punished. This proves that try to gain the power of God will results in extinct. Like the story of ‘Frankenstein’, the creator was killed. The writer re-emphasis that human is the created, while God is the creator. The article provides a strong argument. It discusses the matters of the newly technology from a different perspective, not form the normal citizen, or scientist perspective, but from the Christian’s view, which is very unique.
Mariam Durrani [4] expresses her feeling on human cloning through a story. The success of the first fully cloned mammal, Dolly, was celebrated by most of the scientists. They saw this success as the step of entering the realm of human cloning. But the writer disagrees with their point, because the scientists didn’t mention the hundreds of sheep sacrifice. Although the scientists mentioned the technology of human cloning was not for making human babies, but for therapeutic cloning. The inconsistent opinion of different countries shows the fear of such technology. On the other hand, the scientific company Clonaid, found by a religion called Raelians, declared that they had the motive to human cloning. Although they guaranteed that they only want a healthy baby, the writer worry about the situation. Mariam states that these cloning human are not natural. Human isn’t composing of muscles and nerves only, human are very complicate, their souls cannot be created. This article is suitable because it shows the fear of human cloning. Although cloning is a great step in science, most of the people ignore the consequence if the experiment is fail.
Unlike the previous articles, “Frankenstein for Cloning Tech” [5] is supporting the idea of cloning. People have different views on cloning. To the scientist, the science of cloning can save many people’s life, including those are dying, handicapped, by transplanting the organs of the clones to them. On the other hand, people argue clones also have lives and they should not sacrifice for saving another person. They should be treated as individual. What the writer wants to say is, those people who disagree with cloning are not objective enough. Frankenstein, the scientist in the novel, just saw his invention as a failure. But he hasn’t notice that his creation, which involve body repairing, has scientific value and beneficial to our society. He can use his idea to help many people. Cloning also offer positive results. Because Victor has a negative view, that’s why there is an unfavorable consequence. The writer emphasis having a positive point of view helps making a wise decision. The article is very valuable because it teaches us every thing has both sides. We cannot have bias in making decision. If we try to think on the opposite side, we may find the merit of cloning.
In Julian Savulescu and John Harris [6] article, a few reasons were given to those accepting natural reproduction should also accept cloning, as natural production is a creation lottery same as reproductive cloning. About 80% embryos perish in natural reproduction. Even the embryos can survive, some babies may be born disable. The death of embryos and the production of disable babies are unavoidable. On the other hand, it is possible for not producing spare embryos during assisted reproduction. The deaths of spare embryos can be avoided. That’s why people accept natural reproduction should accept cloning also, because it is more safety and efficiency. On the other hand, if people deny the way using genetic testing to choose the best people, they should not say that human by natural reproduction is superior to those from new ways of reproduction. The writer claims sometimes natural does great harm. For example, natural disease, floods, fire, can cause serious damage to human life. We should not prioritized and glorify natural. The reason for choosing it is because it provides a very strong and persuasive point for choosing cloning.
From the articles collected, the perspective from both sides, supporting or challenging the idea of ‘Frankenstein’ can be seen. For the supporting sides, the writers tell us don’t always think about the side effects, try to look at the positive. While the opposing side use the novel to show us the implied meaning inside, cloning should be banned, otherwise it will cause harm to our society. All the points and examples given by these articles are valuable and suitable for my webliography.
References
[1] Kai Li, Liu, “The probable future world forecasted in Mary Shelly’s ‘Frankenstein’ and H.G. Wells’ ‘The Time Machine’”
<http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:P9XjcT6HH-YJ:www.knu.edu.tw/knu1/web/teach/IGECC/%E4%B8%AD%E5%BF%83%E5%AD%B8%E5%A0%B1/03/Frankenstein%2520and%2520The%2520Time%2520Machine.doc+The+probable+future+world+forecasted+in+Mary+Shelly&hl=zh-TW&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=hk>, June 2003, [accessed 28 March 2008]
[2] James, Caryn, “A Warning As Science Catches Up On Cloning”
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04EFDD1631F935A15751C0A961958260> 26 February 1997, [accessed 28 March 2008]
[3] Harmony, Wheeler, “Frankenstein vs. Cloning – Man: Created or Creator” <http://harmoniousglow.blogspot.com/2007/06/frankenstein-vs-cloning-man-created-or.html> 21 June 2007, [accessed 29 March 2008]
[4] Mariam, Durrani, “The 21st Century Frankenstein”
<http://wc.arizona.edu/papers/95/69/03_3.html> 28 November 2001,
[accessed 28 March 2008]
[5] “Frankenstein for Cloning Tech.” <http://azninja66.tripod.com/Rafeng/essay.html> [accessed 30 March 2008]
[6] Julian, Savulescu and John, Harris, “The Creation Lottery: Final Lessons from Natural Reproduction: Why Those Who Accept Natural Reproduction Should Accept Cloning and Other Frankenstein Reproductive Technologies” <http://www.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/Resources/Cloning_StemCell/creation_lottery_harris_savulescu.pdf> [accessed 28 March 2008]
Critical Annotated Webliography
3. Frankenstein continues to occupy the popular imagination as a monstrous scientist. Analyse some of the ways in which Frankenstein continues to haunt discussions of recent technologies.
1. Orlin Damyanov pointed out that science fiction is the search for a definition of amn and his status in the universe which will stand on our advanced but confused state of knowledge. This is all about the science. Also, he clamed that technology and those dangerous are effecting on the nature and human life nowadays, which can observed in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. In Frankenstein, we are necessary to understand the compliable problem of technology. While Frankenstein was written in the industrial revolution, so technology was effect to the whole plot. Also, according to the article, ‘the relation of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein to technology and some of the crucial issues concerning technology in relation to human life, and exploration of the dangerous implications of human acts of creation. It is interesting to mention that Shelley's novel is our first and still one of our best cautionary tales about scientific research.’ Also, Frankenstein described that the passive female can be penetrated, because they wanted to satisfy the male desires of the scientist, ‘penetrate into the recesses of nature, and show how she works in her hiding places.’ The most important is Frankenstein implicit the warning of the inherent perils in technological developments of modern science.
2. Mary Shelley was the author of Frankenstein, she stated the detail background of the novel. First published of it was in 1818, it became a literary sensation. The novel has been examined by a multitude of literary critics. Psychoanalytic readings emphasize Frankenstein's issues with women, particularly his dead mother. The critical readings also think that the monster is the embodiment of Frankenstein’s unconscious murderous desires. Marxist readings suggest that Frankenstein is a representative of the alliance of science and capitalism that generated the Industrial Revolution. The monster in this reading is the working class, while it is the dominant class at that period of time, which have been created by the owners of factories but then abandoned by them. The monster serves as a warning of the consequences of unfettered, irresponsible capitalism and its thoughtless creation of a new 'race' of people. Moreover, Frankenstein is described in the rational scientific term. Nature is portrayed in Frankenstein as passive and feminine, something that can be penetrated and understood by the man of reason and science. The scientist controlled the role of God to take power over nature with destructive results, creating a monster that nobody can control.
3. According to ‘Frankenstein and law as technology’, it stated that Frankenstein involved both ‘Law, Technology and Society Studies’ and ‘Account of Law and Technology’. Frankenstein is the quintessential text on technology and humanity of the modern West. As the dilemma of the modern West is technology and humanity, it is not an extreme position to regard Frankenstein as an Ur-text of modernity. The foundational position within science technology studies and within popular representations of technology proved to its significance. Moreover, Frankenstein provides a series of interlinked characterizations and associations concerning scientists, technology and human society. In this Victor Frankenstein represents the logical scientist with his techniques to consider the wider context of his illicit creation, while to metaphase for technology the monster is ambiguous. It has the potential for good and the potential for evil. They can consider as two sides. It is at once a thing to be pity and a thing to be feared, and most readers are quick to see that Victor, with his ego and petty offense, as the true monster. But the monster’s “thing-ness”, its status as external to humanity, is repeatedly emphasized through its exclusion from human society and its want to get for a mate of its own kind. When the monster is presenting the technology, it is amoral and non-human. Frankenstein shows the vulnerability of human society and the bloody, products of science. Society passively lets the scientist created and it seems very weak when against the evil of the monster.
4. Mosses, Lyria Bennett commented that we need to evaluate our policy recommendations mindful of the fact that they might cause harm. At the same time the Frankenstein metaphor which talked in ‘Frankenstein and law as technology’ can be useful, it is highlighting that the harm caused by law as technology can be compared to the harm caused by applied science technologies. We need to be careful that we do not create a new monster in order to control Frankenstein. That observation is important. But we cannot make sure whether it changes the nature of the other theory. On the other hand, technologies are varied that some are indeed monstrous, potentially harmful and all that. It is set out a scheme for understanding the ways in which technology poses challenges for law, also discussing various "solutions" - which include some policy recommendations. Following the rational-seeming argument might lead to all kinds of disorder, breaking down and lost lives. It is not enough to say "law is technology and, like Frankenstein, capable of great harm."
5. Peter Nicholls is talking that Science fiction is difficult to define, as it includes a wide range of subgenres and themes. According to science fiction writer Robert A. Hennlein, ‘a handy short definition of almost all science fiction might read: realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method.’ Authors and filmmakers draw on a wide range of ideas. There can have a hard science fiction, soft and social science fiction. Hard science fiction, or "hard SF", is characterized by strict attention to accurate detail in sciences, especially physics, astrophysics, and chemistry. While, the description "soft" science fiction may describe based on social sciences such as psychology, economics, political science, sociology, and anthropology.
6. Forester, Tom is talking about the point of view about the information technology revolution. To further explained, The Information Technology Revolution emphasizes actual case studies and the material has been written by computer engineers. Which are involved the revolution in telecommunications, artificial intelligence and the "fifth generation" of supercomputers, the rise of the personal computer and the use of information technology in schools, factories, offices, banks, shops, and hospitals. When the technology revolution happen, it produced many social issues, such as computer crime, privacy, the impact of new technology on women, the Third World, 'smart' weapons, and the future of work itself. Also, we can says that ‘no technology revolution, no western society’.
Bliography:
1. Orlin Damyanov. ‘Technology and its dangerous effects on nature and human life as perceived in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and William Gibson' s Neuromancer’ (1996)
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5972/gibson.html (accessed on 27 March 08).
2. Botting, Fred. ‘Making monstrous. Frankenstein, criticism, theory.’(1991)
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/lit/texts/frankenstein.htm (accessed on 27 March 08)
3. Tranter, Kieran. ‘Frankenstein and law as technology’ (2007)
http://techtheory.blogspot.com/2007/02/frankenstein-and-law-as-technology.html (accessed on 28 March 08)
4. Mosses, Lyria Bennett. ‘Frankenstein and law as technology’ (2007)
http://techtheory.blogspot.com/2007/02/frankenstein-and-law-as-technology.html (accessed on 28 March 08)
5. Nicholls, Peter. ‘The Science Fiction Encyclopedia’ (1993)
http://books.google.com/books?id=26NyHREJwP8C&pg=PT268&dq=monstrous+technology+The+Encyclopedia+of+Science+Fiction&lr=&hl=zh-TW&sig=ae_lhIY46Xmz4WK09vycEQnV3ck (accessed on 28 March 08)
6. Forester, Tom. ‘The information technology revolution’ (1985)
http://books.google.com/books?id=sLFlHgAACAAJ&dq=The+Information+Technology+Revolution&lr=&hl=zh-TW (accessed on 29 March 08)
1. Orlin Damyanov pointed out that science fiction is the search for a definition of amn and his status in the universe which will stand on our advanced but confused state of knowledge. This is all about the science. Also, he clamed that technology and those dangerous are effecting on the nature and human life nowadays, which can observed in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. In Frankenstein, we are necessary to understand the compliable problem of technology. While Frankenstein was written in the industrial revolution, so technology was effect to the whole plot. Also, according to the article, ‘the relation of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein to technology and some of the crucial issues concerning technology in relation to human life, and exploration of the dangerous implications of human acts of creation. It is interesting to mention that Shelley's novel is our first and still one of our best cautionary tales about scientific research.’ Also, Frankenstein described that the passive female can be penetrated, because they wanted to satisfy the male desires of the scientist, ‘penetrate into the recesses of nature, and show how she works in her hiding places.’ The most important is Frankenstein implicit the warning of the inherent perils in technological developments of modern science.
2. Mary Shelley was the author of Frankenstein, she stated the detail background of the novel. First published of it was in 1818, it became a literary sensation. The novel has been examined by a multitude of literary critics. Psychoanalytic readings emphasize Frankenstein's issues with women, particularly his dead mother. The critical readings also think that the monster is the embodiment of Frankenstein’s unconscious murderous desires. Marxist readings suggest that Frankenstein is a representative of the alliance of science and capitalism that generated the Industrial Revolution. The monster in this reading is the working class, while it is the dominant class at that period of time, which have been created by the owners of factories but then abandoned by them. The monster serves as a warning of the consequences of unfettered, irresponsible capitalism and its thoughtless creation of a new 'race' of people. Moreover, Frankenstein is described in the rational scientific term. Nature is portrayed in Frankenstein as passive and feminine, something that can be penetrated and understood by the man of reason and science. The scientist controlled the role of God to take power over nature with destructive results, creating a monster that nobody can control.
3. According to ‘Frankenstein and law as technology’, it stated that Frankenstein involved both ‘Law, Technology and Society Studies’ and ‘Account of Law and Technology’. Frankenstein is the quintessential text on technology and humanity of the modern West. As the dilemma of the modern West is technology and humanity, it is not an extreme position to regard Frankenstein as an Ur-text of modernity. The foundational position within science technology studies and within popular representations of technology proved to its significance. Moreover, Frankenstein provides a series of interlinked characterizations and associations concerning scientists, technology and human society. In this Victor Frankenstein represents the logical scientist with his techniques to consider the wider context of his illicit creation, while to metaphase for technology the monster is ambiguous. It has the potential for good and the potential for evil. They can consider as two sides. It is at once a thing to be pity and a thing to be feared, and most readers are quick to see that Victor, with his ego and petty offense, as the true monster. But the monster’s “thing-ness”, its status as external to humanity, is repeatedly emphasized through its exclusion from human society and its want to get for a mate of its own kind. When the monster is presenting the technology, it is amoral and non-human. Frankenstein shows the vulnerability of human society and the bloody, products of science. Society passively lets the scientist created and it seems very weak when against the evil of the monster.
4. Mosses, Lyria Bennett commented that we need to evaluate our policy recommendations mindful of the fact that they might cause harm. At the same time the Frankenstein metaphor which talked in ‘Frankenstein and law as technology’ can be useful, it is highlighting that the harm caused by law as technology can be compared to the harm caused by applied science technologies. We need to be careful that we do not create a new monster in order to control Frankenstein. That observation is important. But we cannot make sure whether it changes the nature of the other theory. On the other hand, technologies are varied that some are indeed monstrous, potentially harmful and all that. It is set out a scheme for understanding the ways in which technology poses challenges for law, also discussing various "solutions" - which include some policy recommendations. Following the rational-seeming argument might lead to all kinds of disorder, breaking down and lost lives. It is not enough to say "law is technology and, like Frankenstein, capable of great harm."
5. Peter Nicholls is talking that Science fiction is difficult to define, as it includes a wide range of subgenres and themes. According to science fiction writer Robert A. Hennlein, ‘a handy short definition of almost all science fiction might read: realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method.’ Authors and filmmakers draw on a wide range of ideas. There can have a hard science fiction, soft and social science fiction. Hard science fiction, or "hard SF", is characterized by strict attention to accurate detail in sciences, especially physics, astrophysics, and chemistry. While, the description "soft" science fiction may describe based on social sciences such as psychology, economics, political science, sociology, and anthropology.
6. Forester, Tom is talking about the point of view about the information technology revolution. To further explained, The Information Technology Revolution emphasizes actual case studies and the material has been written by computer engineers. Which are involved the revolution in telecommunications, artificial intelligence and the "fifth generation" of supercomputers, the rise of the personal computer and the use of information technology in schools, factories, offices, banks, shops, and hospitals. When the technology revolution happen, it produced many social issues, such as computer crime, privacy, the impact of new technology on women, the Third World, 'smart' weapons, and the future of work itself. Also, we can says that ‘no technology revolution, no western society’.
Bliography:
1. Orlin Damyanov. ‘Technology and its dangerous effects on nature and human life as perceived in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and William Gibson' s Neuromancer’ (1996)
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5972/gibson.html (accessed on 27 March 08).
2. Botting, Fred. ‘Making monstrous. Frankenstein, criticism, theory.’(1991)
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/lit/texts/frankenstein.htm (accessed on 27 March 08)
3. Tranter, Kieran. ‘Frankenstein and law as technology’ (2007)
http://techtheory.blogspot.com/2007/02/frankenstein-and-law-as-technology.html (accessed on 28 March 08)
4. Mosses, Lyria Bennett. ‘Frankenstein and law as technology’ (2007)
http://techtheory.blogspot.com/2007/02/frankenstein-and-law-as-technology.html (accessed on 28 March 08)
5. Nicholls, Peter. ‘The Science Fiction Encyclopedia’ (1993)
http://books.google.com/books?id=26NyHREJwP8C&pg=PT268&dq=monstrous+technology+The+Encyclopedia+of+Science+Fiction&lr=&hl=zh-TW&sig=ae_lhIY46Xmz4WK09vycEQnV3ck (accessed on 28 March 08)
6. Forester, Tom. ‘The information technology revolution’ (1985)
http://books.google.com/books?id=sLFlHgAACAAJ&dq=The+Information+Technology+Revolution&lr=&hl=zh-TW (accessed on 29 March 08)
Critical Annoted Webilography
Discuss some of the issues raised by the Visible Human Project about the embodiment of race, class and gender.
On the Internet, people doesn’t need to show their physical bodies or face to face interaction to others, so there is no characterization of Internet online users’ race, class and gender, and hence to reduce much more discrimination or marginalization between different class, race, sexuality and gender in the virtual world than in the physical world. However, nowadays many websites or forums require people to classify their gender, class and race before doing the registration of the website.
I am going to discuss some reasons about people always think that the embodiment of physical identity in cyberspace is good to us and a problem of showing your race on the net.
Firstly, it should be realized that what the reason of using virtual body and the meaning of virtual body is. In the article, “The Body in Cyberspace: Invented, Morphed, Generated, Dismissed”, written by Roberto Simanowksi stated that the physical body is of no consequence - communication is reduced to the word as body-free representation of the Self. This opportunity to leave the body behind may be felt as liberation since body inscriptions such as age, gender, race and social class can no longer rule communication, though the relation and interdependency between body and Self is certainly not eliminated. However, this disembodiment did not cause people to forget the body. In contrast to the letter and the book, in digital media one can observe the desire to reconnect the Self with its body. [1] Therefore, it could be suggested that there is a desire for bodyness in digital media, a desire for a digital substitution, a need for a virtual body.
T.L.Taylor’s article argued that new forms of embodiment push online users to think about their corporeal bodies, but they sometimes find, or create, an aspect of themselves that was previously unrealized. Ultimately, these moves raise the stakes on what the nature of these spaces are. If I can embody, I can be made deeply real.[2] His statement can explain the popular phenomenon of the embodiment in virtual worlds and most online users don’t think that it is a problem because they still have their freedoms to choose their preference identities, which are different from their inherent physical appearances.
Since the online world provides a choice or users to determine which sex, sexuality preference and sexual characteristics they would like to embody. In each online encounter, a user ultimately has the opportunity to interchange which identity they would like to portray. In the article, “Sexual Identity Online” written by Femke Mason, he pointed out that the apperances of virtual sex with different people, without physicla interaction. In cyberspace, one’s sexual prowess, dysfunctionality, confusion, genitalia and many more aspects, all become blurred and are only defined by the user. Herein again questions of truth are raised, particularly in reference to online dating and virtual sex. Virtual sex allows for a certain freedom of expression, of physical presentation and of experimentation beyond one’s own real-life limits. At its best, it not only complicates but drastically unsettles the division between mind, body and self that has become a comfortable truism in Western metaphysics.[3] Cyber sex can provide a place for users to explore desires which are taboo, embarrassing or dangerous for offline life (bisexually, exhibitionism, group sex and promiscuity.) , and it makes heterosexual women feel safer and more confident in their experimentation with alternative sex practices.
Furthermore, giving a virtual name and reputation are necessary to express some ideas or opinions on the websites, forums and newsgroups and the way to show your identity. In the article, “Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community” written by Kollock, P. and Smith M., they illustrated the use of doing that because Identity plays a key role in motivating people to actively participate in newsgroup discussions. People feel a desire or obligation to help individuals and to contribute to the group. Building reputation and establishing one's online identity provides a great deal of motivation. There are people who expend enormous amounts of energy on a newsgroup: answering questions, quelling arguments, maintaining. Their names - and reputations - are well-known to the readers of the group. In most newsgroups, reputation is enhanced by posting intelligent and interesting comments, while in some others it is enhanced by posting rude flames or snide and cutting observations.[4] Although the rules of conduct are different, the ultimate effect is the same that reputation is enhanced by contributing remarks of the type admired by the group. To the writer seeking to be better known, a clearly recognizable display of identity is especially important.
On the other hand, the embodiement on the online learning platform , without face to face interaction, which can avoid showing embrassment or stressful or nevious to the others. In the article, “Issues of embodiment and risk in online learning”, written by Ray Land, he illustrated an example about the professor’s approving or disapproving response might carry some emotional weight, but it would be much less intimidating to offer a comment and get a reaction from the professor if one had never met the professor and was not in her presence. Online learning’s limitations where embodiment is concerned, namely the absence of face to face learning, can lead to a stunting of students’ learning, curtailing their development to a stage merely of ‘competence’, as opposed to ‘proficiency’ or ‘expertise’.[5]
In addition, it is obvious that the identification of race in some newsgroups may be discriminated by others, seem like in the reality. In the article, “Reading Race Online: Discovering Racial Identity in Usenet Discussions”, written by Byron Burkhalte, he mentioned that each soc.culture newsgroup concerns a particular racial or cultural group around which members organize their participation. One aspect of participation are the subject lines in soc.culture groups which quite often mention a cultural, racial, or ethnic name, term in bringing a topic up for discussion. Even potentially race-neutral topics are made race-relevant in subject lines. For example, an SCAA discussion about women not properly appreciating "men who treat them right" was titled "Sisters please explain." "Sisters" here isbeing an idiomatic reference to African-American women. In this way, the topic is framed as a question to African-Americans. Through the use of such "cultural frames" discussions start with an explicit connection to a specific racial topic.[6] The problem of discrimination of race can be seen on the net, so it should be concerned that whether it is necessary to show the own race in cyberspace or not.
To conclude, cyberspace offer us to create multiple identities freely, the embodiment of race, class and gender really make us to reinforce our virtual preferences, desires to be more real. Indeed, cyberspace protects online users to avoid embarrassment when rejecting someone’s request or someone’s request being rejected, direct physical harm when some argues is hold on the net. Moreover, users can express their opinions or anything they want to say on the net, but they do get a respect to the others significantly, especially avoid the discrimination, isolation and insulting minority or marginalized groups in the community.
On the Internet, people doesn’t need to show their physical bodies or face to face interaction to others, so there is no characterization of Internet online users’ race, class and gender, and hence to reduce much more discrimination or marginalization between different class, race, sexuality and gender in the virtual world than in the physical world. However, nowadays many websites or forums require people to classify their gender, class and race before doing the registration of the website.
I am going to discuss some reasons about people always think that the embodiment of physical identity in cyberspace is good to us and a problem of showing your race on the net.
Firstly, it should be realized that what the reason of using virtual body and the meaning of virtual body is. In the article, “The Body in Cyberspace: Invented, Morphed, Generated, Dismissed”, written by Roberto Simanowksi stated that the physical body is of no consequence - communication is reduced to the word as body-free representation of the Self. This opportunity to leave the body behind may be felt as liberation since body inscriptions such as age, gender, race and social class can no longer rule communication, though the relation and interdependency between body and Self is certainly not eliminated. However, this disembodiment did not cause people to forget the body. In contrast to the letter and the book, in digital media one can observe the desire to reconnect the Self with its body. [1] Therefore, it could be suggested that there is a desire for bodyness in digital media, a desire for a digital substitution, a need for a virtual body.
T.L.Taylor’s article argued that new forms of embodiment push online users to think about their corporeal bodies, but they sometimes find, or create, an aspect of themselves that was previously unrealized. Ultimately, these moves raise the stakes on what the nature of these spaces are. If I can embody, I can be made deeply real.[2] His statement can explain the popular phenomenon of the embodiment in virtual worlds and most online users don’t think that it is a problem because they still have their freedoms to choose their preference identities, which are different from their inherent physical appearances.
Since the online world provides a choice or users to determine which sex, sexuality preference and sexual characteristics they would like to embody. In each online encounter, a user ultimately has the opportunity to interchange which identity they would like to portray. In the article, “Sexual Identity Online” written by Femke Mason, he pointed out that the apperances of virtual sex with different people, without physicla interaction. In cyberspace, one’s sexual prowess, dysfunctionality, confusion, genitalia and many more aspects, all become blurred and are only defined by the user. Herein again questions of truth are raised, particularly in reference to online dating and virtual sex. Virtual sex allows for a certain freedom of expression, of physical presentation and of experimentation beyond one’s own real-life limits. At its best, it not only complicates but drastically unsettles the division between mind, body and self that has become a comfortable truism in Western metaphysics.[3] Cyber sex can provide a place for users to explore desires which are taboo, embarrassing or dangerous for offline life (bisexually, exhibitionism, group sex and promiscuity.) , and it makes heterosexual women feel safer and more confident in their experimentation with alternative sex practices.
Furthermore, giving a virtual name and reputation are necessary to express some ideas or opinions on the websites, forums and newsgroups and the way to show your identity. In the article, “Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community” written by Kollock, P. and Smith M., they illustrated the use of doing that because Identity plays a key role in motivating people to actively participate in newsgroup discussions. People feel a desire or obligation to help individuals and to contribute to the group. Building reputation and establishing one's online identity provides a great deal of motivation. There are people who expend enormous amounts of energy on a newsgroup: answering questions, quelling arguments, maintaining. Their names - and reputations - are well-known to the readers of the group. In most newsgroups, reputation is enhanced by posting intelligent and interesting comments, while in some others it is enhanced by posting rude flames or snide and cutting observations.[4] Although the rules of conduct are different, the ultimate effect is the same that reputation is enhanced by contributing remarks of the type admired by the group. To the writer seeking to be better known, a clearly recognizable display of identity is especially important.
On the other hand, the embodiement on the online learning platform , without face to face interaction, which can avoid showing embrassment or stressful or nevious to the others. In the article, “Issues of embodiment and risk in online learning”, written by Ray Land, he illustrated an example about the professor’s approving or disapproving response might carry some emotional weight, but it would be much less intimidating to offer a comment and get a reaction from the professor if one had never met the professor and was not in her presence. Online learning’s limitations where embodiment is concerned, namely the absence of face to face learning, can lead to a stunting of students’ learning, curtailing their development to a stage merely of ‘competence’, as opposed to ‘proficiency’ or ‘expertise’.[5]
In addition, it is obvious that the identification of race in some newsgroups may be discriminated by others, seem like in the reality. In the article, “Reading Race Online: Discovering Racial Identity in Usenet Discussions”, written by Byron Burkhalte, he mentioned that each soc.culture newsgroup concerns a particular racial or cultural group around which members organize their participation. One aspect of participation are the subject lines in soc.culture groups which quite often mention a cultural, racial, or ethnic name, term in bringing a topic up for discussion. Even potentially race-neutral topics are made race-relevant in subject lines. For example, an SCAA discussion about women not properly appreciating "men who treat them right" was titled "Sisters please explain." "Sisters" here isbeing an idiomatic reference to African-American women. In this way, the topic is framed as a question to African-Americans. Through the use of such "cultural frames" discussions start with an explicit connection to a specific racial topic.[6] The problem of discrimination of race can be seen on the net, so it should be concerned that whether it is necessary to show the own race in cyberspace or not.
To conclude, cyberspace offer us to create multiple identities freely, the embodiment of race, class and gender really make us to reinforce our virtual preferences, desires to be more real. Indeed, cyberspace protects online users to avoid embarrassment when rejecting someone’s request or someone’s request being rejected, direct physical harm when some argues is hold on the net. Moreover, users can express their opinions or anything they want to say on the net, but they do get a respect to the others significantly, especially avoid the discrimination, isolation and insulting minority or marginalized groups in the community.
Footnotes:
[1]Roberto Simanowksi.“The Body in Cyberspace: Invented, Morphed, Generated, Dismissed”, (April 2003).
http://www.brown.edu/Research/dichtung-digital/2003/parisconnection/durieu-review.htm (accessed 30/03/08).
[2] T.L. Taylor. “Living Digitally: embodiment in Virtual Worlds”, London, (2002), p.58.
http://www.itu.dk/~tltaylor/papers/Taylor-LivingDigitally.pdf (accessed 30/03/08).
[3] Femke Mason. “sexual Identity Online”, (September 2004).
http://wiki.media-culture.org.au/index.php/Sexual_Identity_Online
(accessed 30/03/08).
[4] Kollock, P. and Smith M. “Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community”,
[1]Roberto Simanowksi.“The Body in Cyberspace: Invented, Morphed, Generated, Dismissed”, (April 2003).
http://www.brown.edu/Research/dichtung-digital/2003/parisconnection/durieu-review.htm (accessed 30/03/08).
[2] T.L. Taylor. “Living Digitally: embodiment in Virtual Worlds”, London, (2002), p.58.
http://www.itu.dk/~tltaylor/papers/Taylor-LivingDigitally.pdf (accessed 30/03/08).
[3] Femke Mason. “sexual Identity Online”, (September 2004).
http://wiki.media-culture.org.au/index.php/Sexual_Identity_Online
(accessed 30/03/08).
[4] Kollock, P. and Smith M. “Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community”,
(November, 1996).
http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html
(accessed 30/03/08).
[5] Ray Land. “Issues of Embodiment and Risk in Online Learning”, Coventry University UK, (2004), p.533.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/pdf/land.pdf
(accessed 30/03/08).
[6] Byron Burkhalter. “Reading Race Online: Discovering Racial Identity in Usenet Discussions”, University of California, (January 1997).
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/grads/burkhalt/RRO.htm (accessed 30/03/08).
(accessed 30/03/08).
[5] Ray Land. “Issues of Embodiment and Risk in Online Learning”, Coventry University UK, (2004), p.533.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/pdf/land.pdf
(accessed 30/03/08).
[6] Byron Burkhalter. “Reading Race Online: Discovering Racial Identity in Usenet Discussions”, University of California, (January 1997).
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/grads/burkhalt/RRO.htm (accessed 30/03/08).
By Gabriel To
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)