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
Monday, March 31, 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.
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
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Critical Annotated Webliography
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. Rochlin's article [1] argued that the computers and computerization have been embedded into our lives swiftly and successfully than any other technology. Restricting our experience with the real world, narrowing our scope of our choices and declining our modes of control, eventually, we may probably lose our capability of living without the assistance of technology. The computer trap what Rochlin mentioned can be divided into four parts: the lure, the snare, the costs, and the long-term consequences. The lure is simply the trend of continuously upgrading tools with simpler and more user-friendly interfaces. The snare is usually raised afterwards. Once invested greatly on the computerization on the core tasks, new capacities and potentials would then be expected by organizations and individuals alike, whether the investment is found out valued or not eventually. The costs contain an unlimited desire for catching up the technological change which is sometimes unnecessary and a dependence on the producers of hardware and software. Finally, an extremely rapid speed of response and a lack of alternatives make human manipulation or intervention difficulty at best when (and not if) something breaks down.
The "net" in the title is not the Internet but, rather, the all pervasive network of computers and networks that surround us. The "trap", according to Rochlin, refers to “shorthand for the elaborate, long-term, collective effects of the possibly inevitable and largely unexamined desire to computerize and network everything and anything where efficiency or economic performance might thereby be improved." Limited in understanding of the potential vulnerabilities the technology is creating, we begin to have fears about the unknown. This book is suitable for discussing recent technologies and how people react to the imaginary fears of science.
2. Wilson's article [2] suggested that postmodernism is a breakdown of boundaries and a playful creation of new meanings from old forms enables the realization of a posthuman (cyborg) condition. We are posthuman, and the way we think about that condition is considered as postmodernism. The discussion outlined the relationship between the human body and technology. Technology extended the ability of the human body since the emergence of the virtually reality games in video arcades, meanwhile, the perceived boundaries of human have been increased. However, it is no longer the technology used to simply extend the reach of the human body. For example,Wilson
Wilson
3. Squier's article [3] points out, “Modern representations of reproductive technology built on the romantic separation of developing fetus from machine-like mother to serve ends not political but productive, and ultimately industrial. The emerging political technologies of the body in the wake of postmodernity-technologies apparent in medicine, entertainment industries, politics, and the arts, etc…” The development of bio-medical technologies reduced or violated the nature of motherhood. Freezing the fetus, the surrogate mother, the test tube baby, and the pregnant man became achievable. Reproduction is the object of expert knowledge and power rather than an inborn ability. Being a mother is not fatal to a woman anymore. For those, Squier illustrates, “provide bodily sites for potentially oppressive scientific/technical interventions, yet the (re)construction of the human being is not uniformly negative, however returning to “nature” is no longer possible.”
4. Rothenberg's article [4] claims, “Nowadays, much criticism of technology tends to fall into on of two camps. On the one hand, it fears technology as an impersonal megamechanism, rejecting it as a threat to human beings. On the other hand, it imagines technology to be an entity separate from humanity, but one that will most fulfill human purpose when it is allowed to pursue its own inner logic.” Fears of the unexpected power of technologies and anxiety of not knowing how far they can reach threaten the extinction of human beings as well as the nature. However, the author believes that human is the creator of the technology. It is totally under control. He assisted that technology does not exist without the human intent that drives it. Besides, technology is an extension of what it is to be human, at a deep level, and that the way we see nature is powerfully influenced by our technologies.
Rothenberg’s article is very thoughtful of the relationship between the nature, human and technology. These three elements are powerful and they are also interdependent. The way we observe and understand the nature is highly relied on the advanced technology. He also strongly agreed that we “use” technologies to receive the world. We control the technologies like we drive a car. A car cannot move by itself and also cannot work without fuel or without a driver. Human is the one who operates it and if it hits on someone or something, it is driven by a human instead of its own mind. We can turn technology to be good and evil which is open to our determination.
5. Melzer's article [5] concerns “technology appears to be more than a mere collection of means, subordinate to human choice, but is an independent force with its own logic or destiny to which humanity is compelled to submit. This claim introduces the conceptions of technology as the most determinative or fundamental phenomenon. We not only have more technologies, but somehow we are more technological.” Human life as such is so inseparable from technology that modern man is commonly distinguished as ‘the tool-making animal’. We somehow are unable to resist but addicted to technologies. We tend to dig out more latent energy of science and challenge the extremity of ourselves.
6. Redmond's article [6]studies the social relation of science and technology, including crucially the systems of myth and meanings structuring our imaginations. He also explains, “Haraway’s idea of Cyborg which is a kind of disassembled and reassembled, postmodern collective and personal self.” He raised some examples of fantasy films, regarding the fears of machines or of technology, usually negatively allege the social values such as freedom, individualism and the family. Technology, base on his observation of various texts, is a metaphor for everything that threatened ‘natural’ social orders and traditional values.
References
[1] Gene I. Rochlin. Trapped in the Net: The Unanticipated Consequences of Computerization, (1997)
http://books.google.com/books?hl=zh-TW&lr=&id=GzzttDF1spcC&oi=fnd&pg=PP13&ots=F9JcAcQnxm&sig=2qBf_3TKFqKS9379b1kR34gkmGo#PPP13,M1(accessed 25 March 2008).
[2] Jennifer Wilson. “Of Machines and Meat: Cyberpunk, the Postmodern Condition and a Posthuman Reality”,
http://www.athabascau.ca/courses/engl/491/wilson.pdf (accessed 25 March 2008).
[3] Susan M. Squier. “Reproducing the Posthuman Body: Ectogenetic Fetus, Surrogate Mother, Pregnant Man”, Posthuman Bodies, (1995)
http://books.google.com/books?hl=zh-TW&lr=&id=MkQPztA7TTIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA113&dq=monstrous+scientist&ots=3u7QDG2gbx&sig=4qwBP8UMf0TOQfL4Zim-rHKoNJM#PPA113,M1 (accessed 28 March 2008).
[4] David Rothenberg. Hand's End: Technology and the Limits of Nature, (1995)
http://books.google.com/books?hl=zh-TW&lr=&id=BKV0na-v2wMC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=fear+between+humanity+and+technology&ots=zTDWbb3BXq&sig=nBTIv3hyOrFi6vu3OyQq2Zfl3y8#PPR12,M1 (accessed 28 March 2008).
[5] Arthur M. Melzer. “The Problem with the “Problem of Technology”, http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=zh-TW&lr=&q=cache:He9juPrgF4AJ:www.mgimo.ru/fileserver/2004/kafedry/eng7/The_problem.doc+fear+between+humanity+and+technology (accessed 29 March 2008).
[6] Sean Redmond. Liquid Metal: The Science Fiction Film Reader, (2004) http://books.google.com/books?hl=zh-TW&lr=&id=ha5O_0BCCrgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA158&dq=monstrous+technology&ots=VEOzYfBGEu&sig=Zj1mx98nLcUGsF5p_yjlDSRAjQU#PPA165,M1 (accessed 29 March 2008).
1. Rochlin's article [1] argued that the computers and computerization have been embedded into our lives swiftly and successfully than any other technology. Restricting our experience with the real world, narrowing our scope of our choices and declining our modes of control, eventually, we may probably lose our capability of living without the assistance of technology. The computer trap what Rochlin mentioned can be divided into four parts: the lure, the snare, the costs, and the long-term consequences. The lure is simply the trend of continuously upgrading tools with simpler and more user-friendly interfaces. The snare is usually raised afterwards. Once invested greatly on the computerization on the core tasks, new capacities and potentials would then be expected by organizations and individuals alike, whether the investment is found out valued or not eventually. The costs contain an unlimited desire for catching up the technological change which is sometimes unnecessary and a dependence on the producers of hardware and software. Finally, an extremely rapid speed of response and a lack of alternatives make human manipulation or intervention difficulty at best when (and not if) something breaks down.
The "net" in the title is not the Internet but, rather, the all pervasive network of computers and networks that surround us. The "trap", according to Rochlin, refers to “shorthand for the elaborate, long-term, collective effects of the possibly inevitable and largely unexamined desire to computerize and network everything and anything where efficiency or economic performance might thereby be improved." Limited in understanding of the potential vulnerabilities the technology is creating, we begin to have fears about the unknown. This book is suitable for discussing recent technologies and how people react to the imaginary fears of science.
2. Wilson's article [2] suggested that postmodernism is a breakdown of boundaries and a playful creation of new meanings from old forms enables the realization of a posthuman (cyborg) condition. We are posthuman, and the way we think about that condition is considered as postmodernism. The discussion outlined the relationship between the human body and technology. Technology extended the ability of the human body since the emergence of the virtually reality games in video arcades, meanwhile, the perceived boundaries of human have been increased. However, it is no longer the technology used to simply extend the reach of the human body. For example,
Wilson
3. Squier's article [3] points out, “Modern representations of reproductive technology built on the romantic separation of developing fetus from machine-like mother to serve ends not political but productive, and ultimately industrial. The emerging political technologies of the body in the wake of postmodernity-technologies apparent in medicine, entertainment industries, politics, and the arts, etc…” The development of bio-medical technologies reduced or violated the nature of motherhood. Freezing the fetus, the surrogate mother, the test tube baby, and the pregnant man became achievable. Reproduction is the object of expert knowledge and power rather than an inborn ability. Being a mother is not fatal to a woman anymore. For those, Squier illustrates, “provide bodily sites for potentially oppressive scientific/technical interventions, yet the (re)construction of the human being is not uniformly negative, however returning to “nature” is no longer possible.”
4. Rothenberg's article [4] claims, “Nowadays, much criticism of technology tends to fall into on of two camps. On the one hand, it fears technology as an impersonal megamechanism, rejecting it as a threat to human beings. On the other hand, it imagines technology to be an entity separate from humanity, but one that will most fulfill human purpose when it is allowed to pursue its own inner logic.” Fears of the unexpected power of technologies and anxiety of not knowing how far they can reach threaten the extinction of human beings as well as the nature. However, the author believes that human is the creator of the technology. It is totally under control. He assisted that technology does not exist without the human intent that drives it. Besides, technology is an extension of what it is to be human, at a deep level, and that the way we see nature is powerfully influenced by our technologies.
Rothenberg’s article is very thoughtful of the relationship between the nature, human and technology. These three elements are powerful and they are also interdependent. The way we observe and understand the nature is highly relied on the advanced technology. He also strongly agreed that we “use” technologies to receive the world. We control the technologies like we drive a car. A car cannot move by itself and also cannot work without fuel or without a driver. Human is the one who operates it and if it hits on someone or something, it is driven by a human instead of its own mind. We can turn technology to be good and evil which is open to our determination.
5. Melzer's article [5] concerns “technology appears to be more than a mere collection of means, subordinate to human choice, but is an independent force with its own logic or destiny to which humanity is compelled to submit. This claim introduces the conceptions of technology as the most determinative or fundamental phenomenon. We not only have more technologies, but somehow we are more technological.” Human life as such is so inseparable from technology that modern man is commonly distinguished as ‘the tool-making animal’. We somehow are unable to resist but addicted to technologies. We tend to dig out more latent energy of science and challenge the extremity of ourselves.
6. Redmond's article [6]studies the social relation of science and technology, including crucially the systems of myth and meanings structuring our imaginations. He also explains, “Haraway’s idea of Cyborg which is a kind of disassembled and reassembled, postmodern collective and personal self.” He raised some examples of fantasy films, regarding the fears of machines or of technology, usually negatively allege the social values such as freedom, individualism and the family. Technology, base on his observation of various texts, is a metaphor for everything that threatened ‘natural’ social orders and traditional values.
References
[1] Gene I. Rochlin. Trapped in the Net: The Unanticipated Consequences of Computerization, (1997)
http://books.google.com/books?hl=zh-TW&lr=&id=GzzttDF1spcC&oi=fnd&pg=PP13&ots=F9JcAcQnxm&sig=2qBf_3TKFqKS9379b1kR34gkmGo#PPP13,M1(accessed 25 March 2008).
[2] Jennifer Wilson. “Of Machines and Meat: Cyberpunk, the Postmodern Condition and a Posthuman Reality”,
http://www.athabascau.ca/courses/engl/491/wilson.pdf (accessed 25 March 2008).
[3] Susan M. Squier. “Reproducing the Posthuman Body: Ectogenetic Fetus, Surrogate Mother, Pregnant Man”, Posthuman Bodies, (1995)
http://books.google.com/books?hl=zh-TW&lr=&id=MkQPztA7TTIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA113&dq=monstrous+scientist&ots=3u7QDG2gbx&sig=4qwBP8UMf0TOQfL4Zim-rHKoNJM#PPA113,M1 (accessed 28 March 2008).
[4] David Rothenberg. Hand's End: Technology and the Limits of Nature, (1995)
http://books.google.com/books?hl=zh-TW&lr=&id=BKV0na-v2wMC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=fear+between+humanity+and+technology&ots=zTDWbb3BXq&sig=nBTIv3hyOrFi6vu3OyQq2Zfl3y8#PPR12,M1 (accessed 28 March 2008).
[5] Arthur M. Melzer. “The Problem with the “Problem of Technology”, http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=zh-TW&lr=&q=cache:He9juPrgF4AJ:www.mgimo.ru/fileserver/2004/kafedry/eng7/The_problem.doc+fear+between+humanity+and+technology (accessed 29 March 2008).
[6] Sean Redmond. Liquid Metal: The Science Fiction Film Reader, (2004) http://books.google.com/books?hl=zh-TW&lr=&id=ha5O_0BCCrgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA158&dq=monstrous+technology&ots=VEOzYfBGEu&sig=Zj1mx98nLcUGsF5p_yjlDSRAjQU#PPA165,M1 (accessed 29 March 2008).
Critical Annotated Webliography - 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.
1. This article [1] is talking about human cloning. Cloning of human embryos has already been achieved. Cloning of adults has been successful and announced but not yet proven. Before trying human cloning, scientists have cloned sheep and other animals. Dolly the clone sheep, however, died with a few years life. Scientists tried to clone dairy cattle for their milk; nevertheless, it raises out problems and shows the limitation of this technogenesis breakthrough. Failure rates are high, deformity and other development problems are very common. This author pointed out that clone animals could be easily affected by bacteria, viruses and other germs. So would it be safe to consume the dairy products and meats from the clone animals? Moreover, scientists claim that technically human organism and body parts could be created by cloning methods. This issue is broadly discussed by the public ethically, morally, legally, religiously, economically.
The article is chosen as it describes the progress of cloning. Scientists have tried to clone animals before cloning human. It tells human cloning actually takes risk and explains why people want human cloning. Cloning is one of the ways to shows Frankenstein still appears in our world and continues to haunt discussions of recent technologies.
2. The link [2] also mentions human cloning. It summarizes out the problems of human cloning in a more humane way. Human cloning raise out similar problems as condoms rose out to the Catholics when the world separate sex from procreation. People even claim that this would be an evil behaviour as it is trying to interfere marital acts that had been happened with the born of human. Catholics claims that children should beget through the loving act of marriage, instead of through scientific breakthrough.
The uses of condoms helps human to control fertility, so as for human cloning if it happens in the human society. When people accept that human cloning technique has legal authority or moral authority over when and how to have children, the clone child itself is believed to be a product of science instead of natural creature. Men then become a God in deciding when and how other human life could be created or destroyed. Catholics believe that to insure human cloning will not dominate our world is to preach that it is not man who is charge of deciding who comes into existence, but God. The article also points out some real life situations that would lead out by human cloning.
This article is regarded as one of the sources since it talks about our living mode and pattern have changed because of technology. Catholics are discontent and blame on it. Men will become the arbitrator of the next generation if people accept human cloning. A table is listed to tell the problems of human cloning in the piece. It is another example to show Frankenstein continues to haunt discussions of recent technologies.
3. This article [3] argues that the technology constantly develops and it has improved a lot. Our technology will soon take place of human life. As computing has made great progress, the “technology breakout” is led that different kinds of technologies are associating to create theatrical and new abilities. Technology in our daily lives affects us seriously. The side effect of technology becomes to expose in our society.
The precipitating technological capacity is so obvious. Some theorists announced that it will meet a point where the technology will soon totally lose control since it reaches an unexpected level.
It points out that the technological juggernaut is not an automatic and self development. It actually needs a large number of resources such as people, money and other materials to generate these new technologies. After short period of time, human will face a very serious problem that the technology will control and decide the future for us if human do not rethink the basic modes of social, economic and environmental practice. It obviously states that Frankenstein continues to haunt discussions of recent technologies.
4. This piece [4] states that technology is wonderful which takes over a good percentage of the jobs people are pursuing. It seems to imply that it could somehow run itself and ignore humans’ control of them in a manner detrimental to the world.
The author interviewed different people with different jobs including journalist, doctor, writer, actor, college professor and her friend. They all agree technology really help them a lot or even saying that they cannot live without technology. The actor she interviewed said, “Three words: computer generated graphics.” These three words are so powerful to describe computer helps to create the things which people want such as background, view, figures and environment in a movie. It seems inevitable that computers and robots will soon be able to carry out a good percentage of human functions. Technology has already taken over and threatened the world. Thus, it is chosen to be one of the sources for the essay.
5. The article [5] talks about the impact brought by computers and robots in the modern world. With the aid of robots and computerized machines, manufacturing jobs have declined in a significant scale. Industrial processes have yet become increasingly automated. Robots are applied to different industries from car assembling to surgical assisting. These kinds of machines can even perform duties that are considered difficult or dangerous to human, like exploring the surface of Mars. General purpose robot arms, nevertheless, are becoming increasingly popular as they become less expensive, easily adaptable and user friendly programmed. They will be able to handle manufacturing wider range of products with high quality, accuracy and lower cost than human without ever needing to rest.
With the past 20 years, sophisticated software packages are taking over the routine tasks of office management, fully automated offices will soon begin reducing the need for office workers. Farms, mining operations, industrial plants are connected by truck, trains and ships like an assembly line, higher profits are generated which drives investment into greater automation and leads to more research and development where commercial could be take place in producing robots such like these.
This source is selected because it shows the improvement of technology and people become to rely on it although it really helps people a lot. Machines can help people to do the dangerous things. Positive effects are included in the article that shows Frankenstein continues to haunt discussions of recent technologies.
6. The chapter [6] starts introducing novels describing a future society fully dominated by technology, which there would be no freedom, beauty or initiative, and no private life for individuals. Technology began to show its ability to control humans, in which scientific monsters and robots reigned over the world. The time when technology was considered neutral is gone forever.
It exhibits the image of technology governing the future world and brings up to the discussion of how technology influences us at the present. The nature has profoundly influenced by technology, and has penetrated in our social life.
The article points out the positive effects and negative effects in the latter part, which gives an idea of the pros and cons argument of whether technology has a good impact on us. Technology not influences our nature and our productivity, it also affects us sociologically. The argument continues in discussing how human could do in balancing tech development and protecting the nature. It also suggests ways that human should do in order to gain opportunities in realizing free development.
The article is chosen as it describes the progress of cloning. Scientists have tried to clone animals before cloning human. It tells human cloning actually takes risk and explains why people want human cloning. Cloning is one of the ways to shows Frankenstein still appears in our world and continues to haunt discussions of recent technologies.
2. The link [2] also mentions human cloning. It summarizes out the problems of human cloning in a more humane way. Human cloning raise out similar problems as condoms rose out to the Catholics when the world separate sex from procreation. People even claim that this would be an evil behaviour as it is trying to interfere marital acts that had been happened with the born of human. Catholics claims that children should beget through the loving act of marriage, instead of through scientific breakthrough.
The uses of condoms helps human to control fertility, so as for human cloning if it happens in the human society. When people accept that human cloning technique has legal authority or moral authority over when and how to have children, the clone child itself is believed to be a product of science instead of natural creature. Men then become a God in deciding when and how other human life could be created or destroyed. Catholics believe that to insure human cloning will not dominate our world is to preach that it is not man who is charge of deciding who comes into existence, but God. The article also points out some real life situations that would lead out by human cloning.
This article is regarded as one of the sources since it talks about our living mode and pattern have changed because of technology. Catholics are discontent and blame on it. Men will become the arbitrator of the next generation if people accept human cloning. A table is listed to tell the problems of human cloning in the piece. It is another example to show Frankenstein continues to haunt discussions of recent technologies.
3. This article [3] argues that the technology constantly develops and it has improved a lot. Our technology will soon take place of human life. As computing has made great progress, the “technology breakout” is led that different kinds of technologies are associating to create theatrical and new abilities. Technology in our daily lives affects us seriously. The side effect of technology becomes to expose in our society.
The precipitating technological capacity is so obvious. Some theorists announced that it will meet a point where the technology will soon totally lose control since it reaches an unexpected level.
It points out that the technological juggernaut is not an automatic and self development. It actually needs a large number of resources such as people, money and other materials to generate these new technologies. After short period of time, human will face a very serious problem that the technology will control and decide the future for us if human do not rethink the basic modes of social, economic and environmental practice. It obviously states that Frankenstein continues to haunt discussions of recent technologies.
4. This piece [4] states that technology is wonderful which takes over a good percentage of the jobs people are pursuing. It seems to imply that it could somehow run itself and ignore humans’ control of them in a manner detrimental to the world.
The author interviewed different people with different jobs including journalist, doctor, writer, actor, college professor and her friend. They all agree technology really help them a lot or even saying that they cannot live without technology. The actor she interviewed said, “Three words: computer generated graphics.” These three words are so powerful to describe computer helps to create the things which people want such as background, view, figures and environment in a movie. It seems inevitable that computers and robots will soon be able to carry out a good percentage of human functions. Technology has already taken over and threatened the world. Thus, it is chosen to be one of the sources for the essay.
5. The article [5] talks about the impact brought by computers and robots in the modern world. With the aid of robots and computerized machines, manufacturing jobs have declined in a significant scale. Industrial processes have yet become increasingly automated. Robots are applied to different industries from car assembling to surgical assisting. These kinds of machines can even perform duties that are considered difficult or dangerous to human, like exploring the surface of Mars. General purpose robot arms, nevertheless, are becoming increasingly popular as they become less expensive, easily adaptable and user friendly programmed. They will be able to handle manufacturing wider range of products with high quality, accuracy and lower cost than human without ever needing to rest.
With the past 20 years, sophisticated software packages are taking over the routine tasks of office management, fully automated offices will soon begin reducing the need for office workers. Farms, mining operations, industrial plants are connected by truck, trains and ships like an assembly line, higher profits are generated which drives investment into greater automation and leads to more research and development where commercial could be take place in producing robots such like these.
This source is selected because it shows the improvement of technology and people become to rely on it although it really helps people a lot. Machines can help people to do the dangerous things. Positive effects are included in the article that shows Frankenstein continues to haunt discussions of recent technologies.
6. The chapter [6] starts introducing novels describing a future society fully dominated by technology, which there would be no freedom, beauty or initiative, and no private life for individuals. Technology began to show its ability to control humans, in which scientific monsters and robots reigned over the world. The time when technology was considered neutral is gone forever.
It exhibits the image of technology governing the future world and brings up to the discussion of how technology influences us at the present. The nature has profoundly influenced by technology, and has penetrated in our social life.
The article points out the positive effects and negative effects in the latter part, which gives an idea of the pros and cons argument of whether technology has a good impact on us. Technology not influences our nature and our productivity, it also affects us sociologically. The argument continues in discussing how human could do in balancing tech development and protecting the nature. It also suggests ways that human should do in order to gain opportunities in realizing free development.
References:
[1] Dixon, P. Human Cloning Headlines.
http://www.globalchange.com/clonenews.htm (accessed on 29 Mar. 2008).
[2] LoJacono, J. “Human Cloning: A Fruit of the Contraceptive Mentality.” Human Life International Inc. 2004.
http://www.hli.org/sfli_human%20_cloning_fact_sheet.pdf (accessed on 29 Mar. 2008).
[3] McMahon, P. “How the breakout of technology threatens human sovereignty.” The National Forum. 16 Mar. 2004.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2071 (accessed on 29 Mar. 2008).
[4] Runyan, A. “Technology taking over human functions?” The Stanford Daily. 28 Apr. 2005.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2005/4/28/technologyTakingOverHumanFunctions (accessed on 30 Mar. 2008).
[5] The Academy of Evolutionary Metaphysics Home-Page. 2005.
http://www.evolutionary-metaphysics.net/advancing_technology.html (accessed on 29 Mar. 2008).
[6] Wang, M. Y. Development of Technology and Social Life.
http://www.crvp.org/book/Series03/III-11/chapter_vii.htm (accessed on 29 Mar. 2008).
[1] Dixon, P. Human Cloning Headlines.
http://www.globalchange.com/clonenews.htm (accessed on 29 Mar. 2008).
[2] LoJacono, J. “Human Cloning: A Fruit of the Contraceptive Mentality.” Human Life International Inc. 2004.
http://www.hli.org/sfli_human%20_cloning_fact_sheet.pdf (accessed on 29 Mar. 2008).
[3] McMahon, P. “How the breakout of technology threatens human sovereignty.” The National Forum. 16 Mar. 2004.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2071 (accessed on 29 Mar. 2008).
[4] Runyan, A. “Technology taking over human functions?” The Stanford Daily. 28 Apr. 2005.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2005/4/28/technologyTakingOverHumanFunctions (accessed on 30 Mar. 2008).
[5] The Academy of Evolutionary Metaphysics Home-Page. 2005.
http://www.evolutionary-metaphysics.net/advancing_technology.html (accessed on 29 Mar. 2008).
[6] Wang, M. Y. Development of Technology and Social Life.
http://www.crvp.org/book/Series03/III-11/chapter_vii.htm (accessed on 29 Mar. 2008).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)