The first four parts of Attwood’s Oryx and Crake are spent with the supposed only remaining human on the planet explaining his experiences both in the present and the past. A plague appears to have wiped out all of humanity. It is not clear if this plague was a result of the genetic experimentation taking place in the labs of his past. There are other intelligent beings in the present but there is a lack of a physical description other than they are children who are naked, beautiful, and look nothing like the past version of man, Jimmy.
The idea of nature appears to have undergone drastic changes. The animals are hybrids of multiple animals put together. Whether they are just escapees from the labs after man’s downfall or a crossbreeding occurring in nature itself is unclear. The weather has extreme rains and winds as well as extreme heat. Jimmy, as a past human, is not physically built to withstand these changes and must hide but it appears this latest version of humanity, the children, are part of an adaptive evolutionary man. They can roam naked in the sun and enjoy its extreme warmth.
The flashbacks to Jimmy’s past are a mix of descriptions of the world from a scientific view as well as experiences of a child looking to find his way in life. Jimmy has a father who is excited about his genetic experimentation with these lab animals and his mother is a scientist who was once just like Jimmy’s father but now is disgusted with the immoral and unethical route these scientific pursuits have taken. Jimmy describes being a mediocre student, having his first crush and playing online games with his best friend Crake. On the surface it appears to be the normal life of a kid, but it is far from it. It is a disturbing view of what humanity may become if the single minded scientific pursuits to further “improve” life without regard for the consequences of nature continue. Jimmy appears to be living in a world where man has forgotten that he is not the only important being on a planet designed for his use but rather just a part of something much bigger that requires continued respect for all parts because they only work together, or they don’t survive. Some may argue that the scientific pursuits of animal incubators for human longevity and beauty are not completely indicative of an unethical society. It is important to remember the details of Jimmy’s experiences with Crake as two kids watching their favorite shows. It is not your typical superhero tale but rather a gruesome scene of live animal and human torture for entertainment. It appears as if only the pornography itself is limited to adults and even then, the idea that child pornography is so easily accessible is despicable and unforgiving. To be human is to have empathy, feelings, thoughts and an understanding of the vastness of the universe. This novel poses many questions regarding the effects science has on our definition of what it means to be human.
Attwood seems to have a knack for creating dystopian societies where the current day issues and fears such as inequality and immorality are brought to their extreme as a warning of what may be to come if we, as humans, do not stop and think about our actions and their consequences.
Ihab Hassan wrote an essay in play format, Prometheus as Performer: Toward a Post Humanist Culture, involving the levels of human consciousness and post humanism as it is understood and interpreted today (1976) and by the greatest minds of history across many areas of study. It questions the definition of post humanism and if it really means a world without humans or if it just implies something else. The idea that for each new discovery of human ability we change humanity so dramatically that these new generations should be considered post humanist generations to those that came before. The characters in the play are the various levels of our human consciousness and the struggle between them. It is metaphorical for our inner struggle of good versus evil and all levels in between. In changing the way we interpret the same idea such as scientific pursuits and accomplishments can we justify the path used to reach the goal despite a fear of the darkness the path involves. While the play went back and forth in many directions and quoted many different historical figures who made major advancements in science or philosophical understanding the overall themes seemed to remain the same. What are the implications of science in our consciousness? Does the advancement of technology hinder humanities ability to value the beauty of what once was such as the photograph replacing the art of the painted hand? Scientific advancements change the way we see humanity! There will always be the side that feels that we, as a species, are strong and will survive. We will adapt and evolve so science and technology are not to be restricted. Then there are those that argue we are a new species in a much older universe and just as other species have come and gone we will be the creators of our own extinction.
So how do the writings of Hassan tie into the readings in class. Ironically Frankenstein was used as an example in the play where prior to his formal education and introduction to a shallow science he pursued the teachings of some of the greater minds in scientific history. However, when shown what the newer sciences were capable of, he took his pursuits to a level that crossed the ethical boundaries between good and evil and created life where life wasn’t meant to be created. This resulted in his downfall. It could be interpreted that humanity in Attwood’s novel underwent the same fate. A failure to acknowledge that science is not always used for good and the allowance of selfish and vain endeavors will result in paying the ultimate price.
Questions:
1 – As scientific and technological advances are introduced into society are they removing our ability to see we are not indestructible or had humanity already begun to lose its moral compass and the ability to make scientific advances was the result?
2 – Are we the post humanist society to ancient civilizations as a result of our scientific advancements?
3 – If we could extend our lives by 50 or 100 years by using animals as incubators would that be ethical?
Frankenstein tried to take on this concept of moral compass. I believe with the rapid technological advancements, humanity is beginning to lose more of its moral compass. Corporations such as the pharmaceutical sector, keep pushing out more and more products in return of high monetary capital. The medicine such as painkillers are more potent, but equally more deleterious to internal health. Products will be pushed out as fast as possible just to get more money. Samsung wanted to push out cell phones to compete with Apple for the smartphone market, yet Samsung had their cell phones explode due to a lack of safety protocol. Victor was more concerned about being famous than the actual moral repercussions of actually excavating deceased corpses. We get lost in our own personal ambitions and the result of scientific advancements has made people lose their moral compass as well.
In general research practice, scientists are supposed to adhere to specieism. Specieism is when you can not discriminate animal rights with humans in terms of research. Yet in most labs, animal testing is crucial. There will always be limits and gray areas as much of these questions pose. In the case of extending our lives by 50-100 years, it would seem to be unethical in the case of the novel. Cross breeding is like a act of God, much like Victor took different parts of humans to create Monster. Pigoon may have an innocent depiction based on Snowman’s point of view, but it is a result of man trying to play God. This may have lead to the ultimate apocalypse Snowman alluded to. This is punishment in the same way of Paradise Lost. Adam and Eve were to curious and were punished. Humans were to curious in extending life and going against natural causes. As a result they became extinct.
In my opinion, humanity had already begun to lose its moral compass prior to many scientific advances. However, the technological progress that we have made further compromised our morality.
We are the post humanist society to ancient civilizations, as we rely more on science. Ancient civilizations relied more on a belief in superstition.
Extending our lives through the use of animals as incubators would not be ethical, as we would decrease the animal population to achieve this. As more people live longer, the food supply on the planet wouldn’t be sufficient to support everyone.
I don’t understand the argument of losing a moral compass. Are you all implying we had a perfectly correct moral compass sometime in the past? If so, when and where was that? Every point in human history has pros and cons but recently the overall quality of life has drastically improved. From people having more access to clean water to globalization of information through the internet, the overall well-being and happiness as well as population immensely increased. Of course, there is always room to improve as opinions and general education molds into the next generation.
In reference to the novel, the pigoons are quite a useful idea. Surgeons have used pig’s hearts as an emergency transplant for those who did not have a donor ready as the pig’s heart can function for a temporary amount of time inside a human. Doctors are making temporary Frankenstein in hospitals every now-and-then and lives are being saved. A lot of people die on their waiting list for a donor, so if a pigoon is a reality in the near future that would save countless lives. A human life is worth so much more than a pigoon’s life.
And so what if humans are performing the acts of God. I mean, he said it himself that he created man in the form of himself. It would be hypocritical for him to deny his own word. However, if people are afraid these Frankenstein creations will go awry, that is also unrealistic and encourages people to halt progress. Even God didn’t create the perfect being on his first try. Failure will aid human progression.
Scientific and technological advances were created to benefit humans in the first place to live more comfortably, longer and healthily. I think everyone has different views on a moral compass and there’s no definite line. People may be concerned about advancing for the greater good, focusing on the result using any means to an end. While others may focus on the ethics of the method itself.
The use of animals as incubators to extend our lifespan of 50 and 100 years is a bit strange, at least to our time. But whether it is ethical or not, if it were possible, people would probably invest in it, especially with such a long benefit. I think in some cases, it can be seen as ethical to help benefit a bedridden senior or someone who has aged considerably to the point, they cannot function or speak. As for the animals being used, they should be treated well and we are not killing them, but only growing organs inside. I see it as similar to being a pregnant surrogacy. However, the other side is that it’s pretty weird and against nature to do this and I could see it as a monstrosity. Like what if someone took you and made you grow extra arms and legs to later give to someone else. But animals are not treated the same as humans.
I think most of these demands for growing extra limbs and organs for the advancement of someone’s life would mostly come form the patient’s family and friends. I would imagine I’ll love to grow an extra couple kidneys or a few lungs just so I can give it to a beloved family member who shares my blood type and antigens. If you have a drivers license and you have signed up to be an organ donor upon your death, you are an organ growing machine at the moment. At the end of the day it should be up to the patient to decide if they wish to continue their life but if they are incapable of doing so, the guardians or spouse will have to decide.
However, if farms for growing human organs and limbs were to arise it would be extremely beneficial rather than damaging. Huge corporations already exists that grow and harvest domesticated animals for supplies and resources. Maybe new ethical control groups will emerge just how the vegans and vegetarians demand foreclosing of modern-day farms, but demand and cause will keep organ-growing companies running. Having a readily available organ to replace a damaged one with will create a reckless society. Responsibility and self-care will matter less because of these easily replaceable organs. Then, regulations will be set in place and prices will sky-rocket leaving only the rich with the ability to easily replace their body. This is one of the biggest reasons why I am so afraid to see the first human head transplant succeed because it will eventually become a trend, a new fashion statement, a hot fitness fad to simply switch bodies around back and forth however you please. The only problem will be in choosing the right side of history. Fighting for domesticated animal lives will not be the biggest ethical issue. Fighting for human lives and what it means to stay human will become the center of social, political, economical and ethical conflicts.
Are head transplants a thing that people are developing? That seems creepy, but also really implausible! It also reminds me of this scene in Return to Oz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBfmR4rEeHU
I think that if we could extend our lives by 50 to 100 years but had to use animals as incubators that would be extremely unethical. That means we would have to sacrifice the life of other beings that deserve to be on this planet just as much as we do, for our own sake. Animals are innocent creatures who have no say in anything. They go by instinct. In a way, they depend on humanity. So to take advantage of all these factors would be unethical. Secondly, this would not work. There are so many humans in the world and we would be using every single animal earth has. This would ruin the eco-system and it would be the end of earth itself. This would not follow the society that has been instated in Oryx and Crake.
I’d like that scientific and technological advances would use in an ethical way only for the for the only purpose to extend and improve human life. I don’t know if it’s true but some pharmacists friends have made comments that the cure for cancer has been found but pharmaceutic companies won’t spread it to keep their capital gains up.
I’m glad that scientific and technological advances have improved our lives. However, it has its pros and cons. For instance, people life expectancy has increased. In the 1700s people used to live until their mid-50s and then die due to an illness. On the other hand, technological advances are not used in a good way when it refers to wars.
In relation to extending our lives by 50 or 100 years by using animals as incubators would that be ethical? We currently reproduce animals to consume them and it’s not considered unethical. Animals considered top-level consumers also consume other animals to keep their existence. Does it make them bad or unethical?
I’d consider it unethical if we bear children or clones to extend our lives and use their organs or parts.
1. I’m a little confused by this question. Are you talking about our society? Or the society within the novel? In regards to Oryx and Crake, I do feel like the fast advances in science and technology clouded a lot of vision in the people. There was a sense of indestructibility, before the Crakers came around, and science seemed to make all problems (health, particularly) insignificant. I’m not sure if this relates to morality at all, but rather it is what the people grew up with, so they did not know any better. This advanced technology was normal for them.
2. If we look through history, we can see that science advancements are just a normal part of human succession. I think all time periods seem to be “post humanist” to previous eras.
3. I don’t think it would be very ethical. This is a reference to the pigoons in the novel. I respect the idea and science advancements that were created, but there are other ways to extend one’s life. More and more medicines are being created, and if people treat their bodies right, they will naturally live longer. Extending one’s life to 50 or even 100 years longer than it’s supposed to is just defying the natural life succession, and practically cheating death.
Technology is rapidly growing everyday. We see new things that help us for convince. As the years go by we look for the easier way out. We humans begin to lack moral compass. Anything that is made for our convince makes us as a society lack intelligence because we rely so much on technology ( mostly common in the new generation of children)
Our ever progressing technology is the one thing humans could brag about if we could brag about it to the other living things in our world. Technology has always made use feel special, think about the thousands of people who stood and watched Apollo 11 leave our home planet and land on the moon, think about the feeling you get when the new iPhone drops, think about how the internet has enabled you to have access to the biggest concentration of information our world has ever seen, now think about how these can be considered the first stages of technology and how our children will experience a more advanced society. Technology is the reason why we’re at the top of the food chain, from the time our ancestors developed Oldowan and Acheulean tools to our modern time with our extremely efficient medicine and incredible manufacturing we have thought of ourselves as indestructible.
Yes, technology has shaped every aspect of society. There’s always going to be a post-human society, we are one and our children’s generation will be a new one. Technology wouldn’t change as much during our ancestors times, that’s why they could not consider new generations post technologically advanced society. But we can do that now because our technology is beginning to change on generation to generation basis, this is evident when we talk to our grandparents and it will more evident when our children talk to us.
No, it would not be ethical. This goes against one of the key principles of humanism which is “Humans do not have a right of dominion over animals and the environment, it being recognized that humans along with many other species of animals do change their environment by their very existence”
I think the morality of using animals as incubators completely parallels how someone feels about the treatment of animals today. I don’t see any difference between using animals for organs and eating animals for sustenance. Both of these actions are to “prolong your life” and are at the expense of the life of the animal. I don’t believe anyone who eats meat can argue its immorality. That group does include me, although the thought of it does generally skeeve me out.
If we could use incubated animals to extend our lives by 50 or a hundred years, I believe this would be ethical, however I can see how this would conflict with what many believe, thus putting it in somewhat of a gray zone since this is definitely can definitely be a question up for debate. The reason I say that is because it’s hard for one to say right off the bat whether something may be ethical or unethical, simply because of the first thought that comes to their head. This is a matter of complexity, as you would have to consider each situation individually and analyze whether an individual is using the incubated animal technology to increase their lifespan simply because they want to live ridiculously long that would otherwise be impossible for a normal human being to live until, or whether that individual is using the medical advancement/innovation later on in life where they are perhaps around their 50’s and due to poor lifestyle habits, their health is poor and the likelihood of them living another 15 years would be very slim. It really depends what this medical advancement is being used for with the specific individual, as I am sure people will opt for such a technology for a large number of reasons–some may be choosing to use this technology for reasons other than due to poor current health status, as we have seen many times people have opted for plastic surgery to fix their appearance simply for vanity purposes. Also, if this medical advancement is able to add 50-100 years to a person’s life, think about how they would possibly look throughout the rest of their lives after receiving such treatment or procedure (assuming this is how to administer this technology to patients). If a perfectly healthy person in their mid 30’s with an overall youthful appearance were to undergo such a treatment simply for vanity purposes, consider how they may look 20, 30 or even 50 years from then when they are about 80 years old. Would they age, wrinkle or look older by much, or would they simply just have a few lines not very prominent and look as though they’ve only aged less than a decade? If this medical advancement could add years to your life, that should mean that all of the cells in your body are constantly renewing into healthy cells in order to keep you living longer. Among all those cells are also your skin cells that give you a youthful appearance if they renew into those same healthy skin cells. A matter like this, I would definitely consider unethical since this defeats the laws of nature aesthetically speaking, as people start to look older as they increase in age.
If we could extend our lives by 50 or 100 years by using animals as incubators would that be ethical?
If we did this, it would be unethical. I dont see how we would be able to extend our lives by 50-100 years by using animal incubators. I dont know how people would look, and im not sure if this is healthy to even consider. I dont think this is something that can extend our life and therefore to me it is unethical.
i believe that much of the technological advances are the main causes of the humal looking at themselves as indestructible. The need to experiment and be famous within humanity has brought the idea of science trying to create life where it was not meant to be. Crossbreeding and human animal incubation are all the reasons why human beings tend to think they are indestructible.
I believe that technology is a double-sided sword which does make our life easier and more convince but also hurt us at the same time, it makes us lazy and stop thinking with our brain , because we rely on technology too much than ourselves.