thefrankensteinianreview

[thefrankensteinianreview]

Do you even clone bro?

On July 5th, 1996 the first cloned animal, a sheep named Dolly (named after the actress Dolly Parton), was born. Less than a decade later, on December 27th, 2002, the first human clone was born, a girl named Eve. Cloning has always been a controversial topic, and raising the stakes from animals to humans intensified the controversy. Experts on the topic raised concerns on the safety and ethics of cloning human beings, while other more fringe scientists swore on the positive possibilities of cloning. But who is right? Should we continue pursuing this legendary technology? Or do its downsides outweigh whatever promised benefits its stark believers champion so proudly?

One of the advantages of pursuing cloning is its medical applications. It could allow for massive advances in our understanding of genetics and help heal the injured. Research in new ways to fight disease would also be greatly benefitted by the use of cloning. Another benefit of cloning would be the ability to curate and code the next generation’s genetic information. Doing this would allow us to create super geniuses and world class athletes. Any desirable trait would be within humanities’ grasp! Alas, as wonderful as these promises are, they are ultimately empty when one stops to consider the drawbacks. For one, cloning is highly risky; mutations alone would make cloning non-viable. There would be far too great a chance of creating a devastating health deficiency in the clone, causing the clone to have issues, but also possibly passing that health issue on to offspring if they ever have children. And all of that doesn’t even take into account multiple generations of clones, all operating with an increasingly shrinking gene pool. There are also societal changes that need to be kept in mind, like how people would react to there being a new generation of clones.With societies’ history of hate and discrimination against those who are different, it would be very likely that clones would become a targeted group of people. Another thing that must be considered is how the law would view and treat clones. This is especially pertinent as DNA evidence would become more unreliable, with there being the inevitability that clones will commit crimes. There are just too many variables that cannot be definitively solved, too much risk for not just the clones but for the people around them. But there is still the most important reason why cloning should not be practiced or pursued.

Eugenics is the process of improving the human race through selective gene editing. It has been used throughout history to justify the oppression of the weak and certain minority groups. Examples of this are the Nazi’s holocaust, and compulsory sterilization in the US. Eugenics is luckily now largely viewed as outdated and completely immoral. One of the reasons that led up to this was its constant abuse to further a prejudiced agenda. Groups like the aforementioned Nazis could use the pursuit of societal purity to rationalize to the world their evil acts. The traits targeted by eugenicists were also completely arbitrary, being entirely at the whims of the “scientist’s'' biases. Because of these reasons the history of eugenics has rightfully left a bad taste in the mouth of the world, and it is no wonder that cloning is so feared, as it is highly connected to modern eugenics. Allowing cloning would give eugenicists an easy blueprint to work off of, which would open the door to many dangerous and unethical possibilities.

One tool used as a cautionary tale against eugenics is Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein. Victor Frankenstein’s tragic story serves to show the dangers of tampering with the natural order of life. Many aspiring cloner’s or eugenicist’s ambitions parallel those of Victor, wanting to improve and create life— to play God—but Victor's ambition would be his downfall, like Icarus he flew too close to the sun and burned up. He was reckless, creating his monster without thought of the consequences.This too is paralleled with how people are wanting to make clones without considering the ramifications. Eventually the repercussions of Victor's actions caught up to him, leaving him and his entire family dead.The cloners will share in Victor's fate of falling victim to hubris. However, it will not be them who will suffer, it will be the innocent beings that they have so carelessly created. It will be the clones who will bear the burden of consequence, like the creature having to live their entire lives with severe, and possibly life threatening, health complications.

WC: 749

[thefrankensteinianreview]

Bioethics

“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

- Dr. Ian Malcolm. Jurassic Park, 1993.

Ethics – the moral principles and philosophies that guide us through our life – are core sets of rules and ideals that allow us as humans to exist in a society. Without them, we would be nothing more than base animals living off of instinct and impulse, committing despicable acts like murder without a second thought. Just as important as ethics' role in our day to day lives is their role in science. Ethical principles prevent scientists from conducting research, and performing experiments, that are negligent, harmful, or malicious. In other words, one main purpose of ethical principles is to keep people safe. 

Unfortunately, many times throughout history, scientists have forgotten, overlooked, or even flat-out ignored ethics in favor of satiating their curiosity. Whenever this happens, and morals are disregarded, you get catastrophes like that of the Stanford prison experiment, an experiment conducted in 1971 about the psychology of prison life. The experimenters brought in a large group of volunteers and split them into two groups: guards and prisoners. The guards (which had been let into the experiment despite psychological screenings showing high amounts of abusive and aggressive qualities and behavior) began treating the prisoners more and more brutally. The head proctor, Phillip Zimbardo, let this go on for nearly a week before a psychologist evaluating the conditions of the prisoners raised ethical concerns and the experiment was shut down. 

Incidents like the Stanford prison experiment demonstrate the necessity for ethics to be taken seriously in science and how dangerous ambition can be in these fields. Many men, just like Phillip, have pushed beyond the boundaries of what is safe or acceptable in the pursuit of knowledge. In fact, ambition and ethics are often at odds with each other, as ambition tries to escape the restrictions of ethics, while ethical principles keep ambition in check and prevent disaster. Thus, it is even more imperative that ethics be treasured highly in a place that is filled with the most ambitious people on the planet, to keep them from doing things that might violate every natural right and law we hold dear. 

In the quote above, taken from Jurassic Park, character Dr. Ian Malcolm criticizes John Hammond for bending the natural order of the world (bringing back the dinosaurs) and pursuing a dangerous technology so that he could satisfy his greed and ambition. Similar worries are shared by many in the modern age, with concerns arising from the rapid unchecked growth and advancement in technology, causing many to wonder whether all technology is really worth pursuing. It is true that this is not a new topic of debate, and discussions have spanned over a hundred years about issues like the potential effects of biological weapons, nuclear bombs, and even less harmful technologies like automobiles. However, concerns about technology have been rapidly gaining more traction recently with many new hot-topic debates springing up. One of the primary topics these days is AI (artificial intelligence), but there are many others that get similar attention such as abortion, genetic editing, and alternative forms of energy. Ethics is often at the center of many of these debates, with ideologies and beliefs being argued and examined all the time.

WC:556

[thefrankensteinianreview]

Sublime

Nature is the beautiful tension between awe inspiring majesty and deathly terror. It is the grand stage that we inhabit, a show that began long before us, and will end long after us. Its temperament is volatile and mysterious, the placid and calm sea becomes the tempest, the stoic and unmovable peaks of the mountains tremble before mother nature's hand. Its vast and grand display is something that has moved humanity since the dawn of time, and continues to do so till this day, so is it a wonder that Victor Frankenstein endeavored to visit the depths of nature? Being a man tortured by immeasurable stress and trauma, he needed some way to relieve himself of the burden of his pain, a way to recenter himself from the dizzying storm of his life. His trips also served to rekindle his oft neglected love of nature, the tranquil yet grand locales he frequented helped remind him of his passion for the awe inspiring creations of God. This was especially important as Frankenstein often neglected his life, even his own health, in favor of scientific progress.  His trips served to draw him back into the real world.

There are many sublime locations in the world, and like Victor I have had the opportunity to visit some of these places.  One in particular I have visited is the shore of Cape Cod.  The magnitude of the ocean stretched out into what seemed like infinity, and the crashing waves cresting over the rocky shore is something that I will never forget.

But not all of nature is as peaceful or breathtaking as Cape Cod. There are many places that invoke the sense of terror and horror more than awe. The bloodchilling, heart stopping, soul crushing, horror that sits at the bottom of the ocean, or lives at the mouth of a volcano, or inhabits the heart of the frozen poles. The example of a frozen waste land where few can attempt to survive, let alone live, highlights a surreal place where fear drives every breath.  And what is the thing that allows this God forsaken land to be so horror inducing? Ice, the cold and bitter resting place of sinners, a consequence and reward to the deserving. Its cold surface numbs the numb and freezes the limbs and skin of the already frozen hearted. Ice represents the consequences of the actions, the carelessness, of the characters in Frankenstein.  What was the product of their actions? Only misery and death welcomed them. The arctic was an appropriately miserable destination for the introduction and conclusion of the story.  Its harsh and desolate nature was a forewarning that only agony lies ahead for those who continue, and the desolation of the arctic being the repercussions for the wicked actions of the characters, each snowflake representing a unique and terrible sin.

WC: 473

[thefrankensteinianreview]

Ethical Dilemma

Through the entire tale of Frankenstein, the creature made it a habit to make Victor's life miserable, murdering his younger brother and framing his dear friend Justine. This shows that the creature was not making idle threats when he said he would kill everyone Victor loved unless Victor did what he demanded. Because Victor neglected his duties and abandoned him, the creature was subjected to a life of loneliness and despair. At the halfway point in the story, the creature managed to track down Victor, and through a tragic retelling of his story, convinced Victor to make a wife for him. In addition, the creature claimed that he would no longer be violent if Victor did this one kindness for him. So, is it true that to rid oneself of a guaranteed danger is worth the risk of creating another? No, it isn’t. Had Victor brought the creature's bride into existence, it would have only caused madness and destruction. The threat was far too great, and there was no guarantee that the two monsters would get along. There was a danger that the original creature would have been enraged and carried out his threat against Frankenstein's family, and there was no way of knowing what the character of the new creature would have been. While the original creature was born a benevolent and peaceful thing, the new one might have been a true demon, one whose malice was formed not through the harshities of life, but from the forge of Hell itself. And if they did get along, then the threat to humanity itself would have been an even greater, astronomical event. Frankenstein's original creature has no reason to keep his promise, and might break his word and wreak his vengeance upon mankind anyway. There was also the possibility that the two creatures would create a new kingdom of man – a more powerful one, one fueled by anger. That anger, a hatred of what's different, might be a force that could overthrow the current status quo with relative ease. He could truly have become Frankenstein's Adam, and that is why Victor had to deny him his Eve. 

WC:358

[thefrankensteinianreview]

The X factor

CREATURE: “The hatred that you view me with is not unexpected, it is how all humans look upon the vile and disgusting taints of your hand. Still, I implore thee, it is for thine own benefit to listen to my proposal, to listen and consider it carefully, for while i could never bring my own hand to violence against mine own creator, that which you hold dear is not out of the reach of my rage. For I am a being who has suffered much, isolated and exiled from society, forced to watch from afar the jovial events, the merriment that I may not partake in. My hatred and rage can not be bound by the grasp of the common man, there is only one who can calm the crashing ocean of contempt in my soul. That man is you Victor, you alone hold the authority and power to save your fellow man from my wrath, ye whose scorn and vile words cut deepest, ye whose disdain for my very existence poisoned my once virtuous soul. I shall spare the world from my vengeance, if and only if thou shall give me the treasure robbed from me, happiness. Give me happiness frankenstein and deliver me from my suffering and I shall lead a life of violence no more.”

WC: 218

VICTOR FRANKENSTEIN: “Fiend! After everything you’ve done, every horrid and repugnant deed carried out by your hand, every innocent life snuffed under your malignant gaze, you show yourself to me? A man who holds an unquellable rage against your dark heart? And you bring demands? The depths of Tartarus would be too merciful for a creature as repulsive as you! You call yourself my dear creation, NAY! You are not my creation, you are but the blight that lingers over my life like the shadow of death, my greatest mistake! I would be a fool to not smite thee from this world if i were capable, but alas a fool i am, thus has been proven many a time, the sight of your hateful form shows this to be true… I shall hear out your proposal beast, but mistake thyself not! I do this not for sympathy of thine wretched condition, but for fear of what villainy you would wrought upon mine bloodline, the evils that you have committed, and thus threaten to commit once more must never again repeat, and i will act accordingly so that this is true.”

WC:188

TWC:406

[thefrankensteinianreview]

Role of Parents

What responsibility did Victor Frankenstein have to the creature he made? He had complete and total responsibility for the care and containment of the monster, he knew that he was creating life and should have dealt with the monster properly, whether that being killing it, containing it, or raising it, it doesn't matter what he chose as the only thing that mattered was that he was the one dealing with the creature. But this brings up the question, what WAS the best way to deal with the creature? Should he have acted as a father to the creature, teaching it morality and the ways of the world? In a perfect world yes he should have, but in the end he was never truly given the chance to as before he knew that it was more than just a mindless animal, he had perceived that he was being attacked by the creature while he slept, a creature that barely even resembled a human because of its decayed appearance. But if he thought that the creature was dangerous and capable of commiting harm to another then shouldn't he have done something to kill it? He most definitely should have, instead he decided to shirk his responsibilities and let them slowly fester in the background of his life, and unfortunately because of this, someone died, his negligence and laziness led to his little brothers murder. Should victor have isolated the monster then? Containing it so that it could not harm anyone? No, to do that would mean that he would have to recognise the monster as something more than a base animal, only capable of harm and contempt. And to see it as a human, to imprison it before its actually done anything wrong would be depriving a sentient being of its basic rights of freewill. From what he knew it was something that MUST be killed or destroyed, so then, how responsible is victor for the deaths caused by his creation? He is responsible for it because he did not destroy it or nurture it while it was in his care, but once it was out in the world its choices were its own, and only the creature can be held responsible for something that it did.

WC:375

[thefrankensteinianreview]

[thefrankensteinianreview]

Tabula Rasa

Tabula Rasa, the idea of the blank slate, that every child is an empty canvas waiting to be filled by experience and emotions. This ideology was founded by John Locke, as he wanted to emphasize the importance of experience. I agree to a certain extent, i believe for the most part people are shaped and formed by their life experiences, but i also believe that there is a core personality to a person, something unchangeable, something that if different in any way you would simply be another person. This query is very similar to the ongoing discussion of nature vs nurture, in fact you could say that it IS the argument, with John Locke answering wholeheartedly for nurture, while I fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. The argument of nature vs nurture brings up the question of whether it is actually necessary for children to have a mother figure, someone who gives unconditional support and love. While I do not think it is as necessary as many people say it is, there are many people who grew up without a strong mother or father figure in their lives, and ended up fine. a strong mother figure in a child's life would most certainly give them a better chance at a stable and emotionally fulfilling life. This line of questioning also brings up the question of where the responsibility of raising a child lies with the parents or with society. While the primary responsibility of raising a child definitely falls upon the parents shoulders, if they refuse the responsibility or are otherwise unable to accept it, the burden is passed to society to give them a happy, safe, and stable home. Unfortunately many parents do not fully accept the responsibility of having a child, and are either neglectful or completely non-present in the child's life, should they do this? No they shouldn't, but it is the unfortunate truth of living in a broken world.

WC: 325