Brave New World and 1984. These two works are paralleled around a similar idea. These two works are involving a similar plot and similar characters. It is easy to draw up constants that run through both literary works. The article "The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984" makes this analysis, while discussing that there are differences, as well. It is important to remember that even though Aldous Huxley and George Orwell wrote the books at different times, inherently influenced by each other and previous authors, the 17 year time lapse existed. Seventeen years held 1932 to 1949, which were crucial historical years.
"The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984" creates a key contrasting and comparing of the literary warnings by initiating the analysis with comparisons. There are clearly similarities contained within both works. One was written after the other and both have the same basic principle. The ideas of characters being forced to conform to a society run by the leader or major force is a clear representative of the similarity. There are the people who are good members of society like Lenina and Parsons. There are the people who are too smart and can create revolutionary ideas like Helmholtz and Syme. There are the tragic characters like Bernard and Winston. There are also the lovers to many like Lenina and Julia. It is evident that these characters are not identical in nature; however, their characters outlines in the outlines of their environments are very similar.
A clear relation between the two pieces relating to characters is the tragedy of the seemingly heroic Bernard Marx and Winston Smith. These two people seem as though they are going to be the ones that stand up to "the man" (Mustapha Mond or O'Brien) and fight the power and be these incredible heroes that leave a reader flabbergasted. As mentioned in "The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984", they are the two that cannot quite seem to stray too far from the party; yet, they do not fit in either. This is where their tragedy lies. They put up initial efforts and rebel against their parties, but in the end, they allow themselves to be defeated because they just do not want to go far enough. It seems Bernard could not stand up and help Helmholtz and John during the rioting and soma, and O'Brien manipulated Smith from the beginning in thoughts with the "we will meet in a place where there is no darkness". These men allowed their overbearing societies to be the victors. This is probably the biggest warning to readers. The people who appear to be the strongest against the strongest opposition are the ones who end up crumbling into submissiveness.
Besides the similarities, "The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984" talks of the different influences and historical knowledge Huxley and Orwell had. Huxley had his book published before the rise of such totalitarians that Orwell saw. Orwell wrote from a different stand-point targeting the Nazis and Communists because he had seen those revolts and revolutions and purges and persecutions. Huxley saw the subtleties of the changing governments, hence the overabundance of his subtleties and precautions sprinkled throughout Brave New World. He did not think that the government would change so drastically right off the bat. He thought is was going to take time, which is why messages like balance between the "savage" and "civilized" societies is subtle. Orwell saw the overt movements and actions of totalitarian governments. He clearly understood this dangerous trend, even when the Soviets were even perceived as allies. This is why he published Animal Farm at a time no one wanted to see the bad side of communism. He saw the quickening dangerous trend spiraling out of control in the near future.
1984 and Brave New World are almost interchangeable in their messages for cautiousness. They are trying to warn against government suppression. They are trying to prevent society from becoming lazy and submissive. They are trying to provide textual realities that could become the future. "The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984" clearly defines the worlds of the two authors to be parallels of one another, yet different. Characters and plots and main ideas are interchangeable, but this was explained by an acquaintance of Zamiatin and Huxley as proof "these ideas are in the air we breath". Maybe the similarities are because of too much Huxley influence on Orwell, or maybe the explanation is that more than one warning needed to be issued about grossly potential dangerous governments and societies.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
What I stand for!
Freedom. I stand for it, by it, and am willing to fight to the death for it. I look to ancestors and millions of immigrants who came to this country seeking it. The Bill of Rights designates freedoms. The Statue of Liberty signifies a welcome to the land of the free. Freedom is what the Founding Fathers intended. Freedom is the reason I am willing to die for the flying red, white, and blue colors on fabric that means so much more.
Waking up in the morning at whatever time and picking whatever clothes I want and praying to Muhammad or God or Buddha (even though you do not pray to Buddha) and talking freely about government (faults and positives) and the freedom to learn whatever I desire are the best parts of this country. From a good, objective history teacher, it is easy to learn about all of the atrocities of the country along with the highlights. Other countries do not necessarily teach much about how the government works, and the United States government not only teaches all about the processes and acts and workings, but because of the insight into the government, there have been various reforms to make the whole system more and more democratic. Voting for the first time this February 1st, on Super Duper Tuesday, I exercised both my 19th and 26th amendment rights. That feeling of freedom and power in the ballot box and knowing that my vote counts in determining an election is well worth any struggles along the way.
Of course, many may argue that our freedoms are being suppressed, and I should want to fight against that suppression. I think it is then important to look at how far the country has come away from freedom suppression. Of course, during time of war freedoms are limited. They always have been. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and during World War I Schenk v. United States determined the "cannot say fire in a crowded theater" and inciting violence suppression of speech, and during World War II, Franklin Roosevelt put thousands of Japanese-AMERICANs into interment camps. The point is that only one of these ideas stuck, and that is the one that decided the suppression of speech that would incite violence was better for the whole. War is not an excuse to suppress freedom, but rather it makes Presidents act a little to radically to try and protect the country's masses. Checks into reality make other politicians realize that these initial actions were too harsh, hence why the Japanese-AMERICANs are not still unjustly interned and people cannot be held without knowing what they are being tried for. Another example of the forward movement with increases of freedoms and democracy are with court cases and political practice. Before Chief Justice Burger ruled in Gideon v. Wainright, it was decided that the rights in the Constitution only protected people from the federal government and not state governments. That was why Florida could try people without giving them attorneys; it was not in the state constitution. After that point, people were protected by the Constitution from state governments, as well. Miranda v. Arizona is a testament to that. The country is not perfect, but it is trying. Voting rights have been increased over the years. People have the power to pick the president because there are no faithless voters in the electoral college and primaries choose the candidates for each party. There are some suppressions of freedoms and prejudices that still exist which are just as bad as no freedom, but the country is gradually shifting to more freedom for the people.
This country is not perfect. No country is perfect, just as no people are perfect. There have been a history of faults and terrible misdeeds. There has also been a history of valor and bravery and courage all to protect the freedoms that this country holds so dear. I am willing to be the next person to be killed in battle, simply so everyone who reads this article can still have the freedom to agree of disagree. One of the best things a person can do to be a dutiful citizen and patriotic is to never stop questioning. Do not be paranoid that there is always some kind of conspiracy, but make sure to look into reasoning for things before making a downright statement. Try to look at the whole picture, rather than just personal conflicts with laws and rules. Take advantage of the freedoms that people have fought so dearly for, and remember that you may not agree with war overall, but think of the reason why men and women go to war. It is usually because they think the country's freedoms and liberties are at stake and want to protect them for you and me and the rest of the people and future people. Freedom is not free, but exercising freedoms that have been already won is free. I love living in a freedom filled country, and other people should try to enjoy it too.
Waking up in the morning at whatever time and picking whatever clothes I want and praying to Muhammad or God or Buddha (even though you do not pray to Buddha) and talking freely about government (faults and positives) and the freedom to learn whatever I desire are the best parts of this country. From a good, objective history teacher, it is easy to learn about all of the atrocities of the country along with the highlights. Other countries do not necessarily teach much about how the government works, and the United States government not only teaches all about the processes and acts and workings, but because of the insight into the government, there have been various reforms to make the whole system more and more democratic. Voting for the first time this February 1st, on Super Duper Tuesday, I exercised both my 19th and 26th amendment rights. That feeling of freedom and power in the ballot box and knowing that my vote counts in determining an election is well worth any struggles along the way.
Of course, many may argue that our freedoms are being suppressed, and I should want to fight against that suppression. I think it is then important to look at how far the country has come away from freedom suppression. Of course, during time of war freedoms are limited. They always have been. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and during World War I Schenk v. United States determined the "cannot say fire in a crowded theater" and inciting violence suppression of speech, and during World War II, Franklin Roosevelt put thousands of Japanese-AMERICANs into interment camps. The point is that only one of these ideas stuck, and that is the one that decided the suppression of speech that would incite violence was better for the whole. War is not an excuse to suppress freedom, but rather it makes Presidents act a little to radically to try and protect the country's masses. Checks into reality make other politicians realize that these initial actions were too harsh, hence why the Japanese-AMERICANs are not still unjustly interned and people cannot be held without knowing what they are being tried for. Another example of the forward movement with increases of freedoms and democracy are with court cases and political practice. Before Chief Justice Burger ruled in Gideon v. Wainright, it was decided that the rights in the Constitution only protected people from the federal government and not state governments. That was why Florida could try people without giving them attorneys; it was not in the state constitution. After that point, people were protected by the Constitution from state governments, as well. Miranda v. Arizona is a testament to that. The country is not perfect, but it is trying. Voting rights have been increased over the years. People have the power to pick the president because there are no faithless voters in the electoral college and primaries choose the candidates for each party. There are some suppressions of freedoms and prejudices that still exist which are just as bad as no freedom, but the country is gradually shifting to more freedom for the people.
This country is not perfect. No country is perfect, just as no people are perfect. There have been a history of faults and terrible misdeeds. There has also been a history of valor and bravery and courage all to protect the freedoms that this country holds so dear. I am willing to be the next person to be killed in battle, simply so everyone who reads this article can still have the freedom to agree of disagree. One of the best things a person can do to be a dutiful citizen and patriotic is to never stop questioning. Do not be paranoid that there is always some kind of conspiracy, but make sure to look into reasoning for things before making a downright statement. Try to look at the whole picture, rather than just personal conflicts with laws and rules. Take advantage of the freedoms that people have fought so dearly for, and remember that you may not agree with war overall, but think of the reason why men and women go to war. It is usually because they think the country's freedoms and liberties are at stake and want to protect them for you and me and the rest of the people and future people. Freedom is not free, but exercising freedoms that have been already won is free. I love living in a freedom filled country, and other people should try to enjoy it too.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Darwinism vs. Eugenics
Darwinism is a concept introduced by the scientist and social philosopher Charles Darwin. His studies and information helped shape the modern evolution theory. The first time his studies came under strict scrutiny and protest was during the Scopes Trial of 1925 when the Modernists and Fundamentalists clashed. Evolutionary theory and the cycle of life is only part of the stage that evolved into something more: genetics and genetic engineering. Since Watson and Crick discovered the double helix structure of DNA to present day cloning trials, scientists are continually advancing studies into a whole new realm of research. The field of study is shifting toward fixing genetic mutations or manipulating genomes or even changing DNA sequences. Some of the questions being drawn from this research include the following: will there be a limit to changing the nature of DNA, will this allow anyone to choose traits of children, will there be regulation of the genetic engineering, what types of diseases can eugenics cure, and even will genetic problems be cured forever? The decisions end up resting on such factors as cost, regulation and legislation, disease, classes, among others. While giving parents genetic engineering as an option for their children may eliminate disease or damage social problems, the consequences of unnatural manipulation are potentially more troubling.
Genetic engineering displays a combination of advancing science with scientific inquiries. It allows for the changing and manipulation of naturally occurring genetics. One of the positive allowances of this type of work is the potential for curing disease or genetic mutations or possibly death. On the other side of the spectrum, the disease ends up translating into death, in some cases. The consequence of curing death and disease could be the drastic ballooning of population. In a morbid way, illness and disease are a way of population control. Tampering with gene manipulation could lead to unheard of numbers in population, thus taking death out of the cycle of life.
Other than illness and disease and death, eugenics has many other facets that need to be considered. Programming genes to behave in a certain way could allow for parents to choose levels of intelligence, looks, skills, and other possible characteristics. These types of choices allow for children with greater potential and opportunity. This could then translate into helping low income families rise through prosperous offspring, breaking cycles of homelessness through education, and maybe even increasing democracy because of well educated voters. The negative aspect of this side arises when cost is tossed into thinking. Will genetic engineering be expensive? Who will pay for the genetic engineering? If the government ends up paying, who will qualify to receive the benefits of government funds for the procedure? Should individuals have to pay for genetic engineering on their own, will the lower income families be at disadvantages? If so, will there be bumping heads between the classes? There are various other questions that need to be well considered, beside the benefits.
Leaving the cost and disease aside, the actual legislation or lack thereof the genetic engineering needs to be carefully examined. Will regulating genetic engineering make it more or less effective? Regulating the process could lead to limits in the exploration of the field's potentials or even force people to limit their choices of children's combinations. Regulating the process could lead to limits of how much people can play God or even force their potential offspring to live a predetermined life. If the government allows for scientists to run freely with genetic engineering, will there eventually be a point where it has to step in, in an effort to control the slippery slope of manipulating genetics? This control could lead to a society of complete predetermination and government intervention. This control could lead to a society of contentment and perfected needs and actions of people through intervention. As a whole, the regulation of genetic engineering proves to be a layered problem that needs tending to each layer. Because regulating is more difficult and more compound than natural cycles of life, consequences of eugenics are likely compound and difficult, as well.
Many sides of the eugenics issue must be looked at while forming an opinion about the issue. Regulation, cost, and disease and death all must be individually looked at. The natural cycle of life must also be known in detail, too. There is a reason for death and disease; it allows for the cycle of life to continue. Eugenics may be a temporary answer to illness; however, in the long run, there are many more potential problems that can arise. These potential problems could be far more threatening and harmful than illness and death. Genetic engineering may be a way to solve other such societal problems, but again, survival of the fittest and social Darwinism are the natural solution of society. Genetic engineering has the potential to create great solutions for society. The unnatural manipulation, though, gives rise to more potential harm than good.
Genetic engineering displays a combination of advancing science with scientific inquiries. It allows for the changing and manipulation of naturally occurring genetics. One of the positive allowances of this type of work is the potential for curing disease or genetic mutations or possibly death. On the other side of the spectrum, the disease ends up translating into death, in some cases. The consequence of curing death and disease could be the drastic ballooning of population. In a morbid way, illness and disease are a way of population control. Tampering with gene manipulation could lead to unheard of numbers in population, thus taking death out of the cycle of life.
Other than illness and disease and death, eugenics has many other facets that need to be considered. Programming genes to behave in a certain way could allow for parents to choose levels of intelligence, looks, skills, and other possible characteristics. These types of choices allow for children with greater potential and opportunity. This could then translate into helping low income families rise through prosperous offspring, breaking cycles of homelessness through education, and maybe even increasing democracy because of well educated voters. The negative aspect of this side arises when cost is tossed into thinking. Will genetic engineering be expensive? Who will pay for the genetic engineering? If the government ends up paying, who will qualify to receive the benefits of government funds for the procedure? Should individuals have to pay for genetic engineering on their own, will the lower income families be at disadvantages? If so, will there be bumping heads between the classes? There are various other questions that need to be well considered, beside the benefits.
Leaving the cost and disease aside, the actual legislation or lack thereof the genetic engineering needs to be carefully examined. Will regulating genetic engineering make it more or less effective? Regulating the process could lead to limits in the exploration of the field's potentials or even force people to limit their choices of children's combinations. Regulating the process could lead to limits of how much people can play God or even force their potential offspring to live a predetermined life. If the government allows for scientists to run freely with genetic engineering, will there eventually be a point where it has to step in, in an effort to control the slippery slope of manipulating genetics? This control could lead to a society of complete predetermination and government intervention. This control could lead to a society of contentment and perfected needs and actions of people through intervention. As a whole, the regulation of genetic engineering proves to be a layered problem that needs tending to each layer. Because regulating is more difficult and more compound than natural cycles of life, consequences of eugenics are likely compound and difficult, as well.
Many sides of the eugenics issue must be looked at while forming an opinion about the issue. Regulation, cost, and disease and death all must be individually looked at. The natural cycle of life must also be known in detail, too. There is a reason for death and disease; it allows for the cycle of life to continue. Eugenics may be a temporary answer to illness; however, in the long run, there are many more potential problems that can arise. These potential problems could be far more threatening and harmful than illness and death. Genetic engineering may be a way to solve other such societal problems, but again, survival of the fittest and social Darwinism are the natural solution of society. Genetic engineering has the potential to create great solutions for society. The unnatural manipulation, though, gives rise to more potential harm than good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)