Where is the hope?

With progress, whether it be technological, scientific, or literary, there comes changes. Social alterations, lifestyle changes, different communication styles, new governing bodies with new ideals. It is the prospect of these eventual changes that spurs many authors to write works of literature illustrating the potential for oppression, false happiness, and complete ignorance. Ray Bradbury wrote Fahrenheit 451, Ayn Rand wrote Anthem, Yevgeny Zamyatin wrote We, and most famously, Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World, and George Orwell wrote 1984. Every single one of these novels follows the same general format: oppressive government, unhappy main character, unhappy side character, act of rebellion, governmental attack of the perpetrator, and then it's up to the author whether or not the rebel fails or succeeds. Yet, despite the repetitive dystopia archetype, every single one of these novels has a different message, perhaps more accurately a warning. These novels are not meant to be something that the reader "reads and leaves." They are written to stay with you, as a little reminder of what could potentially happen if you allow yourself to be manipulated or distracted and lose sight of the importance of individuality and "freedom."

In the case of Aldous Huxley and George Orwell, both men created novels in which there is a present oppression, but entirely different factors are maintaining the oppression. As stated by the author of the essay "Conclusion: The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984", "Huxley makes the point that terror is less efficient than pleasure; the stick is less guarantee of stability than the carrot"(120). Orwell, unlike Huxley, designed a society in which fear and pain keep the citizens of Oceania from outwardly disobeying the rules of Big Brother. Huxley focused more on the "carrot," the pleasure aspect of humanity, and how we gravitate toward things that make us feel good. Although both governments are "stable," in A.F. 632 the government is more stable in that it is created and dictated by the people according to their wants and conditioning, while 1984 is based upon the manipulation of the people to make them believe Big Brother is the supreme power in their lives. In both stories there is a cautionary note, a warning that if we continue to move forward as we are, toward new technologies and more than likely war, we have to be even more aware of the happenings in the world, and more diligent in our attempts to remain individuals who are part of a democracy.

Reading both 1984 and Brave New World, either situation has potential in our current society, and if one were to look closely, may already be happening. Pain and pleasure already dictate what we do or do not act upon in life. We are governed by our own materialist desires, our avoidance of pain, and our "need" for revenge upon those who wrong us. We get the latest and greatest computers, phones, cars, 3-in-1 appliances. We go to war with nations based upon suspicions and anger. We fear the government keeping tabs on our lives through our emails and phone conversations through the Patriot Act. We watch news stations that only tell half the truth and are guilty of rampant doublespeak. And yet we say we are educated, generous, individual, safe people. If we are not careful, we will turn into a 1984- Brave New World combination. It says in the essay "A.F. 632 and 1984", that"Both have obliterated the past and have destroyed all books that might bear witness to it, though in Huxley's world state the past has officially ceased to be recognized at all, whereas in Nineteen Eighty-Four the past still survives, though not necessarily the past as it actually occurred"(123-124). As a nation, as a collective humanity, we need to fight against the manipulation that occurs everyday in our lives, we need to be aware of what occurs around us, and we need to make sure that we remain individuals with the knowledge that we need to maintain the limitations placed upon our governments.

We cannot allow ourselves to be manipulated and altered in the ways that every dystopia novel abuses its humanity. these novels were written to open our eyes to the situations that happen everyday in our world, but that we may be too preoccupied or ignorant to acknowledge. Huxley and Orwell have both written novels that should prepare us to fight against situations such as those posed in their novels. Both works are fairly hopeless, yet, with that hopelessness, perhaps we will be more inclined to fight, to find that happy ending that we crave so deeply. Otherwise, "if and when we actually do enter those new and terrible worlds, it will at least be with our eyes open"(128). What is so fearful and hopeless in these novels is the basic knowledge that we allowed these societies to occur, and brought that oppression and ignorance upon ourselves.

Environment

Of the many things that I am passionate about in life, protection and conservation of the environment is one of the most important to me. Some call me a tree hugger, others call me a hippie, and some simply scoff and mutter "what a liberal." Yet I absolutely refuse to back down to their arrogant, or perhaps more accurately, ignorant, stares, and their pathetic name-calling. I find it ridiculous that educated, in many cases well-educated people, turn to me and laughingly comment: "Who cares about the environment? We're going to be dead before anything major happens anyway." With that attitude, the world's going to be unlivable even sooner than scientists are predicting. The polar ice caps are melting, the weather patterns have become sporadic, the dumps are filling in, fresh water is a joke, and the rain forest is being destroyed daily. The scoffers should just wait. They may be privy to extreme climate changes and natural disasters if they do not change their thinking. I do think that, although the damage has already been done, people need to realize that if we were to work to stop further injury to the environment, we need to work together to lessen our impact. I want to know that my great-grandchildren, even my grandchildren, will be able to experience the countryside that I have grown up in, not as a piece of parkland, but as a natural, untouched and original piece of land. People do not seem to realize that instances such as massive hurricanes and tsunamis, and earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, these are all messages from the earth, telling us to take it easy on her. If we don't respect the world around us, we can't really expect it to be nice back. Yet what's the average American's solution to this? "We need more oil, let's dig up Alaska," or "Let's research the potential for life on another planet in our solar system." If a person were to pay attention to statistics, it has been shown numerous times that our oil supply is going to run out, and if there is not more research conducted we will be without an energy source because of our reliance on fossil fuels. Also, Alaska is one of the few pristine, near untouched pieces of wilderness left in North America. To mar that landscape with a pipeline is taking away that last piece of nature that land-hungry Americans have left. And then the idea of one day living on Mars: in order to survive on Mars, we need to pollute it. We need to emit greenhouse gases, and essentially begin a process on that planet that could be just as destructive as what we are doing to our current planet Earth. where's the common sense there? Sometimes I just do not understand how readily people turn to the seemingly easiest solution to a problem, without first exploring the impact of that solution.
To preserve the environment is to assist the future, to make sure that future generations have someplace to live that is clean and safe. If we, not just a few individuals, but humankind, starts the process of cleaning up and protecting the world around us, there is a much greater chance that our families will still be able to live on Earth without fear of pollutants and other environmental factors. There is no easy way out, but some do not seem to realize that. More research needs to be done on alternate fuel sources, more environmentally friendly house and building construction, and new technology for things that tend to be difficult to biodegrade. Without knowledge and awareness, we may as well just accept our deaths now, because the environment will have been destroyed by the time our offspring reach maturity anyway. More action needs to be taken, and the name-calling and dismissing tones need to cease, because one day they will regret never trying to make a difference in their world situation.

Genetic Engineering

In our modern society, science has become the main tool in addressing the problems of the world. Science is being used to stop global warming, develop special plants to feed third world countries, and it is being used in the prevention and treatment of diseases. However, questions arise when science is used in the manipulation of human chromosomes to develop the ideal child, following a grocery list of desirable traits. As valuable as this genetic engineering is in avoiding certain genetic disorders, a line of morality is crossed when alterations are made in gene codes that will influence character traits and other pieces of individuality.

For parents of children with genetic disorders such as cystic fibrosis or Downs syndrome, genetic engineering could mean the end to their child's suffering, or even preventing that suffering. All that these parents ask for is the use of gene therapy to see if their children or potential children can be rid of the disorders that have affected, or may affect them, them from birth. the predisposition for cancer can also be eliminated through the use of genetics, saving daughters the possible inheritance of a breast cancer gene. when used in the name of medicine, genetic engineering is a very valuable tool, because it can prevent issues during recombination of the cells of the embryo, or the duplication of genes on specific chromosomes. With this technology, parents would no longer have to worry about these types of lifelong genetic ailments and it would save them the emotional pain of watching their child struggle through a life of medical issues. For example, in Brave New World, certain diseases are prevented through the early insertion of good gene sequences to avoid the occurrence of genetic disorders. It is through genetics that the genetic diseases that we know of today could be eliminated, and the ailments that we experienced would simply be bacterial ones such as the common cold or the flu.

It is when parents who ask geneticists to design an embryo for them that has all the traits that they request that things get difficult. The coding for a child with the desired traits, such as blond hair and blue eyes, with an athletic build and an outgoing personality, removes the connection between parent and child. These traits, if being requested, are probably not traits that the "parents" have themselves. There will be no saying "Oh my goodness, you do have your mother's eyes don't you?" or "You are just as stubborn as your father." This elimination of inherited connection leaves the parents with something more to be desired. As perfect as the child may be in their eyes, in a sense it is not truly their own child, it is more like an adoption of some other person's child. And what happens when the geneticists mess up, and the child that results is not what the parents ordered? Do they send it back? Where could they send it back to? It leaves a child without a home, and without true parents because it is not what its parental programmers requested. Also, if we think that right now there are major bragging competitions between parents about their children, imagine what will happen when everyone is trying to one-up everyone else by designing the best child. Then where is the individuality and naturalness of that child. They're not even a product of their parent's genetics at that point, and they have no real point in being created other than to be used as a tool for social status. Parents can say "I made my daughter/son just like this so that they would be the best baseball player since Babe Ruth." Where is the morality in that, is what I ask.

As a society, if we are to utilize the science of genetic engineering, we must place some controls on the industry. The use in medical technology is acceptable if it is simply preventing potentially harmful or life threatening disorders, because it allows the child to live a well-rounded, healthy life. The use of genetics to program a child is a major problem though, because it allows for parents to pick and choose traits and create a child that is unnatural, superb in certain areas, and apparently free from flaw. The creation of a race of "perfect" children could be on the horizon if genetic engineering is not controlled, and the abuse of that technology is very likely. Parents should be able to take the child that they receive naturally, and be completely happy with that child because it is designed just the way nature intended it to be characteristically.


I am sorry that my post is late, my electric was going on and off all yesterday afternoon and evening because of the wind, and my parents didn't want the computer to have a power surge happen. I think I could venture to say they're a bit paranoid about the computer being french-fried....