Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What is the importance of character development in literature
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the short story “The Man Who Evolved” written by Edmond Hamilton, a mad scientist Pollard evolves to human forms under concentrated cosmic rays. The passage is centrally important to the story, as it hints the potential horror scientists may endure if they do not follow scientific procedures responsibly. In the passage, Hamilton compares the results of the scientific research. Through this comparison, he communicates the overarching idea that even though scientific research on evolution may bring some beneficial effect to human beings, its ultimate result should be carefully considered, as in the story the research creates a mind twisted monster that wants to own the entire world.
Scientific research on evolution may bring beneficial effects, such as intellectual prowess in the story. Pollard is able to create a "yellow sheen of pure gold... in a moment, apparently, by a mixture of common compounds". Moreover, he "can destroy all life on this earth from this room... construct a telescope that will allow [him] to look on the planets of the
…show more content…
farthest galaxies...send [his] mind forth to make contact with other minds without the slightest material connection." All these wonderful feats are not possible with the current human capacities. Furthermore, these descriptions validate Pollard’s credibility as the most powerful man right now, giving support to his wild claim that he will own the entire world. Even though scientific research brought in valuable effects to people, it also turns Pollard into a monster, as described by Hamilton in Pollard’s physical appearance.
Pollard is depicted as something “grotesque”, which is an adjective that is used to describe something ugly and twisted. As he is dehumanizing Pollard by describing him as something grotesque, Hamilton is inviting horror in reader’s imagination of Pollard. These description of Pollard gives readers a sense of disgust and terror, as he is turned into a creature that has less semblance with his original forms. Furthermore, Hamilton uses specific wording to create an ominous tone, creating a feeling of risk in scientific research. He utilizes words including “destroy”, “own”, “rule”, grotesque”, and “perish” to infuse fear in his readers, as the words suggest the idea of destruction, enslavement, and ugliness, elements that people try to avoid in this
world. At last, the scientific research twisted Pollard’s mind, turning him from a scientist who wanted to benefit the humanity to a creature that wants to own it instead. He argues to his two friends, “I will not rule them, I will own them and this planet as you might own a farm and animals.” He becomes a dictator who denying his humanity and wants to deprive people of their freedom. This horrible image of enslavement warns its readers, scientific researchers, the importance of carefully considering possible outcomes of scientific researches on evolution. Scientists are dwelling into the world that is still unknown to the current society, so before they make any important decisions, such as evolving themselves into different human beings, they should consider all the risks and consequences. This passage is a warning sign that cautions its readers to be responsible for their choices. It also acts as a window that shows an extreme example of how a careless action can go wrong. Through the depiction of the transformation of Pollard, Hamilton shows the possible effects of a scientific research. Through this, he communicates the importance of considering outcomes before conducting researches on evolution. Scientific advancement may create bliss and accelerate the development. However, they may also create mind twisted monsters. After all, it may be best if we left the topic of evolution to go natural.
Before going to Alaska, Chris McCandless had failed to communicate with his family while on his journey; I believe this was Chris’s biggest mistake. Chris spent time with people in different parts of the nation while hitchhiking, most of them whom figured out that McCandless kept a part of him “hidden”. In chapter three, it was stated that Chris stayed with a man named Wayne Westerberg in South Dakota. Although Westerberg was not seen too often throughout the story, nevertheless he was an important character. Introducing himself as Alex, McCandless was in Westerberg’s company for quite some time: sometimes for a few days, other times for several weeks. Westerberg first realized the truth about Chris when he discovered his tax papers, which stated that “McCandless’s real name was Chris, not Alex.” Wayne further on claims that it was obvious that “something wasn’t right between him and his family” (Krakauer 18). Further in the book, Westerberg concluded with the fact that Chris had not spoken to his family “for all that time, treating them like dirt” (Krakauer 64). Westerberg concluded with the fact that during the time he spent with Chris, McCandless neither mentioned his
I think that Chris is a very motivated person. He knows what he wants and he is willing to do anything to get there. This quote describes when Gallien was trying to persuade Chris not to go through with his hitchhiking plan, “But he wouldn’t give an inch. He had an answer for everything I threw at him” (Krakauer 7). This quote shows the depth of his motivated character because of his unwillingness to change his mind. Additionally, I also think that Chris has a very optimistic character and outlook on life. Chris is not willing to totally accept the danger of what he is about to do because he is quick to hope for the best. Proof of this character trait can be found in the following quote, “‘I’m absolutely positive… I won’t run into anything I can’t deal with on my own’” (Krakauer 7).
Loewenberg, Bert J. "The Reaction of American Scientists to Darwinism." American Historical Review. 38 (1933): 687-701.
This perception results from a combination of personal experience and social integration. Kurtz argues that there are “two kinds of values within human experience [...] values rooted in unexamined feelings, faith, custom, or authority [...] and values that are influenced by cognition and informed by rational inquiry” (73). He reveals that one can base his values on either intangible beliefs, or on logical exploration, and suggests that the latter one is more correct. However, what is right or wrong is a matter of cultural interpretation, and what is wise today may not be wise tomorrow. Subsequently, it is the way we use scientific findings that matters more than what those findings actually are. In the cloning example, the only reason safety was considered an issue is because of the belief that we should not harm a human, given that we perceive our lives to be special. Even so, Galileo was persecuted and Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for suggesting that the earth goes round the sun and not vice versa. This is common knowledge now, having had our notions evolve with science, but it does not change the way the two of them, along with many others, were treated for going against the doctrine of their time. This proves that science does influence the way we factually look at things (eventually) but that we still use it according to our deeply rooted beliefs, creating divisions and tensions amongst our own
Dr. Michael Shermer is a Professor, Founder of skeptic magazine, and a distinguished and brilliant American science writer to say the least. In His book The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People he sets out to embark on the daunting task of convincing and informing the reader on sciences’ ability to drives the expansion of humanity and the growth of the moral sphere. Although such a broad and general topic could be hard to explain, Shermer does so in a way that is concise, easy to understand, and refreshing for the reader. This novel is riddled with scientific facts, data, and pictures to back up shermers claims about the history of science, humanity and how the two interact with one another.
I will demonstrate in this paper how Mary Shelley's Frankenstein confirms, and at the same time contradicts Darwin's ideas presented in "The Origin of the Species" and "The Decent of Man."
Darwin's theory of Evolution have been known by the world for many centuries. Even so, not all scientists supp...
You're in South Sudan with your uncle and some other people help you don’t know, you also you don’t know what to do and, there is a war going on also, there is a lot of madness going on in the country. Finally, you just don’t know what to do! That is what exactly happened to an 11 year old Dinka, and Dinka is a type of tribe in south Sudan called a Dinka and his name is Salva Dut. A Long Walk to Water by Linda Sue Park explains what happened to Salva on his journey all the way from South Sudan to America and the challenges he faced on his journey. Salva survives through his persistence, his luck, and his uncle.
Anyone with even a moderate background in science has heard of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. Since the publishing of his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859, Darwin’s ideas have been debated by everyone from scientists to theologians to ordinary lay-people. Today, though there is still severe opposition, evolution is regarded as fact by most of the scientific community and Darwin’s book remains one of the most influential ever written.
"Science, alrady oppressive with its schocking revelations, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species-if separate species we be-for its reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world."
Fictional writers often portray science in a negative light, feeding on the fears of the masses, exemplifying the worst possible outcomes. Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” suggests there is something monstrous about science, something to be feared. But is it ...
The average Joe is probably familiar with Michael Crichton’s work, whether they know it or not. Crichton’s titles include famous sci-fi classics like State of Fear, Andromeda Strain, and the timeless Jurassic Park. The breadth of these books is staggering with topics ranging from climate change to genetically resuscitated dinosaurs, but they have something in common. They all questioned facets of science that were previously thought to be invulnerable to criticism. Over his lifetime, this well-meant skepticism became a hallmark of Crichton’s work. In fact, Michael became a superstar in the world of science fiction by writing pieces that questioned the potential effects of, as well as the motivation behind, scientific progress.
In this article I shall try to dissuade the reader of the popular scientific theory of evolution, through use of scientifically sound facts and some philosophical arguments using the Vedas.
Have you ever had a character trait that is a hindrance to achieving your goal?An example
As everyone knows, the history of human evolution originated from more than five million years ago (Pickrell, 2006). Human is the most intellective living being on the Earth, even in the developed universe. With the development of human being, the beginning of human started to be discovered. This essay will focus on the evolution history of human being. It will explain three most significant time slices of human evolution.