Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of knowledge to human beings
Negative consequences of using genetically modified organism
Negative consequences of using genetically modified organism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Importance of knowledge to human beings
We live in a world that is blessed with people who crave knowledge and use it to advance the human race by finding new ways to solve problems that have existed for eternity. This is a necessary and inherently good characteristic to have within the world’s population because without a desire for knowledge, humanity could never increase its quality of life and therefore would theoretically be stuck in a cycle of mediocrity. One downside of humanity’s desire for knowledge is that it can sometimes lead to scientific and technological advancements that have the potential to harm not only the human race, but also the world in which we live. Mary Shelley’s early 19th century novel, Frankenstein, examines the danger of obsessing over advancing science …show more content…
Genetic engineering can improve the overall health of the human population by eliminating diseases such as HIV, hypercholesterolemia, sickle-cell anemia, hemophilia, and even forms of genetic blindness. Genetic engineering can also be used to affect many other non-health related traits such as prevent baldness, improve one’s height, or change the size of one’s nose. This is accomplished by changing the genetic code in babies before they are born. Most people are in favor of using this technology to prevent illnesses in babies, but question the advantages of using it to alter the physical appearance of children. To some people, the concept of “designing babies” is a wonderful way to ensure their children are products of their exact liking; others find it to be invasive of human nature. Some scientists think the applications of genetically modifying babies could be slightly dangerous, but feel that “environmental uses are more worrisome than a few modified people” (Regalado2). The real issue at stake however is when the dynamics of families across the world are so drastically perversed, society as a whole will suffer (Regalado2?). With the lack of regulations on genetic engineering, people are basically free to entirely create their children however they like. Most people find similar qualities of children to be desirable, so genetically modified people will lack less desirable and unique qualities, which will inevitably lead to a less diverse human race. By deciding for ourselves how we want our children to look, we are essentially playing the role of God and are stripping nature of its right to create pure, naturally evolved life. Not only does designing children interfere with nature, but it also undermines the relationship between parents and their children “by increasing the power of parents to control the biological properties of their offspring” (Foht).
In the world today there is a drive to evolve and improve life through science and its findings. When looking at the good of a society, the people have to decide when the line between right and wrong is drawn. In the novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, she proves that the possession of knowledge can lead to destructive forces through Victor Frankenstein’s monster’s journey. The events that lead to Victor’s monster’s destructive path is when he comes into contact with the cottagers, he murders Victor’s brother, and runs away after destroying Victor’s life.
However, with genetic engineering this miracle of like is taken and reduced to petty “character creation” picking and choosing what someone else thinks should “make them special”. An unborn child that undergoes genetic treatments in this fashion is known as a designer baby (“Should Parents Be Permitted to Select the Gender of Their Children?”). By picking and choosing the traits of a child these designer babies bear similarities to abortion, choosing to get rid of the original child in favor of a “better” one. It is also unfair to deprive a child of their own life. By removing the element of chance and imputing their own preferences, children become treated more as an extension of their parents than as living beings with their own unique life. Parents could redirect a child’s entire life by imposing their wishes before they are even born, choosing a cookie cutter tall, athletic boy over a girl with her own individual traits, or any other choice that would redirect a child’s
To choose for their children, the world’s wealthy class will soon have options such as tall, pretty, athletic, intelligent, blue eyes, and blonde hair. Occasionally referred to as similar to “the eugenics of Hitler’s Third Reich” (“Designer Babies” n.p.), the new genetics technology is causing differences in people’s opinions, despite altering DNA before implantation is “just around the corner.” (Thadani n.p.). A recent advance in genetically altering embryos coined “designer babies” produces controversy about the morality of this process.
In Shelley's Frankenstein, it's interesting to use the text to ask the question, whose interest's lie at the heart of science? Why is Victor Frankenstein motivated to plunge the questions that bringing life to inanimate matter can bring? Victor Frankenstein's life was destroyed because of an obsession with the power to create life where none had been before. The monster he created could be seen as a representation of all those who are wronged in the selfish name of science. We can use Shelley's book to draw parallels in our modern society, and show that there is a danger in the impersonal relationship that science creates between the scientist and his work. It seems to me that Shelley was saying that when science is done merely on the basis of discovery without thought to the affect that the experimentation can have, we risk endangering everything we hold dear.
What do one think of when they hear the words “Designer Babies”? A couple designing their own baby of course, and it’s become just that. Technology has made it possible for there to be a way for doctors to modify a babies characteristics and its health. Genetically altering human embryos is morally wrong, and can cause a disservice to the parents and the child its effecting.
... Science is not inherently evil and never will become evil. Though the knowledge gained from science can be used toward producing evil, intended or not, and can be dangerous. The story of Victor Frankenstein shows the irresponsibility possible in the advancement of science and furthers the caution which humanity must take when it attempts to master its environment or itself.
In the gothic novel Frankenstein, humans have a bottomless, motivating, but often dangerous thirst for knowledge. This idea was clearly illustrated throughout the novel by Mary Shelley. The three main characters in the novel shared the thirst for knowledge that later led to their downfall. In the novel, knowledge is a huge theme that led to atrocious life for anyone that tried to gain it. Knowledge is hazardous; therefore, I support Dr. Frankenstein’s warning about knowledge being dangerous and that knowledge shouldn’t be gained.
Albert Einstein once said, “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”. So is a lot.” Einstein believes that there is a point where the acquisition of knowledge becomes dangerous for humans. Mary Shelley extensively explores the effect dangerous knowledge has on the characters in her book Frankenstein. Throughout the book, Frankenstein and the creature are corrupted by knowledge that changes their outlook on life.
Mary Shelley’s Sci-Fi horror known as Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus has become a classic novel in history. This dark tale touches on every subject of humanity. One of Shelley’s biggest themes is a big question in the science world we live in, nearly 200 years after publication of the book. That question being can science go too far, is there a line that shouldn’t be crossed? Shelley uses the plot of her story to serve as a warning to readers to be careful when dealing with this imaginary line. Shelley’s tale of a mad scientist and the repercussions he suffers from his experiment is a timeless story. As technology is being pushed to the brink of morality in the modern day, this question has become a huge part of the modern world of science we are living in.
Imagine a parent walking into what looks like a conference room. A sheet of paper waits on a table with numerous questions many people wish they had control over. Options such as hair color, skin color, personality traits and other physical appearances are mapped out across the page. When the questions are filled out, a baby appears as he or she was described moments before. The baby is the picture of health, and looks perfect in every way. This scenario seems only to exist in a dream, however, the option to design a child has already become a reality in the near future. Parents may approach a similar scenario every day in the future as if choosing a child’s characteristics were a normal way of life. The use of genetic engineering should not give parents the choice to design their child because of the act of humans belittling and “playing” God, the ethics involved in interfering with human lives, and the dangers of manipulating human genes.
The most obvious and well-known theory of the story of Frankenstein is that of a warning to the dangers of science: “ Mary Shelley’s implicit warning against possible dangers inherent in the technological developments of modern science” (Mellor, 1988:114). Shelley was very interested in ...
“It 's not easy as “I want to buy and egg,” states, the director of the Donor Egg Bank, Brigid Dowd. “Not everyone realizes what 's involved, and then when they hear the cost, many just pass out.” (CGS: Designing the $100,000 Baby,” par. 13) It is a fact that having certain traits are valuable, so this shows that the mere modification used on the designer baby, the more the cost. “If you are too rigid or become too obsessed with finding the perfect image you have in mind, the choice can become more difficult,” says Dowd. (“CGS: Designing the $100,000 Baby,”par. 16) The practice of human genetic modification will not be fair because only the wealthy will have enough money to spend on designing a baby. Therefore, the wealthy will have much more advantages such as longer, healthier, and successful lives. If only people of high class are able to afford designer babies, it will cause an even greater inequality between the rich and the poor (“The Ethics of Designer Babies”). It will also create a society based on “Social Darwinism”- The survival of the fittest. If creating designer babies will cause more inequalities and Social Darwinism, why should we allow this practice? (“The ethics of Designer Babies”)
Children and babies today hold the future. They control what the world’s future will be like and even how their future offspring will be. Many believe that designer babies have the power to change the future and develop a new world filled with “perfect humans.” “With so little control over the situation, most expectant parents say they don’t care what their baby looks like, ‘as long as it’s healthy.’ But secretly, they often have a dream baby in mind” (Bliss, 2012, p. 5). Parents can all agree that if their child is in a healthy condition, they are happy and thankful; however, every parent is guilty of wanting a child a certain way. If a parent could alter a child to be completely healthy with no diseases or ailments, have the perfect features and have the perfect personality, any parent would go beyond any limit to fulfill this. Designer babies are believed to have the possibility to complete this; however, the assertio...
In the book, Frankenstein, Mary Shelley does not view science as a horrible doom to society. Science is a human’s effort to understand and apply the natural phenomena and elements around the world. It helps humans solve problems and make their lives easier. Today, people’s lives rely on technology. People no longer have to travel several miles on foot, talk to someone face to face or shop at the shopping mall. Technology has become a lifestyle and people are consumed by them. However, science seems to have a negative connotation and is believed to be evil. Mary Shelley points out in her book that science itself is not evil but it’s due to the way society uses the product of science or technology. Such as Dynamites, which were created for removing
Many debilitating and severe unwanted diseases, genetic disorders and disabilities can be avoided through the creation of designer babies. A child's quality of life would be drastically increased if they evade Down Syndrome, deformities or heart disease for example. In a sense, it isn’t all that different to hearing aid, medication for an illness or chemotherapy for cancer, but on a larger scale and earlier in someone’s life, before it even really begins in fact. Some people would argue that changing genes is changing who people are, which they view as ‘wrong’, but genes aren’t exactly the only things that make up a person anyway. The way that they grow up and their surroundings also make people...