One can almost feel the searing penetration of Lewis Thomas’ analytical eye as it descends the narrow barrel of the microscope and explodes onto a scene of vigorous, animated, interactive little cells—cells inescapably engrossed in relaying messages to one another with every bump and bounce; with every brush of the elbow, lick of the stamp, and click of the mouse…
Woven throughout Thomas’ The Lives of a Cell: Notes of a Biology Watcher is a desire to link scientific phenomena with social behavior—to peruse the symbiotic relationship that we, as humans, are incapable or perhaps unwilling, to contemplate. Thomas’s ridicule of what he has identified as being a sort of human superiority complex is the needle—the mechanism—by which he is able to stitch together these two seemingly divided realms. He has sensed our inherent fear of “touch” and all that it embodies, simultaneously criticizing and enlightening us about our irrational, bizarre attitude towards the natural world. Our repudiation of “the inhuman” and our craving for control, according to Thomas, “[say] something about our century, our attitude toward life, our obsession with disease and death, our human chauvinism” (“Thoughts” 7).
Thomas’s self-appointed title of “biology watcher” seems, on the surface, unfitting for a man whose understanding of cellular interaction is so intimate. He is able to confer with nature and develop a profound connection with it; essentially, he is able to “touch” it. But the sense of touch, in Thomas’s mind, is not separate from the faculties of vision, hearing, smelling, or tasting; it encompasses all of them. The “watcher,” or for that matter, the “listener” or “taster,” is capable of becoming wholly immersed in his subject, no restrictions limiting the extent of his observations. It is for this reason that Thomas can expound the workings of an ant colony and delve beyond what is visible to the eye; he is capable of connecting with that colony on a variety of levels, part of a relationship that serves to inform and “edit” conceptions he holds about the workings of the human world.
This idea of “editing” resonates throughout Thomas’s works, Thomas indirectly employing the term as a means of expressing how we should view our affiliation with the earth. “When the earth came alive it began constructing its own membrane, for the general purpose of editing the sun,” he suggests in “The World’s Biggest Membrane.” “The earth has the organized, self-contained look of a live creature, full of information, marvelously skilled in handling the sun” (145).
In “Life of a Cell,” the author uses rhetoric and figurtic language to reassure peoples fear of disease and to assure them the bodies system is fully capable to attacking anything that would be an issue or illness to itself. He writes about the fear of germs and bacteria; the ineveitibility of germs attacking a cell system. He writes about the many preventions and precautions others take to avoid diseases which metaphorically they “come after them for profit.” Thomas writes this in less scienfitic terms that an average person could comprehend and be assured that their fears are irritaonal to an extent. By using metaphors, similes, personification, and imagery, the reader is reassured that the human body is fully capable of handling diseases.
Our awareness, our perception within nature, as Thomas states, is the contrast that segregates us from our symbols. It is the quality that separates us from our reflections, from the values and expectations that society has oppressed against itself. However, our illusions and hallucinations of nature are merely artifacts of our anthropocentric idealism. Thomas, in “Natural Man,” criticizes society for its flawed value-thinking, advocating how it “[is merely] a part of a system . . . [and] we are, in this view, neither owners nor operators; at best, [are] motile tissues specialized for receiving information” (56). We “spread like a new growth . . . touching and affecting every other kind of life, incorporating ourselves,” destroying the nature we coexist with, “[eutrophizing] the earth” (57). However, Thomas questions if “we are the invaded ones, the subjugated, [the] used?” (57). Due to our anthropocentric idealism, our illusions and hallucinations of nature, we forget that we, as organisms, are microscopically inexistent. To Thomas, “we are not made up, as we had always supposed, of successively enriched packets of our own parts,” but rather “we are shared, rented, occupied [as] the interior of our cells, driving them, providing the oxidative energy that sends us out for the improvement of each shining day, are the mitochondria” (1).
What is the equivalent to Hell on Earth? Lewis Thomas, a 1970’s biologist and physician, addresses this question in his essay On Cloning A Human Being. For Thomas, the answer is simply the result of trying to create a beneficial system of human cloning. Throughout his essay, Thomas explains in order to create a successful version of immortality, one would not only have to create a genetically identical specimen but also create an identical environment for that individual in order for them to advance and progress their predecessor’s works. By the means of rhetorical strategy, Thomas is able to efficiently affect the reader and successfully argue an alternative approach to human cloning.
He goes on to describe how this common ancestry means that we still have a lot in common with everything on this planet. Thomas says that "we still share genes around, and the resemblance of the enzymes of grasses to those of whales is a family resemblance" (3). Thomas relates to the reader that he has been trying to conceive of the earth itself as a type of organism, "but it is no go" (4). The earth is just too big, too complex for such an analogy. But then it came to him. The earth is most like a single cell (4).
The Civil War had many firsts: it was the first war in which machine guns were fired, enemies could aim their rifles with telescopic sites, they laid land lines, and they even spied on their enemies in hot air balloons. Improvements in the weapons changed the strategies of the sides and the number of casualties went way up. The newest rifles had spinning bullets which could make them go farther, could be aimed more accurately, and were even more deadly. And rifles that used minie` balls were even better. Minie` balls were bullets with hollow bases that expands upon firing.
Many people assume that science is persistently correct in numerous ways because of its research and innovation provided in today’s society. However, in the stories The Harvest and Going written by Amy Hempel, the author compares the distraught characters to scorpion like tendencies to attest that humans resemble animals, unreasonably more than science text books have lead us to believe. Conversely, it has become common today to dismiss this argument due to Hempel’s intricate writing style.
Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this concern is still subject to much disagreement. The political, cultural and philosophical animal liberation movement demands for a fundamental transformation of humans’ present relations to all sentient animals. They reject the idea that animals are merely human resources, and instead claim that they have value and worth in themselves. Animals are used, among other things, in basic biomedical research whose purpose is to increase knowledge about the basic processes of human anatomy. The fundamental wrong with this type of research is that it allows humans to see animals as here for them, to be surgically manipulated and exploited for money. The use of animals as subjects in biomedical research brings forth two main underlying ethical issues: firstly, the imposition of avoidable suffering on creatures capable of both sensation and consciousness, and secondly the uncertainty pertaining to the notion of animal rights.
The Civil War was a bad experience for the country, but there were many improvements in weaponry during this era. Some improvements like the Henry rifle was one of the first lever action breech loading rifles. This allowed quicker reloading of the gun. Other than the Henry rifle, soldiers started using pre loaded brass shells which were also a big improvement compared to hand reloading like with the musket. Not only were guns being improved, they also made upgrades in cannons and not so much in bayonets. Because of the use of all these new weapons, the war was much bloodier than previous wars.
In this novel, Shelley focuses on the debate between scientific discoveries, religion and the moral ethics of how far man should pursue his desire for knowledge, which reflects the society of the 19th century’s concern of where the scientific advancements were going similarly to the present day debate on whether stem cell research is valid.
Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” is more than just a regular novel. It is a book that conveys a deep philosophical message. The novel moved me to my very soul. It turned out to be a book not about an encounter against a monster but a misfortune of a scientist, who reached the goal of his work and life and realized that breathless horror and disgust filled his heart but all of these is on the surface. The inmost philosophical thought is covered and hidden, but is very profound. The author tries to say that life is a gift. After this gift is given no one can take it away and it transforms the accountability of the creator. The novel makes the reader anxious with the question: “Is a human being able to take obligation to provide life?”
In today’s world of genetically engineered hearts and genetically altered glowing rats, the story of Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, seems as if it could be seen in the newspapers in our near future. The discoveries seen in modern science, as well as in the novel, often have controversy and negative consequences that follow them, the biggest of which being the responsibility the creator of life has to what has been created. Victor Frankenstein suffers from a variety of internal and external conflicts stemming from the creation of his monster, which in return also experiences similar problems. Shelley uses these tumultuous issues to portray the discrepancies between right and wrong, particularly through romanticism and the knowledge of science.
It is hard to say that one is human and perfect at the same time. Human beings are not capable of achieving perfection; if that would be so, humans would stop being humans. By nature the human race is full of flaws, some appearing as early as in the womb. From defects in the body, to defects in the mind, to the mistakes that one makes in quotidian life, it is impossible to deny that human imperfection exists. To try to manipulate humans into perfection is not only impossible, but it takes away the very essence of being a human being. The short story “The Birthmark” by Nathaniel Hawthorn, illustrates this teaching through the character of Aylmer, an ambitious and devoted scientist who is appalled by his wife Georgiana’s birthmark, believing it to be a perceivable sign of her human flaws and eagerly waits to remove it from her cheek. This story raises riveting questions such as, what is humanity all about, can human beings ever achieve perfection through science, is Hawthorn attacking science or a wider issue, and more significantly, should science take the place of God. Through the use of symbolism in “The Birthmark”, Hawthorn indirectly implies that imperfection is an essential part of being human and that science should not interfere; thus he is hinting his personal views toward science and its limitations over nature.
The story’s tone is one of romantic controversy, a dilemma at a high level of existence. The scientist’s love for his craft competes very intensively with his newfound love for his wife. It is also very psychological, strictly dealing with the raw mind of its subjects as if the ominous narrator told the story from inside their mind, rather than observe it from the outside. He describes the processes that one may take to reach a certain degree of knowledge and to find the elixir of life, which is described in this story as the ultimate goal of the scientific community. Also, the narrator is very opinionated about events in the story.
This paper will concentrate on the definition of human nature, the controversy of morality and science, the limits to scientific inquiry, and how this novel ties in with today’s world. Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein expresses human nature specifically through the character of the “Creature” and its development. The Creature has an opportunity to explore his surroundings, and in doing so he learns that human nature is to run away from something so catastrophic in looks. The Creature discovers that he must limit himself in what he does due to the response of humans because of his deformities. I feel that Mary Shelley tries to depict human nature as running away from the abnormal, which results in alienation of the “abnormal.”
Over the past few decades gun control has come to the fore front of debate in politics and the mass media. It's no wonder that in the wake of the recent school shootings and attacks on churches that people are beginning to fear guns. People are beginning to see guns as an object of death and destruction and not as what they are meant to be. While guns are used in war they are not intended to kill innocent people, guns are intended to be used by experienced gun handlers for protection and hunting. When used properly a gun is no more dangerous than a car or a knife, all of these can be used in crime but none of them are intended to be.