Bring back extinct creatures, or leave them to a long time vanished world. Well, two authors faced the topic, and I believe the author arguing against it is the most persuasive and supported because of how they introduce and bring readers into the topic, give credible and relevant evidence, and analyze it really well.
First of all, the Counterpoint is more persuasive has an exceptional introduction. They first used a hook by describing the novel Frankenstein to get the readers interested in their argument. The author opens up by using the plot, "A scientist cobbles together a creature from old body parts and brings it to life" (Counterpoint para 8). This grabs the readers' attention and makes them want to continue, wondering what the introduction
…show more content…
Make-believe can become reality, thanks to research on de-extinction. De-extinction is immoral, unethical, and dangerous. It should not be pursued" (Counterpoint para 8). The author uses the explanation of their hook to lead straight into their claim on de-extinction. It works well and is smoothly integrated, giving it credibility and persuasiveness, because it connects to the Frankenstein story. Along with the introduction to their essay, the start of each paragraph works really well, too. They open up the first paragraph by saying, To start, it is unethical for humans to mess with Mother Nature because, as the story of Frankenstein illustrates, we have no idea what havoc we might cause in doing so" (Counterpoint para 9). The author easily integrates the point they are trying to make by still including parts of their beginning, …show more content…
They do this several times, one of them being when they summarized Conservationist Rory Yong, who was interviewed by the Huffington Post, when the author declared, "[Rory Young] is “absolutely convinced” that African elephants could be extinct in less than a decade if they are not protected. Using them to incubate woolly mammoths hardly qualifies as protection—it is not ethical to harm one species to bring back another" (Counterpoint para 11). The author clearly uses evidence from a conservationist to back up their claim by using people in the scientific and conservational communities to support their arguments. The author also included dinosaur expert, Bob Strauss's opinion as he writes in “De-Extinction -The Resurrection of Extinct Animals,” “De-extinction is a PR gimmick that detracts from real environmental issues .What is the point of resurrecting the Gastric-Brooding Frog when hundreds of amphibian species are on the brink of succumbing to global warming? A successful de-extinction effort may give people the false, and dangerous, impression that scientists have ‘solved’ all of our environmental problems" (Counterclaim para 12). Overall, the author has evidence from a variety of different and credible resources that does very good job of supporting their
In Volume 1 and 3 of Frankenstein, Victor’s reason for creating the “monster” changes drastically; however, ultimately leading to the same consequence of suffering and depression. Through this change in Victor, Shelley argues that all humans have an instinctive notation of right from wrong and learn from their mistakes. Victor left his friends and family to go to college; when there, he had no friends and social life. His top and only priority was his schoolwork; he read all he can about the sciences, especially chemistry and anatomy. When finished with his studies, Victor is ready to start his creation when he confirms his proceedings aloud, “Winter, spring, and summer, passed away during my labours; but I did not watch the blossom or the expanding leaves-sights which before always yielded me supreme delight, so deeply was I engrossed in my occupation. The leaves of that year had withered before my work drew near to a close; and now every day shewed me more plainly how well I had succeeded.
In Frankenstein, Mary Shelley indicts man for his determination to master nature, suggesting that human arrogance will inevitably result in destruction and death. Using rich imagery, permeating symbolism, and consistent foreshadowing, Shelley has written a cautionary tale of man’s collision with the natural world that eradicates beauty and corrupts the human spirit.
Frankenstein is a horror movie that tells the story of Dr. Henry Frankenstein’s experiment. In search for the fame and glory of playing to be god, he reaches a point where he is able to revive dead people. In this version of Frankenstein’s monster we see a selfish and careless scientist that created a creature with his intelligence. The way the character is shown reflects how ambitious someone can be to reach to be known in the world. This movie makes the people who are watching to feel empathy on the poor creature. This poor creature that did not want to live in a life where everyone is going to hate him for having a horrible aspect and not following rules that he has no idea about.
Relevancy of Frankenstein “The most miserable people are those who care only about themselves, understand only their own troubles and see only their own perspective.” This quote from an unknown source perfectly describes how selfish people are not always happy and they are not helping anyone except themselves. Victor Frankenstein shows many qualities that he is a very selfish person, and Frankenstein has been relevant for almost 200 years, but why? One of the major reasons is that we can learn from and understand that Victor Frankenstein was selfish and only cared about what he thought was right.
In 1818 the novel ‘Frankenstein’ was written by Mary Shelley. Shelley wrote the novel after having a dream about bringing one of her children back to life using Galvanism (which was discovered around the time of her writing.) The novel was controversial at the time because a lot of people in those days were religious and the novel is about a man creating life as if he is God. Is the monster innocent? Or does he represent the evil that lies within us all? Is he a representation of Shelley’s own childbirth experiences? Is the monster Rousseau’s ‘Noble Savage’? Whatever the monster symbolises he has a massive impact upon the readers of the novel.
Dr. Victor Frankenstein and the Creature seem different from each other throughout the whole story, however, they actually share many similarities when the story is looked at deeper. Both the Creature and Frankenstein share a connection with nature, a desire for more knowledge, a need for family, and experiences in isolation.
Both characters from the novels Prometheus and Victor Frankenstein were similar because they were both intelligent. Victor loved science, he sued to go on journeys to seek more information about life and death, because at home he had nobody to teach him.” My father was not scientific, and I was left to struggle with a child's blindness, added to a student's thirst for knowledge. (Victor Frankenstein quotes on education). And he even studied abroad to see more knowledge on his favorite subject. This created major conflicts with his professor at the university but also admiration among professors and peers.
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.
James Whale's Frankenstein is a VERY loose adaptation of Mary Shelley's 1818 novel. The spirit of the film is preserved in its most basic sense, but the vast majority of the story has been entirely left out, which is unfortunate. The monster, for example, who possesses tremendous intellect in the novel and who goes on an epic quest seeking acceptance into the world in which he was created, has been reduced to little more than a lumbering klutz whose communication is limited to unearthly shrieks and grunts. Boris Karloff was understandably branded with the performance after the film was released, because it was undeniably a spectacular performance, but the monster's character was severely diminished from the novel.
In the novel Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, the main theme of the story was isolation. Both internal and external consequences were the cause of being isolated from society. Frankenstein began to feel depressed after the creation of the monster and decided to isolate himself from his friends and family. Frankenstein kept his creation a secret from everyone because he was afraid of the consequences. Ironically, Frankenstein was the main problem for all of his sufferings. He thought that he could keep everyone safe if he were to not tell them about the monster, however, everyone died because he wanted to keep everyone from the truth. The creature also suffered many consequences from being isolated. He wanted to be part of a family, and feel
As time goes on, many things tend to change, and then they begin to inherit completely different images. Over the years, the character, created by Dr. Victor Frankenstein in Mary Shelley’s famous novel, has changed dramatically. The monster, regularly called “Frankenstein,” has been featured in numerous films, such as Frankenweenie and Edward Scissorhands. Although, the characters in today’s pop culture and the monster in the well-known 1800’s novel have similarities, they are actually very different. The many similarities and differences range from the character’s physical traits and psychological traits, the character’s persona, and the character’s place in the Gothic style.
In Mary Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein, many similarities can be seen between the creature and his creator, Victor Frankenstein. While Victor and the creature are similar, there are a few binary oppositions throughout the book that make them different. The binary oppositions in the novel serve as thematic contrast; and some of the most illustrative oppositions between the two characters are on the focus of family, parenthood, isolation and association with others.
It seems that society feels bad for the damage that has been inflicted on the planet, but it is not possible to reverse it. Overall, the outcome of de-extinction is way more damaging than helpful to the environment, and animals, therefore it should not be done at
Mary Shelley in her book Frankenstein addresses numerous themes relevant to the current trends in society during that period. However, the novel has received criticism from numerous authors. This paper discusses Walter Scott’s critical analysis of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein in his Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine Review of Frankenstein (1818).
As humans pollute the Earth on a daily basis, some want to de-extinct animals—bringing back animals through scientific processes—however, results of this would be unpredictable and costly. De-extinction has many pros and cons. For instance, de-extinction is beneficial because it lets us study more about how those animals lived and, in a way, be payback for our reckless and unthoughtful actions back then. Yet, it can be consequential because the process costs much more than current attempts to protect endangered species, and there is no assurance that the process will have a positive outcome.