"If you loved someone, you loved him, and when you had nothing else to give, you still gave him love." -Page 164 in 1984 by George Orwell
If ever I had to indebt my entire self, my entire being, to defend a certain cause, it would have to be a cause towards protecting everyone's individuality. To have a unique personality, which we all have the potential to hold, is something that is very precious. It is what separates your best-friend from a complete stranger, your teacher from your employer, your lover from your worst enemy. Individuality gives us all a reason to live the diverse lives we were put here to fulfill. If there was ever someone to jeopardize the individuality we all own, we would not just be facing personal attacks; we would be facing a war against our family, our friends, our acquaintances, our own strangers. All of your loved ones and all of the people you can potentially love one day would face a battle of conformity against rarity. Upholding everyone's intimate character is a cause that I would (most likely) find myself deeply committed to and worth defending.
Within some parameters, it is likely I would not defend one's defining character. In the event that someone's individuality leads them to do cruel things to other people and their stability, then I would not be an advocate to preserve their character. For example, the best historic person that I would apply this theory to is Hitler. Although everyone has defining qualities to his or her own personality, and most of the time those qualities are crucial and important, it crosses a line when someone's identity conflicts with letting someone be entitled to their identity. It is against these people, though, that I would be willing to put what I have on the line in order to fight against said people. Violence, on a Holocaust scale, is a saboteur's way to steal the identity from an individual by either wiping it out completely or forcing that person to act and think a certain way. In the likelihood of this event, I do find myself willing to sacrifice personally in order to help the greater good or possibly my own self in the event that my beliefs were targeted.
Nonetheless, though, a quality in people that I find myself deeply committed to preserving is that of the identity. If we ever wind up in a state where the individual, the me inside all of us is threatened, what else is there worth fighting for? If someone is attempting to fraud our uniqueness or force us to become one in the same as the person next to us, what more would be worth fighting than who we are? When you lose your individuality or it becomes threatened, what other point is there in living if your not standing up for that one things that instills livelihood in you?
The quote above mentions the far intimate reaches of love which is important when discussing to what extent you would protect the person you are or the individual inside of the person next to you. If you truly do love someone, you love them for their originality. You love them because the way that they make you feel is different from the way someone else makes you feel. If and when this essence of love does occur inside of you, like Orwell, said you would still give him love if you had nothing else to give if it came down to it. To me, to give love would be to be there for them even if no one is there for you, giving them the last morsel of food even if it means going hungry, and protecting them and giving them legs to stand on even if their wobbly. If someone was to attack your loved one's existence, their singularity; you would be the first one that shows up as a soldier to try to harbor their being.
In conclusion, so long as someone's character does not entail tormenting another person's individuality, I think the components that mold someone's distinctiveness are causes worth fighting and sacrificing for. If we love ourselves and respect our own values, then we would not think twice about defending the person inside of us that creates the reason to keep waking up everyday. And when you also begin to feel that love for your mother, father, sister, brother, lover, friend, etc. is when you realize that you would do anything in order to protect and instill the person in them that makes them so unique. And then finally if you are capable of realizing how crucial it is for everyone to have a personal identity, then maybe even when someone attack's a simple neighbor's, or stranger, or even an enemy's identity; you may also find yourself jumping to defend them because you realize that everyone is entitled to their beliefs and it is important to stand up for the individual in all of us.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Friday, March 7, 2008
Genetic Engineering
Genetic engineering is an extreme breakthrough in science and in the future of life in general. The controversy surrounding this issue, though, makes genetic engineering one of the most debatable topics we will inevitably have to face someday. The advantages to this type of science are plentiful in some people’s eyes while others see it as an uncanny manipulation of nature. This breakthrough, along with genetic discoveries still uncovered, has the potential to ultimately alter the future, but will that be for the best or worst of mankind? Although genetic engineering can eradicate both physical and mental deficiencies limiting certain humans, it should not become an alternate way in which people can begin to design babies to their liking and standards.
When it comes to eliminating diseases in people, plants, and animals, genetic engineering has an advantageous nature. It can pin-point the people prone to hereditary diseases but also can begin to eliminate infectious diseases by implanting genes with antiviral proteins. Yet, what occurs to the subject if there is an error while implanting and will we still want to keep a child that has endured such an error? With plants, and perhaps some animals, genetic engineering has much more beneficial aspects than it does with humans. Plants can be ‘tailor made’ to absorb more CO2 in order to reduce the threat of global warming. In the animal kingdom, we may be able to grow human body parts that someone may be in need of, on to the animal. Yet, this could open doors to animal cruelty.
Though, there are the before-mentioned advantages to this specific science, there are many disadvantages and inevitable outcomes, especially when dealing with humans. Since nature is an inter-related chain, where many species are linked in the food chain, some scientists are said to believe that introducing genetically modified genes can have irreparable effects with unknown consequences. On another scale, genetic engineering is one huge moral battle, specifically conflicting with religious questioning of whether or not man has the right to manipulate the laws of nature. When it comes to the new idea of ‘designer babies’, one has to question the nature of the people creating the baby. If we are all allowed to make babies according to our likings, what is going to stop a mentally ill person from creating the next Hitler? Also, this proposes a handful amount of inevitable problems for that child. If a child is specifically created out of the wrong reasons, they may face an enormous amount of pressure. For example, maybe the parents are not financially well off so they decide to make a baby that will grow up to be a rich rock-star. Now that baby all through his life is conditioned to carry his family through their trials and errors; is that really fair for a child to face? Another inevitable conflict genetic engineering introduces is the total exploitation of nature and free-will and individuality. No one will be an individual anymore because they will just be a prototype of what their mother and father created. They ultimately can end up with no thought processes of their own, just the thought processes put into them by their parents. This could possibly lead to a conformist society or ultimately a dystopia.
One aspect of genetic engineering mentioned in the first paragraph is what if an error occurs during creation? What will happen to the baby? Will it suffer from mutilations or further retardation? If this does happen, what future will that baby face? In a world of competition for the best baby, will those parents really want a ‘defective’ child? Another question that must be asked is how expensive is this whole new science going to be on the world and who exactly pays for it? In a world where we are all ready overwhelmed with unwanted children, those children will be pushed even further into oblivion if people have access to designing their own children. Also what happens to natural childbirth: is it condemned because society becomes fearful of ‘natural’ children or will it become another option for people that may not be able to afford designing their own children? One last issue that certainly may arise is a population crisis. With access to creating such ‘perfect human beings’, what limitations will be placed on people creating babies? What stops a person from designing a baby just for the sheer fun of it?
Genetic engineering is a science that opens many conflicting doors. Religion, morals, nature, and the future of our world are all at stake when discussing the possibilities of this new world science. Although it can be beneficial in a few aspects, genetic engineering should never become the dominate way in which people have the ability to manipulate their own children. This science has the power to eliminate such natural miracles as childbirth if we give it the credit to do so.
When it comes to eliminating diseases in people, plants, and animals, genetic engineering has an advantageous nature. It can pin-point the people prone to hereditary diseases but also can begin to eliminate infectious diseases by implanting genes with antiviral proteins. Yet, what occurs to the subject if there is an error while implanting and will we still want to keep a child that has endured such an error? With plants, and perhaps some animals, genetic engineering has much more beneficial aspects than it does with humans. Plants can be ‘tailor made’ to absorb more CO2 in order to reduce the threat of global warming. In the animal kingdom, we may be able to grow human body parts that someone may be in need of, on to the animal. Yet, this could open doors to animal cruelty.
Though, there are the before-mentioned advantages to this specific science, there are many disadvantages and inevitable outcomes, especially when dealing with humans. Since nature is an inter-related chain, where many species are linked in the food chain, some scientists are said to believe that introducing genetically modified genes can have irreparable effects with unknown consequences. On another scale, genetic engineering is one huge moral battle, specifically conflicting with religious questioning of whether or not man has the right to manipulate the laws of nature. When it comes to the new idea of ‘designer babies’, one has to question the nature of the people creating the baby. If we are all allowed to make babies according to our likings, what is going to stop a mentally ill person from creating the next Hitler? Also, this proposes a handful amount of inevitable problems for that child. If a child is specifically created out of the wrong reasons, they may face an enormous amount of pressure. For example, maybe the parents are not financially well off so they decide to make a baby that will grow up to be a rich rock-star. Now that baby all through his life is conditioned to carry his family through their trials and errors; is that really fair for a child to face? Another inevitable conflict genetic engineering introduces is the total exploitation of nature and free-will and individuality. No one will be an individual anymore because they will just be a prototype of what their mother and father created. They ultimately can end up with no thought processes of their own, just the thought processes put into them by their parents. This could possibly lead to a conformist society or ultimately a dystopia.
One aspect of genetic engineering mentioned in the first paragraph is what if an error occurs during creation? What will happen to the baby? Will it suffer from mutilations or further retardation? If this does happen, what future will that baby face? In a world of competition for the best baby, will those parents really want a ‘defective’ child? Another question that must be asked is how expensive is this whole new science going to be on the world and who exactly pays for it? In a world where we are all ready overwhelmed with unwanted children, those children will be pushed even further into oblivion if people have access to designing their own children. Also what happens to natural childbirth: is it condemned because society becomes fearful of ‘natural’ children or will it become another option for people that may not be able to afford designing their own children? One last issue that certainly may arise is a population crisis. With access to creating such ‘perfect human beings’, what limitations will be placed on people creating babies? What stops a person from designing a baby just for the sheer fun of it?
Genetic engineering is a science that opens many conflicting doors. Religion, morals, nature, and the future of our world are all at stake when discussing the possibilities of this new world science. Although it can be beneficial in a few aspects, genetic engineering should never become the dominate way in which people have the ability to manipulate their own children. This science has the power to eliminate such natural miracles as childbirth if we give it the credit to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
