As They Say "It's in Your DNA"

I found Gattaca's premise to be very interesting, and a little bit unsettling. Most of the other utopias we've read about seem to be based on a mixture of soft science and, in the case of 1984, over the top evil. There's very little of either here. The unseen higher ups who have imposed the strictest genetic standards to any hopefuls that wish to apply to Gattaca Aerospace Corporation have real, relatable motives. They want good employees, and the best return on their investments. They don't want an employee who's going to suddenly descend into depression, or die when their heart stops in space. It's all very reasonable.

But, “reasonable” and “right” are two very different things. One of the reasons why is shown right in the beginning of the movie. When Vincent is born, and his blood is analyzed, a machine rattles off all the different things he is genetically predisposed to. It can only predict. The machine cannot say “This boy WILL have manic depression, he WILL have ADHD, he WILL have myopia.” It also gives a life expectancy, but it cannot say “This boy WILL die after exactly 30 years of life.” It can only predict.

Picture is not particularly related. These two are just very attractive.

If you have the genes for blue eyes and brown hair, you will have blue eyes and brown hair. It's simple. Mental disorders are trickier. Environment often plays a crucial part in deciding who's afflicted and who's not. Let's say, for example, that Vince has around a six percent chance of developing schizophrenia. That chance will be affected by his early living environment, and whether he uses drugs or alcohol.

In another example, lets say that Vince has Huntington's disease. Currently, he is asymptomatic. The symptoms of Huntington's disease usually begin between 35 and 44 years of age. Eventually, Vince's muscles will begin to degrade, and he will be subject to increasingly severe psychotic episodes. Does that mean that Gattaca Aerospace Corporation is justified in not hiring him in his 20's? Should a health insurance company be able to deny him coverage? These aren't easy questions. People are grappling with them right now, in 2013. I'm not sure we'll have the answers by the time Gattaca's easy, accurate genetic testing comes into existence. 

So pretty. *Swoon*

Gattaca brings up a lot of interesting and thought provoking questions. However, I find its commentary on discrimination to be a little bit hard to take seriously by the end of the movie. It gives a long story on why discrimination and prejudice is wrong, and then the writers show a few of their own prejudices. The Director gives himself up for the murder once it is clear that the launch cannot be stopped. Because he's old, his only dream was to see the launch happen. He doesn't care about dying in jail, or about living out a happy retirement. Because he's old, he doesn't really seem to care about his life at all. The writing reeks of ageism. And then we have Jerome. Poor, poor Jerome. After he helps Vince fulfill his dream, he has nothing left to live for, and he kills himself. After all, his legs don't work. What could he possibly have to live for? The flames he immolates himself in are superimposed with the rocket's takeoff. Dramatic music plays. It seems like the film agrees with Jerome killing himself. So Vince is able to overcome bad genes, but Jerome can't overcome paralysis? I know Jerome's failure is significant because he was genetically engineered to be the best of the best, but the whole thing still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. (Matt, who was watching the movie with me, spent that entire scene singing “I set fire, to myseeeeelf, sat and burned while you went to space” to the tune of Adele's Set Fire to the Rain. It didn't help my opinion of the movie very much. Another story, ect, ect)

He's okay looking I guess. Whatever, I'm not here to look at pretty people.

Gattca has, in theory, eliminated some types of prejudices and replaced them with others. Who your family is and the connections you have no longer matter. Now, you are judged only by your genes. It's different, but I don't know if it's more or less fair.

I lied. Seriously, look at this man's pretty pouty face.

(All pictures screenshot from Gattca.) 

Controlling the Masses

My favorite thing about Brave New World is how real it feels. It's plausible enough to be a little bit scary. The society described in Brave New World is carefully controlled, but the control is engineered to be desirable. After years upon years of rigorous conditioning people want to not have to think, they want to be told what to do, they want the temporary oblivion that soma brings. I've always disagreed that it is better to be feared than loved. People who fear you will despise you, and eventually there will be rebellion. People who are content won't feel that pressure. I can see the society of Brave New World continuing forever, because almost everyone is happy. 

SO VERY HAPPY.

1984 doesn't have any content citizens. Everyone is living in fear, afraid of being vaporized, afraid of talking in their sleep, afraid of breaking the unwritten rules, afraid of being turned in by their own children. Totalitarian regimes don't last forever. Everyone has a breaking point. Some people crumple inward, but others explode outward. Everyone that holds power in 1984 is confident that they can hold power forever. But, no matter how watched and how controlled, there is only so much a body of people can take. Keep your head down, smile when needed, hate when needed, never miss a step, never say the wrong thing, never think the wrong thing. It's impossible. I don't see the Party as long lasting, because no one is happy. Unhappy people will always find a way to rebel, no matter how thoroughly they are watched and controlled.

All of the sad feelings, all of the time.

The motivation behind the leaders who control the society of London in Brave New World is also more realistic than that of those in the London described in 1984. (From here on out, Brave New World's London will be referred to as Ford's London. 1984's London will be Big Brother’s London.) The leaders in Ford's London are not motivated by utter malice or a mad desire for power. They enjoy having privileges that no one else has, but they also view it as their duty to keep the people of London happy and occupied. The people in charge of Big Brother's London don't care about keeping their citizens happy, healthy, or even alive. They operate through intimidation alone. They also don't seem to care the least bit about their own happiness or lives. They don't care about their perks, or how long they live.

O'Brien raves about how it is power, pure power, that motivates him and the Party to opress and dominate and watch the people. It's all almost cartoonish. The power for power's sake, the perpetual war just because it's the easiest way to get rid of resources. O'Brien ceases to be a realistic villain, and becomes a power mad characture. He laughs and explains his plans to his “invisible audience” and I stop feeling unsettled and start feeling exasperated and a little bit cheated. This doesn't feel like something that could happen, or something that could last a long time. It reads like a bad movie.

I'm also very skeptical of the Party's method for retaining control. It's counting on the fact that the Proles will never, ever rebel. Sure, the current generation is content with living their lives and occasionally dodging a bomb. That does not mean the next generation will be. If the Party's only fail-safe against a prole rebellion is the prediction that a prole rebellion just won't happen, they will find themselves very unprepared when the rebellion does come.

The leaders who oversee Ford's London have taken every precaution against a rebellion. They have given everyone on the reservation no reason to rebel. The people on the reservations are able to live their lives without interference. They are not controlled or oppressed. No one is bombing them. And on the rare occasion there is an upset, it is fixed with gas and a soothing voice on some speakers. There is a plan for upsets, and so all the upsets are little ones. I find Ford's London to be a London that will last much longer than the one described in 1984.

(Pictures taken from stockphotos.com)

Herland Makes Me Uncomfortable

I'm going to come right out and say it. I think the society described Herland is pretty bogus. It probably sounds a little weird, coming from me. I can almost hear it now: “Dammit Laura, you're always complaining about female character portrayal. Now you're given an entire country of extremely capable females and you still aren't happy with it? Seriously, what on earth do you want?”

(Currently, I want to have started on this half of the semester's blogging much, much earlier and set of Crayola metallic glitter crayons. But both of those wishes are another story entirely.)

I'll try and make a few things clear before I say exactly what I mean. I'm not talking about the soft science present in Herland. If the author thinks that asexual reproduction can produce a huge amount of genetic variation, that's just fine. I'll go with it.

I'm not saying that women can't accomplish anything on their own. I firmly believe that the only thing a woman absolutely can't do (that a man can do) is naturally father a child. I believe the opposite is also true, and men are only limited to not bearing children. Sewing beautiful dresses, weightlifting, architecture, raising children, and pretty much everything else are things that I think any person can do. 

"Yes."

I am not at all skeptical of the abilities of the Herland women. They can build fortresses and cultivate plants and do science and all of that is just great. It's a very empowering viewpoint, especially for something written in the 18^th century. You go, Charlotte Perkins Gilman. You think all those good thoughts.

Except not all of Gilman's thoughts are good. There's a definite, uncomfortable vibe of “eugenics are totally awesome” winding throughout her book. There's the belief that any amount of bad impulses can just be “bred” out of a population, and then there's Vince, planning to exterminate the “savages” in the jungle if they can't be “civilized”. Vince, who is supposed to be the most logical and sympathetic of the group. Erk. This “perfect” society has been built out of some very ugly practices.

Then, we have the women of Herland themselves. They do not anger. They do not show disgust. They are endlessly patient. They are understanding. They are logical. They are unemotional. They feel little to no jealousy.

Not quite this bad. But I like to think it's close.

 They strive for the betterment of the community, not for themselves. They live for the children, not just for their own, but for everyone's children. And it's completely bogus. You can't breed out jealousy. I would understand if every woman of Herland was dealt the same lot in life. But there are Over Mothers, who are allowed to bear more children than everyone else. Nearly everyone wants to be a teacher, but most are not allowed the privilege.

Herland is a collectivist society without the conflict, and I don't think that's possible just by allowing the women with the most even tempers to have the most babies. Women feel just as much as men do. Their natures are no finer than that of men. Statistically, they are less driven to murder, and violent crime. But, the best of women breeding for sixty generations isn't going to suddenly give way to a group of people that are nearly free of all negative emotion. It makes for a good Utopia, where everyone is well cared for and content, but there's no way to actually get there. The existence of Herland isn't just based on good agricultural practices, mutual respect, and a collectivist outlook. It is built out of an impossible alteration of human nature. 

(Pictures taken from http://m3gan.edublogs.org and http://www.mazeoflove.com)

Anti-utopia: why put the sword through someone else’s social dreaming?

Why would a writer or filmmaker go to the trouble of putting a sword through someone else’s social dreaming? This sure had me beat for the longest time. After all, those who imagined utopias were trying to imagine the world as a better place. I decided to do some digging around to find out some ways social dreaming has manifested itself in history since the late nineteenth century to the late twentieth century, in the decades before Huxley wrote Brave New World (1932) and Gattaca was released in 1997. I discovered that these social dreams could be considered to have sinister aspects and Huxley, along with filmmaker Andrew Niccol have serious reasons to be anti-utopian, or critical of some people’s social dreaming (Sargent).

Since the late nineteenth century, heredity, biological characteristics, and genetics have been inherent in social dreaming. I’ll begin the journey with phrenology. According to this theory, inherited external characteristics demonstrated that criminals were biologically inferior to law abiding people. It was thought that different faculties or departments of the brain each controlled a unique form of behaviour; enlarged or unusually undersized brain sections produced bumps or depressions in the skull. As a result, a physical examination by any 'doctor' could analyse someone's skull to find reasons for problematic behaviour (Greek). This theory ignores any social influence on a person’s behaviour and discriminates unfairly against those with lumpy heads!

Closely related to phrenology was the study of eugenics (Greek). Yale alum Irving Fisher, one of America’s greatest economists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, was an advocate of eugenics, or carefully controlled breeding with the aim of improving human populations. That actually meant “white Northern European population...discourag[ing] all others.” Eugenics was promoted in popular culture in terms of the positive benefits of careful breeding as society would become more productive save money. How? The poor, prostitutes, ne’er-do-wells, the homeless, and the criminal would be bred out of existence. Eugenics had all the prestige of Fisher and his associates on the Yale faculty behind it. Many aspects of its philosophy found its way into U.S. state law and influenced political movements internationally, such as Hitler and his National Socialism (Conniff).

http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/articles/3456#comments

One such example of these state laws that recently came to light in Virginia is that of E. Lewis Reynolds. As a boy, Reynolds was hit in the head with a rock by a cousin. The incident nearly killed him and it triggered epileptic-like convulsions that lingered for some years. This did not prevent Reynolds from enlisting in the Marine Corp and serving his country during a 30-year military career that included tours in Korea and Vietnam. However, it was enough to classify the teenaged Reynolds as a “defective person” and he was compulsorily sterilized under a 1924 Virginia law that served as a model for other states and “even in Nazi Germany.” This gives us some indication of the way this philosophy came to be enforced on “mostly poor, uneducated men and women” (Kunkle).

This brings us to modern genetics. Incredibly, blood can be drawn from a pregnant woman to analyze the DNA of her unborn child (Kolata). The benefits of this, such as women being able to learn about their fetus and act on the information, of course, come with unintended consequences. These consequences include what Paul (in “Evolution”), writing in 1995, calls “subtle pressures to make the ‘right’ choice” when confronted with information about a genetically imperfect fetus. Paul (in “Evolution”)writes that “Some women may feel they have no realistic alternatives to the decision to be tested or to abort a genetically imperfect fetus.” This may be due to doctors’ fear of being sued if the child is born with a genetic disorder, “by anxiety of potential loss of health or life insurance, or by their inability to bear the enormous financial costs of caring for a severely disabled child.” This is what people generally have in mind when they characterize genetic medicine as a form of eugenics (Paul in “Evolution”).

This leads us to the human genome project. Completed in 2003, this map of the human genome has given scientists a greater understanding of cancer and rare genetic diseases (Kolata). This undeniably useful research is also tempered by the potential for this information to be abused. Employers and health insurance companies could use genetic information collected for a beneficial purpose to refuse employment or coverage of individuals. To prevent this, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which took effect in 2009, was implemented (Nuzzo).

The events and research pertaining to eugenics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century form the backdrop against which Huxley developed his ideas and wrote Brave New World. Subsequent research in genetics through to the end of the twentieth century influenced Niccol and the ideas in his film Gattaca. Developments in the early twenty first century seem to justify their concern and I think Huxley and Niccol were right to put the sword through this kind of social dreaming.  Their work serves as a warning to us, as members of society, about how things could be applied to advantage the elite and tread on the disadvantaged; put down individualism and remove opportunities for those who have few.

To conclude:

http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/etc/3739965753.html

Works cited:

Conniff, Richard. "God and white men at Yale." Yale Alumni Magazine. Yale Alumni Mag. May/June 2012. Web. 20 Apr. 2013.

"Evolution: Humans: Babies by Design." PBS. WGBH Educational Foundation and Clear Blue Sky Productions, Inc. 2001. Web. 20 Apr. 2013.

Gattaca. Dir. Andrew Niccol. Perf. Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman, Gore Vidal. Columbia Pictures Corporation, 1997. Film

Greek, Cecil E. Criminological Theory. The Florida State University, 2005. Web. April 19 2013.

Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. New York: HarperCollins, 2004. Print.

Kolata, Gina. "Human Genome, Then and Now." New York Times 15 Apr. 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2013.

Kunkle, Frederick. "Va. eugenics victims would receive compensation for sterilization under bill." The Washington Post Jan 30 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2013.

Nuzzo, Regina. "Genetic Profiling." CR. CR Mag. 3.5 (Fall 2008). Web. 20 Apr. 2013.

Sargent, Lyman Tower. "The Three Faces of Utopianism Revisited." Utopian Studies 5.1 (1994): 1-37. Web.

1984

George Orwell’s 1984 is an interesting book to say the least. Do I personally like the dystopian society of the future or the warning it contains? No, not really, since it has given rise to extremism in some people who are constantly the look out saying, “Big brother is watching us,” and that we need to do more to protect our privacy. Yet these same people do relatively nothing about stopping “big brother.” If there is one positive thing I have taken from this book it is that if you really want to buck the system simply do as Julia did and buck it in a small, personal way.

 

            There will always be government, and if history has taught us anything it is that when government becomes too powerful it will eventually be overthrown. Examples to support this lesson are the French Monarchy, the Soviet Union, and the Roman Empire, all of which have fallen due either to government becoming too corrupt or too powerful. Even the corruptness of Aztec rule led conquered peoples to align themselves with the Cortes and the conquistadores to bring about the fall of Montezuma. Following Burke, many historians caution that “those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it.” Well, it seems clear to me that it is instructive to point out that governments fall from time to time, and in line with that pattern we need not worry about a government becoming to powerful. Eventually, like the bloated governments of history, it too will fall.

            Another element that induces fear in 1984 is when Winston begins to accept O’Brien’s version of events. This transformation sets a lot of people off, but to my way of thinking we already accept most things in our life axiomatically. For instance why is the color blue called blue? Why is this the symbol for the number 5 a 5 and not @? The idea that people can manipulate another into thinking a certain way is not a new concept. Hell, it’s been happening through the education system since most of us were in kindergarten. Further, a good defense lawyer such as –let’s say Johnny Cochran, can even trick people into seeing an obvious truth as a lie. And as far as the controlling of history goes it is a demonstrable fact that anytime there is a war the victors get to write the history, not the defeated. Also history is rewritten every time there is new information discovered or, as the saying goes, “Each generation writes its own history of the past.”

 

               My closing thoughts about this book are a cautionary tale that if you spend all your time worrying about big brother watching you then you miss out on life. Were only here for so long so kick back relax and enjoy it. Also embrace new teachings, just because your think a certain way does not always make it right and sometimes in life 2+2 does equal 5. 

Machiavelli and 1984

After reading 1984 again I was struck by how similar many of the ways of control were similar to that recommend by Machiavelli. 

Now before the sarcastic responses come out about how this is obvious, after all Machiavelli liked tyrants, blah blah blah. 
NO this is actually somewhat surprising. While Machiavelli is somewhat infamous for his discussions of how a person should rule as a monarchy in his book The Prince he was diametrically opposed to tyrants. Even if you ignore his writings from his Discourses on Livy he did not support the uncontrolled use of power by an individual. And many of the advice he gives to monarchs on how to rule seems to be followed by the Party in 1984.

1. A Ruler should be feared but not hated: 
This was one of the most important aspects of ruling for Machiavelli was that the citizens should fear the ruler but not hated him. For Machiavelli he was adamant that the worse thing a ruler could be was hated. He should aspire to be feared and loved but must avoid at all costs being hated. So Machiavelli argues that a leader must at least appear to be moral, or act immoral in ways that will not bring hate to him.

And the Party exemplifies this. It fits all 3 parts of Machiavelli's advice. The Part makes itself both feared and loved by its members. (Fearing being arrested for thought crime and loving Big Brother for the protection he provides for them). Even the skeptical Winston, before being broke, expresses at times his love of Big Brother (like during the Hate) and his fear of him is always constant. 
And the hatred that the members of the party have is directed towards outsides forces, (Goldstein, the country they're at war with) instead of towards the Party.

2.  Another aspect Machiavelli argued is to avoid interfering with the common people as much as possible. If you need to do change he argues do it quickly and get it done with. And both of these aspects are again shown in 1984. The Party avoids interfering with the Proles as much as possible. They let them work but unlike how they treat the members of the Party they do not have the boot constantly at the neck of the Proles.(Or at least they do not seem to)  I think this is an important aspect of it because if they were to constantly and obviously oppress the Proles eventually the Proles would get fed up with it and might push back. But by not obviously oppressing them, and keeping them fed and entertained the Proles will be unlikely to ever rebel. 

3. Another aspect that reminds me of Machiavelli is part of his encouragement not to be hated. One part of it is it prevents people from being able to plot against you. Because if you try to convince another person to help you rebel and assassinate the leader that person has every reason to betray you. By doing so they will be rewarded and even if they do not they have every chance of not succeeding. And if you are not hated even if you succeed in your assassination attempt you will still be hated by the common people. So only a person who absolutely despises the ruler would agree to plot against the ruler. And this is remarkably similar to how the Party works except in this case the crime would not be plotting to overthrow the Party or assassinate Big Brother but simply not liking the Party.

While some aspects might not quite work with Machiavelli (and in the end he would not approve of the Party in 1984) I suspect that Orwell may have been influenced by Machiavelli.

Gene Games

If you were given the chance would you change your child's genes? What if you knew for a fact that they would suffer from a genetic disease that couldn't be cured or even effectively treated? I remember watching this movie back in high school and I asked my Grandmother this question. My Grandmother had 7 children, only 5 are currently alive. Two of them died from Cystic Fibrosis before the age of 5. Cystic Fibrosis is a genetic disease that affects the lungs, liver, pancreas, and intestines of the sufferer and there is no cure. Today there are many more options and treatment methods then there were when my Aunt and Uncle were alive. My Grandmother recalled having to stand by on many occasions watching her children suffering and slowing dying unable to do anything.

I asked her if she had been given the chance to change their genetic make up would she have taken it. She simply replied no. I pressed her and asked her for more information and she told me it part of "God's plan" for her life and her other children's lives. I tried again asking her to remove the God factor and she again said no, we have to learn to deal with the cards we are dealt in life and make the best of our situation. It made me think if I was given the chance to change the genes of my children would I? Would I remove all health risk factors and specify their looks? I probably would. I have watched several other families dealing with children affected by CF and I asked them the same question, would you chance it? They say yes...but also no. They love their children and don't want to see them suffer and die but no because of how much they have learned and changed from having a CF child. I even asked one families daughter who has CF what she would do. She said she hates that so many people suffer but no she wouldn't change it. She is an amazing child and has used everything in her life to its' fullest advantage. She doesn't pity herself or take her time for granted.

I don't know what I would do if I was given the chance to change genes. It is something that, like Vincent's parents, you have to be in that situation to decide. Times are changing and it is possible that sometimes in the future that Gene play could be possible.

More on Gattaca

After yesterday’s class I thought a little more about the way Gattaca selected their candidates. I think that it is very similar to today’s requirements. Almost all places require a urine sample. This tests for drug use, obviously. I agree that this is probable cause to base a hire decision on. Not many reliable workplaces want an employee who does recreational drugs. I know I wouldn’t. In some cases if you have medically disabilities, such as recurrent seizures, you cannot hold positions in the army. I understand that they do not want someone firing a gun that is prone to seizures. If perhaps one day there would be someone who wants a child who can be a superior in the army, they could take advantage of what Gattaca has to offer and make sure they would have a child who is perfect in medical and physical backgrounds. I think that we have people that feel a lot of pressure to be perfect already, and if we keep putting labels of negativity on people due to their differences, then we are heading down a dark path. I work in a restaurant where the boss is so shallow, that when people come in to get a job as a waitress she first makes sure that they are ‘pretty’ enough and that they are ‘able to fit around all the tables’. Her motto is that if she is going to have a waitress that is out front for all customers to see, then that person will be attractive, with hair that is perfectly set and that they will be thin. She has even told people they cannot get a job out front because they don’t have ‘the look’, so she will offer them a job in the kitchen. It’s ridiculous. Meanwhile she would not be allowed to work as a waitress herself. Yes, these people they are hiring are an extension of someone’s business, but I think that some things should be left alone and ignored. I definitely think that we are living this version of Gattaca to the extent that we can. I know that if technology allowed it, people would jump at the idea to test all parts of a person before hire in any workplace.

Creepy Feelings

After watching Gattaca, I kind of have the creeps. The whole genetic engineering seems like a fate that is all too possible. For years we have been doing invitro fertilizations and have made clones. What is next?

Genetic engineering has the possibility to improve society in some ways but it is so unnatural and creepy to think of. Are the people being born really individuals if things down to personality traits can be picked out? 

If our world does come to genetic engineering, it may start off harmless: people wanting blue-eyed instead of brown-eyed babies with straight hair instead of curly. But, like with many things in  American culture, it will be taken too many steps too far. What would it be like to be discriminated against solely because of your genetic markup due to your parents wanting a love child? 

It is kind of like racism, being totally against someone because of factors beyond their control, but with this "Geneism" the people are being discriminated against for things not even noticeable to the naked eye. 

Back to the movie, I really enjoyed it. Instantly I recognized it as a movie that I watched in high school but now I got so much more out of it from paying full attention to what was happening. 

Enjoy this pic of Jude Law, everyone. You're welcome.

First of all, I have so much pity for the real Jerome Morrow. How disappointing it must be to really only have the option left of selling your identity? I loved the sense of camaraderie that Jerome and Vincent developed and thought it was so noble of Jerome to support Vincent and encourage him to keep going when he was down. After all, what would Jerome get out of it? Nothing, really. 

(I am really confusing myself here, writing about Jerome when two characters take on that name) 

Until Jerome showed Vincent his medal did I feel sorry for the genetically engineered population. I never thought of the pressure of having such a high standard held to yourself at all times. I know for me it is hard enough to have high expectations for myself and sometimes from my parents, but having those high expectations imposed on my by society would be exhausting. 

Unlike Brave New World and 1984, the lower class people are not brainwashed to be happy in their place and grateful that they do not have all the work and responsibility of the higher caste. In Gattaca, the lower people are openly discriminated against and looked down upon. 

This movie really made me think about our society and planted the fear in my mind that someday our world could potentially turn out like that in the film, which is something that I hope I never live to see come to light.

Define utopia, Gattaca

Beware: This blog is long…

After watching Gattaca, I do not think that this is anything like I would define as a utopia. I only make my own definition based on what I have seen and read about in this class. When I think of a utopia I think of a world in which a group of people live as a community, which is isolated from another community in itself. I think that these people can either be chosen/forced to be a part of this utopia or they can go to this utopia willingly. It depends on the type of utopia that it is. I also think that these people live in the utopia and stay there, obeying the rules and laws that are enforced by a leader. The people who are living in the utopia are told they have capabilities to live freely, but they are always closely monitored by the authority. In some cases the community sees the authority, and in other cases they do not. The people who are a part of the utopia community work together to produce products that benefit themselves and keep them living in their utopia.

 My personal definition of utopia is much different. I think that anyone can imagine a perfect place where needs are met, comforts are prioritized, and luxuries are abundant. I think that utopia is a place where peace remains constant. There are always endless pits to every indulgence or necessity an individual could ever imagine. I also think that even within this place of satisfaction that there will inevitably become a desire for more. This is a common thread in all of the novels, excerpts, and films we have tried to understand so far. Even when a utopia is created and people are thriving, there will be a natural desire, perhaps even a natural need, to want more. This is something the human race cannot escape. If we look at those who have won the lottery for example, there is so many that win millions of dollars only to lose it a few years later. We think “oh how could they be so greedy?” or “how could they lose track of all the money they were spending?” but the thing is; they just wanted more. At what point can you have enough of anything? At what point do you think to yourself, “I’ve had enough of this life, now I want more of this kind of life?” People in their forties and fifties do it too. We have all heard of a mid-life crisis. These are the people that look at their life and think, “I don’t like where I am at. I like this other lifestyle better. I want more. I want change.” Even looking at the community of Twin Oaks, there were people who left the community. These people could not stay in their utopia forever. Maybe they didn’t agree with the rules or beliefs any longer, or maybe they needed to feel more independent.  So, with that I think that even though I have a definition of what a utopia would be like, I know that my definition of utopia cannot exist. This is because of the natural desire for humans to want more to life, even when they have anything they could want, need, or desire. We are creatures of habit, but we also are creatures that like to develop new ideas and make life easier for ourselves.

Now that I have rambled on about my ideas of utopia, I will get back to Gattaca and why I do not think that this is a utopian film. To me this movie showed a situation that could happen. I do not think a utopia is a possible place to live in and be a part of forever, if at all. This is a place that is advanced from where we are now. They are selecting gender of embryos, and hair color, as well as health conditions. This is not too far from where we are headed. People can already pick what eggs are placed with what sperm, and in some cases, I think they can try to pick gender. People go undercover all the time and pretend to be people they are not. I do not think they go to extremes that Jerome went to, both real Jerome and pretending Jerome. However, I do not know this for a fact. They could rub their skin off and use the blood of the person they are posing as. Anyway, I think that there are workplaces where someone would need a fingerprint identification to go into. People could come and go from Gattaca. There were rules here, but it wasn’t where they lived it was where they worked. There were also rules outside of Gattaca in the community. I think that Gattaca seems like a normal way of life to me. People get up, go to work, work hard every day to succeed at work, try to fulfill their dreams,  go home, go out with friends, sometimes break the rules, and eventually look for better opportunities. I guess I have a firm belief of what utopia means to me. When I think of it all I can think of is a place where people are given limitations and rules under careful surveillance. It is a place where people have no free will and appear to be stupid. In Gattaca, Jerome the pretender as I’ll call him was very smart. He did what he had to do to reach his dream. He was the one who was fooling the rest of society. Even though it appeared that he followed the rules, he did not. He was breaking the rules the moment he went in for the interview as Jerome and continued that way as he launched into space. He was a higher part of society because of who he was pretending to be and the job qualifications he had. The question is… if to some this is considered a utopia, then when will Jerome ever feel the desire that this place is not giving him enough? When he returns to earth after having fulfilled his dream, will he still pretend to be Jerome? I think he will continue to be Jerome because he has become Jerome, he loves Jerome. He has the supplies in order to live as Jerome for a while. What happens when that runs out? This perfect life that he was living will be gone. Then he will have to search for more. If there was such a thing as a utopia then it will be gone.

Gattaca reminded me of one of my favorite new shows, Revenge. This is a story about a girl who trades identities with a friend in order to get revenge on the people who led to her father being killed. When I watch this show, I also do not think it is a utopian setting that I would have used to define utopia. It was just about a person who does everything they can to get their one desire in life accomplished. Just when you think she has gotten revenge, she targets another person. If you were to say this is her utopia, then you could also realize that she constantly finds the desire to want more. This place of utopia is constantly revised, and to me that is not what a utopia is.

Although we have seen in our readings that there is commonly one person who has a desire to want more in a utopia, I think that a true utopian community never has that option. Like I said earlier, my definition of utopia is a place where all needs and wants are met, and there is peace. However, because there is commonly a desire to want more, utopia can never be achieved based on my definition.

Words:1310

The Genetic Burden

Gattaca has a particularly strong resonance for me than for most. There are many things to be hated in this film- a whole new form of discrimination for one. We see people judged by their potential instead of their drive or their actual ability. Discrimination is detestable of course, and I believe the greatest failing of humanity as a whole. I don't want to talk about that today, though. What about the premise of this movie as a whole? The pursuit of genetic perfection?

On its surface, conceiving a child in this manner seems cold, doesn't it. Creating a few perfect zygote candidates in a vial and asking you to pick your kid. Down to the skin, hair and eye color. Edit them like a doctored photograph. But, this doesn't fill me with the dislike that it seems it should.

This may be too much information about me, more than you might really need to know... but I have five genetic disorders. At fourteen, I was an honors and AP student, a competitive athlete in two sports, and a recreational athlete in many others- a soccer goalie, a show jumper, a black diamond skiing adrenaline junkie. When I was fifteen, I couldn't get out of bed without help. They told me that I would never graduate high school, and that college was laughable. Participating in sports again was as far off a dream as going to the stars.

But I wouldn't take no for an answer. I graduated from high school writing papers in bed- I got into college with excellent SAT scores even though I could barely walk to the testing room. I worked hard, fighting an uphill battle against everyone's expectations improving my mind and my body over time. I can't have everything back. I don't compete anymore, but I play soccer for fun, and this spring, for the first time in five years, I will get back on the horse- literally.

That journey was unbelievably hard - but I don't regret it. My body is my own, and the journey I had to take made me who I am. It taught me the value of so many things, how to find joy everywhere and take nothing for granted. It taught me humility, and stubborn determination where it would have been easier to give in. But it is nothing I would wish on anyone, ever.

If I could create my children in a vial, to guarantee that the burden ends with me, I would feel happier and more secure about bringing a life into this world. And that shouldn't be just me. If we could be certain that every child born will have no down syndrome, diabetes, heart disease, seizure disorders, attention deficit disorders, or in fact any disorders of the mind or body wouldn't that be a better world? How much suffering could be spared by such an advancement?

And then the hazier problem - what if we could take violent dispositions out of people? Wouldn't that too be for the best? We see suffering everywhere these days. People found murdered in their homes, muggings and rapes, bombings, wars.... on and on. What if we only had children who turned from anger and violence and desired peace and prosperity instead? Could we at last achieve a global peace by fixing ourselves? Gattaca's genetic tampering obviously didn't completely succeed  the director was as modified as anyone else but he had a motive strong enough to over come his peaceful nature for ill. And yet, how many crimes could be prevented by people simply not wanting to commit them?

I'm not saying I want a world precisely like the one shown in Gattaca. I think a person's performance and 'inclination' should stand for itself. But what would be so bad about a world rid of genetic illnesses and predispositions for health problems? Wouldn't that world look better than this one now?

The Borrowed Ladder and Our Society's Climb

The opening screen of Gattaca offers this Bible verse from Ecclesiastes: “Consider God’s handiwork, who can straighten what He hath made crooked?”  This line deepens in meaning as the movie progresses. First of all, in this world of the “not too-distant future,” God rarely gets the chance to make anything “crooked.” When a married couple decides that they want to conceive a child they do so in a way that ensures that the child will have the best “parts” of both of the parents. The geneticist wipes out any markers for potential shortcomings in the child’s future. Luckily, the viewers are given the opportunity to follow Vincent who will “never know what possessed [his] mother to put her fate in God’s hands rather than that of the local geneticist.” [Insert mixed feelings rant about the reality of our own current scientific ability to control the genetic make-up of babies in-utero. The pros and cons and the scary possibility of what the future may hold and the difficult decisions forced upon expecting parents.] Vincent’s perspective allows us to see the hardship of this position in their society as well as the possibility of success that can be realized when someone decides to fight for his/her self. 

                                                                               OR 

As we watch Vincent who refuses to abide by the genetic caste system that is put into place by his society, we cannot help but take a good look around our own society and evaluate the state that we are in. How different does our own world appear? I’m not shouting from one side or the other, but is it really that different to offer jobs based on college pedigree? When Vincent goes to his “interview” they take a blood sample and thus the interview process is concluded and he is hired. Isn’t that similar to what happens when someone applies to a job who has graduated from Harvard, Yale or Brown? And isn’t it a perpetual cycle? Typically Harvard attendees are not students who were raised without a wealth of resources. In real life it is the exception to pull yourself up by “your boot straps” and climb from the gutter of poverty into the seat at an Ivy League school. This one simple similarity causes us to search for and point out many other similarities between Vincent’s world and our own. Then we are left to question our comfort level with the similarities and our urge to be active in taking a stand against them. 

Things change for Vincent when he and his brother Anton play “chicken” in the ocean and Vincent wins. Realizing that it was not genetically predetermined for Anton to always win helped Vincent to realize that he could rebel against the system and prove everyone wrong (even if they wouldn’t be aware of it). Vincent realizes that HE is in control of his destiny, not his DNA! This is a lesson that many people, myself included, could benefit from learning. Maybe it isn’t your DNA that is holding you back, but in general we could all use the reminder that we are in control of our everyday lives and choices. Yes, some of us may believe that there is someone Greater that is inevitably in control, but we must make a conscious effort to ensure that we are even living up to the potential that He has placed in us. 

We may be frighteningly close to this “not too-distant future,” but we have not entirely landed there yet. So while we still have the fighting chance, let’s not “save anything for the swim back!” 

Image #1: http://grumpyelder.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/baby-gift-from-God.jpg

Image #2: http://d3gqasl9vmjfd8.cloudfront.net/80d33999-091d-461d-a269-c0ddec8ee887.png

Image #3: http://huttshead.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/rags-to-riches.png

Image #4:  http://s3.amazonaws.com/win-forever-blog/2012/08/DESTINY.png

Image #5: http://xc2.xanga.com/ca9e1bf0c2635279112399/z222339924.jpg

Is an Utopia a Reality?

      George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four is possibly my favorite piece of dystopian literature. Sure, the regime lacks the seemingly well-placed love and cleverness of the one in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, but I think that's why I enjoy Oceania's governmental system. These people aren't in it to create a better world or help the people who need it; they're in it for the power, plain and simple.

      But, I've always enjoyed reading about villains who are power-hungry and evil simply for the sake of being evil.

      I also really liked reading the philosophical debate at the end of this book. I've always kind of enjoyed philosophy, so this kind of battle of wits excites me.

Here is my favorite quote from this book: “ 'We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull' ” (274).

      In a way, O'Brien, the speaker here, is wrong; however, in a way he's right. Someone once asked me how many realities there are. I immediately just wanted to say “one,” but once I thought about it I realized the answer is sort of “infinitely many.” (Actually, they're not infinite, but the number is so high they may as well be infinite.)

 It's not quite as fancy as a "multiple earths" theory.

     Now, stay with me here as I describe my wonky theory. There is one reality in which all things actually happen as they are. This reality is called “Truth.” All of our perceptions and personal takes on “Truth” are the other numerous realities. (I call them “the Infinities.”) Here's an example:

I'm sitting in the dining hall at a table by myself. At the table next to me is a group of three people chatting. Now, in the prime, true reality (“Truth”), they're making fun of my haircut; however, I think (from what little I eavesdrop) that they're talking about basketball. My perception is one of the “Infinities.” While my thoughts aren't true to what actually happens, they're true to me, and therefore realistic. So, in consequence, there are infinitely many realities based upon our daily perceptions.

Get it?

"Welcome to Coblentz Dining Hall: where the recipes don't make sense and your perception of reality doesn't matter."

      So, with so many realities, is it even possible to have an utopia? Sure, one may exist in “Truth,” but what if everyone perceives it differently? It may be perfect, but it won't be utopian to some people because it won't line up with their expectations and perceptions of perfection. If they don't want to go along with it, how can the society be perfect/better? How, then, can it be utopian?

(Multiple earths picture taken from 123rf.com. Image of Coblentz taken from youvisit.com.)

Historical Destruction - Rupturing from the Past

My previous blog post was about our utopian novels’ ideas of the future. Now let’s talk about the past!

One of the more striking comparisons between Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four is both worlds’ abhorrence towards history.

In Brave New World, the world is completely ignorant of all things historical. “History is bunk,” says Mustapha Mond, quoting an actual saying from the real-life Henry Ford (Brave New World, 40).

The following is one of my favorite passages from Huxley’s novel, due to its bluntness, take-no-prisoners approach, and its excellent summary of Brave New World’s historiography:

Mond “waved his hand, and it was as though, with an invisible feather wisk, he had brushed away a little dust, and the dust was Harappa, was Ur of the Chaldees; some spider-webs, and they were Thebes and Babylon and Cnossos and Mycenae. Whisk. Whisk – and where was Odysseus, where was Job, where were Jupiter and Gotama and Jesus? Whisk – and those specks of antique dirt called Athens and Rome. Jerusalem and the Middle Kingdom – all were gone. Whisk – the place where Italy had been war empty. Whisk, the cathedrals; whisk, whisk. King Lear and the Thoughts of Pascal. Whisk, Passion; whisk, Requiem; whisk, Symphony…” (Brave New World 41).

The way the narrator shrugs away all major movements, empires, and people that shaped the entire world is chilling. Huxley’s universe would think the same for all things history. Not only does it not matter, it is absolutely repugnant.

Orwell’s Nineteen Eight-Four is no better, despite a different approach.

As you know, Oceania’s view of history is to completely revise it. To take one example (you can find many, many more within the entire book), political international alliances were altered to reflect the current treaties: “The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago” (Nineteen Eighty-Four 35).

So why does history frighten them?  Why would one want to irreparably rupture from the past?

Orwell’s work is easier to figure out, since it explicitly tells us. The Party’s slogan (“Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past” (Nineteen Eighty-Four 35-36)). It is purely about control of the populous, brain washing for perpetual political gain.

For Brave New World, it can essentially be summarized as the following: suppressing history can control intellectual freedom. By learning historical events, one will realize how life was like in the past. Even if they see the past as horrible compared to the “utopian” World State, one still learning something they shouldn’t. What will simply be a look at a history book will become an obsession of the past, which will eventually lead to intellectual independence.

yahoo.com

 This is an actual response on Yahoo! Answers 

to the question "Why is history not important?"

As a medieval historian, I am absolutely horrified by people’s dismissal of this time period. I’m sure Dr. Mitchell-Buck will agree with me here, that medieval history is not the most important area of interest in the field of study (and that multiple misconceptions about the era still exist today). And I’m also more than certain that Sam will agree that history (in general) is much more than just learning facts and dates about dead people.

How much of our culture do we owe to medieval history? Answer: a whole lot. For example, did you know that the university system was designed during the medieval period, following cathedral schools (which themselves followed monastic communities)? That’s right – thank those “old” medieval intellectuals for giving us a solid education!

Okay…impromptu rant over. Needless to say, I could easily go on. History is essential to society; forget the whole adage “those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.” It’s more than that: it is society’s identity. What would the world be like if it weren’t for certain movements in history? Why would we possibly wish to demonize or revise it? If we do such things, then our identity in society is substantially lost.

This is what terrifies me the most about these two works: they lose their identity; instead of being on a continuum, they are forever isolated in time.