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)

More's Utopia Still Needs a Bit More

Being honest, I thought that Mr. Thomas More and I were not going to get along very well. Books from his time written that were written about other countries tended to be about one of three things. How to conquer, how to exploit, or how to fix those poor uncivilized heathen savages. It'll be a few more centuries and a jump to different continent before Manifest Destiny and all that awful stuff comes along, but the basic ideas remain mostly unchanged. I was certain that he was going to say that people from other lands need to be educated and corrected.

I was pleasantly surprised early on in my reading. Raphel describes “quite a few customs from which (More's country) might take example in order to correct (their) errors (More, pg 13). Excellent! The outsiders have customs and ideas that the English can learn from!

Despite my joy, I still think that More's Utopia needs some serious improvements. I'm reading his book with modern, jaded eyes, so I think that his once radical ideas are not quite good enough. The people in Utopia aren't suffering, for the most part. Heck, the slaves in this story probably have a better time than some of the more radical monks we've read about. Men and women both learn trades! There's plenty of food and a gardening competition! Yaaaay!

Better than a little bit of cheese and some wine.

 
But, better is still pretty far from perfect. There are slaves. Sure, they're people who probably would have died otherwise, but, there are slaves.

People who are sick and suffering are allowed to end their lives. I don't disagree with that, but I do have problem with the fact that they are encouraged to do so. “Really Bill, you're pretty much a waste of flesh and food now, just kill yourself. It's better for everyone.” I think that's a bit much.
No one has property so there aren't any fights, but no one has privacy either. I don't care if the door is mine or not, but please give me a lock for it. I don't need to own the lock, I just need to have it available, please.

Women are more equal in this Utopia than they were in 16^th century England, sure, but it's still not nearly enough. Women must marry into their husband's households, do all the cooking in addition to their trades, can only accompany their husbands on wars, and are generally subservient. It's better, but that doesn't mean it's good.

More's Utopia also has a few other tricky little areas, like the praise of genocide and how there's overall religious freedom, except for atheists of course. Atheists get nothing. I like this Utopia more than anything else we've seen so far, and I think it comes the closet to providing for it's citizens equally. I still want more than that though. This utopia is certainly better, but it's not good enough for me yet. More equality, less slaves. That's really what me and my modern views are looking for.

( Image taken from feedio.net)

Self-Governance ≠ Utopia

There's something new going on at Grinnell College. Something different. Something almost radical. The students at Grinnell College are self governing. Rather than calling campus security every time they have a problem, the students try and work problems out themselves.  They own up when they break things. They sit and talk with drunken students, and try to help them. They plan their own college activities, such as concerts and beer gardens. Unless a very serious issue arises, the students are in charge of making their own decisions and keeping each other in check.

Houston Dougharty, the vice president for student affairs, had this to say about the college:  “This is a place where you can create a utopian experience." (Mike Kilen) It certainly sounds nice. Students learn to solve their own disputes and be responsible. However, the question immediately arises: Does being “nice” or “good” automatically make something utopian? Awesome, sure, but utopian?

Lots of things are “nice”. Fresh baked cookies, good books, and snow days are all very nice things. However, a society where every day is a snow day and everyone just reads and eats cookies is probably not a Utopia. (In fact, I wager that cookie eating, snow day having, book reading society would dissolve in a few weeks, when the cookie ingredients ran out and everyone had to start burning their books for warmth.)

Pictured: Not a particularly utopian thing to be doing.
 

Obviously, just being nice or pleasant doesn't make something utopian. Dr. MB has raised the question of whether Grinnell College is utopian because it is socially commendable. I say it isn't. 
 
Firstly, the definition of “socially commendable” can vary extremely from person to person. What is socially commendable to one person could easily be socially despicable to another. I am sure that there are some people who would view Grinnell College's polices as liberal indoctrination, a horror that teaches young adults that they don't need to follow anyone's rules except for their own. I can almost hear them now: “Why, it's practically a step away from anarchy. You certainly aren't attending that cesspit, Cecile.” (These hypothetical people have a hypothetical daughter called Cecile. She will soon be attending a hypothetical Ivy League school and joining a hypothetical sorority, but that's another story. Maybe in the next blog.)

Secondly, a utopia is literally a “no place”. It is a non-existent society. Grinnell College cannot be a utopia, because it is an actually real place with actually real people doing actually real things. Even if the college was the pinnacle of human achievement, an absolutely perfect and just place, it couldn't be a utopia. Its realness would doom it. A utopia is a no-place. Grinnel College is a real-place. 

Thirdly, even if you ignore the relativness of socially commendable acts, and the definite realness of Grinnel College, there is still the fact that Grinnel College does not fit the most basic of utopian criteria. It is not social dreaming. It is a social reality. The moment a utopian place becomes a reality, it no longer fits the criteria for a utopia. Sure, it's awsome that Grinnel College is actually doing something commendable instead of just dreaming about it, but that doesn't mean it's utopian. Once something becomes real, it's not utopian anymore. That doesn't mean it's not good, or that it shouldn't be done, but a utopia literally cannot exist on this Earth. Utopias are confined to stories and movies. They're a thing confined to dreams and fictions, not realities. Utopias can't be real places. Real places can't be Utopias.
 
 
I am finishing this blog even more convinced that a utopia cannot exist than I was before. You can't make a no-place. It's literally impossible.

Socrates knows Justice

An accurate (not really) modernized (in the loosest possible sense) summary (just barely) of Plato's Republic:

 "The essential minimum for a city is four to five men, except actually it's a whole bunch more, because we need to trade and make war. Because this ideal city is still going to have war."

"You're so right, Socrates!"

"And we're going to have to tell our children stories, so they can get educated. But, the stories we have right now can teach them bad things, so we're going to have to censor the ever living daylights out of them. We're throwing out three fifths of the Iliad, because we can't let any young minds be warped by seeing Achilles misbehaving. Censorship is awesome for this ideal city."

"No one will ever doubt your wisdom, Socrates."

"And it would be aweful if sick people just laid around being sick, or, gods forbidding, procreated. That's just prolonging their worthless miserable lives. So we're just going to leave sick people to die. This ideal city embraces eugenics."

 

"Please give me your babies Socrates."

"And as for wives, well, friends share everything in common. In this city, women won't just be one persons property, they'll be everyone's property."

"You are a beautiful person, Socrates."

 "And we need to make sure people don't go laughing too much. Too much laughter and the next thing you know your children will be running around playing lawless games. Everything in moderation. "

"Seriously Socrates, please let me have your babies. Please."

"And justice? Well, in this ideal city, justice is doing your own work and minding your own business. If the leaders decided  you would be a good farmer when you were eight, that's what you're going to be. Forever."

"Those 500 Athenians are gonna be super sorry they didn't give you the lead in the spring musical, Socrates."

"Injustice, on the other hand, is meddling. When people want to do anything besides what's been decided for them, that's just a big piece of injustice." 

"We love you Socrates!"

"And I know justice"

Google is Judging Me. : (

I consider a Utopia to be a place where there are no presumptions about a person's character, and people learn about each other as individuals. I'd like to say that I never make a judgment of a person based on their gender, race, sexuality, or ethnicity. But, I'd be lying. Pretty much everyone holds some sort of presumption about other people's characters, and I'm no exception. I wouldn't even be allowed in my own Utopia.

Consider Google. Google is not a person, it is a slightly sinister company, but it still makes a very good example of the effects of presumption. Google collects data on people's search histories and then uses it to try and tailor adds to fit their personal preferences.

(You can view your own add profile here if you want: http://www.google.com/ads/preferences )

You might not believe me, but Google's add preferences can be a source of wonderful entertainment. My favorite game to play on them is something I call Gender Add Grab Bag. You play by telling Google you're the opposite gender that it has you listed as. Then, you go browsing to see if the adds that pop up are any different from what you normally get. Then, switch back, and visit the same websites. Even though all of the data that Google has collected on you except for your gender stays the same, the changes are often striking.

While listed as a male, I usually encounter lots of adds for home improvement, alcohol, and cars. Listed as a female, I encounter far more adds for shoes, purses, and diets.

As a special treat, here's the most uncomfortable add encountered while I was listed as a female:

                                              (She's way too happy about all of this.)

And here's the even more uncomfortable add encountered while I was listed as a male:

                                                          (I can't even.)

I don't know why Google even needs to tailor my adds based on my gender, considering that it's already collected enough info to know that I like juice, rock and pop music, reptiles, and biological sciences. But, apparently it is still absolutely vital to know which parts I happen to possess, so that Google can also make judgments that are based on stereotypes rather than search history.

I think that the world would be a much better place if everyone was judged on what they did and said, without any presumptions being made about them. Of course, if I tell Google they need to stop being so presumptuous they are probably going to ignore me, because I am a tiny little person, and they are only a few technicalities away from being considered a world power. I can't change the world right away. But, I can change myself.

There are three main steps to the process:

1. Admit that you hold prejudgments and prejudges, because it's very hard to change something while pretending it isn't there.
   
   
2. Fight them at every opportunity. 
   
   

                    (If it doesn't feel like this, you aren't trying hard enough.)

3. Repeat for the rest of your life.
   
   
   I think that if everyone tried their very best not to prejudge people,  the world would be a much, much better place.

(Images belong to Tampax, orientbrides.com, and Paramont Pictures, respectively. )