Last thoughts

Most of the thoughts that I have had about technology and ecology prior to taking this class (Technology & Ecology in Literature) involve the environmental impacts that technology makes as it progresses. I had never thought too deeply about it, up until we started analyzing it through this class. I know now more about the benefits and negative aspects of the growing technology in our world, and how people view that progression. For example, watching the “environmental” Prius commercial and analyzing it made me think a lot more about other products and technologies that are advertising as “environmentally friendly”. Also, the questionable poem that we attempted to interpret at the beginning of the semester helped me think more about how technology works with the environment and what it could be like in the future. After taking both this class as well as an Environmental Sociology, I have learned a lot more about the intersections between technology and ecology. Both classes looked at advertising about environmentally friendly products, as well as groups against the ‘environmental’ movement. It was interesting to learn and think about possible technology for the future in this Ecology and Technology in Literature class; especially with the advanced technology (robots) in R.U.R., the film Blade Runner and Red Mars. Many questions about our technological growth as a society have come to my mind throughout the semester, including: Could technology become so advanced as it had in some of our readings (controlling themselves)? Will we be able to sustainably progress with technology in the future? Do most people see technology growth as positive or negative in terms of our environment? Most of the readings we had for this class throughout the semester helped me think more about each of these questions, and even helped me figure out a few answers.

Creature and the bear

There are many similarities and differences between the scenes of the creature and the bear watching humans. When the bear first sees the human it feels fear, but as time goes on the bear watches more closely on the humans and learns by observation. Both the bear and the creature question themselves as who they are, what they are, as they are observing the human life. The creature feels so different from the human that he puts himself down, wishing he could be exactly like the beautiful humans, rather than his ugly, monstrous self. Over time the creature has fits of rage, taking his anger about himself out on other humans and animals. Once the creature realizes he cannot be like the humans, he wishes for one just like him. The bear is also a violent animal, but after exposing himself to the woman he had been watching, he tries to make himself less violent and even takes care of the baby. The bear has a more positive outcome of this learning, simply wondering what he would be like as a man, wishing he was a man. The creature learns language and human social manners, but feels lonely when watching them interact with each other. Both attempt to make “human” sounds, with each making their own progress of grunting and moaning. The creature eventually learns how to successfully speak the human language, while the bear did not. Of all of the parallels between these two stories, the creature seemed to have been smarter than the bear. Although the bear realizes and accepts that he is a bear, the creature was able to observe the humans and correctly mimic their lives, like their language and social interactions; even if he wasn’t completely accepting himself for who he was. The bear has a home to go back to, with the rest of the bears, whereas the creature must find his master to have a purpose in his life.  

Cloning

As a member of the UCLA, I believe that it is important to support stem cell research and possibilities for cloning. It is vital to think of how these could positively affect the future, medically and culturally. Cloning could possibly help with diseases in the future, which is the biggest incentive to continue this kind of research. Obviously there are many against these research methods, but along with stem cell research and cloning, regulations will be necessary. As long as there are strict regulations that the researches stick to, there isn’t anything wrong with cloning or stem cell research. For example, the cells used should be ones that would have been disposed of otherwise. Before any actual “research” is done, there should be a committee that approves of all parts of the ‘experiment’ before it is started. Also, every scientist involved should have gone through a specific process of interviewing before being put in the research group. Each has to have had a good education and experience background, and interviewed by the committee. There will also be many safety precautions, for the subjects, scientists and more. In no way will these research methods reflect on this Christian group as portraying God, (by creating more humans) but simply to continue modern scientific discoveries with what we have learned and what is available. Even after these rules are put forth, if any of them are broken (by a scientist or other participant) there will be heavy consequences. Also, if there were to be any accidents or tragedies with any the research itself, the rules may be changed or altered.

Colonizing on Mars

Time to colonize Mars! Being a part of the United Nations committee, I must create a few main principles before we travel and terraform to Mars.

1. Map out specific areas on Mars for both terraforming and preserving. If it is planned out ahead of time, once the community settles on Mars, there should be no dispute over the issues of transforming a new planet completely like Earth or not. Certain areas will be allowed to be changed, and those designated areas will be saved for families/people who wish to create Mars based off of our previous home, Earth. Another area for living will be designated for people who wish to create a completely NEW world, not based off of the Earth, but still different than the natural Mars. The last area will be kept untouched-saved for the ecological history of the original Mars, and will be studied by the ecologist and historian of the leadership group.
2. Have a committee decide on a decent sized group to be chosen to travel to Mars. A committee from the UN will choose individuals from many different countries to evenly represent the Earth’s population to bring to Mars. A very diversified group will be chosen, and the committee will also work with the group as a whole to pick a few leaders for the new world. The leaders will include about five people: A president, vice president, historian, ecologist, and a head translator. Each of these leadership jobs will be decided from voting by the group traveling to Mars and the committee from the UN, and will be based on past leadership history. This way there won’t be struggles for power in the new country, and the leaders should represent different areas of our original world.
3. Guidelines and laws will be predetermined before the group travels to Mars. Both the UN committee and the newly decided group of leaders for Mars will work together in creating a fair system of laws for Mars, based off of many similar laws across the globe on Earth. This will include rules for an economy on Mars, illegal activities on Mars & possible punishments, communication with us back on Earth, limitations on terraforming and guidelines for sustainability on Mars, and terms and conditions of the leadership spots on Mars. This means that there will be a limit for how long the group of five leaders may have power on Mars, but this depends on how the group votes. If they are still wanted to stay in power (as chosen by the people on Mars), they are allowed to stay.

Creationism/evolution/intelligent design

"Creation Moments" website:
http://www.creationmoments.com/content/religion-evolution

"Action bioscience" website:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

Frankenstein

In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the idea of techno-science and nature and philosophy is questioned. The main message about techno-science throughout the book is the importance of knowledge and learning. The entire story revolves around this creature who travels and ‘lives’ by learning of his/it’s surroundings, environment, and cultures in which will help him survive in the world. The creator, Victor, also goes through his life story about how he learned from his own creation, which includes a few deaths in his family and friends, and how it shaped his decisions. This comes into play for the question about whether or not this is a cautionary tale. One specific quote from the book that pin points this very subject is the last few words that Victor speaks before he dies, “That he should be an instrument of mischief disturbs me;…Seek happiness in tranquility, and avoid ambition, even if it be the only apparently innocent one of distinguishing yourself in science and discoveries. Yet why do I say this? I have myself been blasted in these hopes, yet another may succeed” (Shelley, 187). This would be considered as a major argument of the “caution” in this novel. Shelley indirectly warns readers throughout this book how techno-science is something to be carefully dealt with, for there will be consequences if not. There are many interesting ideas to techno-science but even the slightest disregard to the importance of learning with and from these ideas could create problems. Like in Frankenstein, when Shelley shows us how the creator lost control of his creation from his lack of interest with continuing his work. If the creator had continued to help the creature learn with him and discover the world rather than forget about him and let him off into the environment on his own, things would have been much different. Most likely the creature wouldn’t have killed those other people and would have had a better understanding of relationships and the culture of the people. The creature’s regrets of his life choices reflect the regrets of the creator, which connected the two characters in the end.

Mr. Green film

I believe that this film, “Mr. Green”, first implies that the government places environmental issues last, as relatively unimportant in comparison to other priorities. It also implies that government takes in the issue of money, and how ecological issues are lacking funding because of their place in the government’s priorities. It’s scary to think where we will be in the near future with global warming, especially if we continue to have a low funding amount to these ecological challenges if any funding at all. Right now one of the issues with global warming is the politics, with so many people completely ignoring and disbelieving the affects to our environment. Without first knowing and accepting these problems, it will be difficult to make real progress in fixing them. Since this film is set to be in 2014, it poses important questions on how we stand now, and if or when we can make improvements or changes from now until then. This film suggests that the only way to make good choices for ecological change in a democracy is to “be the change you want in the world.” By this they are encouraging individuals to make daily choices to help make a difference, not just to expect government or any other higher authority or group to do all of the work. Specifically, one of the characters describes how reducing the amount of meat consumption in the U.S. could make an impact, which means Americans either becoming vegetarians or simply adapting their diets to less meat. This movie implies that there could possibly be techno-scientific solutions to ecological issues, with the characters somehow growing plants in and on their own bodies. Anything that advanced will not be available by 2014, seeing where technology is today.