Tag Archives: provocation

Reflections

Scarlett’s Oryx and Crake Provocation: What Makes a Life Worth Saving?

3 Comments

Something that interested me most about Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood was looking at the value that the characters in the novel put on individual lives. Oryx and Crake asks it’s reader to really consider what makes a life worth saving and as I read it I found myself struggling with my own morals in regards to living things.

It all starts with the pigoons. Early on the in the novel Jimmy is taken to OrganInc and is introduced to the pigoons. Pigoons look like pigs but contain human organs, scientists then harvest these organs and use them for transplants. On the surface it seems that the scientists at OrganInc value the Pigoons lives more than the life of a normal pig; “it was claimed that none of the defunct pigeons ended up as bacon and sausages: no one would want to eat an animal whose cells might be identical with at least some of their own.” (24). However we soon find out that the value placed on the Pigoons lives is far more to do with individual morals than overall consensus. Jimmy is upset when he finds out that Pigoon meat may be being slipped into the cafeteria food and this is one of the first things that marks Jimmy out as being potentially more morally good than some of the other characters in the novel. In direct contrast to his feelings about the pigoons Jimmy’s aversion to eating the ChickieNob’s comes from them being too far removed from a normal living being. “He couldn’t see eating a ChickieNob. It would be like eating a large wart.” (203).

Atwood continues to look at the value that the characters put on individual lives in a much more dramatic way when Crake decides to destroy almost the entire human population. Destroying every human on Earth certainly seems like a large jump from eating a few pigoons and the question of why Crake did what he did is one that looms over the entire novel. I think that Crake’s decision comes fundamentally from a place of pain. He has discovered the drug companies plans to make people ill in order to sell them drugs and he also suspects them of killing his father. It’s an extreme decision to make but by blurring the lines of morality in regards to other creatures throughout the novel, Atwood makes us slightly more sympathetic to Crake. His hatred of his species has grown so large that to him it makes complete sense to wipe them out and replace them with another.

The novel ends on a cliffhanger but one that also concerns the way that different species regard each other. The Crakers are the species in the novel closest to humans however it is unclear at first whether their lives are valued or not, and it is eventually Oryx who convinces Jimmy that their lives are worth saving;

“If Crake isn’t here, if he goes away somewhere, and if I’m not here either, I want you to take care of the Crakers.” (said Oryx).

(…)

“They are like children, they need someone. You have to be kind with them.”

(322).

After this Jimmy treats the Crakers like children, making sure they are fed and looked after. However when Jimmy discovers that there are other humans alive the question of how the Crakers and the humans will interact becomes key and Jimmy worries that the humans will not see the Crakers as lives similar to their own; “Maybe all will be well, maybe this trio of strangers is good-hearted, sane, well-intentioned; maybe he’ll succeed in presenting the Crakers to them in the proper light. On the other hand, these new arrivals could easily see the Children of Crake as freakish, or savage, or non-human and a threat.” (366).

Okay so after that very long point I do finally have some questions:

Do you think that Atwood is making an argument that all living creatures should be valued or do you think she is saying that none should be?

Do you think she is using the blurred moral lines regarding life throughout the novel to highlight our societies confused conscience when it comes to what animals we are okay with destroying and what animals we place extreme value on?

Another large theme in the novel is extinct animals. Do you think Atwood is making us look at the way we kill entire races of animals by showing us Crake’s decision to destroy the entire human race?

Uncategorized

Provocations about What Technology Wants by Kevin Kelly – Karen Kandelman

2 Comments

Ultimately what I was thinking about when reading What Technology Wants by Kevin Kelly was that he made sense because he drew from many different systems to make analogies and explain his argument. I enjoyed reading his book because of the structure of explanation he used. This structure was essentially Kelly stating a definition of his argument and then trying to prove it through concrete examples. That was effective because he went to the root of the issue and held my hand by explaining everything thoroughly. Although, he has statements he makes that don’t feel fully backed up and therefore, at least for me, lose its power when trying to convince me. That’s essentially how I decided upon the provocations I was going to write about. I will include one idea that he brought up that is interesting and I agreed with and an idea that was provoking but that I found flaws with that perhaps were legitimate yet were irreconcilable for me.

The most striking concept that Kelly brings up is the comparability of technology and biological systems especially in terms of reproduction. He explains that the “technium can really only be understood as a type of evolutionary life” (45) and goes on to determine technology as a seventh kingdom of life. What I really found appealing about this notion is that it makes parallels between organic systems and technological ones. I never considered thinking about technology in this way where “computer scientists [are] using the principles of evolution to breed computer software” (9)  in order for programs to duplicate or self-assemble without people having to interfere in the system.  The example of the robot PR2 made at Stanford that could it has the “ability to find a power outlet and plug itself in” (11), essentially what the scientists have created is a code that makes the robot do this but it can make robots become to be self-sufficient. Kelly states that before technology – computer programs – was “merely parroting what we told it, but now it is more like a very complex organism that often follows its own urges”(13).

Whereas, I don’t really believe or I am not fully convinced of Kelly’s argument that “the greatest difference between the evolution of the born and the evolution of the made is that the species of technology, unlike the species in biology, almost never go extinct” (51). Although, he tries to prove his hypothesis through his categorical investigation into what is still being produced from the century’s catalogue of inventions and is successful, I just don’t want to believe him.  The concept of obsolescence of technology is real, especially as new digital and mechanical technologies are invented. Having to throw away a charger because they have made a new one for the phone you just purchased, is a real complication of technology. I don’t agree with the fact that technologies like steam powered cars are useful and should be considered not extinct, even if they can still be produced. In my view, if it isn’t being used popularly or regularly and is just ineffective compared to other new technologies, it should be considered extinct. However, I great point is brought up by Kelly when he mentions that there is a “virtue in doing things without oil-fed machinery” (55). This brings me to a point that was brought up in the introduction, that technology can obviously be beneficial in connecting our society and making us collaborate but it can also be detrimental. Now, there are many movements to regress – to use less technology – in certain areas, in order to make the negative consequences diminish, which includes urban and organic farming.

My discussion question ultimately is: What does technology want? Why is the title of this book what it is, and does it lay out what technology wants?  I watched Kevin Kelly’s 2005 TedTalk and he tried to explain it by saying that “It’s a way to explore possibilities and opportunities and create more. And it’s actually a way of playing the game, of playing all the games. That’s what technology wants.” In the presentation, he refers to the infinite game and how technology helps us redefine ourselves and this questioning is constant and shouldn’t stop. Do you agree that what technology wants to create more opportunities or is there another definition for what technology is seeking? 

Here is the link to the TedTalk, enjoy:

https://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_kelly_on_how_technology_evolves/transcript?language=en