Critical Annotated Webliography Q.3

Frankenstein continues to occupy the popular imagination as a monstrous scientist. Analyse some of the ways in which Frankenstein haunts discussions of recent technologies.

Does anyone notice in what extent the technology affect to us? Think about what if we don’t have mobile phone one day? We would probably feel insecure and nervous as if we do not exist that day. And, Frankenstein is a classic sci-fiction novel, boosting our imagination of the effect in our technological life. Here are five writings which help us to think about the horror of technologies in different aspects: politics, sciences, ethics, humanities, futures. Nearly, all of these approaches except sciences required us to criticize the development of technology for the sake of avoiding technology disordered while we highly depend on it. The issues of ‘democracy’, ‘human cloning’, ‘genetic food’, ‘dehumanization’, and ‘AI’ would be discussed, which told us to take it seriously without naïve mind. It is because the earlier we sense the consequences of Frankenstein; the more we could do to prevent it.

According to Shari Poen’s article, Thinking Though Technology: Frankenstein’s Problem (or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Technology),
we could see his emphasize on the technology as a metaphor of ‘tools’ have too much ‘power’ to affect our view of looking the world. We are living in a ‘techno-culture’, in which it does not mean that we should take a negative view of the emergence of technology, but need to pay attention to the way technology would arrange our lives unpredictably. Frankenstein is a creation that symbolize the technologies that could not receive the ‘sufficient care’ just like we use it without critical and analysis manners. Besides, he questioned about whether the democracy could continue to be exist in the lacking of ‘critical technological citizenship’. The emerging of ‘deskilling’ and ‘surveillance’ would cause, although technology could fulfill our wants, it could not wholly free us without ‘democratic practices’. It has been suggested that the real monster is not Frankenstein (technology), but the evil mind that allows these happen. To avoid this, we are required to critically deal with the ‘noir’ side of technology with ‘adult’ mind of using it.

There are a lot of upcoming technologies generating debate on their usage and existence in human’s living or even alters our fate. In the article of The Curse of Frankenstein has revealed different stand point of creation of genetic food, but it tends to support the invention of it. It has been stigmatized by environment activists as “Frank food”, the word is embodied from Frankenstein, which closely relates the story of Mary Shelly about the fear of the scientist monster. The author hereby tends to emphasis this is just a ‘myth’ of Frankenstein to give an excuse for the science and technology haters. There are several negative discourses about these foods in no evident supports or most of them were unknown. But, environmentalists have stood firm to their sense of the altered foods would cause harm to us and the environment under the ‘genetic manipulation’. In order to lessen the fear of the science and technology, FDA imposed rules to reassuring the safety of genetic food. Actually, the invention of this technology helps much in farming. In the perspective of farmers, this technology is a magic in dealing with the difficulties of harvesting. Therefore, a total rejection of the primitive fear of technology of genetic foods is needed rather than constant regulations on biotechnology in ‘anti-science campaign’.

However, the emergence of advance technologies is not actually a good thing. It has been argued that the medical technology in the deepest level could be seen as the way to the process of ‘dehumanization’. It has been claimed that one of the ‘human qualities’ is the decision to death. In the writing of Dehumanization, the author alleged the medical technology would dehumanize four basic human abilities, including ‘the inherent of worth in being human’, ‘the uniqueness of the individual’, ‘the freedom to act and the ability to make decisions’, and ‘the equality of status’. Human is treated as an ‘object’ under the ‘medicalization’ when he is dying. Sometimes, we could not be seen as individuals, instead of it, we are cyborg, because some patients should rely on the ‘life-sustaining machine’. It just likes the scientist monster ‘Frankenstein’ that we could not have a very clear distinction. There has been a ‘death-denying culture’ boosted with the development of these ‘impersonal systems’ to manage our health.

In the writing of Thinking Through the Ethics of Cloning, Dr. James F. Drane collects different ethical interpretations of different ethical experts on this big ethical issue, human cloning. But his comment on it is not focus on the rightness of cloning but the fact of the possibility of both good and evil of human being. The fear of evil human attitudes is the main concern. Here are ethicists who speak for their view on this issue. One of the ethicists, literary ethicists has taken a critical stand point on cloning, and Frankenstein is the first novel which provides the negative assessment on it. Their ethical view point on cloning are reflected in the literature works, stated that it is ‘unnatural’. And other ethicists like religion and government have the same reflection with literature. Pope’s view has already rejected any use of technology which interferes with sexual reproduction within marriage. However, scientists and business take optimistic view of the cloning. They suggested many advantages of cloning on either view of protect diseases or business prospects. The most fairness commentary should be addressed to bioethicists, setting strict guidelines on both cell genes intervened on human beings and human cloning. This genetic technology raised us the questions on ethics of human being.

Eventually, I would like to predict that consequences of long-term advancements of technology by analysis the history of technology which affects our life deeply. In Frankenstein of the Future, Alison Burns has a critical analysis on the future of human life in the technological world. He emphasizes what human do with technology is a ‘blind’ act. The creation of ‘Artificial Intelligence’ could lead the opening of a ‘Pandora’s box of monstrosities’ in which just like Victor Frankenstein did with his monster. The author argued that it causes serious result if the machines are given the ability to ‘learn’. He used the sci-fiction ‘Matrix’ to illustrate the uncontrollable result of technology dominate the world. Also, AI was symbolized as ‘children’ and we human as ‘parent’ who has the responsibility to teach them. Nor bearing a child, or bearing a more destructive and powerful child, AI is easy. By looking backward of the history of technology development, from 1940’s invention of first computer to today’s system which can imitate human thought, the ability of the machine has transcended human, like ‘best human chess player’. Nowadays, we depend on ‘smart machines’ which could replace jobs of human , this ‘dependence’ is not revealing our power to master them, but the hidden shocks it bring to life.

There will be a rapid growth of advance technology which has been predicted. We somehow become cyborgs, just like the nature of Frankenstein because of certain reliance on technology; gradually ‘techno-culture’ and ‘death-denying culture’ are boosted. Someone would think Frankenstein is a legend in which there are no evidence to prove it, even though technologies help us in many ways, there are a lot of bad speech has been discussed in the level of ethics, politics, humanities and futures. The common view that came up with is that we should be considerate its effects on our future life. The fear of Frankenstein is not because of the advance technology, but the bad intentions of the human who use it.



References:

Shari, Poen. (1998). 'Thinking Though Technology: Frankenstein’s Problem' (or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Technology)
http://www.viterbo.edu/analytic/Vol%2019%20no.%201/thinking%20through%20tecnology.pdf (accessed 1 March 2009)

Tracinski, Robert W. 'The Curse of Frankenstein' http://www.capitalismcenter.org/ProTech/Archives/Curse_of_Frankenstein.htm (accessed 1 March 2009)

(2007). 'Dehumanization' http://www.deathreference.com/Da-Em/Dehumanization.html (accessed 1 March 2009)

Drane, James F. (2002). 'Thinking Through the Ethics of Cloning'
http://www.uchile.cl/bioetica/doc/think.htm (accessed 28 February 2009)

Burns, Alisa. (2002). 'Frankenstein of the Future' http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/frank.comment4.html (accessed 1 March 2009)