Thursday, January 15, 2009

Dan Green | Blog 1

      “Aristotle opened his Metaphysics with the simple statement: ‘All men by nature desire to know.’” The desire to know has led the world headfast into the 21st century at a rate that could be destructive to humanity. Many terrible things are anticipated in Shelley’s Frankenstein that have come to pass without acknowledgment or worry from the scientific and technological leaders of the today. The most dangerous thing, however, is the excessive hubris that is filling the minds of the brilliant.


      The first problem that hubris and the desire of unlimited knowledge create is a world of uncertainty. Shelley presents this position in the simple fact that Victor unknowingly doomed William with his obsession. As he states, his downfall began early in his life when he was exposed to a vast amount of knowledge without judgment. If he was taught this information, rather than educated himself there would be bounds, but nonetheless the knowledge paired with a youth’s imagination condemned his poor brother in the future. Also, another aspect of his personality, which is prevalent in today’s technology market, is the thought that this knowledge can do anything and failure is not an option, a form of hubris. Victor ultimately forfeited the chance to make his own decisions, because his actions will be based upon how his creation acts. Bill Joy agrees and notes this point by stating “what we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines' decisions.” The technologically advanced needs to not ignore the lesson learnt by Victor and realize that all actions, even knowledge based experiments, may have repercussions that are out of their hands. If the message is looked over and taken with a grain of salt, the near future might look like a sci-fi movie where humans are the slaves of the creations.


  Pride is an essential part to many people’s characters in all walks of life. Pride alone is something that defines a person, but when pride is excessive disaster can strike and a person can be consumed. The thought of failure or being outdone is what dictates the marketplace of the 21st century and in the technology world can lead to colossal misfortunes. A scientist or inventor can easily be ostracized and consumed by the thought of the completion of a project. When this happens, they fall into the dark side and lose what is important which is the advancement of humanity and will often make mistakes that lead to suffering. Victor turned into a madman and created a monster, a monster that the very thought of such an existence is unimaginable to most. If the current industries follow in this path they will compete to the level which will be beyond human reach and bestow power to the machines. However to stop this transformation, companies must do what is best for humanity and less for themselves.


      A third lesson that can be learned from Frankenstein is that all things will eventually die off (inferior robots) or adapt (superior robots). This is revealed through the actions of his Daemon. At first, the creature walked awkwardly and could only grunt, but when we later catch up to the beast it has the ability to murder and frame an innocent person. Bill Joy states several examples of past text that all agree with this point. The one that I related to the most (because of the movie) was I, Robot where the very machines that we built to protect us evolve to enslave humans. Joy’s theory of how this happens is because “with each of these technologies, a sequence of small, individually sensible advances leads to an accumulation of great power and, concomitantly, great danger.” He warns us that eventually the evolution of machines will advance to the point of consciousness and the inevitable uprising of machines through nanotechnologies.


      The above are all events anticipated by Shelley’s Frankenstein which could have easily been eluded. Joy offers the alternative “to limit development of the technologies that are too dangerous, by limiting our pursuit of certain kinds of knowledge.” If this simple action would have been done by Ingolstadt, than all the foreseeable problems would have been avoided. Without supervision, Victor recklessly creates his monster because of inspiration from a bolt of lightning with no thought of repercussions. If the current path of the technology industry follows in his steps and doesn’t note his abominable outcome, then someone will eventually create a modern day “Frankenstein” that will be the downfall of humanity. In conclusion, “We are being propelled into this new century with no plan, no control, no brakes” but it is not too late to change.

3 comments:

brendan shay said...

I like how you started your paper with the quote from Aristolte however the next couple of sentences seem to extreme to start off in your opening paragraph. "many terrible things ...without acknoledgement or worry ...." this may be true but has no support and it seems to early in the essay to be stating this. maybe move this to a later paragraph with specific examples and support. The main argument is also a little unclear, is it the excessive hubris you will focus on or the terrible things that will come to pass without acknowledgement?

First sentence of 1st paragraph could be more clear and specific also. A world of uncertainty is very general maybe specifically express what you mean .
"Also, another aspect of his personality, which is prevalent in today’s technology market, is the thought that this knowledge can do anything and failure is not an option, a form of hubris. " again another generalization maybe give an example of this.

second paragraph you say that pride alone is what defines a person and that when you have too much is can cause disaster. THis may be true but also another generalization, one can be very proud of their accomplishments without being excessively hubris. Also when a scientist or inventor become consumed in a project not always do they fall into "the dark side" , maybe you could just reword that and say what happens in victors case and how this is a possibility for others. It seems a little to extreme how you worded these sentences. The last sentence however is very true and a good ending to the paragraph.

the 3rd paragraph doesnt seem to relate to your argument but instead shows a 3rd thing learned from Frankenstein, maybe I have your thesis mixed up or maybe just revise your thesis to make it more clear and related to all your body paragraphs. Then you go on to talk about Joy's essay which isn't mentioned in your thesis statement , maybe try adding something about Joy's essay and how it will relate to your argument.

Last paragraph is well written but doesnt mention anything about "the most dangerous thing " excessive hubris that you state in your opening paragraph. Perhaps tie that into the last sentences saying how they are connected. OVerall a very well written paper, try not to make to many generalization or extreme examples of what you think may happen without properly backing them up. Otherwise you have great ideas and a good argument.

Dan Green said...

“Aristotle opened his Metaphysics with the simple statement: ‘All men by nature desire to know.’” Many terrible things are anticipated in Shelley’s Frankenstein that have come to pass without acknowledgment or worry from the scientific and technological leaders of the today. Bill Joy’s Why the future doesn’t need us investigates many of these threats that we may face in the future. The most dangerous thing, however, is the excessive hubris that is filling the minds of the brilliant and will be the door to these terrible things.

The first problem that hubris and the desire of unlimited knowledge create is a world of uncertainty. Shelley presents this position in the simple fact that Victor unknowingly doomed William with his obsession. As he states, his downfall began early in his life when he was exposed to a vast amount of knowledge without judgment. If he was taught this information, rather than educated himself there would be bounds, but nonetheless the knowledge paired with a youth’s imagination condemned his poor brother in the future. Also, another aspect of his personality, which is prevalent in today’s technology market, is the thought that this knowledge can do anything and failure is not an option, a form of hubris. We see this in Frankenstein when Victor himself says “The summer months passed while I was thus engaged, heart and soul, in on pursuit” (56). Victor ultimately forfeited the chance to make his own decisions, because his actions will be based upon how his creation acts. Bill Joy agrees and notes this point by stating “what we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines' decisions.” The technologically advanced need to not ignore the lesson learnt by Victor and realize that all actions, even knowledge based experiments, may have repercussions that are out of their hands. If the message is looked over and taken with a grain of salt, the near future might look like a sci-fi movie where humans are the slaves of the creations.

Pride is an essential part to many people’s characters in all walks of life. Pride alone is something that defines a person, but when pride is excessive disaster can strike and a person can be consumed. Excessive pride will not always lead to misfortune, but under certain circumstances, like those Victor experienced, pride can be a disaster. Victor was even so proud of his creation that he called it “Beautiful! – Great God!” (58) even though deep down he knew he was creating a monster. The thought of failure or being outdone is what dictates the marketplace of the 21st century and in the technology world can lead to colossal misfortunes. A scientist or inventor can easily be ostracized and consumed by the thought of the completion of a project. When this happens, they can fall into the dark side and lose what is important which is the advancement of humanity and will often make mistakes that lead to suffering. Victor’s dark side was when he decided how the “manner in which I should employ [my astonishing power]” (54). Instead of following a path that may better the livelihood of humans, he went down a course that led him to his beast. Victor turned into a madman and created a monster, a monster that the very thought of such an existence is unimaginable to most. If the current industries follow in this path they will compete to the level which will be beyond human reach and bestow power to the machines. However to stop this transformation, companies must do what is best for humanity and less for themselves.

The above are all events anticipated by Shelley’s Frankenstein which could have easily been eluded. Joy offers the alternative “to limit development of the technologies that are too dangerous, by limiting our pursuit of certain kinds of knowledge.” If this simple action would have been done by Ingolstadt, than all the foreseeable problems would have been avoided. Without supervision, Victor recklessly creates his monster because of his hubris. If the current path of the technology industry follows in his steps and doesn’t note his abominable outcome, then someone will eventually create a modern day “Frankenstein” that will be the downfall of humanity. In conclusion, “We are being propelled into this new century with no plan, no control, no brakes” but it is not too late to change.

Adam Johns said...

Brendan - Good attention to details, but I would have liked to see more about where you'd like the argument to go.

Dan - What throws me off in the introduction is that you don't specify the "terrible things" which have come to pass. I think you're arguing that we should have reacted to Frankenstein, and on that basis should react to Shelley - but even in your introduction, you should say something about why we should do that.

Your second paragraph is smart and interesting. I take your real argument to be: "hubris destroys choice," by making the future overly dependent on the past. This argument could have been much more cleanly stated. You are providing some initial evidence for it, which is good.

Your analysis of Victor's character is both good and detailed. To ultimately make it compelling, I would have liked to see a clearer argument re: why Victor is representative. Why does the model of Victor Frankenstein apply to contemporary science? Integrating a more detailed reading of Joy could have done that. You actually make a gesture in this direction in the final paragraph, of course - it's just that you don't really develop it much. Starting in a more focused way would have let you develop the end more convincingly without extending the paper excessively.