| Collection of opinioned essays, fiction articles and stories paradoxical direction of thought mostly. Contact us if you want to be published here. |
|
A Fist in the Eye of God I, personally, would never trust
a guy in a suit who’s never given away a nickel in his life, but I don’t know if
the world would be a better place if nobody did. Whether I trust Kingsolver’s
logic depends a great deal on what I myself believe on several issues. At the
start of the essay I was not sure of my stances on genetic engineering and
globalization, but after a few readings and ponderings, I might have come to a
conclusion. What the conclusion is and how I got there I will see by the end of
this essay. If the scientific arguments
weren’t enough, Kingsolver manages to show political and social consequences of
extensive genetic engineering. She brought up the strong possibility of forced
globalization should genetic engineering reach today’s crops fully. “What will
it mean for a handful of agribusinesses to control the world’s ever-narrowing
seed banks? What about the chemical dependencies they’re creating for farmers in
developing countries, where government deals with multinational corporations are
inducing them to grow these engineered crops?...And Finally, would you trust a
guy in a suit who’s never given away a nickel in his life, but who now tells you
he’s made you some free Magic Wheat?”(257) Well, Kingsolver had me stumped for a
while with these questions, since I knew the answer that she wanted to hear, but
didn’t know about the answers that existed to nullify these questions. Thus,
after reading the article I decided to plunge myself into the depths of logic to
find the answers. To answer the first question that
was posed, a handful of agribusinesses controlling the world’s ever-narrowing
seed banks would mean globalization and monopoly. The answer was not hard to
determine. Kingsolver would say that monopoly and globalization is bad, then I
would tell her that she is talking (and writing) out of only one perspective.
She does not give contrasting beliefs a chance. Kingsolver wrote her essay
assuming that most people would agree that all her assumptions are correct.
Thus, anyone who might not agree is given no room to do so. In fact, right after
asking the critical questions concerning genetic engineering that are quoted
above, she shoves the answer down the reader’s throat. “Most people know by now
that corporations can do only what’s best for their quarterly bottom line. And
anyone who still believes governments ultimately do what’s best for their people
should be advised that the great crop scientist Nikolai Vavilov died in a Soviet
prison camp.”(257) This is a poor way to answer a
great deal of important questions she herself presented. If corporations were
not looking out for their quarterly bottom line, then the consumer would not be
getting the cheapest and best product available. If corporation were not to care
about their monetary success then the whole theory of capitalism and survival of
the fittest, a concept that the great evolutionary scientist Darwin helped
shape, would not apply to modern society. Corporations need to care about money
to be competitive, and corporations need to be competitive to be any good for
society. These points are backed by the theory of social Darwinism. If Apple
didn’t care about its profits, Kingsolver wouldn’t be bobbing her head to her
newly Itunes downloaded copy of “Speed of Sound” on her Ipod, nor would she be
able to enjoy that special Starbucks flavor in her morning coffee, nor would she
have to buy three dollar can of Coke since Coca Cola and Pepsi drive each
others’ prices down. Thus, getting back to the point, monopoly can also be
useful to society, since Microsoft is inducing not only a centralization of
software and computer technology, but also a few fierce rivals who need to
reinvent the wheel in order to compete, and they are doing so successfully. Kingsolver’s essay, just like
Microsoft, tries to hold the monopoly on the views of the reader, and thus can
spawn some fierce rivals of thought. It shoves the perspective down the reader’s
throat, which may prompt some people to ask “Wait a second, that can’t be all?
It’s just too obvious that way.” Thus, for me, it was a very thought provoking
essay. In terms of the actual idea, I
would disagree with Kingsovler. Scientifically she advocated the “it is better
to be safe than sorry” approach. We can’t make mistakes, or else the
consequences might overwhelm us. Well, Kingsolver needs to revisit scientific
history. No great scientist ever got anywhere with that approach. The goal is to
push the barrier, to try something or think something that has been never
thought of before. Nobody tried a social contract before the “Founding Fathers”
wrote the Declaration of Independence. Nobody would dare think that a feather
would take the same time to fall from a tower as a brick does, if air wasn’t
there to slow it down, before Galileo’s experiments. Why can’t the modern
scientist dare to try something that has extremely positive consequences? Trial
and error is a good scientific approach on any scale. Besides, any consequences
that may backfire from extensive engineering would go along with the
evolutionary and survival of the fittest theories. If our world accepts
extensive engineering then it would evolve with it. If the world rejects it,
then there will be severe consequences and the population that will survive the
consequences would be the fittest as well. I, personally, would never limit
human progress by taking such a stubborn and bold stance against genetic
engineering. I’ll let the world evolve with the use of genetic engineering,
while I personally will be sitting out in the Russian countryside and eating my
delicious, unmodified, all natural, untampered-with potatoes by Kirill Sakharov 10/24/2005 |
Archive:
Back to current article Other articles:
|