Last week, we read "The Declaration of Independence" and Douglass' "What To The Slave Is The Fourth of July." We will continue our unit on comparing and contrasting by reading "Biotech Century" and "Enemies of Promise." In these two essays, the authors discuss many issues that relate to genetic manipulation--namely, GMOs (genetically modified organisms) and how they are impacting the environment and us.
Quote one key line from at least two of these essays (and/or "Clan of the One-Breasted Women"). In other words, for example, you might have a quote from Jefferson and a quote from Douglass.
Respond to these quotes. Discuss how they relate or contrast to each other. Discuss whether or not you agree with the ideas presented in each quote. Rifkin and Bishop have very strong opinions about science and its advancements.
Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
The most memorable quote in “Enemies of Promise” by J. Michael bishop would have to be the lady on television saying “those people are bringing DNA into my neighborhood.” (284) I wonder if she watched herself on television if she realized the mistake in her statement. Did someone finally explain to her what she said? I find it fascinating that someone would not have a clue what DNA is.
In the “Biotech Century” by Jeremy Rifkin a memorable quote would be “To ignore the warnings is to place the biosphere and civilization in harm’s way in the coming years.” This pretty much summarizes what he has to say. It says that if we use genetic technology we are doomed in the future. Amy Hampton
"But the new technologies of the Genetic Age allow scientists, corporations and government to manipulate the natural world at the most fundamental level-the genetic one." is Rifkin's claim. I would agree that these entities are changing genetic codes but i would argue that this change is happening at the most fundamental of levels. what about the soul or the etheric plain. It could be that this is the most fundamental level of a being. Bishop makes the statement of " Science, of course, is not the exclusive source of knowledge about human existence." this will definetly agree with there has to be some other dimention to our existence then just the true hard facts. All of the arts that can give a person so much meening in life ar just as important and I think that Bishop tries to touch on this. Science is not the end all of end alls.
Rifken said, " Critics worry that the reseeding of the arth with a laboratory concieed second Genesis could lead to a far different future, a biological Tower of Babel and the spread of chaos throughout the biological world drowning out the ancient language of creation." While Bishop says," We live in an age of scientific triumph. Science has solved many of nature's puzzles and greatly enlarged human knowledge. Yet despite these proud achievements, science today is increasingly mistrusted and under attack. They both agree on the fact that its all or nothing meaning that if science can't play a part in life then we won't be able to move any farther. Their differences are that Rifken is a very religious person and has many religious views on things and Bishops not religious at all. Another thing Rifken is an extremist saying everything in the worst way while Bishop is a leadist trying to persuade people to see what he sees.
this one above belongs to me chris brown
Bishop: "Critics suchs as Brown and Lamm blame science for what are actually the failures of individuals or society to use the knowledge that science has provided."
Rifkin: "The introduction of new genetically engineered organisms also raises a number of serious human health issues that have yet to be resolved."
Bishop talks about how he thinks people are ignorant, because they don't use the knowledge science has provided. Rifkin, on the other side of the issue makes a rash assumption with no fact that genetically engineered things can hurt us. I think Rifkin backs up Bishops argument here that people are ignorant with the information given. He has the opinion that genetically engineered things will hurt us. This in my opinion is a lack of knowledge about the situation. However, on the other side of the sword Bishop could be the ignorant one.
Charlie K.
Jefferson:"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain enalienable Rights,k that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Douglass: "The fact is, ladies and gentlemen, the distance between this platform and the slave plantation, from which I escaped, is considerable-and the difficulties to be overcome in getting from the latter to the former, are by no means slight."
I think that these two quotes both show a feeling towards a common theme. Jefferson is saying that all men should be equal and happy and while everyone at Douglass' time is supposed to be he has still not been granted the same judgement as others throughout the young nation.
I like the line from Douglass "Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty?". And yet seventysix years ago in the Declaration of Independece Jefferson states that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the persuit of Happiness". But clearly Jefferson himself didn't feel that all men are equal otherwise he probably wouldn't have had slaves himself. So I am confused about the fact; was Jefferson not that smart, a hipocrit, or was he so inhuman as to the fact that he didn't view African Americans as people. But no matter the case it is verry clear as to why Douglass didn't wish to speak on the fourth of July.
Tadd Kingsbury
In "Enemies of Promise," J. Michael Bishop closes by saying, "The price of science seems large, but to reject science is to deny the future." By saying this, Bishop gives tries to imply to his readers that his way is the only way. You can either deny the future, or you can move with it. There's no in between; these are your only options.
In "Biotech Century," Jeremy Rifkin implies "When the day arrives - and it's likely to come sooner than later-"genetic pollution" will take its place alongside petrochemical and nuclear pollution as a grave threat to the Earth's already beleaguered environment." I think that Rifkin is trying to scare us by saying this. He's making sure to let everyone know that if science continues in the way it's going, bad things are going to happen. Our environment will be even more polluted than it already is, and we are to blame.
Caitlin Weaver
After reading both science essays from the two significant authors, I found these interesting enough to believe and to make an argument at the same time.
What really fascinated me after I read "Enemies of Promise" by Bishop and "Biotech Century: Playing Ecological Roulette with Mother Nature's Design" by Rifkin, I could compare their ideas and opinions from their writing.
Bishop states at the end of his essay, "The price of science seems large, but to reject science is to deny the future"(285). He thinks that the society is still ignoring the technology and advancement that science has brought up.
Similarly with Rifkin, he illustrates, "Pestilince, famine, and the spread of new kinds of disease throughout the world might yet turn out to be the final act in the script being prepared for the biotech century" (296). He uses the scripture to explain his ideas to the reader about the Second Genesis and how the world is now changing with the new advancement that people are creating. Rifkin thinks that the society should worry about the world warning, such as the genetic contamination of food, the creation of novel viruses, and other viruses. Those warning might only be the start of everything and there'll be more to come.
Both authors are using the same fallacy, which is the Either/Or Fallacy to make the reader to feel that they have no other choice but to believe them.
The World can be more beautiful without all this issues where the humanity are always the victims. The civilization and Science is growing in knowledge and changing in big steps, thanks to the new technologies, our enviromental is having a good avances for the future for the next generations, but what about us? the present generations, I'm talking for "Now". Some people are agree with the new changes, and some people are desagree with it. They do not respect any more with our opinions, they are going agains to all the different religions, they don't even care about what we think or not. With all new invents that we are going through, the same story of the "Tower of Babel", second Genesis, Bible is involved, and is a good remainder or warning, what happen at that time, when every body were completely confused and they were talking in different languages, just think about. That is exacly what is going on today, we feel confuse, however let's think in the positive way I guess.
In Enemies of Promise by J. Michael Bishop, I liked the line of what the lady said on T.V. "Those people are bring DNA into my neighborhood." I actually thought that was funny seeing that it seemed she had no idea what DNA was. And in Biotech Century by Jeremy Rifkin a good quote was, "To ignore the warnings is to place the biosphere and civilization in harm's way in the coming year." He he is saying that we are all doomed in the future if this happens. Both essays were very strong with ethos and I truely felt the emotions from both.
In Enemies of Promise by J. Michael Bishop, I liked the line of what the lady said on T.V. "Those people are bring DNA into my neighborhood." I actually thought that was funny seeing that it seemed she had no idea what DNA was. And in Biotech Century by Jeremy Rifkin a good quote was, "To ignore the warnings is to place the biosphere and civilization in harm's way in the coming year." He he is saying that we are all doomed in the future if this happens. Both essays were very strong with ethos and I truely felt the emotions from both.
My first quote is from the Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
On the fourth of July 1776 this document was adopted. Thomas Jefferson and the "Committee of Five" wrote that all men were created equal. This sparks a controversy because Jefferson owned slaves himself, which would mean that He must not have even thought of them as people.
My second quote is from Frederick Douglass's- "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?"
"The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn."
Frederick Douglass living in the aftermath of the Independence of America told it the way it was, which is that not all the Americans were free. People owned slaves.
It certainly was against what the Declaration of Independence stated, "that all men are created equal."
In his speech, Frederick Douglass made this stirring comment:
"We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present and to the future. To all inspiring motives, to noble deeds which can be gained from the past, we are welcome. But now is the time, the important time."
Although Douglass appreciates America's past heroes, he realizes that the crucial moment is the present. Regardless of history, it is the duty of those living today to live in such a way that future generations will look back at them with pride and respect.
In a way, Terry Tempest Williams expresses a similar idea. Recalling a dream, Williams says, "A contract had been made and broken between human beings and the land. A new contract was being drawn by the women, who understood the fate of the earth as their own."
Unlike Douglass, Williams has few good things to say about the (recent)past. While Douglass suggests that we should follow the precedents set by courageous heroes of history, Williams holds a different view- she believes that we must learn from the mistakes of those who came before us and right the wrongs they committed.
Both authors allude to the importance of the past, but they have varying opinions about how we should respond to it. I agree with both Williams and Douglass. Like Douglass, I believe that we should follow the examples of past heroes. I also believe, like Williams, that we should learn from the mistakes of others and seek to undo the damage they inflicted. As Douglass so eloquently phrased it, "...now is the time, the important time."
-Adrian Elliott
J Michael Bishop’s essay, “Enemies of Promise” ends by saying, “The price of science seems large, but to reject science is to deny the future.” His vivid wording churns a person’s emotions enough to force the reader to reevaluate their thoughts. Similarly, Jeremy Rifkin writes to finish his “Boitech Century” essay by saying, “To ignore the warnings is to place the biosphere and civilization in harms way in the coming years.” Both of these writers have a similar style to writing, and both have very strong opinions of their case, which is the future of the planet and mankind. They obviously take two different stances, however. I think both authors have made valid points for their argument, but because their arguments are so controversial, it is hard for a reader to take and “either/or” stance. Perhaps, a more middle of the road stance is best that society can come up with.
I am going to use one of the most famous quotes from “The Declaration of Independence”: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (518). I will also look at Douglass’ statement from his speech “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July” He says “What, am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters” (531)?
Douglass doesn’t feel as a slave he was given these “unalienable rights” that Jefferson writes about in “The Declaration of Independence”. As you can see in Douglass’ speech he feels he was not given Life, Liberty, or the pursuit of Happiness. You can tell he feels this way and is not happy with the way he says he was treated. There is no way a man can be pursue being happy and live life when he is being beaten, lashed, and even starved. Douglass probably doesn’t feel he was created equal since he is not being treated equally and is not able to pursue his “unalienable rights”.
Bishop states, science, of course, is not the exclusive source of knowledge about human existence. There are other parts of the knowledge that define who humans are. The ideas and the history of humans are parts of the knowledge of humans.
Rifkin states thousand of years of fusing, melting, soldering, forging, and burning inanimate matter to create useful things, we are now splicing, recombining, inserting and stitching living material for our own economic interests.
Rifkin thinks that now that we have the knowledge to do these things we can cerate better living organisms. We have the knowledge. Bishop say that it is our knowledge not only science that make us who we are. They both want science to show who we are and the abilities we have.
-jwboden
Bishop states, science, of course, is not the exclusive source of knowledge about human existence. There are other parts of the knowledge that define who humans are. The ideas and the history of humans are parts of the knowledge of humans.
Rifkin states thousand of years of fusing, melting, soldering, forging, and burning inanimate matter to create useful things, we are now splicing, recombining, inserting and stitching living material for our own economic interests.
Rifkin thinks that now that we have the knowledge to do these things we can cerate better living organisms. We have the knowledge. Bishop say that it is our knowledge not only science that make us who we are. They both want science to show who we are and the abilities we have.
-jwboden
In J. Michael Bishop's "Enemies of Promise," He states that "Biomedical research is one of the great triumphs of human endeevor." I agree with him. If it were not for the advances in Biomedical research, I would not have been able two have the three heart surgeries and evrything else that has helped with with my health issues. In Jeremy Rifkin's "Biotech Century" he says that"But the ne technologies of the Genetic age allow scientists, coporatins and governments to manipulate the natural world at the most fundamental- the genetic one." I also agree with Rifkin, he is a naturalist who is looking out the good of our enviroment. I am for Biomedical research,but against bio technology. In all I see the two authors scared of advancement because technology (or anything Genetically Engineered) especally Bio technology is so unpredactible.
"The consumers of scientific research have to take more of a hand in determining how science is conducted, in what research gets conducted." This is a quote from "Enemies of Promise" presents a valid opinion I believe. Consumers do have a say in whether or not they will consume genetically modified corn and other foods. This is similar to a paragraph in "Biotech Century" that states that these geneticaly modified plants will be in our livestock's diet which will eventually end up in our stomachs. Both of these are similar because of the consuption of modified modified crops that eventually end up on our dinner plate in some form or another. I agree with them. We do have a choice as to what is done with our food no matter how it ends up on our plate.
Brandon Harrison
" Oppression makes a wise man mad, with brave men, there is always a remedy for oppression. Fredrick Douglas expressed the theme of his message simply within that one quote. Standing in front of former slave owners as an escaped slave, he had quite the an audience to penetrate.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." This quote from the declaration of independence expresses the exact injustices that Douglas speaks of. If all men are created from one god, how can the concept of a slave be accepted?
Mike Ross
Post a Comment