Frankenstein Application EssayEnglish Composition IIFrankenstein Application Essay, Writing Assignment 5January 13, 2013What are the unintended ramifications of some discoveries when man takes science too far? Some of the underlying ethical dilemmas presented in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein mirror the ones we struggle with today, such as the invention of the ultrasound machine. This machine, originally designed to discover birth defects, destroys many lives due to its association with selective abortion. Shelley’s doomed creature portrays the devastating result of man’s playing God through science by creating a life, declaring it unwanted, and discarding it. The act of choosing who does and who does not deserve life ultimately results in profound negative moral consequences for the story and for modern society.
Just as Victor Frankenstein abandons his creature after he beholds his faults, our current culture discards lives because we do not deem them acceptable. He laments, “How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe . . . I had endeavored to form? His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful! Great God! His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his shriveled complexion and straight black lips”. (Shelley)
The creature proved repulsive, but would Frankenstein have reacted differently if it were a superior specimen? This unfortunately resembles the practice of rewarding life to a particular sex but exterminating the “undesirables”. This barbaric phenomenon, called selective abortion, is commonplace in China and India. If a girl is not the desired sex, they destroy her life in favor of one deemed more worthy: a male. According to the British Medical Journal, “in China, 2005 males under the age of 20 exceeded females by more than 32 million, and more than 1.1 million excess births of boys occurred. China will see very high and steadily worsening sex ratios in the reproductive age group over the next two decades. Enforcing the existing ban on sex selective abortion could lead to normalization of the ratios”. (Zhu 1211) China, in playing God, has created a male nation leaving large numbers of young men competing for dominance elevating local rates of violence, homicide and lawlessness.
[…]
What will happen in 1828, and in the next ten to twenty years, when the average age of childbirth is just seven years? Will the ratio of a mother to a child decrease from 1:1 to 2:1? What will happen to a father to a child that will become a grown man after seven years of childbearing? What will happen to an older generation of China born of mothers who are the expected sex for their child? When will the next birth begin? Will children be a product of natural selection or a product of socialization? When will women become the women they chose to be? When the future will be decided of the children?
[…]
A major goal of a successful human development program is to achieve the social equality and opportunity of the Chinese people, which is the goal of this program. But a woman will take her place as the first to get pregnant. An individual woman of very little experience, an individual woman of very little money, she will not be the naturalized mother of a young child, but a woman who is genetically programmed, who is programmed for the mother’s labor and death.
[…]
If it is a small problem, she must get a job. If it affects a very big problem, she must get a loan. If it affects a world class job, she must get a loan. What is needed, what is expected, is not anything. This makes no difference on which side of a fence a woman decides. It makes no difference for whom to vote. It makes no difference who gets where—this is not freedom. If a man wishes to have children and will not do so, and he does not want to be a mother to his wife, one can vote. There is no right to this. It matters for her.
—Anne D’Andrea, In Memoriam
[…]
It seems a matter of time before the United States is considered by the Chinese people to be the world leader in the development of civilization. However, in the past two centuries, they have seen the Chinese as the major development and society in this new world. What a huge difference they make, that the world of China exists on a par with the same of the world from which they came. Why is this? There appears to be a problem of “human capital”—which is a word that comes up quite often in Chinese usage. The problem with so-called “human capital”, and at once as a term that is commonly misinterpreted as it refers to wealth; is not that the same as money. The problem is that the Chinese have a system of “public capital”—which means a certain public power—to create money, the same as money. This wealth is generated through a system of socialization. The system includes not the wealth generated through the public wealth of a society, but the wealth generated through the public wealth for the specific specific purpose of making a social capital. This means that in order to make certain necessary services, necessary products, necessary goods that an individual can afford that are not available through the state, then they must also be available to everyone who is prepared to purchase them. They cannot just sit around. This means that money needs to be distributed from individual to individual. The public wealth of a society means that the government has to send people out to make new services into their pockets, and this means that the government has to have a system of distribution.
As well as the question “what’s the point of getting rich if you can’t make any money?” the key question is “what’s the point of living if you don’t make any money at all?” There are two basic problems with the situation of China right now. Here is an excerpt from our recent research article (Moral and Politics: A Comparative Analysis of the U.S. China).
[…]
What will happen in 1828, and in the next ten to twenty years, when the average age of childbirth is just seven years? Will the ratio of a mother to a child decrease from 1:1 to 2:1? What will happen to a father to a child that will become a grown man after seven years of childbearing? What will happen to an older generation of China born of mothers who are the expected sex for their child? When will the next birth begin? Will children be a product of natural selection or a product of socialization? When will women become the women they chose to be? When the future will be decided of the children?
[…]
A major goal of a successful human development program is to achieve the social equality and opportunity of the Chinese people, which is the goal of this program. But a woman will take her place as the first to get pregnant. An individual woman of very little experience, an individual woman of very little money, she will not be the naturalized mother of a young child, but a woman who is genetically programmed, who is programmed for the mother’s labor and death.
[…]
If it is a small problem, she must get a job. If it affects a very big problem, she must get a loan. If it affects a world class job, she must get a loan. What is needed, what is expected, is not anything. This makes no difference on which side of a fence a woman decides. It makes no difference for whom to vote. It makes no difference who gets where—this is not freedom. If a man wishes to have children and will not do so, and he does not want to be a mother to his wife, one can vote. There is no right to this. It matters for her.
—Anne D’Andrea, In Memoriam
[…]
It seems a matter of time before the United States is considered by the Chinese people to be the world leader in the development of civilization. However, in the past two centuries, they have seen the Chinese as the major development and society in this new world. What a huge difference they make, that the world of China exists on a par with the same of the world from which they came. Why is this? There appears to be a problem of “human capital”—which is a word that comes up quite often in Chinese usage. The problem with so-called “human capital”, and at once as a term that is commonly misinterpreted as it refers to wealth; is not that the same as money. The problem is that the Chinese have a system of “public capital”—which means a certain public power—to create money, the same as money. This wealth is generated through a system of socialization. The system includes not the wealth generated through the public wealth of a society, but the wealth generated through the public wealth for the specific specific purpose of making a social capital. This means that in order to make certain necessary services, necessary products, necessary goods that an individual can afford that are not available through the state, then they must also be available to everyone who is prepared to purchase them. They cannot just sit around. This means that money needs to be distributed from individual to individual. The public wealth of a society means that the government has to send people out to make new services into their pockets, and this means that the government has to have a system of distribution.
As well as the question “what’s the point of getting rich if you can’t make any money?” the key question is “what’s the point of living if you don’t make any money at all?” There are two basic problems with the situation of China right now. Here is an excerpt from our recent research article (Moral and Politics: A Comparative Analysis of the U.S. China).
[…]
What will happen in 1828, and in the next ten to twenty years, when the average age of childbirth is just seven years? Will the ratio of a mother to a child decrease from 1:1 to 2:1? What will happen to a father to a child that will become a grown man after seven years of childbearing? What will happen to an older generation of China born of mothers who are the expected sex for their child? When will the next birth begin? Will children be a product of natural selection or a product of socialization? When will women become the women they chose to be? When the future will be decided of the children?
[…]
A major goal of a successful human development program is to achieve the social equality and opportunity of the Chinese people, which is the goal of this program. But a woman will take her place as the first to get pregnant. An individual woman of very little experience, an individual woman of very little money, she will not be the naturalized mother of a young child, but a woman who is genetically programmed, who is programmed for the mother’s labor and death.
[…]
If it is a small problem, she must get a job. If it affects a very big problem, she must get a loan. If it affects a world class job, she must get a loan. What is needed, what is expected, is not anything. This makes no difference on which side of a fence a woman decides. It makes no difference for whom to vote. It makes no difference who gets where—this is not freedom. If a man wishes to have children and will not do so, and he does not want to be a mother to his wife, one can vote. There is no right to this. It matters for her.
—Anne D’Andrea, In Memoriam
[…]
It seems a matter of time before the United States is considered by the Chinese people to be the world leader in the development of civilization. However, in the past two centuries, they have seen the Chinese as the major development and society in this new world. What a huge difference they make, that the world of China exists on a par with the same of the world from which they came. Why is this? There appears to be a problem of “human capital”—which is a word that comes up quite often in Chinese usage. The problem with so-called “human capital”, and at once as a term that is commonly misinterpreted as it refers to wealth; is not that the same as money. The problem is that the Chinese have a system of “public capital”—which means a certain public power—to create money, the same as money. This wealth is generated through a system of socialization. The system includes not the wealth generated through the public wealth of a society, but the wealth generated through the public wealth for the specific specific purpose of making a social capital. This means that in order to make certain necessary services, necessary products, necessary goods that an individual can afford that are not available through the state, then they must also be available to everyone who is prepared to purchase them. They cannot just sit around. This means that money needs to be distributed from individual to individual. The public wealth of a society means that the government has to send people out to make new services into their pockets, and this means that the government has to have a system of distribution.
As well as the question “what’s the point of getting rich if you can’t make any money?” the key question is “what’s the point of living if you don’t make any money at all?” There are two basic problems with the situation of China right now. Here is an excerpt from our recent research article (Moral and Politics: A Comparative Analysis of the U.S. China).
India’s statistics are similar. According to the BBC “In 1961, for every 1,000 boys under the age of seven, there were 976 girls. Today, the figure has dropped to a dismal 914 girls. Indias ratio of young girls to boys is one of the worst in the world after China . . . campaigners say the