In light of our recent reading of Frankenstein,
I found the parallel between Frankenstein’s creation process and Darwin’s
discussion of artificial selection to be haunting. Frankenstein, like the
breeders described by Darwin, break with nature in order to pursue the creation
of a new species that is useful to them. Darwin mentions that some breeders
“speak of an animal’s organization as something quite plastic, which they can
model almost as they please” (Darwin, 31), an idea quite similar to
Frankenstein’s manipulation of his creature’s body. As Frankenstein selected
each of the creature’s parts and installed them into his new breed as a way to
improve upon the human form, breeders examine the variation among their
specimen and choose which traits they wish to pass on to the next generation.
This process includes “pull[ing] up the ‘rogues’”(Darwin, 32), where the
specimen with the less desirable traits are kept from breeding. This selection
of individual pieces is similar to Frankenstein’s process of “dabbl[ing] among
the unhallowed damps of the grave or tortur[ing] the living animal” (Shelley,
81) in order to find suitable organs for his creature. In both cases, it seems that neither Frankenstein nor the breeders are
able to account for problems that arise from their individual rather than holistic selection of
traits. Darwin notes that the breeders
“rarely [care] for what is internal” (Darwin, 38) reflecting a preoccupation
with the superficial improvements on their specimen. As we have previously
examined, Frankenstein’s lack of attention toward the creation of his creature as a whole lead him
to abandon the creature. The artificial selection processes described by Darwin
are still practiced to a wide extent. In the context of the emerging problems with agricultural today, it is interesting to consider the problems encountered by both creators. Both Darwin and Shelley seem to have anticipated problems with choosing pieces of a species based on its appeal as in individual piece and not as a part of a whole.
I definitely agree with Kyra’s assertion that Darwin and Shelley describe the creation of new species similarly. I would like to point out another striking similarity—Darwin’s description of how one species can easily affect another. Darwin’s example is that “the presence of a feline animal in large numbers in a district might determine, through the intervention first of mice and then of bees, the frequency of certain flowers in that district!” (Darwin 74). Darwin is pointing out that there are unknowable consequences to every action. This is something that Victor does not necessarily realize when he first creates the monster. He does not look past his goal to think of the consequences. However, his creation leads to fear, hatred, the deaths of nearly all his friends and family, and, ultimately, his own death.
ReplyDeleteKyra makes a great point about the similarities between Frankenstein's creation of the monster and artificial selection. It seems to me that the difference between their actions is the purpose or intent of each respective creator. In using artificial selection, horticulturist selects desirable traits found amongst a plant species to best suit their desired purpose. When Frankenstein assembled his monster, he mindlessly through spare body parts together. This led to a very unfortunate creature that didn't fit in amongst humanity or serve a beneficial purpose. This lack of purpose that Frankenstein possessed was an important distinction between him and a horticulturist using artificial selection.
ReplyDeleteThis point about unintended consequences reminded me of the problems that have arisen through the artificial selection of bull dogs. Bulldog's genes have been so manipulated by breeders, who seek characteristics such as a squished nose, that the breed has developed many health problems. This goes to show that although someone can have good intentions, bad things can happen. Both Frankenstein and the case of the Bulldogs prove that it is dangerous to mess with nature.
I definitely agree with Eleanor's conclusion that messing with nature is dangerous, especially regarding animal and plant life. In addition to unhealthy bulldogs, breeders render mules and ligers infertile and genetically modified food is always a health concern. When does this science go too far? Though breeders and horticulturalists, as Eleanor states, have good intentions, is creating inviable species and harmful plants ethical? Personally, risking the lives of a litter a bulldogs in an attempt to make them cuter is worthy of alerting an animal rights activist group. Raising nutritionless corn that's a little more profitable is advantageous only to the profiteer and counterintuitive to the concept of food. Similarly, Frankenstein's creation of a sentient being is unethical because he had no forethought other than to win science. Also, as Emma points out, Darwin suggests that unnatural intervention in a natural world can produce unforeseen ramifications. Hopefully science checks a new strain of plant or specie of animal before one becomes a danger to Earth's balance.
ReplyDeleteWhile I understand the points of the posters above, I hold a slightly different view. While I do agree that messing with nature for the sole purpose of the advancement of science without forethought is morally questionable (especially in the case of affecting living creatures), I do not believe that it is completely wrong.
ReplyDeleteFrankenstein was seeking to create a superior man, and though he admittedly did not think through the "afterwards" very careful, his procedure up till the creation was flawless. He hand picked body parts for the creature, choosing to give it "lustrous hair" and "strong teeth", as well as an "enormous size" (Shelley ). In the same way, modern horticulturists have made great strides in the improvements of plants. Perhaps there is some unforseen bad part to genetic engineering, but it has given us such things as golden rice, which could potentially provide hundreds of thousands of malnourished kids with Vitamin A, pest-resistant corn, which keeps millions of pounds of pesticides from being released into the environment, and increasing crop yields manifold. Meanwhile genetically modified animals can be used to create antimicrobials and cheapen the materials for pharmaceutical drugs, cheapening the products and thereby saving human lives.
This is not to say all tampering with nature is safe, but we humans have been tampering with nature for millenia - play it safe and its possible to reap huge rewards. And who knows - there could be unforseen benefits as well as problems.
First, I would just like to comment I am so glad you wrote about this Eleanor. I noticed a lot of similarities and links between Darwin's book and Shelley's Frankenstein too. Like you, the quote about people modeling plants and animals like plastic was very haunting. Furthermore, I decided to track in the book where Darwin talks about "monstrosities". For example he says, "Geoffroy St. Hilaire's experiments show that unnatural treatment of the embryo causes monstrosities; and monstrosities cannot be separated by any clear line of distinctions from mere variations" (8). This sentence rung in my mind because Frankenstein makes the Creature out of the same thing that any humans are made out of. Genetically he is no different than a human, and he is a variation of us. But, he is treated as this monstrosity mentioned, because he looks different though in essence he is the same as humans. Also, today during the lecture, I thought it a very relevant point that Mr. Hutchinson made the comment about how the Creature's offspring would have been like humans, as both the male and female creatures were made from human parts.
ReplyDelete