Humanity I'm looking for answers to the big questions: What is the meaning of life? What is the difference between Good and Evil? Is there a God?
Scott, Antioch University Abstract Science fiction literature has long dreamed of extravagant utopias and dreaded nightmarish dystopias.
Authors from the birth of the genre to more current times find the erosion of empathy to be the downfall of either extreme form of society. However, whether a fictional world is allowed to go too far into utopian dreams through drug use, hyper-sexualization and the like, or whether it is all repressed into a dark authoritarian regime, members of each societal type undergo a loss of empathy which eventually becomes the downfall of civilization.
It is notable as well that in both novels where science progresses rapidly without the check of ethics, such as H. Though the pleasurable aspects of utopian classics and the unpleasant facets of dystopian books appear at first to be polar opposites, they similarly portray collapsing societies that have lost their sense of empathy.
However, both utopian fiction and dystopian fiction present two separate roads that eventually lead to the same erosion of interpersonal connection and empathy.
From early science fiction like H. Indeed, there is much discussion in the literary community over the ways in which science fiction has come about as a sign of the times while technology continues to advance rapidly.
Many speculative fiction authors write about these extremes and follow the nightmares through to their darkest conclusions. Much early science fiction deals with the notion of scientific pursuits being carried on without any restraint regarding its greater consequences or ethical considerations.
G Wells showcases this age-of-reason type of utopia in some of his early works, such as The Invisible Man In this classic novel, the invisible man is seen as a freak to the people of the village in which he arrives. He discovers that the few people who will accept him warily want to use him to commit crimes and for their own selfish needs.
The invisible man seeks out the scientist, Dr. Kemp can be seen as a representation of the ethical safeguard against potentially dangerous new technology; the invisible man serves as the symbolic obsession with progress, skipping past all ethical considerations, and he ends up becoming disturbingly fanatical and sociopathic until his eventual murder.
Science fiction critic Mark R. Moreau chronicles the life of a secluded scientist carrying out experiments on a hidden island in order to turn animals into humanoid creatures.
Moreau shows a certain amount of protective care and nurturing towards his creations, this attitude is hauntingly contrasted by the amount of physical pain he inflicts on fellow life forms.
While they try to adapt to the imposed pseudo-civilized lifestyle, they tend to revert back to feral states unpredictably. This fragile arrangement can be seen to represent the possible outcome of a society becoming overly reliant on scientific pursuits and ruled by logic rather than ethical considerations.
When citizens are forced to advance in rapid scientific leaps without regarding their individual and collective human rights, the nightmare becomes one of suppressed rage, fear, and eruptions of violence. In fiction, science is often divorced from ethics and leads to the same conclusions: On the heels of the industrial revolution, Brave New World allows the reader a glimpse into what the world would be like if everyone were genetically engineered specifically for their jobs and stations in society, and chemically kept content with their position.
The heavy emphasis on consumerism is perhaps a reaction to the boom in capitalism around the time of the industrial revolution, when anything seemed possible and industrialized nations were experiencing significant growth and advancement.
Huxley also seemed to pick up on early hints of the sexual revolution, poking a bit of satirical fun at the idea of recreational sex taken to its utmost extreme. Sex in Brave New World is no longer about relationships, families, or procreation but, rather, has become a universally-defined normal social activity lacking any deeper meaning other than simply physical pleasure.
When people die in this society, there are no bad feelings, as there are no family ties or deeper relationships with others.
They have been robbed of empathy and all of their emotional focus is geared towards being happy with their position in life and enjoying hedonistic pleasures rather than meaningful pleasures such as love and connection.
Interestingly, however, to prevent people from inward withdrawal and, perhaps, to keep them from reflecting on how hollow their lives are, being alone is taboo.
Superficial yet constant social interaction is highly encouraged and being too unique or desiring alone time is entirely unacceptable. This keeps the society conditioned to work together to produce and consume in an endless loop, and ensures that no one strays too far from the mold by offering constant means of superficial pleasure and enjoyment.
Noted psychology professor and founder of a branch of neuroeconomics studies, Paul J. Zakhas written extensively about the ways in which the bonding hormone oxytocin encourages people to connect emotionally and physically by rewarding the brain with positive feelings.However, I am convinced that the world, including all humanity, WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.” This is just one of shocking quotes about population.
On one side we have depopulation, GM food and on the other side we have Millennium Development Goals. The country must therefore never subject itself to the rules rightly constraining lesser powers. China and Russia are still more unlikely to ratify, and without scruple at . Will humanity destroy itself?
81% Say Yes 19% Say No Endless growth on a world of finite resources is impossible, survival of the fittest anymore,we've all evolved from the days of the cavemen,and we all need to focus more on how the world can be made better,and not just sit by and let it rot. Report Post. Like Reply.
0. 0. According to Durkheim, no knowledge of the world is possible without humanity in some way representing it. Furthermore, Durkheim rejects the idea of the Ding an sich, or the transcendent thing in itself.
It is itself a kind of experience, and while we may not have the time or the opportunity or it may be physically impossible for us to experience certain things in the world, we can experience them through sensitive reading.
Thought without symbols — life without language — it’s a cognitive reality that is virtually impossible for most modern humans to fathom. This isn’t to say that language is a perceptual world, but rather than languages can induce certain perceptual biases that may be more or less (rules) of combination of these symbols used by a.