Of the 4 possible bodies that are presented by Mischa Peters in her article "Exit Meat," I would most prefer the natural body. Nature was created as something greater than anything we as humans can possible make. It is above all of our science and technology. We cannot compete with it. The objects that we create only last for a limited amount of time. They break and fall apart. They cannot tolerate the environment that they are in for an extended period of time. However, nature can. Nature has survived the changing environment for billions of years. It has changed itself, in response to what is happening around it. It adapts, evolves. Its dependencies are only on other natural things that will evolve with it. There is nothing that can destroy all that is natural. Technology, on the other hand, cannot do these things. It depends on us, the natural human species for its very existence. It cannot change or evolve by itself. It has no ability to create more of itself or adapt. Technology exists because nature has created it. Nature can continue to be without technology, but technology would cease to exist without nature.
It is because of this that I would prefer that natural body above all others. Although the other bodies have certain advantages, these will quickly die out. For instance, the bodyguard who has the modified body has features that are advantageous to her life. She has better than human vision as well as knives that can project our of her hands. While these features would be helpful to her, they will not be passed on to her children and will quickly die out, so what use are they? And what happens if her environment changes and those adaptions are not longer useful? Will she be able to adapt and produce other, new features that are also "modified" from the normal human body that will assist her in her survival in these new surroundings? The answer is no, she will not. These temporary adaptions will not help her if her surroundings change and they will not be able to adapt to the new conditions. The natural body, however, can do so. It will be able to adapt and grow new features to help us survive. Although it does not have the obvious indestructibility that built in knives and super-human vision have, it is much more durable. And although that first generation may die out due to changing conditions, the new generations will survive. This makes the natural body the most indestructible and the most useful. This is what makes the natural body my preference.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really love the bit about heritability. Indeed any physical enhancement made that is not made on the gamete level will quickly disappear. on a larger scale they are really useless. good insight
ReplyDeleteI think your point about hereditability is interesting as well, but I don't think that it is important, for the following reason. Technological enhancements to a person's body are inherently selfish. By altering one's body, one does not have his or her children in mind--and one is not spending money with the expectation that such transformations will be passed on to children. The enhancements are purely accessories to advance a career; no different than a college education. And like technological enhancements, an education is not passed down to a person's children...
ReplyDeleteYour point about the dependency of technology on nature really puts into perspective and prioritizes the importance of both bodies. With this statement carries an overwhelming feeling that the natural body is much more important to society, which it is.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that you say that technology's existence is dependent on us. I never really thought about it that way. So, technology really brings about a sort of codependence. We depend on technology and it depends on us. I also really like how you pushed the persistence of nature. This puts nature and humanity above all else and emphasizes what you said about how we can keep going without technology.
ReplyDelete