The Newer York Times
by Sharon Hakim
See Sharon's Newspaper from the Future
Background Information:
This newspaper is supposedly scheduled to come out one hundred and four years in the future. The background for this newspaper is a time where the human species has wholly embraced all types of cloning, and has developed into a population made up of half “cloned humans” and half “naturally born humans.” One of the main problems with this, and causing this duel species is that through a genetic mutation in the cloning process because of technological limitations, people that are brought to life through cloning are unable to interbreed with anyone else, not even other cloned people— thus reproduction for them is limited to the use of technology. Cloning has also evolved—it doesn’t necessarily always make an exact duplicate, ie- in order to allowed cloned individuals to have children, science can genetically alter genes of the parents to combine in a way that would resemble mitosis and cell formation, however, it is not random linkage of genes, the parents have input on what traits they want their children to have. They have eliminated disease and weakness, they have longer lives. It is the ultimate designer race. The problem with this is that there are now too many people living on Earth, because essentially two different species are occupying, producing and trying to live off of it. Their different reproduction methods, as well as their eventual need for competition to survive, currently at the time of this paper, are forcing the inhabitants of earth to divide along these lines.
At the date of this particular newspaper, these tensions have just started
to arise; Cloning had been going on without any problems for around ninety
years. Now, however the Earth is overpopulated. Many attempts have been made
to find other planets, or space craft or stations to occupy. This has not
been feasible and experts think it will never be feasible. This is the first
time there was an absolute limit on human beings; they usually had unlimited
power for experimentation, the entirety of the universe to expand into and
explore. This however, because of the characteristics of outer space and the
development of our galaxy, will never be feasible for humans or their space
craft. Because of this discovery, the most valuable thing right now, is space.
The only project that worked was installing another level onto the surface
of Earth. This project, funded by a coalition of world governments and the
greatest architects, was successful. However it was only a temporary solution.
Because of gravitational forces, humans cannot build any more higher levels—they
will cause the whole planet to spin faster, because it would have to maintain
angular rotation, and the whole planet will be doomed. The last layer humans
can occupy, sadly, is already full of people. The layers of Earth are not
segregated, clones and natural humans intermix freely, and live in both places
randomly. The entire world now, is cities. There is barely any fresh water—all
food is cloned too, so the farming land has been used for people to live,
also. The end is finally in sight and human beings brought it on themselves.
This newspaper deals with the crises that is in effect at this
time—knowing that the end is near, and trying to find something to prevent
it. The only thing that will prevent the end of life on earth is the destruction
of some life on earth, so others can survive. This will be done by a major
civil war between types of humans. Clones and naturally formed humans had
been living together peacefully, but the thought of extinction for one or
all of them, has urged them into conflict. It is this conflict that could
actually end the world for both groups if it gets out of scale.
The newspaper brings all these issues out through in an indirect
way; only in this outline and summary of the background description of events,
setting it up, is the setting told directly. The only reason I included this
in my paper was so the reader can get the full effect of the stories by knowing
how catastrophic the situation is that these people are in. Otherwise, the
paper uses common news media features: breaking news, court case reports,
surveys, opinions and editorials to give the reader the whole story of what
is going on during this time. Exposition is the key in setting it up. However,
by using regular news features to convey the story, it makes it more believable
than just telling the reader it happened, like in this outline. Also, the
news stories allow the events to have a more personal aspect that readers
can relate to things in their own life, that were portrayed similarly by the
media.
The important thing in this newspaper is not how this conflict ridden world came to exist; the point is that it could, it isn’t completely imagined. It is important to recognize the monsters not only in this story as they exist in this future society, but in our own world today. To recognize something as monstrous before it expands to its full potential is a very lucky and important thing.
Monster:
This newspaper indirectly presents the concept of cloning, society, human
beings’ escalating use of technology, also their reliance on technology,
and clones as living organisms themselves as monsters. This will be explained
in the analysis, but I just wanted to point it out as monstrous, and say upfront
that there is more than one element that contributes to the monstrosity of
the events in this paper.
Works Cited
Bostrom, Dr. Nick. “Existential Risks- Analyzing Human
Extinction Scenarios and other
Existential Risks” Online. http://www.jetpress.org/volume9/risks.html
(April 22,
2003).
“Darwinism.” Columbia Encyclopedia. 6th Edition. 2003.
Family Research Council. “Top Ten Reasons to Ban All Human Cloning and
Support
the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003.” Online.
http://www.frc.org/get/lh03b1.cfm (April 22, 2003).
Gibbs, Nancy. “Abducting the Cloning Debate.” Time Magazine 13
January 2003: 46.
Herper, Matthew. “Study Highlights Dangers of Human Cloning.”
Online.
http://www.forbes.com/2001/07/05/0705clone.html (April 22, 2003).
King, Martin Luther. “I have a Dream.” Audiocassette. History
and Politics Out Loud,
1963.
Seeds, Michael A. Foundations of Astronomy. Seventh Edition. Canada: Thomson
Learning, 2003.
Analysis
The Monstrous can take on many forms; the monstrous substance, however, is arguably the scariest when one doesn’t see it as monstrous, and instead views it as advancement and encourages its growth. Society today has many of these monsters. Technology is one of the largest potential forms of the monstrous; as it grows and expands its influence to broader areas of life, human beings’ dependency on it grows. Technology, in all of its forms, is seen as advancement; many products of technology, however, go a step too far and “advance” an area that is not meant to be dominated by humans or technology, an area previously thought of as being without room for improvement and out of the sphere of human influence. Reproduction of life, one of the most natural biological procedures, is one of those areas that have thusly been violated. Cloning and genetic experiments are a prime example of this. The cloning of humans is the epitome of society’s reliance on technology and the human race’s quest for unlimited to gain unlimited power and to play the role of god. Although these are things that many human beings now think that they want, one can see that they have the potential to become monstrous. Through the articles of “The Newer York Times,” a mock newspaper set in the future, cloning and its attributes are seen in a monstrous form: uncontrollable, defying borders, uncanny and malicious towards the human race.
In order to understand how cloning can become and can be seen as monstrous,
one must first understand the composition of what a monster and the monstrous
is. There are general characteristics of the monstrous, defined by convention
and accepted and used when creating or describing monsters in literature and
film. Objects that are considered of monstrous nature are usually seen to
possess the qualities of monsters themselves, just in a more ambiguous form.
The first quality is that it the monster is big (physically, larger than life,
or just imposing). This can be seen in Frankenstein, where the monster is
created to mock the human shape, but is much larger and much stronger than
any human. Monsters are generally mysterious, this can be interpreted as sneaky
mysterious or mysterious because one doesn’t know that the creature
one is looking at is a monster. This is exemplified with the monsters of In
Cold Blood—Perry and Dick appear as normal human beings, they blend
in with the rest of society, which is what makes the fact that they are cold-blooded
killers even scarier. Monsters usually have some type of malice towards human
beings. This is seen perfectly in Beowulf, where Grendel harbors resentment
and anger towards the humans, and repeatedly tortures them. The last conventional
characteristic of monsters is that they are usually a hybrid, a mixture of
at least two different things—either unable to be defined because of
the mixture, or unable to be contained or controlled because they hold the
best, strongest qualities of two completely different things. This concept
is brought to the extreme in the Terminator movies, where the monster is a
physical as well as mental mixture of human being and machine, a quality that
allows him advantage over all that he fights. These general characteristics
of the monstrous are all seen through the concepts behind and outcomes of
human cloning as portrayed through “The Newer York Times,” as
well as in theory.
Cloning is larger than life because it is a process that produces
life. By genetically altering matter through the use of technology, it can
form a creature that is living and being. Thus it supersedes the boundaries
of life. Cloning is mysterious because, once something is brought to life,
there is no way to tell that it wasn’t naturally born and formed. The
whole process of cloning is making an exact duplicate of a living creature,
create a new life that is essentially the same as the model. Researchers,
however, are quick to bring up the point that, when experimenting with genetics
and life, one is not sure one is really reproducing the same species, or rather
adding mutations and adaptations and creating another, separate species (Gibbs).
Clones are not born with malice towards human beings; they are seen as a type
of human and consider humans one of their own. When one breaks it down to
genetics, however, they are a species unto themselves due to the unpredictable
processes of human cloning, and will act malignantly in order to survive,
as they are beginning to do in the situations shown in “The Newer York
Times.” This pattern of behavior that turns clones against humans, dividing
by species type, is documented by Dr. Nick Bostrom in his dissertation, “Analyzing
Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards.” There he elaborates
on the situation of depleted resources, especially space, that would bring
an end to the human race (Bostrom). Surely the one thing that would make a
subspecies turn on its creators is survival, at which point malice is deemed
necessary. The point at which they attain this malice, if they do attain it,
marks the clones’ transition from having the potential to be monstrous,
into fully being monstrous. Cloning, in this instance, becomes an even scarier
form of the monstrous, because at the time when they gain this malice they
are already a big part of society. Clones are so much a part of society that
they infiltrate with both the human side of society, as well as the technological
aspects.
Clones are hybrids of human and technology. This combination
is not a physical one, like that of the terminators, for they have the exact
same anatomy as human beings. Their formation and background, however, portrays
them as a product of nature and technology, and thus a hybrid. Because they
are a hybrid, and neither one thing nor the other, they are ambiguous—in
a marginal state, they have no specific place and should be treated as both
“vulnerable and dangerous” (Douglas 95). Because of this characteristic,
clones must be placed in the borders of society, where they can be regulated.
This placement of hybrids is very important to their characterization as monstrous.
Monsters are defined not only by their features, but by the position they
occupy in society, and whether or not they have a position; society, in turn,
defines what is monstrous by its views and actions, either includes, pushes
away or ignores the monstrous.
Monsters and the monstrous usually occupy the borders of society.
Monsters are pushed there by society for safety; when a monster penetrates
the boundaries of society, they become a bigger threat. This can be seen in
virtually every monster story. Grendel in Beowulf lives outside society, in
the swamp. It is only when he comes from the swamp to the center of society,
the mead hall, that trouble begins. The Cyclops from The Odyssey lives on
a deserted island. Frankenstein’s creature roams the wilderness away
from civilization and only when he comes into the towns and cities is when
he creates problems. Mary Douglas explains this general trend of crossing
borders, and the significance that comes with it. Because monsters and the
monstrous were once in the margins, in a transitional stage, or pushed to
the margins by mainstream society, they have a specific source of danger and
power, which can be particularly harmful once they bring this power into the
heart of society (Douglas). Also, to push something to the margins of society
is to recognize it as dangerous. A monstrous thing in the heart of society
has not been recognized as such, and therefore can cause more damage.
Cloning, right now, is outside of society in that it is not
commonly accepted by the people of society. It is seen as immoral and risky,
something done by a recluse in a lab somewhere, the product of a stereotypical
mad scientist. It has not been accepted into mainstream society. However,
because of human beings’ reliance on technology, it is more and more
likely to be accepted. “Dolly” scientist Ian Wilmunt, speaks out
against cloning for this exact reason: he sees what troubles lie ahead as
cloning becomes mainstream (Wilmunt). The newspaper, however, depicts the
year 2104 a time when cloning has become normal. It has broken into the heart
of society, with clones making up half of the population of society. This
is where the dangers come. Because cloning has the potential to become monstrous,
the fact that it has easy access to the center or heart of society makes it
more powerful, and thus more threatening.
Besides physically crossing boundaries, cloning eventually will
theoretically cross boundaries. In theory, life and death were the only powers
human beings could not conquer; yet they do it in cloning. Cloned human beings
will be the same as regular ones and play the same roles in society. That
is the scary part—humans will have gained power over life, and thus
created something unstoppable. Human beings playing god is not a good idea
for although they conquered life, they do not have real power to control it.
In this situation, there will be no distinction between normal humans and
clones. Man and the monstrous will be one and the same. Theoretically, one
should be able to separate oneself from the monstrous; this new type of monster
is all-powerful because it can’t be seperated. As the newspaper articles
indicate, this can be nothing but trouble. In order for society to function,
it must push the abject, the monsters and those that it rejects to its borders.
Society defines itself by what it is not. If what is being portrayed as monstrous
works itself across borders to eventually become the norm, society cannot
function as it once did. In the ultimate case of this, as in the newspaper,
something will have to be pushed to the borders, and because normal humans
loose power to clones, once clones take over, the humans will be pushed to
the edge of society. There will be a catastrophic reversal of roles because
cloning, being monstrous, cannot be contained. Many creators of horror understand
this concept, which is exemplified in the premise for the Terminator movies;
human beings have become the exiles of their own creation. The machines that
were once something to protect them and to better them took over and slowly
drove them out of existence. This is what the articles in the newspaper suggest
cloning will eventually do to the human race.
This idea of technological revolution, in which technology gets
too strong for the human race to handle, is evident in human cloning and is
portrayed through the newspaper articles. Technology in this sense is represented
by the clones themselves, a product of technological advances. The world shown
by the newspaper is one in which technology rules; the clones have become
so far advanced from humans that they are slowly taking over. This is seen
in their mass population numbers, their unwillingness to be suppressed or
to listen to humans, and their intention to live on their own. The clones
taking on their own willpower, and becoming a separate force in the world,
is symbolic of technology getting out of control. It is all a production of
human work and ambition, but no one ever thought that their work would do
anything against them. The newspaper shows this: humans thought they were
just creating more of themselves, but in actuality, they messed around with
nature so much that they create a new species—one never heard of, that
they have no control over, and that has the potential to become dangerous.
Humans always believe that their creation will remain a “creation”
and subject to their orders. This is due to their shortsightness and overzealous
ambition. Authors can’t control how their works affect others; Victor
Frankenstein couldn’t control his creature—it is a lesson humans
need to keep learning, that they cannot play god. They should not always work
to create something bigger then themselves, something of monstrous undertaking,
because they cannot control it. Forces out of the control of humans, sort
of like the end of the world, are considered monstrous and reasons to be scared,
as is seen in the newspaper. The loss of control physically of one’s
own life is very scary and can cause more destruction. Cloning, and the thought
of the situations in the newspaper, where cloning is normal, also produces
another type of fright, that of an uncanny nature.
The eerie aspect of cloning comes from the fact that it is the ultimate doubling
effect as well as the epitome of the uncanny (Freud 210). The newspaper articles
show this to a tee, stating that normally “no distinction is drawn between
people that have been genetically engineered and those that were naturally
produced.” The idea of a society where clones and humans are the same
and indistinguishable brings out the uncanny. The uncanny is the type of frightening
which leads back to what is known and familiar; these monsters lead back to
everything that is known by humans of humans, thus cloning is eerie (Freud
195). It is frightening thinking that one could not tell a cloned, scientifically
produced being from a normal human being, especially if there are reasons
that one should fear clones. This is also plays into the fact of monsters
being mysterious; the fact that one cannot one is looking at a monster, makes
it scarier, and thus more powerful. This paper doesn’t state that clones
are automatically monsters ready to kill all humans, and are hiding behind
human disguises and thus are scary. Rather, what makes the idea of human clones
among regular people in society scary is that clones, as a species, and as
figureheads for the power of technology, have the potential to become something
more than just regular humans. This can be seen through genetic adaptations
making them stronger, healthier and more resistant to disease, as cited in
the newspaper. Even though clones could interact normally with human beings,
the monstrous potential is always in them, as technology is always growing
stronger. That in itself is frightening. As technology becomes more important,
human life is devalued. This could symbolize the ultimate end of the world
as it is today. “The Newer York Times” shows this though the murdering
of humans to prove a point; the bigger fact that this points to is that cloning
makes human life dispensable, and thus is scary because it undermines our
rationalization for being here.
“The Newer York Times” articles all portray cloning
on its way to realizing its fullest potential as a monster. Articles show
that the force of clones is larger than life itself; in fact, clones are forcing
life to end. Clones can be shown as malicious and bigger than their creators;
in the situation the newspaper puts forth—there being no more room on
earth—clones are going to separate themselves from their creators and
fight for their existence. Human beings realize now the dangers that could
possibly exist in cloning. What they don’t realize is that they need
to deal with these problems now, because, once created; they cannot be dealt
with or controlled—just as clones themselves have a life and mind of
their own. If cloning creates some type of hideous monster physically, there
is nothing anyone can do, because the damage is already done. The power is
no longer in the hands of those who created it; this variability is the source
of the monstrous (Herper). The people who express their opinions in the paper
have the power of hindsight; they recognize how huge of a monster cloning
is, and how it should have been stopped in the first place. Through revealing
all the possible problems that human cloning could cause in this world, “The
Newer York Times” portrays human cloning as one of the most uncanny
and frightening processes ever.
Works Cited
Bostrom, Dr. Nick. “Existential Risks- Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios
and other
Existential Risks” Online. http://www.jetpress.org/volume9/risks.html
(April 22,
2003).
Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An analysis of the concepts of Pollution
and Taboo. New
York: Routledge, 1966.
Freud, Sigmund. Writings on Art and Literature. Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 1997.
Gibbs, Nancy. “Abducting the Cloning Debate.” Time Magazine 13
January 2003: 46.
Herper, Matthew. “Study Highlights Dangers of Human Cloning.”
Online.
http://www.forbes.com/2001/07/05/0705clone.html (April 22, 2003).
Wilmunt, Ian. “Warning over Dangers of Cloning.” Interview. BBC
News. 6 July 2001.
