Historical Criticism In Frankenstein
The character of Victor Frankenstein satires the argument John Abernethy made in 1814 by calling the result of his ideas catastrophic. Creating life from the “spark” causes Victor pain, which points to the danger and lack of authority Shelley sees in Abernethy’s views. When scientists, like John Abernethy or Victor Frankenstein, assume they are allowed to animate issues of fuzzy consensus, such as power of life or death, they abuse their credibility and knowledge. Not only does this scientist misplace his efforts that could have been useful in a different context, but he looses the public’s trust to handle any further scientific matter. Unlike the historical criticism offered in Frankenstein, 2312 is written 300 years into the future. Kim Stanley Robinson uses this timeframe to offer a positive outlook on scientific ability. Upon the novel’s release,
…show more content…
Scientists needs to learn about the world around them in addition to the material they are working with. When issues with huge future ramifications, such as climate change, are thoroughly sought out by both the scientist and the public, emphasis can be taken off of the want for futuristic gadgets and redirected to the state of our planet and other possible ecosystems. Society’s obsession with technology further hinders scientific focus by using mechanics to replace functions of the brain. Science has been pushed to digitize everything because the means and demand to do so exist, not because it is essential. Even though it may not be as efficient, the human mind is able to preform many of the tasks that scientist spend years outsourcing to machines. A scientist never has an infinite amount of time, so they must take the responsibility of drawing the line between using their knowledge to promote human laziness or foster global
Scientists needs to learn about the world around them in addition to the material they are working with. When issues with huge future ramifications, such as climate change, are thoroughly sought out by both the scientist and the public, emphasis can be taken off of the want for futuristic gadgets and redirected to the state of our planet and other possible ecosystems. Society’s obsession with technology further hinders scientific focus by using mechanics to replace functions of the brain. Science has been pushed to digitize everything because the means and demand to do so exist, not because it is essential. Even though it may not be as efficient, the human mind is able to preform many of the tasks that scientist spend years outsourcing to machines. A scientist never has an infinite amount of time, so they must take the responsibility of drawing the line between using their knowledge to promote human laziness or foster global