What Does De-Extinction Mean In Frankenstein

Victor Frankenstein took it upon himself to create a new “master species”, which would be better and more spectacular than humans or any like on Earth, and he was excited by the prospect of invention at first. However, once he saw life in his creature, and saw that it was different, he felt repulsed and terrified by what he had done, daring to create, and his hatred and fear of his own

Mary Shelly’s novel, Frankenstein, can be greatly related to many horror novels, no consideration of morality or thought. Shelly writes her story in a real world perspective showing themes of corruption and downfall making it seem frighteningly realistic. It truly is mind-boggling how research can conflict with religion without a thought or care. During the enlightenment, science began to mask over faith and religion, creating a cultural phenomenon. This is still a factor in today’s world. Although experimenting and research can have poor and great affects, the common question comes to mind, “even though it can be done, should it be done?” While Shelly talks of science and technology, it seems to become more predominate that not all

The dramatic irony in Frankenstein of the desire of “acquisition of knowledge” is highlighted by him having “lost everything and cannot begin life anew.” Suggesting that because humans have the knowledge and power to create artificial life, does not necessarily mean that they should. Knowledge can be dangerous and humans can not be trusted when they withhold too much power. Frankenstein and Tyrell’s “fate is nearly fulfilled” as “nothing can alter [their] destiny” they have to destroy their creations to then “repose in peace.” The consequence of creating and rejecting artificial life is becoming enslaved by their own creation as their goal in life is to destroy it.

With advancements made in science and technology, a concern has grown on whether people will take it too far and take upon themselves the role of God. “Playing God” is when a human takes on God’s ability to create life and translates it into their own hands. This idea is expressed in the novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley through the protagonist’s personal goals and encounters. Dr. Victor Frankenstein has been fascinated by science since his return from college, and he attempts to advance the field by resurrecting the dead. Victor manages to create life but his advancement ends up providing undesirable consequences for not only himself, but the people he loves. Victor ends up creating his own version of life by digging up the dead corpses and piecing them together. This creature is brought to life through what is inferred to be by electrocution. Victor’s attempt at “playing God” is a failure. When it comes to “playing God” and creating life, I disagree with what Victor has done, however, certain aspects can be beneficial. Some critics, including Hilary Englert, argue that Victor Frankenstein's actions were justifiable when it comes to the name of science. However, a closer analysis of the comparison between natural and artificial life, "playing God", and Victor's failure to be a father figure to his creation suggest that Victor’s actions were inappropriate.

Mary Shelley believes when a person attempts to create or discover a scientific advancement, the creator must fulfill their responsibilities, if they fail to do so, terrific events will ensue, as seen in her novel Frankenstein. Curious people interested in the sciences are responsible to consider the outcome of their experiments. An inventor has a duty to share their discovery with the scientific world. In the case that the experiment concludes with a living being, the creator must provide it with a quality upbringing.. If any of the responsibilities are overlooked by the creator, the consequences are somber.

“So much has been done, exclaimed the soul of Frankenstein--more, far more, will I achieve: treading in the steps already marked, I will pioneer a new way, explore unknown powers, and unfold to the world the deepest mysteries of creation” (Shelley, 42.) As seen in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the endeavor for great scientific discovery can yield the most unfortunate of consequences. The impacts of research and work in both the field of Robotics and Stem Cell research parallel that of the work of Victor, as he ascertains the secret of life and uses that knowledge to create life. These topics, albeit their positive intentions, have the capacity to do great harm, like that of Frankenstein’s “monster.”

Mary Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein, which was published in 1818, is considered the literary work that created science fiction, much as the novel’s protagonist, Victor Frankenstein, created his monster. The novel raises the question of what makes a human. The Creature is living and human shaped, although grotesquely, but he is not considered human. Throughout the novel, the Creation searches for humanity and wishes to be seen as equal to humans, and this essay will explore how he does and does not accomplish that goal by analyzing his motives and morality, and how he succeeds through failing. One of the first and foremost human features in the Creature is his morality and how it is directly influenced by his environment.

In modern society, the rise of technology and science like cloning brought convenience to people’s life, but this rise also led to the fears of unintended consequences. One novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley reflects this particular fear. An emerging science known as cloning is recently gaining attention and excitement with their publicized attempt to clone a mammoth and their potential benefits, but the fears highlighted from Shelley’s novel remains. While cloning has a beneficial potential, the unintended consequences can be monstrous to the subject like how Shelley described the story of Victor Frankenstein’s discovery unintendedly leading to Frankenstein’s downfall. To understand how Frankenstein connects to the dangers of cloning, one must realize how the author Mary Shelley wrote to warn people of how science and technology

The creation of life by unnatural method is a question that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein addresses. Through the events that result from Victor's attempt to bestow life to the inanimate, Shelley concludes that it is inappropriate for man to play god. With the advent of the science of creation, cloning, scientists now face the same problem that Shelley raised years ago. The applications of such research are numerous, all varying in severity. In what way the users for cloning are developed and performed is of much debate. Unfortunately, there is no absolute answer for the issue.

“The science of today is the technology of tomorrow.” So says Edward Teller, echoing his thoughts as a noted physicist that science isn’t just the future, but indeed what creates the future. But what about Mary Shelley? A noted romanticist, Mary Shelley’s views may have been a bit different from those of Teller. In fact, Mary Shelley’s first novel, Frankenstein, might just be the best example of her thoughts on the matter. Throughout the novel, Shelley emphasizes the importance of scientific responsibility, and is clearly against science playing the role of God. However, this is not for any real religious purpose. Instead, Shelley uses science to express gradual degradation of what she had viewed as the natural world that that she had treasured during her time period, and the gradual destruction of natural beauty in the world, using the novel and its characters to support her demonization of science in favor of a more natural world. The terror of the scientific creation of Frakenstein contrasted with the serenity of the natural world as portrayed in the novel Frankenstein give the novel a clearly romantic message that preaches about the importance of the Earth’s natural aspect.

The gothic novel, Frankenstein by Mary Shelley analyzes the role of progress within the context of the rugged age in which she has been brought up. Shelley emphasizes the ethical and religious connections that one may experience in correspondence to science. Her invention of Frankenstein and his harrowing attempts to expose science serve to stress the dangers of man’s unrestrained thirst for knowledge. Whilst a simple understanding of the novel reveals a man who sees a science in absence of morality, a deeper, more complex understanding of the novel reveals a much more indistinct contradiction between the many aspects of science and the underlying success within the role of progress. Shortly after Frankenstein uncloaks new advancements in science

Over the past century, science has been evolving and discovering new ways and ideas that can be utilized to expand the life cycle and save the lives of those that are battling life threatening illness and deformities. For as long as science has been introduced, religious leaders have accused the acts of science as being disruptive to the natural order of life. Some see the acts of science as purely miraculous and beneficial to improving humanity and the quality of life. Others see scientific research and experiments as unethical and, in some cases, inhumane. Science has explored many alternatives to the natural creation of life such as: human cloning, stem cell research, in vitro fertilization and the Human Genome Project, just to name a few. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Mary E. Pearson’s The Adoration of Jenna Fox, old and new scientific techniques are used to depict the creation of life; for example, Victor Frankenstein’s obsession with science and creating his “monster” and Matthew and Claire Fox taking on the acts of recreating Jenna. Although Frankenstein and The Adoration of Jenna Fox seem somewhat different in their plot, setting and characters, there is unmistakable similarity in the way both Shelley and Pearson use the historic debate between science and religion to persuade the reader to question the manifestations that could potentially occur by the acts of scientific progress and the disruption of the natural creation of life.

However, his approval and pursuit of scientific knowledge ultimately brings him to a loss of touch with humanity, shame, misfortune and confusion from his obsession over creating “life”. Shelley uses Frankenstein’s misfortune as scientist to foreshadow the inevitable downfall of the Enlightenment movement’s scientific pursuit of understanding the natural world. It is noted how Frankenstein only gains solace and calamity from his observations and descriptions of the beauties of nature as well as his childhood memories. He once states:

Scientists have been trying to clone Neanderthal babies; bringing prehistoric men back to life, and are trying to bring back other prehistoric animals to life, like Mammoths. As these scientists bring these ancient creatures to life, several questions arise, such as “How many failures would it take for success?” Where would they live?” “How would they fit in society?” These questions began to make scientists think twice about doing said experiment. A similar trait is shown in Mary Shelley’s classic novel, Frankenstein. The main character, Frankenstein, reanimates dead flesh and creates a living, breathing, and thinking creature, without thinking about the negative consequences. This unthought experiment results in indescribable horror, as several individuals were victims to the poor, confused creature’s reign. The confusion for the creation and creators and the ethics of the process both conclude that a science endeavor isn’t always morally right to execute, even if it can be done.

In science laboratories all around the world, scientists are hard at work creating a multitude of products. But when these products are related to bringing a life into the world, the situation could get rather complicated. Frankenstein, a novel by Mary Shelley, tells the story of a scientist gone mad after creating life out of death, while the articles titled Kazuo Ishiguro’s uncanny science by Daniel Marchalik and Ann Jurecic (Source A), Pondering the consequences of gene editing by Joel Achenbach (Source B), and CRISPR, the disruptor by Heidi Ledford (Source C), talk about the consequences of gene-editing software in the world. The novel and articles both bring into the question ethics and morality. A creator is responsible for his own actions, his creation, and the rest of society, as shown by both the story of Frankenstein and the articles about the use of gene-editing software by scientists around the world.