Sitting outside is a luxury that I haven't enjoyed for quite awhile—I'm so busy with college that I hardly have the spare time—and as I relax, I take in all the sights and sounds and smells. The birds sing to each other from across the lake even though it is long after sun down, buds give way to new leaves on every tree limb, and there's that smell of blooming flowers lingering in the air. Even the growing swarm of mosquitoes and gnats around my head is hard not to notice.
A view of Westhampton Lake
It's difficult to think that most of us give up scenes like the one around me on a daily basis to spend time in online games, texting friends, and surfing the web. What makes those activities so much better than say watching ducks on the lake? Honestly, save the social aspect and the 'it's just fun' response, I don't have a clue. I mean the real world is even more stimulating than its virtual counterpart (all 5 senses versus sight and hearing from the virtual). And while I admit to having those moments where I'll spend several minutes staring at my cell phone, I'm surprised that more people don't enjoy the world around them.
For those of you who haven't heard, the spring semester is over within the next two weeks, making this my last post. So, I would like to say that even though it required I get up at 8:30 every Monday and Wednesday, I greatly enjoyed our class. When I signed up last fall, I expected to only discuss technological advancement and how it has brought us to where we are today. Sure, we covered that, but we also went into topics like the cyberpunk culture, and the economy behind these worlds. I have learned more than I would have ever expected, and had a heck of a time doing it, and personally I wouldn't change a thing.
As I look up, the stars are beginning to peek through the night sky. I glance around and stand up with a yawn, brushing the dirt off the back of my pants—in a world where the majority of our lives are spent indoors and online, having dust on the back of my pants reminds me that I'm still in the real world. I walk away from the lake refreshed from my small break away from everything else, and head back to my dorm room, lit cell phone in hand.
Virtual realities have long been a destination for people tired of the real world; they offer a place to relax, socialize, and have fun. And because these "worlds" have become—through advancements in game design—just as stimulating as the physical one around us, people are drawn in and many loose touch with reality. With more than 20 million people worldwide already actively participating in these augmented realities and little reason for users to resist these games' addictive nature, there is no doubt in my mind that today's population of 20 million active virtual reality users could easily increase to 30 or even 50 million within the next decade. To Edward Castronova, this is only the beginning of the "exodus to the virtual world."
In his book, Castronova explains that this emigration from the physical world will happen quickly and in the near future (perhaps within the next few decades). Along with some of my classmates, I disagree with Castronova's assertion...at least with part of it. While I do believe that more and more people will be drawn into these hyper-real realities, increasing the population of active users as mentioned above, I don't believe that it will turn into a mass exodus...at least not within our generation.
The current generation (The Millennials) is almost entirely preoccupied with social networking. "Facebookers" as we are sometimes called, we would rather use virtual realities to connect with old friends from back home, not to escape the confines of daily life. So instead of being active users, we may participate maybe once or twice a week, giving us no reason to participate in the exodus.
Learning to use a computer at an early age
The generation behind us, however, is a whole 'nother story. Growing up in a time where most households have around three to four computers and a video game console, immersion in technology starts from the get-go. While the millennials grew up just as the personal computer was becoming a popular commodity, there is no question that this new generation will be even more tech savvy than us. I believe that they will be the ones, if any, to spawn the exodus.
The exodus marks a change in reality, not just for those who make the migration, but for the rest of us who are left behind as well. We will see fewer face-to-face conversations as communication through our computers becomes more prevalent, and the strength of friendships and familial ties will surely weaken. Unfortunately, it is almost certain that this migration will occur. Hopefully, however, it does not do so within our lifetime.
Works Cited
Castronova, Edward. Exodus to the Virtual World: How Online Fun Is Changing Reality. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Print.
Kate. Second Life. Digital image. Fishbowl LA. WebMediaBrands, 30 Oct. 2007. Web. 12 Apr. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/5szl7q9>.
Vikne, Ernst. Using Linda's MacBook. Digital image. Flickr. Yahoo!, 20 Dec. 2008. Web. 12 Apr. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/6co36bk>.
The human body is fascinating. It is physically strong, chemically efficient, ultimately dependable, and is designed by a polymer comprised of four different compounds. This polymer, known as DNA, is the blueprint for every cell inside of us, and after the discovery of its molecular structure in 1953, the scientific community scrambled to unravel the answer behind its eccentric, trait-encoding capabilities (Nicholl 6). Since then multiple fields, the most important being genetic engineering, have emerged and provided promising developments for mankind. In fact, since 1900 we have seen a 30 year increase in human life expectancy alone (Scientific American). This statistic affirms the significance of advances made in the field of genetic engineering, and suggests that further development of genetic engineering practices will influence an increase in human longevity.
Although the molecular structure of DNA was discovered in the early 1950s, progress toward the development of techniques for gene manipulation was hindered until the early 1970s (Nicholl 6). According to Nicholl, current technologies, although capable of describing the genetic structure, had no way to analyze its molecular components (6). The scientific community was suffering from a lack of technological advancement, and major breakthroughs were needed before progress could resume. To scientists' relief, the isolation of DNA Ligase and a restriction enzyme provided the technological leap that they needed (Nicholl 6). While both molecules have separate functions—Ligase binds two separate DNA strands together, while the restriction enzyme specializes in cutting DNA like a pair of scissors—together they allowed for the splicing of one organism's DNA into a new host, creating the foundation for recombinant DNA technology (Nicholl 6).
With this basic understanding in place, "molecular biologists learned how to remove bits of genetic material from various organisms and insert them into bacteria" (Jackson and Stich xiii). By examining the affect that the insertion had on these bacteria, researchers were able to discern the gene's role in the genome of the donor organism. Additionally, the mechanics involved in bacterial genetics, now more widely understood, "provided scientists with a singularly powerful tool for studying the basic mechanisms of genetics in all organisms" (Jackson and Stich xiii).
Though modern technologies have only recently revolutionized genetic engineering techniques, it is important to note that the concept of adapting a species to better suit the needs of people has been around for thousands of years (Genetically Modified Organism). Sure, while it's obvious that the early Europeans did not possess the capabilities—or knowledge for that matter—to unite DNA from different organisms, they did understand that by breeding two animals together (both with a desired trait) they could produce offspring that would have the desired trait as well.
In nature, this process of adapting a species to its environment occurs even more readily. Known as natural selection, an animal with a beneficial trait is more likely to survive and reproduce than one without it. Imagine a population of moths where there are two traits for wing color: drab-colored and white-colored. In order to avoid predators, the moth must be able to blend in with its surroundings. For the drab-colored moths, this is a simple task, yet for those that are white-colored, it is a challenge. Because of their lack of camouflage, the white-colored moths will be eaten more frequently, while those that are drab-colored will survive longer and consequently have a greater opportunity to reproduce. This will afford a higher instance of drab-colored moths in subsequent generations, eventually resulting in the dominance of the drab-color over the white-color.
While natural selection plays a large role in the determination of a specie's traits, human intervention, more commonly referred to as "genetic engineering," allows a species to evolve and adapt not to its environment, but to the needs of mankind. The key difference between nature's methods and ours is that in the wild, change is only achieved through evolution, and is perpetuated within a single population. In the hands of a geneticist, however, a gene can be altered or replaced with another more desirable variant—typically from another species.
Research on "Flavr Savr" tomatoes at UC Berkley
Provided by Bruening and Lyons
Developed in May 1994, the "Flavr Savr" tomato revolutionized genetic engineering by becoming the first genetically modified food product to be approved for commercialization by the Food and Drug Administration (Bruening and Lyons; Genetically Modified Organism). By splicing in a gene to prevent "fruit softening," engineers at Calgene Inc. had developed a way to increase the life expectancy of tomatoes by eliminating their tendency to over-ripen (Bruening and Lyons).
During tomato development, a protein known as polygalacturonase (PG) is readily produced, and is known to break down pectin. Pectin, on the other hand, is a major component in the cell walls of many plants, and its degradation results in the softening of cell walls across the fruit (Bruening and Lyons; Genetically Modified Organism). Researchers theorized that if they could inhibit the PG producing gene, then the pectin-based cell wall might not deteriorate as quickly, leading to an increase in the tomato's lifespan. An alternate copy, or antisense, of the PG producing gene was soon synthesized and afterwards spliced into the tomato genome. During analysis of the newly dubbed "Flavr Savrs," some tomatoes produced as little as 1% of normal PG concentrations (Bruening and Lyons). Furthermore, these tomatoes resisted softening for an extended period of time, evidence that the recombinant DNA procedure had been a success (Bruening and Lyons).
Without the inactivated PG gene, conventional, farm-grown tomatoes are quick to soften, and need to be picked before maturity so that by the time they arrive on store shelves, they are in peak condition. With this pre-picking need eliminated, Flavr Savr tomatoes are given more time to grow on the vine. Not only does this enhance the tomato's appealing flavor and color, but it makes them healthier as well (Brasher). While still attached to the vine, lycopene, a powerful antioxidant, is produced and then stored within the tomato (Brasher). If consumed, the tomato will pass the lycopene onto humans, which in some cases may help to inhibit the growth of cancerous cells.
Healthier, longer lasting, and better tasting, it is obvious why these tomatoes were in such high demand (Bruening and Lyons). Yet, with increasing production and distribution costs preventing the project from becoming profitable, the Flavr Savr tomato's marketing halted several years later (Bruening and Lyons).
Though the Flavr Savr never succeeded in becoming a widely distributed food, it proved that genetically modified foods could be developed to resist detrimental affects such as fruit softening. Soon after the downfall of the Flavr Savr, other genetically modified crops were developed. Hardy to insects, intense heat, and drought, these beneficial characteristics increased the plants' lifespan, increasing crop yields. As a result, food became less scarce, helping to increasing human life expectancy.
Although an organism may be modified by genetic modification to produce a desired result, as with the Flavr Savr tomato, less invasive procedures may be used. Such procedures include PGD, and may be used by doctors to give parents a child without genetic defects. As Leon Kass M.D. describes, "this approach, less radical or complete in its power to control, would not introduce new genes, but would merely select positively among those that occur naturally." The process hinges on in vitro fertilization (IVF) and screens unborn babies for both desirable and undesirable traits (Kass). Known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), twelve eggs are fertilized and allowed to grow until they reach the four-cell or ten-cell stage. One or two cells are then withdrawn, and the DNA within them is extracted and amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The resulting DNA strands are subsequently analyzed for Huntington Disease, Cystic Fibrosis, and other genetic disorders that may prove detrimental to the health of the mother or child both before and during birth (Genetics & IVF Institute). Embryos without defect are then grouped together, and one is selected to be transplanted into the mother. From here, the fetus will develop within the womb and will be delivered in nine months as a regular baby.
Though the intentional screening of a fetus for genetic disorders may sound grotesque and unnatural, the practice is generally limited to couples who have a higher chance of giving birth to a child with a genetic disorder (Kass). Additionally, by screening the viable children in this manner, the chance of the couple giving birth to a child with a genetic defect is significantly lowered, helping to prevent a threat to either the mother's or child's health, and lessening the need for prenatal care and possible abortion farther down the road (Kass). Thus, using preimplantation screening measures such as this only helps to increase the lifespan of the resulting child.
If we already have the technology to prenatally screen our children for genetic disorders, we can only wonder what advancements might arrive next. According to the President's Council on Bioethics, the next most foreseeable step is likely to be toward producing "better children" (Kass xiii). While it seems that invasive, genetic engineering procedures would be required to produce children with superior traits, the process is actually quite simple. By changing the objective of PGD from child screening to "baby improving," fetuses with beneficial traits would be selected, set aside, and presented to the parents as options for their next child (Kass 39). By the couple's decision, a fetus will be selected and implanted into the mother's womb through in vitro fertilization. This process is simply a form of natural selection; new traits are not introduced. On the contrary, we must ask ourselves whether choosing the characteristics of our children is both ethical and moral. Moreover, where should we draw the line between birthing children and manufacturing them?
The ethical and moral concerns of genetic engineering pose a serious problem to future research and development. Questions constantly arise in debates and test the resolve of scientists to continue with their research. For example, 'are there unforeseen consequences lying ahead of us?' Unfortunately, the answer could be yes. As seen in the movie GATTACA, after the genetic modification of humans, a new social order is created where the genetically superior preside over those of normal birth. Here, the job that you get depends not on your diploma but your DNA, and if you do not have the right genes, you are almost certain to fail in the working world (GATTACA). It is frightening how something as simple as the creation of a new social order might arise from the genetic engineering of humans.
Image by Vermin Inc.
The future of genetic engineering looks promising. Some believe that current research may take us far enough to even be on the doorstep of immortality. Although extreme, human immortality could theoretically exist with the combination of either "biotechnology, molecular nanotechnologies, artificial intelligence and other new types of cognitive tools" and the human body (Farrar). Though one problem does remain with immortality: over population. If no one dies, and people continue to have children, what happens when we run out of resources? Well, the world may begin to look somewhat like it does in M.T. Anderson's Feed, the forests will have been cut down; clouds will no longer drift in the sky; snow will come down in black clumps; the ocean will be polluted and absent of life; the Earth will be dead. Thus, while immortality may seem to be a beneficial step forward in the field of genetic engineering, in reality it will only cause destruction and loss of life.
By this point, it is obvious that genetic engineering has provided mankind with the means to increase life expectancy, whether it is through the biological improvement of crops to help prevent famines or the instillation of "molecular nanotechnologies" into the human body to decrease the possibility of disease (Farrar). Yet, who will be able to access these advancements? Will they be readily available for anyone's benefit, or will they be a prized commodity only available to the upper class? Unfortunately, the later is more likely; in order to continue innovating, companies need financial support, and the best way to obtain it is by charging for their services. Thus, we can predict that only the wealthy will be able to afford these new advancements, ensuring that they are the ones with the fastest increasing life expectancy. In a clip produced by BBC news, Hans Rosling, a global health expert, demonstrates this fact by explaining how humankind's lifespan has increased relative to each country's economic status.
By plotting life expectancy against economic status,
Hans shows that the world we live in is different from how we imagine
While watching this video it is important to note two trends. First, we see that larger countries such as China, India, and Pakistan tend to fall behind, remaining in the poorest and sickest corner, while smaller, more western countries such as Luxembourg and Sweden remain at the head of the pack as the wealthiest and healthiest. Although the reason behind this phenomenon is unknown, we can theorize that it may involve the countries location, as China, India, and Pakistan were fairly rural during the early 19th century, while Luxembourg and Sweden had booming cities. Second, it is apparent that all 200 countries are moving to the wealthier and healthier corner as the timeline approaches present day. This trend is understandable, because as newer technologies emerge, older ones become cheaper and more readily available to families of lower income, allowing people of the lower class to have a longer life as well. Furthermore, as Rosling describes, "I see a clear trend into the future, with age and trade, green technology and peace, it's fully possible that everyone can make it to the healthy, wealthy corner" (HansRosling's 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes...). Thus, this video demonstrates that since the Industrial Revolution, technological innovation has been increasing, ultimately leading to an increase in life expectancy that will continue to increase into the future.
The concept of genetically modifying an organism to better suit the needs of humans has been around for thousands of years, and only recently have technological advancements allowed mankind to develop more practical recombinant DNA techniques. Using these techniques we have bioengineered crops to be resistant to harsh environments, found ways to prenatally screen for genetic disorders, and derived the basis for the future selection of a child's genes by his or her parents. These developments have all lead to an increase in human life expectancy, an increase that has and will continue into the foreseeable future. But in the end we must question 'Is it right for us to meddle with the fabric of life?' 'Is it right for us to play God?'
Works Cited
Anderson, M. T. Feed. Cambridge, MA: Candlewick, 2002. Print.
Ballantyne, Coco. Life from Scratch? Digital image. Scientific American. Scientific American, 24 Jan. 2008. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/4hfaa9r>.
Bruening G., and J. M. Lyons. Research to control the ripening of tomatoes continues. At UC Berkley, Athanasios Theologis and colleagues have identified and blocked a gene responsible for ripening. Digital image. California Agriculture. University of California, July-Aug. 2000. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/6cddoow>
Bruening, G., and J. M. Lyons. "The Case of the FLAVR SAVR Tomato." California Agriculture. University of California, July-Aug. 2000. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/475j7f3>.
Brasher, Philip. "Return of the Flavr Savr Tomato." Organic Consumers Association. Organic Valley, Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, Botani Organic, Aloha Bay, Eden Foods, Frey Vineyards, Intelligent Nutrients. Web. 4 Apr. 2011 <http://tinyurl.com/3rlf95z>.
Farrar, Lara. "Scientists: Humans and Machines Will Merge in Future." CNN Tech. CNN, 15 Jan. 2008. Web. 15 Mar. 2011 <http://tinyurl.com/5u2azya>.
GATTACA. Dir. Andrew Niccol. By Andrew Niccol. Perf. Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman, and Jude Law.Columbia Pictures Corporation, 1997. DVD.
"Genetically Modified Organism." Environmental Encyclopedia. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context, 21 Oct. 2010. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/4z59zpt>.
Genetics & IVF Institute. "What Is PGD?" Genetics & IVF Institute. Genetics & IVF Institute, 2011. Web. 4 Apr. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/3z9c2ca>.
Hans Rosling's 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes - The Joy of Stats - BBC Four. Dir. Dan Hillman. Prod. Dan Hillman and Archie Baron. Perf. Hans Rosling. YouTube. BBC, 26 Nov. 2010. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/23dt9kn>.
Kass M.D., Leon R. Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness. Rep. LSU Law Center. Oct. 2003. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/45lhjy9>.
National Council of the Churches of Christ/USA. Genetic Engineering: Social and Ethical Consequences. New York: Pilgrim, 1984. Print.
Nicholl, Desmond S. T. An Introduction to Genetic Engineering. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2008. Print.
Scientific American. "Life Expectancy." Scientific American. Scientific American, 13 May 2002. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/4lz4uzt>.
Vermin Inc. The Carbon Economy. Digital image. Flickr. Yahoo! Inc., 19 May 2009. Web. 4 Apr. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/3hmnh5b>.
My footsteps echoed down the dark hallway, the padded shoe soles doing little to mask the reverberating sound. I heard a muffled scuff somewhere behind me, followed by the familiar click of the safety being switched. I knew they were close behind.
My pace quickened, and I was soon sprinting, desperately trying to find a way out. Turning the next corner, I muttered a curse under my breath as I stared at the dead end before me. I tried the small doors on either side, but they were locked. Peering around the corner, and back down the dark hallway, two shadows quietly walked towards me, their backs snug against the wall to minimize their silhouette. They were still a ways off, but making a run for it was certainly out of the question. I was trapped; I needed to hide.
Looking over the small corridor, I noticed a grate positioned in the back corner. I ran to it, and my fingers easily slid into the slim crack between the metal cover and the cold concrete floor. The steel grate lifted without a sound, and I slipped into the darkness bellow, waited for my pursuers to pass. The fading of their footsteps signified the success of my escape.
I looked around, and saw that I had landed in a drainage tunnel. A breeze flowed through and danced on my cheek. I followed its source and began to see a glint in the distance. I heard a soft roar at the end. The air was filled with salt, and when I exited, I was bathed in light, standing on a cliff. I was free.
My name is Erik Brunet. To society, I and those like me are "God children." We are different than the others, because we were conceived naturally. Instead of putting faith in a geneticist, our parents trusted the natural way. With new technology, genetically engineering a child had become easy. Parents can ask for a son or daughter, can ensure that their child will be smart, fast, good looking, and more. They are genetically superior. They are the new race.
For the naturally born, we are the minority. We are only able to hold certain jobs, are herded into densely populated slums on the south side of town, and are separated from the superior class. We have tried rebelling before, only to be met with fierce defeat and humiliation. Thousands have attempted escape; only a few before me have succeeded.
