Dr. Moreau vs. Ishmael
Ishmael is a book about the future of the human race. In it a large gorilla, named Ishmael, preaches about life, freedom, and the human condition. He preaches about “Natures Laws” which we must learn if our species, and the rest of life on Earth as we know it, is to survive. Here is a brief summary of the major theme of the book:
“Ishmael's paradigm of history is startlingly different from the one wired into our cultural consciousness. For Ishmael, our agricultural revolution was not a technological event but a moral one, a rebellion against an ethical structure inherent in the community of life since its foundation four billion years ago. Having escaped the restraints of this ethical structure, humankind made itself a global tyrant, wielding deadly force over all other species while lacking the wisdom to make its tyranny a beneficial one or even a sustainable one.
That tyranny is now hurtling us toward a planetary disaster of pollution and overpopulation. If we want to avoid that catastrophe, we need to work our way back to some fundamental truths: that we weren't born a menace to the world and that no irresistible fate compels us to go on being a menace to the world.”
More on Ishmael
I found this an interesting contrast to what Dr. Moreau is trying to achieve with his experiments. Dr. Moreau is directly menacing with nature and animals. “The Law” enforces repression on the animals, and this process of humanizing can be compared to the way society enforces repression on individuals. However, in Ishmael Nature’s Laws are obeyed by every other creature on Earth except for humans; and it is humans and society that must conform to “Nature’s Laws” otherwise civilization as a whole will end catastrophically. According to Ishmael, Dr. Moreau’s experiments are the exact opposite of how society should treat nature. His humanization of animals is actually compounding the disaster humans are in, and serves as a perfect example of the type of behavior humans need to stop.
“Ishmael's paradigm of history is startlingly different from the one wired into our cultural consciousness. For Ishmael, our agricultural revolution was not a technological event but a moral one, a rebellion against an ethical structure inherent in the community of life since its foundation four billion years ago. Having escaped the restraints of this ethical structure, humankind made itself a global tyrant, wielding deadly force over all other species while lacking the wisdom to make its tyranny a beneficial one or even a sustainable one.
That tyranny is now hurtling us toward a planetary disaster of pollution and overpopulation. If we want to avoid that catastrophe, we need to work our way back to some fundamental truths: that we weren't born a menace to the world and that no irresistible fate compels us to go on being a menace to the world.”
More on Ishmael
I found this an interesting contrast to what Dr. Moreau is trying to achieve with his experiments. Dr. Moreau is directly menacing with nature and animals. “The Law” enforces repression on the animals, and this process of humanizing can be compared to the way society enforces repression on individuals. However, in Ishmael Nature’s Laws are obeyed by every other creature on Earth except for humans; and it is humans and society that must conform to “Nature’s Laws” otherwise civilization as a whole will end catastrophically. According to Ishmael, Dr. Moreau’s experiments are the exact opposite of how society should treat nature. His humanization of animals is actually compounding the disaster humans are in, and serves as a perfect example of the type of behavior humans need to stop.
posted by Chris Rowland at 3:52 PM
4 Comments:
I read Ishmael for my Environmental Science class senior year of high school and completely agree that it has a very definite contrast with The Island of Dr. Moreau. I think it is interesting that two storylines can both have forms of "natural laws" that are so opposite from one another; these laws then form the outline for the books and the storylines that follow. Ishmael and Dr. Moreau are definitely polar opposites but still both concern these matters of nature, which makes contrasting them so interesting.
I haven't read Ishmael. But it seems to me that the end message of the two books may be similar. Quoting the blog, "If we want to avoid that catastrophe, we need to work our way back to some fundamental truths: that we (humans) weren't born a menace to the world and that no irresistible fate compels us to go on being a menace to the world." Isn't this kind of Well's point? I think Well's is suggesting that science can be a "menace to the world"?
I feel that a book which portrays humans as a menace to the world and the world as some sort of vague, pure entity is drastically oversimplifying the situation. Its not as if given the chance tigers, or monkeys, or dogs would reject the position of most dominant species on earth. Humans were the smartest most adaptable species and as a direct consequence we became dominant. Its not a matter of good and evil or pure versus morally corrupt, its simply evolution. I don't think we need the advice of a gorilla on how to survive, so far we've managed pretty well by ourselves.
This moral ambiguity of nature and science is tied directly into our past discussions of how far is too far for science to go. I agree with David that simplifying the moral situation discounts much of evolutionary law and certain natural instincts that exist in all creatures. However, the issue at play in these texts is not whether science and technology as entities are bad, but has/is science pushing too far in certain areas to the point where it has become a menace.
Post a Comment
<< Home