Blog#10 Final Draft - The price of security

The price of security

The land of the free, the country where dreams come true, the place where human rights are protected and respected. Those were the slogans that brought millions of people to America.  You certainly had opportunities and you still have. Freedom and the respect of the human rights however weren’t always the strength of the American system. There is one specific problem lately: our right for privacy is being abused in many ways. In the last and the present century wars abroad and violence inside the country made certain officials think about how they could control and raise the level of safeness. They realized to ensure safety; they have to find the way to survey public places with surveillance cameras and certain security checkpoints. Though the benefits of using these cameras and other devices are obvious, I think invading privacy to ensure safety is unethical and unacceptable. Because…

            Most of us want to be alone sometimes. Normally those are the days when you stay at home and try to avoid any conversation or activity with others. But there are other people who are not so lucky to have that place, or it is impossible to have that little privacy at their own house. So they like to go out to parks, to bars or just wonder around the streets being with their thoughts. Would they feel comfortable if meanwhile driving around some policeman was stopping them for a random reason? Or let’s say sitting in a park, some camera just turns towards them and recording what are they doing? I read it in a Toronto Star article that: in London, a man tried to attempt a suicide. A public camera took footage of the attempt, which later was given to TV stations. However the image had been blurred, the man was still identifiable and now he’s suing. He had enough problems already, what lead him to that decision. He luckily didn’t manage to kill himself, but his problems just multiplied. Nobody wants to become famous this way!

            I have a feeling that, I’m being watched at all the time, whether I’m in an office or on the street. In many states of North America thousands of photo ticketing devices were being installed at intersections regulated by traffic lights. A 2007 Washington Post article says: “Although - in the identification of license plates - errors have been made, there is a presumption that any photographed vehicle’s registered owner is guilty of running a red light.” So is the law changing? We have to prove our innocence before we have been proven guilty? AAA has revealed that thousands of motorists have been wrongly accused of speeding because of glitches in the controversial speed camera system. Occasionally, these accusations go even further. I remember reading it in a newspaper a couple of years ago that once in Arizona the police have arrested a man, for speeding based solely on the evidence of its photo radar machines that registered his vehicle traveling at an impossibly high speed of 147 MPH. That poor man had to prove it in court that, his car - according to the manufacturer - has a drag-limited top speed of 137 MPH.  This man has not only been invaded in his privacy, but a false device took his freedom away. Here I should mention the movie I have recently seen: The Minority Report. It is a science fiction movie, plays in the near future, where the whole city built on the new system, called Pre-Crime. With the help of certain individuals, called the pre-cogs, who are able to see who will commit a murder in a future, crime rate sank to a very law level. But the people have to pay a big price for that. They have no privacy at all. They are being watched constantly. Infrared cameras scanning their eyes, following them everywhere they go. They’re being recognized in stores, in their jobs, even in their home sometimes. They are under surveillance, under control.

            I travel enough to see how humiliating can be to go through an airport security checkpoint. Meanwhile I understand the government’s reasoning why they had to set up those stations to ensure some kind of security measures, I disagree with how they disgrace people during the check-in. That is an invasion of privacy. Just think about how they are searching through your bag with an X-ray machine or with their hands. Do you really want them or anybody else to see what are you carrying with you? Then you have to take off half of your clothes, your shoes in front of everybody. What if you’re choice of clothing is making you a subject of ridicule? Or you are just old or sick and it is difficult to put back your clothes on? Then you have to stand in the middle of this unit, meanwhile a machine scans you’re entire body to find out if you carry anything illegal. How do we know how safe these machines really are? I really feel sorry for my Mom, what she goes through all the time she travels. She has got a knee replacement a couple of years ago. So any time she goes to the airport she shows them her papers why the X-ray machine will give a sound. They still make her go through it several times. Furthermore, they usually take her to a private office, where an officer scans her from head to toe. Does she have to go through all these procedures at the age of 72? One thing is sure; we don’t have a choice now. You obey the rules, because you have to go, you have to reach your destination. I assume 95 % - if not more - of us are just regular travellers, who have not even got a bad thought trying to endanger our fellow people, but because of that possible 5 %, we have to suffer as well.

            Advocates of this kind of surveillance say that, there are plenty of benefits of using these devices. Let’s say the red-light cameras are needed to reduce accidents. Cameras set up in public parks and streets or in subway stations can help to stop a crime or at least help to catch the criminals by recording the assaults or robberies. It is true. By the end of the 90’s in New York City, police say a surveillance program has already resulted in a 44 percent reduction in offences such as drug dealing, vandalism and sexual assault. There are other benefits as well. They have been able to help when someone goes down ill in a public place or it also helps to find runaway kids. Officials said that, the operators of these cameras and devices usually have to follow a strict code of practice that limits how they can move and position the cameras so as not to violate people’s privacy on their own property. Footage is never given out, supposedly. But do these cameras actually stop the crimes or just move them to another location? Can’t criminals destroy those cameras, before they record anything? Are those images clear enough for certain recognition? There are a lot of possibilities for computer or human errors. Cameras can be miscalibrated, the pictures has been taken by them could be blurry. They can be very effective in catching crimes but they can be abusive in lots of ways. They can be used for evil reasons as well. George Orwell wrote his famous fiction, 1984 about the possibility how the bad way of using surveillance can turn the world to a hellish place. In 1984, London is a scary place where the government, Big Brother is always watching and the Thought Police can read your mind. “The telescreen was received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision, which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. It was conceivable that they watched everybody at all the time.” (Orwell, p.90.) Then it gets worst. “It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within a range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away: a nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself – anything that carried with the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case to wear an improper expression on your face was itself a punishable offense.” (Orwell, p.145.)

            Orwell’s world was just a fiction, but those monitors and listening devices already exist. You don’t even have to go to the street. Just have to turn on your cellphone or use a social network website! Meanwhile no one can except full privacy in a public space, people still have a right not to be subjected to surveillance at all the time. People should have some influence over this. We have the right to live our lives in anonymity. There is a major difference in between somebody is watching out for us, or somebody is watching us!

Works sited: 

 

Stollenwerk, Mike “Don’t Give the Green Light to Intrusive Red-Light Cameras.” Editorial Copy.

            The Washington Post. Regional Edition. 18 March 2007. Print.

Hurst, Linda “Not 1984: Just someone to watch over us Surveillance is everywhere, but

            opponents aren’t” Sunday Second Edition. The Toronto Star. 22 March 1998. Print.

Orwell, George 1984 New York: Harcourt, Inc. 1949. (p.90, 145.) Print.

Minority Report. Dir. Steven Spielberg. Perf. Tom Cruise. Amblin, 2002. Film.

Blog #9 First Draft - War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strenght

 

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength

                  The land of the free, the country where dreams come true, the place where human rights are protected and respected. Those were the slogans that brought millions of people to America. Was it a true description of the country? Part of it was. You certainly had opportunities and you still have. Freedom and the respect of the human rights however weren’t always the strength of the American system. Throughout the history there were plenty of examples of violating people’s rights, but let just talk about a specific one: the right for privacy. In the last and the present century wars abroad and violence inside the country made certain officials think about how they could control and raise the level of safeness. They were searching for ways how they could stop any violence before it’s too late, or at least have a clue who committed a crime.  And then was born the genius idea: to ensure safety, they have to find the way to survey public places. Since the middle of the 90’s there is a trend of installing surveillance cameras at traffic lights, in buildings, in parks or in shopping malls throughout North America and Great Britain. The happenings of September 11^th also had a big impact on the future of surveillance. The security checkpoints on airports are designed to find any possible threats. Though the benefits of using these cameras and other devices are obvious, I think invading privacy to ensure safety is unethical and unacceptable. Here are my reasons:

                  Most of us want to be alone sometimes. Normally those are the days when you stay at home, in one of your room or your own corner and try to avoid any conversation or activity with others. But there are other people who are not so lucky to have that place, or it is impossible to have that little privacy at their own house. So they like to go out to parks, to bars or just wonder around on the streets. They don’t want to be bothered; they don’t want to be watched. That’s the reason they left from home. Would they feel comfortable if meanwhile driving around some policeman was stopping them for a random reason? Or let’s say sitting in a park, some camera just turns towards them and recording what are they doing? I found a very good example in a Toronto Star article about this. In London, a man tried to attempt a suicide. A public camera took footage of the attempt, which later was given to TV stations. However the image had been blurred, the man was still identifiable and now he’s suing. He had enough problems already, what lead him to that decision. He luckily didn’t manage to kill himself, but his problems just multiplied. Nobody wants to become famous this way!

                  In many states of North America thousands of photo ticketing devices were being installed at intersections regulated by traffic lights. A 2007 Washington Post article sais: “Although - in the identification of license plates - errors has been made, there is a presumption that any photographed vehicle’s registered owner is guilty of running a red light.” So is the law changing? We have to prove our innocence before we have been proven guilty? AAA has revealed that thousands of motorists have been wrongly accused of speeding because of glitches in the controversial speed camera system. Mistakes range from registration numbers being misread to the dates and times of the alleged offence being wrong. There are lots of calibration mistakes as well. Occasionally, these accusations go even further. I remember reading it in a newspaper a couple of years ago that once in Arizona the police have arrested a man, for speeding based solely on the evidence of its photo radar machines that registered his vehicle traveling at an impossibly high speed of 147 MPH. That poor man had to prove it in court that, his car - according to the manufacturer - has a drag-limited top speed of 137 MPH.  This man has not only been invaded in his privacy, but a false device took his freedom away. Here I should mention the movie I have recently seen: The Minority Report. In the movie, which plays in the near future, the whole city built on the new system, called Pre-Crime. With the help of certain individuals, called the pre-cogs, who are able to see who will commit a murder in a future, crime rate sank to a very law level. But their prisons are full with people who are actually innocent. They were going to commit murder but they actually didn’t. They have been imprisoned for a crime they were just thinking about. Their freedom had been taken away without having the right to defend themselves. The identifications and scanning of people’s mind made possible by infrared cameras. Those devices are monitoring people, following them everywhere, invading their privacy constantly. I wouldn’t want to live in a world like this.

                  I have a personal reason as well, why I think it is a wrong approach to ensure safety by violating privacy. I travel enough to see how humiliating can be to go through an airport security checkpoint. Meanwhile I understand the government’s reasoning why they had to set up those stations to ensure some kind of security measures, I totally disagree with how they disgrace people during the check-in. That is a real invasion of privacy. Just think about how they are searching through your bag with an X-ray machine or with their hands. Do you really want them or anybody else to see what are you carrying with you? Then you have to take off half of your clothes, your shoes in front of everybody. What if you’re choice of clothing or your pants falling off without your belt making you a subject of ridicule? Then you have to stand in the middle of this unit with arms wide open, meanwhile a machine scans you’re entire body to find out if you carry anything illegal. How do we know how safe these machines really are? I really feel sorry for my Mom, and I’m kind of outraged by the way of the security system is checking her out when she travels. She has got a knee replacement a couple of years ago. So any time she goes to the airport she shows them her papers why the X-ray machine will give a sound. They still make her go through it several times. Furthermore, they usually take her to a private office, where an officer scans her from head to toe. Is that right, she has to go through all these procedures at the age of 72? Does she really look like a terrorist? One thing is sure; we don’t have a choice now. You obey the rules, because you have to go, you have to reach your destination. I assume 95 % - if not more - of us are just regular travellers, who have not even got a bad thought trying to endanger our fellow people, but because of that possible 5 %, we have to suffer as well.

                  Advocates of this kind of surveillance say that, there are plenty of benefits of using these devices. Let’s say the red-light cameras are needed to deter red-light running and reduce accidents. Cameras set up in public parks and streets or in subway stations can help to stop a crime or at least help to catch the criminals by recording the assaults or robberies. It is true. By the end of the 90’s in New York City, police say a surveillance program has already resulted in a 44 percent reduction in offences such as drug dealing, vandalism and sexual assault. In one world criminal acts are declining. There are other benefits as well. They have been able to help when someone goes down ill in a public place or it also helps to find runaway kids. The operators of these cameras and devices usually have to follow a strict code of practice that limits how they can move and position the cameras so as not to violate people’s privacy on their own property. Footage is never given out, supposedly. But do these cameras actually stop the crimes or just move them to another location? Criminals can destroy those cameras, before they record anything, can’t they? Are those images clear enough for certain recognition? There are a lot of possibilities for computer or human errors. Cameras can be miscalibrated, the pictures has been taken by them could be blurry. They can be very effective in catching crimes but they can be abusive in lots of ways. They can be used for evil reasons as well. George Orwell wrote his famous fiction, 1984 about the possibility how the bad way of using surveillance can turn the world to a hellish place. In 1984, London is a dystopian place where the government, Big Brother is always watching and the Thought Police can read your mind. Winston, his main character and all the citizens in grave danger simply because they have to control all their thoughts. Any idea crossing their mind, questioning the ruling party can put them in jail, where they will either be reformed or disappear. On page 90 he wrote: “The telescreen was received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision, which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. It was conceivable that they watched everybody at all the time. You had to live in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every moment scrutinized.” And on page 145 it gets worst. “It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within a range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away: a nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself – anything that carried with the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case to wear an improper expression on your face was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it: facecrime, it was called.”

                  Of course Orwell’s world is just a fiction, but violating our rights to privacy is already happening for a while. Meanwhile no one can except full privacy in a public space, people still have a right not to be subjected to surveillance at all the time. People should have some influence over this. We have the right to live our lives in anonymity. The more that cameras have been put up there, the less you enjoy that right. In the Toronto Star article, I mentioned before, Richard Skinulis, editor of a Canadian Security magazine said that: “One way or the other, we are going to become a more closely watched society. But people should be wary when police ask for the right to watch on an ongoing, rather than an incident-linked basis! I don’t like the idea of everyone being monitored.” That article was written in 1998. Think about what had happened since and you can decide which side you are in. There is a major difference in between somebody is watching out for us, or somebody is watching us!

                 

                 

                 

Blog #8 "In the land of the Blind, the One Eyed Man is the king."

"In the Land of the Blind the One Eyed Man is the King"

     Throughout my life, I came across the same question several times: What if....? At one point I went all the way back to my very existence. Was it my parents free will to conceive me or it was a  chain of necessary events which led to my mother's pregnancy. What if my father was more careful? What if my mother's desire to have another child was not strong enough? How my and my family's life would've turned out if I was born a boy? How my personality would be if I grew up in a different family? How much control we have over our lives?

     We have recently watched Minority Report in class, which made me think about those questions again. And the two words, comes right away to one's mind are: free will and determinism. These words bring major debates, arguments among philosophers. But to understand what are the arguments about, first we have to know the meaning of these words.

     Determinism - as well the related pre-determinism - is a philosophical idea that every event, including every human decision and action is the inevitable and necessary consequence of a chain of prior occurrences - such as destiny, natural and biological laws - stretching back to the origin of the universe. That means determinism implies just one possible future. That is the major topic of the movie. In the near future officials create a new justice system, called "Precrime".  With the help of certain individuals - called the "precogs" - who foresee the future, and with their own "Precrime Police" they prevent future murders, by predicting who will commit certain crimes. They believe that, the chain of events that leads to someone's decision to commit a crime is inevitable. So they find the person, they arrest him, before he reaches his destiny. And here comes the argument. If the future is pre-determind, that means we don't have free will, then how we can be judged by, how we are responsible for something we can not control?

     Free will means: the ability to make choices. Michael Huemer said in his writing, Free will and Determinism in the world of Minority Report: "Having free will is thought to require two things: alternate possibilities and self-control." A human being is free only if more than one future is possible for him, he can choose between his possible actions, and he controls them. However the pre-cogs predicted that John Anderton would commit the crime, he altered his own future by choosing not to do it. Or see Lamar at the end of the movie. Anderton gives him two alternatives to choose from, but he decides to pick another one. First he really wants to kill John, but then he controls his anger because he realizes none of the choices would make a difference, so he decides to kill himself instead.
     There is a sentence in the movie, that comes up several times. "Can you see?" When Danny who leads the internal investigation is asking questions about the "precogs", John says: "There is nothing wrong with the system. The system is perfect." Dany agrees with him, but he adds: The flaw is the human." Meaning that humans have free will, and however we can't stop the law of nature or the phisics from happening, we can alternate it, we can think, we can choose between right and wrong. That's our power against determinism. That is what Agatha, one of the "precogs" is trying to tell John towards the end of the movie that, he still has a choice but he has to see it, recognize it.
    There are other alternatives to determinism. Among philosophers the most popular view is that freedom and determinism are very much comparable. I think, the woman who invented "Precrime" is a perfect example of those people who believe in this, the so called soft determinism. When Anderton goes to visit her, she expresses her believes in her system. But she gives room for other possibilities. However every "almost" murder was bound to happen, she states that the "precogs" could've made mistakes time to time, and events could have happened differently. The people who were being put away, could have made different decisions, but  she didn't mind sacrificing some of them for the greater good. Acknowledging the failure of the part of the system would've meant they had to shut down the whole system. And she could not allow that, because she believed that, the system saved hundreds of lives. She's also talking about survival, everyone's basic instinct. She encourages John to do the almost impossible, to win against the system. She wants him to choose to stay alive.
     Morality also plays a big rule in the movie and it connected to free will. When John realizes there are maybe some innocent people, whom he put away, it hits him hard. He wants to know, what really happened because he is a good man. His conscientiousness can't bare the thought of injustice. He - again - choose to see. Practicing your free will often trigger a chain of event which are inevitable and leading you towards your future. The road to your future can be dangerous and unknown but you can't stop, because time is not in our side. The inventor of "Precrime" says: "Sometimes to be able to see the light, you have to risk the dark." John risked everything to be able to see. And we, human beings should do the same.
     We are sleeping for a long time, but it's time to wake up and see what is going on around us, with us! We should practice our rights to choose, to have alternatives. We should not let things just happen to us, determined by external causes. Huemer says in his text: "The only way we can control our actions and decisions is by having them be caused by our internal thoughts and motivations." In the movie, minority reports eventually prove that, free will, and alternative possibilities are exist. And I believe in that too. Our future is somewhat pre-determind, but with practicing our free will we, humans can have control over our lives. We made lots of mistakes in our history, because we choose not to see, but we can change that. We can open our eyes and see. We can use that fantastic ability - free will - to survive and have a better, happier, even safer life in the future.

Blog#7 The Allegory of the Cave through history

     There were and still are lots of situations in life when people live in an illusion or refuse to accept the truth. People used to believe that by working hard and respecting the laws, you are achieving the most. But in reality, we are being punished when we follow the regulations, when we are trying to be a law-abiding citizen.
     America used to be the land of opportunities, where individualism, trying to succeed with will and determination was the way of pursuing happiness. Do the things that you love should be the right approach. And you should give things to your fellow man upon your will not because your government or your society say so. I read it in a novel: "Before you do things for people, you must be the person who get things done. But to get things done, you must love doing it."
     In present world we pursue a carrier, we try to make as much money as possible, trying to feed our family, buying a house and tangible things that makes our life comfortable, because we feel we worked hard for it, so we deserve it. But then comes the government and takes more and more of your income mainly in a form of taxes, which you are willing to give away, because you believe you help to your fellow citizens and your economy. The government - by rules and regulations - is taking over our personal life. What is wrong with this world? Too many people want to tell you how to live and what is right in your life. Lately the idea is that, the state owns you. You have to belong to a certain society or certain parties, you have to share certain views.
    In 2008 as the mortgage industry collapsed and millions lost their homes, the financial crises was blamed on bankers for landing money to unqualified buyers; which was the truth. But most of us didn't see it was actually the government who was trying to get everybody to buy a house even if they couldn't afford it. We refused to see that, the bankers just used the opportunity by following the rules. Then the government responded to the crises with emergency measures and bailouts to - as they said - save the economy, but a lot of people thought it was rather like a reward for a bad behavior. Meanwhile millions of American lost their jobs, the government was spending trillions on rescues and stimulus plans. They were spending the money they have never had with the national debt continued to rise.
     We don't realize that it slowly becomes impossible for a man to live without braking the laws. They want us to be law-abiding citizens, but how is it possible when our government passes the kind of laws that can't be observed nor enforced nor interpreted.
America's founding fathers has a different idea of a government. They just wanted regular people to have a little break to go to Washington to represent the greater good, and then to go back to their jobs. They wanted a government of people representing their constituency. Somewhere along the way we lost that. Instead we developed a new job: a professional politician. And those politicians realized that, they need a government with a strong hand to support their ideas. But the whole concept of a powerful central government is a mistake.
     People don't realize, they are being blinded. And the most helpful and powerful tools in this process is the media. It has a war against individualism, it favor collectivness. It suggest you, what you should ware, how you should live, how much you should give, the trend what kind of carrier you should achieve. The truth is that all work is a creative work, done by an individual thinking mind. Anything can be a field of human creativity and human genius, but you have to work. What our inventors, or our architects would've had done if their hand was tied down? Because that is what is happening now. It's a great example of the lesson we learned in The Allegory of the Cave. We just refuse to see it. We tied ourself down with so many regulations and laws that we can no longer function. Dependency can sound attractive, it could be a wonderful thing but actually it is a form of enslaving people and eventually it leads to the ultimate dystopia.

Blog #6 Free will and destiny in Oedipus

In the play of Oedipus there is a lot of example what proves: your life is driven by free will, rather then destiny. Oedipus life has been decided because of his choices. In the beginning of the play when Teiresias tells him that, he is the person who is responsible for Thebes' downfall, he decides to find out the truth. That's his choice. He could've just sent the prophet away as he asked for it, but he didn't. His desire to know everything start to unfold his tragic story. The first example in the story is when Oedipus forces Teiresias to tell the truth. Teiresias sais around line 426: "I did not want to speak, but you incited me. Oedipus wants the truth even if he has fears.
     There is a lots of example as well in the lines where he tells about the story of his life to Jocasta. He grew up being loved and respected and careless. Till one day he got into a fight with someone at a dinner who claimed he wasn't his father's son. The man who said that was very drunk. He should not have listened to him and just walk away. Instead he couldn't bear the uncertainty and wanted to find out it what has been said was true. At line 942 he said: "But nonetheless, the accusation always troubled me-the story had become well known all over. And so I went in secret off to Delphi." Then  when he learns what his faith supposed to be, he choose to ran away. From line 955-959: "When I heard that, I ran away from Corinth......I went to other lands, so I would never see that prophecy fulfilled, the abomination of my evil fate."
     Later on, when he meats with Laius on the road, he also makes a choice. A very bad one, which makes the prophecy come true. He gets into an argument when things gets out of hand and he kills the old man, who is happened to be his own father. Again, did he have to kill him? Couldn't he just stop arguing and be the wise one. Kill a man so unreasonably? The lines for this example [820-821]: "...a curse I laid upon myself. With these hands of mine, these killer's hands,...."
Then when the messenger brings the news, Oedipus father just died in natural causes, he could've just have stop him questioning. His constant fear of the prophecy is driving him insane. Now he wants to know about how his mother comes to the picture. He's keep going after every details. At line 1169-1172 he says: "Everything you say would be commendable, if my mother were not still alive. But since she is, I must remain afraid, although what you are saying is right."
So he's keep going on, to finding his origin. He finds the old servant who was working for Laius and - even if the servant begs against it - he forces him to unfold his story even more. That show at line 1399-1400: "Servant: Alas, what I'm about to say now... it's horrible.
Oedipus: And I'm about to hear it. But nonetheless I have to know this."
When Oedipus learns what the servant knows, everything fall into its place. But - the first time since the beginning of the story -  he realizes, maybe not a course or a prophecy should influence your life, but your choices, your free will. Lines 1480-1422:
"Oedipus: Ah, so it all came true. It's so clear now. O light, let me look at you one final time, a man who stands revealed as cursed by birth, cursed by my own family, and cursed by murder where I should not kill."

Blog #5 A Dystopian life in a Utopian world

A Dystopian life in a Utopian world    

     I like to think about the world. Especially about human behaviors and societies. How we can or cannot live with each other. The factors that influences who we will become. How science would change our lives. How the world will look like. And honestly, I am not very optimistic. A couple of weeks ago I watched Gattaca, a very thought-provoking science-fiction movie. The film placed in a not too distant future and paints a rather scary picture about how the future could be. A life in an almost perfect dystopian world; at least the way how I see it.
     In the last century, technology was advanced rapidly. This has had certainly positive and negative effects on our lives and in our societies. We, humans want to "catch up" with that evolution as well. We want to be better in everything. We want to be taller, smarter, quicker than others. We always want more. It's a constant competition. Take a look at the sport world, for example. How the numbers in the world records had been changed. The desire to be the best pushing sportsmen to their limits. Or just look into our everyday lives. Since our childhood our parents and other people teach us how to think, how we should look, how to be more successful, more efficient. And we learn that - or at least we try - because we want to have a better life. But the constant force to be better than others is changing you.
     To reach our goals we do things we shouldn't. Step through our fellow humans, restrain our feelings, lies! That's how Gattaca starts. With a lie, an identification scam. We don't know who this man is or why he's doing what he does, but we know, it is wrong. Lies never work out in a long term. Lies have consequences. Is it necessary sometimes? Maybe we think it is, if our life depends on it?! In the beginning of the movie the main character, Jerome starts his regular day. Having a shower meanwhile getting rid off of all his body hair, cleaning himself to perfection. Then he's putting on a fake fingertip skin, attaching a urine bag to his thigh. We know already he's hiding something, he's obviously a person who can't be himself. And we know right away, this is something he does every day. Soon we find out why. He lives is constant fear! Fear from others, who may discover who he really is, and stop him reaching out for his dream.
     In a dystopian world fear and control is tightly connected. Individualism is something must be forgotten. Jerome arrives to his workplace, which looks like a very modern hospital or a research institute. Security is a major concern here. Everything is clean and looks perfect. Just like the humans working there. Men and women's dress alike and even their body language and expressions are the same. Perfection is the only acceptable option, we find out soon from a conversation. Everybody and everything is under perfect control. People are being tested, watched and reported constantly. Proof of identity is necessary to the extremes.
We have some very good example of this kind of world from our past. Just think about the Nazi Germany or the Communist systems followed later. Nazis believed they belonged to a chosen, Aryan race which - they think - was above all human race. If you were one of them, or obeyed them, they made you believe that you are somewhat superior, capable of everything. On the other hand, if you were different, less than the chosen race - like the Jews or Slavs - or you had another opinion, you were to be destroyed. Fear - based on lies - was controlling everything. Even if you were one of them and realized that, what was happening wasn't right, you had no choice. If you wanted to survive, you had to remain silent. We see this struggle in Jerome. Meanwhile he desperately tries to adopt to this perfect world, trying to belong, all he really wants is to leave everything behind, to escape. He believes there is another, different world, where he could be free. A Utopian place, where would be no discrimination, no hate, no fear. For him the Space represent that world. Which is very symbolic in my opinion. Going up to Space is like going up to Heaven, where - supposedly - everyone who enters the gate is accepted, everyone has a place, where happiness is granted. As Vincent questions it at the end of the movie, when he's about to go up. "Leaving or going home?" Space also symbolizes a higher ground, where people can look up on you. As we learn later on, Jerome was pushed down, people look down on him in his whole early life. You can't change your past, or where you come from, but you can definitely influence what will happen to you in the future with a strong will and determination. And Vincent has both. And he doesn't want to reconcile to his destiny. He's wants to be the living proof of the failure of genetic engineering.
     Scientists and psychologists believe that, there is two major factors that influence who we are or who we will become. The genes and our surroundings. These two are tightly connected. Altering any of those can have serious consequences. That's why genetic engineering is a very dangerous territory.
In Gattaca the population consist of mostly genetically engineered humans. There is a scene in the beginning when the doctor - who's testing Jerome every day - has a comment about Jerome's "equipment". He says: "I don't know why my folks didn't order one like that for me?" However it sounds funny, the idea is rather scary. So is it possible in the near future, that our parents, our society or our governments decide what kind of children, human beings should born? Can we try to enhance or temper certain human qualities? Scientists, certain organizations and other people who has interest in it, see genetic research as a way to end the existence of preventable diseases; so they say humans can live longer and maybe one day become immortal. But do we really want that? Isn't that against nature? We have an amazing system already: our body and mind. It is tuned perfectly. And it works pretty well for thousands of years. It doesn't need to be altered. Nevertheless, some people have different ideas. In George J. Annas' essay The Man on the Moon, the writer mentions a scientist Joe Tsien, who used genetic engineering to create smarter mice. They had better memories and learned faster. Imagine, if they make it possible to apply that to human beings. Parents would like their kids to be smarter but how many could afford to pay for it? Obviously this kind of procedure would cost a lot of money. Some parents wouldn't do it, even if they had the money, but that would automatically lead to their child condemnation, being born with  a lesser chance to fit.
We learn in the movie that, Jerome is not the person who we think he is. He took someone else's identity, he lives in another person's skin. His name is Vincent and he was conceived in a natural way. However for the society in the movie the natural way is actually the genetically engineered. As Vincent put it: "Some time ago people believed that, the child conceived in happiness has a better chance in life. 10 fingers, 10 toes, all that used to matter. But not now! 10 seconds after I was born, it's been said the time when I'll be dead." A computer analysis shows you at birth, whether you have a chance to belong to the "upper class" or not. They start to call your "Valid" or "Invalid". That segment of the movie is another scary reminder of Nazism. People became numbers and data. Jews had to wear a yellow star on their clothes so the others were able to see who they were. Later on they also got a number burned to their arms so they could easily count them in the concentration camps. But individualism was not allowed even outside of those walls. Solders had to wear uniforms as well, and greeting each other in a unified way to show where they belonged. Independent thought were not appreciated.
This subject is well displayed in Gattaca. From his early age, Vincent was seeing himself as others have been looking at him: a sick person. We learn that, he had a 99% chance of a heart failure by the time he turns 30. Do we want that? To grow up knowing when and how we will die. A constant fear in our parents' heart each time we fall or hurt ourselves. Not to be able to go to kinder garden or school, because we are considered a high risk for the insurance companies who wouldn't pay, if something happened with us. Vincent is a "damaged" person who's expiration date is already known. The closing school gate is very metaphoric for me. It's separating Vincent from the others, from having a chance for a better life. It's almost like dividing the human race in two. Vincent experienced discrimination from a very young age. As he mentions it in the movie: "We have discrimination not only by race, or color or religion any more. Now we have it down to the science!"
     Now let's talk about the "Valid" people. Perfection is a tremendous burden as well, because there is no excuse to fail; as it gets mentioned in the film a couple of times. Look at Anton's struggle. He grew up being perfect, everything was easy for him, until the point when Vincent wins their swimming competition. Loosing is not what supposed to happen with Anton. He doesn't know how to deal with it and he gets confused by it. There is another part in the movie when he is shook to his core. Finding out his brother lives the life of a Valid person. How is that possible, he doesn't understand. The real Jerome is a good example as well. He was a guy who's supposed to be perfect physically and mentally. A 20-20 eye sight, a heart like a bull and a high IQ, someone who could live forever. Still he ends up in a wheelchair trying to kill himself, because he got the second place in a sport competition! Now he's just a human wreckage with no future. Doesn't sound too perfect, does it? Unfortunately, this happens too often in our every day life as well. There are a lot of expectations within families and in our societies. Let's say there is a child, who was born to a family where both parents are intellectuals and strong minded. He/she has to follow their path, there is no way he/she can even dream about a different kind of life.
Mostly what happens is that they obey. But unfortunately for those kids who cannot or do not want to live up to their parent's expectations, life can be hell. Therefore, kids can become depressed, or turn violent against people or themselves. Determination and desperation are two very strong feelings, what make us do things we never knew we were capable of.
     Another characteristic of the movie that struck me was the lack of the emotions. Unhappiness is so obvious that you don't understand how these people can survive. They live in a world where life is planned, everything is in order, every minute is recorded and feelings have no place. You're almost questioning their humanness. Then Vincent meets Irene. They slowly but surely fall in love and that changes everything. It opens up their eyes, puts their whole existence in a different perspective.
I believe that where love exist, there is still hope for humans. Love has no genes, therefore it cannot be controlled.
We witness also an almost paternal love in the movie what the doctor feels for Vincent. He admits that he knew everything about Vincent from the beginning but he didn't give him up cause Vincent reminded him too much of his own son. Someone who supposed to belong to the Valid society but he didn't, because some error had occurred when he was born. Vincent almost cries when he realizes what the doctor did for him and it fills his heart with hope, happiness and warmth.
     I think that was the director final message. He painted a very dark future for us but he wanted to show there is a way out of there. There is always a light at the end of the tunnel. We just have to believe in ourselves. The moment when Vincent finally goes up to space suggests that everything is possible. When we really want something, the Universe is there for us, conspire to reach our destination. But that destination can not be Gattaca. It is not the place  where you want to be. A world where human rights are being ignored. A place where people are products of genetic architectures. Where standards and numbers measure us. Where we can't have an individual personality. Where we have to live in fear. Do we understand that, if we're altering our brain or mind, our genetic information system will changes as well?! Thorough out the history we, humans were trying to change other nation's religion, politics or their way of living. We started wars to take someone else's land. We conquered countries and  continents. "But now we have changed. We are simply trying to invade ourselves, in our own human body." as George J. Annais put it in his essay. There is a lot of sicknesses in the world but we have to find the reasons in our surroundings. We are slowly killing ourself by poisoning our nature and our own bodies with constant stress. We have to get closer to nature again. It's true, that organ transplantations makes it possible to live longer, but where will it stop? Are we gonna arrive in an age when our organs will be replaced with metal parts? Don't you think it's already happening? "We live in a World where it doesn't matter any more who you were but who you become" as Jerome says it in the movie. We can't accept a Gattacan society. We have to stop pushing ourselves or other people. We have to live in peace with each other and have to extend our responsibility for the entire planet. We should do everything in our power to preserve our dignity and other features, that makes us who we are: humans. As it written in the beginning of the movie: "Consider God's handiwork; who can straighten what He hath made crooked?" Ecclesiastes 7:13
    
     


  

     




     

Blog #4 Draft of A dystipian life in an Utopian world

  

A Dystopian life in an Utopian world

 

     I like to think about the world. Especially about human behaviours and societies. How we can or we can not live with each other. The factors that influences who we will become. How the world will look like. I recently watched a very thought-provoking movie, Gattaca which paints a picture about how the future could be; a life in an almost perfect dystopian world. 

     In the last century technology was advanced very rapidly. This has had certainly positive and negative effects on societies. We, humans want to "catch up" with that evolution as well. We want to be better in everything. We want to be taller, smarter, quicker then others. It's a constant competition. Take a look at the sport world. How the numbers in the world records had been changed. The desire to be the best pushing the sportsman to their limits. Another example is the competition in a professional world. They teach us from our childhood, how to think, how to make more money, to be better then others, to have a better life. Lately, it doesn't matter how you get there. Stepping through your fellow humans, restrain your feelings, lies! That's how Gattaca starts. With a lie, an identification scam. We don't know who is this man or why he's doing what he does, but we know it is wrong. Lies never work out in a long term. Lies have consequences. Is it necessary sometimes? Maybe you think it is, if your life depends on it?! 

     In the beginning of the movie the main character, Jerome starts his regular day. Having a shower meanwhile getting rid off  all of his body hair, cleaning himself to perfection. We also see him putting on fake fingertip skins, attaching a bag with urine to his tights. We know already he's hiding something, he's obviously a person who can not be himself. Then he arrives to his work place, which looks almost like a hospital, a modern, space like building. Everything is clean and looks perfect. Just like the humans working there. Men and women's dresses alike, just like their expressions. Perfection is the only acceptable option, we find out soon from a conversation. Here we learn that everything - humans and machines - are under perfect control. People are being tested, watched and reported constantly. Proof of identity is necessary to the extremes. We have a very good example of this kind of world. Let's think about the Nazi Germany or the Communism, a system followed later. Nazis believed of the chosen, Aryan type, which - they think - was better above all human race. If you obeyed them, they made you believe that, you belong to a superior race who is capable of everything. But if you were different, less then the chosen race - for example the Jews or Slavs - or you had different opinion you were to be destroyed. Fear was controlling everything. There were people who realised that, what was happening wasn't right but they had no choice, just to be quiet if they wanted to survive. We can see an example of this in the character of Vincent. He desperately tries to adopt to this perfect world and he makes it happen every day with constant lies; but what he really wants is to leave everything behind and find another, better, utopian place, which is not controlled by fear. That's for him is the space. It is very symbolic in my opinion. Going up to the space is like going up to "Heaven"  where supposedly everyone who enters the gate is accepted, everyone has a place, where happiness is granted. As Vincent questions it at the end of the movie when he's about to go up. Leaving or going home? Where you are always supposed to be! Space also symbolises the desire to go up somewhere, to be looked up. Vincent was pushed down, people looked down on him - as he was less then them - in his whole life.

The movie takes us to the prospect of human genetic engineering. In the very beginning of the movie the doctor – who's testing people every day – has a comment about Jerome's

“equipment”. He says: “I don't know why my folks didn't order one like that for me?” Let's talk about this sentence! However it sounds funny, it is rather scary! So in the near future, is it possible that our parents or our society or our governments will decide what kind of children (human beings) should born? Scientist, organisations and people who has interest in it, see genetic research as finding a way to end the existence of preventable diseases, so they say, humans can leave longer or maybe one day become immortal. In George J. Annas' essay: The Man on the Moon , the writer bringing up two scientist who suggested that we can make this happen. One was the embryologist Ian Wilmut who in 1997 announced that he had cloned a sheep, creating a genetic twin of an adult animal. However the scientist argued that his technique shouldn't be applied to humans for reproduction, it raised international debate. But replication didn't get as much attention as the other experiment. People don't want to be cloned, they want their children to be better, to have a better chance to life. And that's what makes the other scientific experiment more significant. Joe Tsien from Prinston had used genetic engineering to create smarter mice, who had better memories and learned faster. Imagine if they make that genetic engineering techniques possible to apply to human beings?! Lots of parents would like their kids to be smarter but only a few of them would realise the consequences it would bring. 

     We learn in the movie, that Jerome is not really Jerome he just took someone else's identity, he lives in another person's skin. His name is Vincent and he was born in a natural way, at least he called it that way. The movie suggest that in the new world, the natural way is actually genetically engineered. Jerome said in the movie: “Before the time I was born, people believed that, the child conceived in happiness has a better chance in life. 10 fingers, 10 toes, that all that used to matter. But not now. 10 seconds after I was born it has been said the time when I'll be dead.” 99 % of a heart failure at the age of 30! That segment of the movie is another scary reminder of Nazism! People become numbers and data. No individualism was allowed in the Nazi concentration camps. The Jews even had to wear a yellow star on their jackets so the others were able to see who they were or who they weren't. From the early age, Vincent was thinking about himself as others have been looking at him: as a sick person. Do we want that? To know when and how we will die. To grow up like that. A constant fear in our parents' heart each time, we fell or hurt ourself. Not to be able to go to kinder garden or school because the insurance company wouldn't pay after us, knowing that we are high risk for them, “damaged” already. Closing the school gate front of Vincent is very symbolical as well. It's like separating, dividing the human race in two. Just like it divided Vincent and his brother, who was born perfect. Vincent was discriminated in his whole life. As he mentions: “Now we had discrimination down to the science.” In the other hand we see the other brother: Anton's struggle. Or I could bring up Jerome's disappointment in this world. He was so upset by not winning the sport competition what he supposed to, that he tried to kill himself. There is a burden of perfection as well, because there is no excuse to fail, as it gets mentioned in the film not once. There is a very good example for that, when finally Vincent won the swimming competition what took place the last time they swam together. Anton never understood what happened. Till the end of the movie when Vincent finally explain his determination. He wanted to kill himself as well that day, when feelings about his burden took over so much that was unbearable! He didn't save energy for the way back, he didn't care if he would've died. I think throughout our history, there was a lot of people or nations feeling the same way. The Jews, the Indians, the indigenous people who get discriminated or killed because they had a different view on life, or because they had different colour or believed in a different God. If we could engineer human brain, that would definitely bring major differences between people. Because societies brainwashed us already in thousand way, we believe that money and wealth is the most important factors in having a happy life. That's why I'm sure lots of hospitals and insurance companies would make money out of this kind of genetic engineering. It would cost a lot of money – at least in the beginning – what only rich people could afford. I think you get the idea. 

     Genetic engineering also raises the question about who is considered to be a human. This kind of science would make us to become like a product. It would dehumanise us. I believe that we already have a perfect system. Our body! The human body is amazing. It doesn't need to be altered. We have to find the reasons of sicknesses and diseases in our surroundings. We are slowly killing ourself by poisoning our nature and our own body or by living in constant stress. We have to get closer to nature again. That is actually the only positive thing for me in the movie. The using of solar energy, clean environment, clean waters, supposedly clean air. It's like the director trying to add an utopian feeling to this very dark future he painted. 

     There is one more lifting part in the movie. Love. Love is possible even in impossible places. Where love is exist, there is still hope for humans. Love, destiny or faith has no genes. They grow from nowhere. They don't die, they are intangible. They just change over time, they become the part of collective energy, what we all share. Love changes everything for Vincent. He's not so sure suddenly, that he wants to leave, despite he lived for that idea before. Heart over mind. We discover this also toward the end of the movie. When the doctor confesses that he always knew Vincent didn't belong there. He just didn't want to reveal it, maybe because Vincent reminded him of his son?! Who knows his real reasons? One thing is sure; even in an evil world good exists somewhere.. I also believe that: everything is possible. When you really want something the universe is there for you, conspire to reach your destination. And that destination is definitely not Gattaca. 

     Gattaca is a dystopian world, where people divided by being valid or invalid. But do we want that place to exist? When people are products of a genetic architecture, when standards and numbers measure us, where we can't have an individual personality, where we have to live in fear. Is genetic engineering stepping on our basic human rights. Do we understand that, by altering our brain or mind, our genetic information system would change as well?! We, humans - thorough out our history - were trying to change other nations religions, politics, or their way of living by conquer them. But now we have changed. We are simply trying to invade ourself, in our own human body, as George J. Annais put it in his essay. The organ transplantation helped already a lot of people to live longer , but where will it stop? Are we gonna arrive in the age when our organs will be replaced with metal parts? Isn't it already happening?! Think about a pacemaker or a metal joint replacing a knee joint, and so on... A World where it doesn't matter who you were but who you become, as Vincent says it toward the end of the movie. We have to fight against that, to prevent its happening. We have to leave in peace with each other, we have to extend our responsibility for the entire world. Altering humans would threaten the existence of human species itself, therefore we have to fight against it! The movie starts and end with the doctor's figure, because doctors and scientist has a very big responsibility in that fight. As it says in the beginning of the movie: “Consider God's handiwork; who can straighten what He hath made crooked?” Ecclesiastes7:13 And the other quote by Willard Gaylin:”I not only think that we will tamper with Mother Nature, I think Mother wants us to.”