1984

In George Orwell's 1984, thought and words are controlled. There is a parallel to the idea of controlled thought and controlled words. If words are removed, thought will become more simplified. This connecting is extremely evident in Orwell's novel of a future society. In 1984 the point of removing words is to control thoughts, thus, ridding the society of "Thought Crime." New dictionaries are created every year with drastically fewer worlds each year before. This "new" language is called Newspeak. Newspeak is a major influence in 1984. With strict regulations regarding everything citizens do, say, and think, Newspeak takes the control to a new level: what the citizens know/learn. Through Newspeak, words are abolished. Citizens learn fewer words, which directly impacts how they think and speak. Winston's friend, in charge of creating the Newspeak dictionary, asks Winston: "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it" (52). By abolishing words, the citizens' thoughts are molded into just what the society desires for the sole goal of control.


Today, there are institutions that use language to alter the thoughts of citizens and distort reality. For example, when someone is sent to jail, often the system calls jail "rehabilitation." The "outsiders" of the institution believe that the inmate is receiving treatment for his problems. However, often the truth is not so. The reality of the situation is far from rehabilitation. Often the inmate receives little to no treatment and is deemed "untreatable." The criminal institution uses language such as "rehabilitation" and "untreatable" to distort the reality behind the situation.
Also, a great example of language used to distort reality is the phrase of "Interrogation Techniques" coined by former President George W. Bush. I have learned through both outside sources and our class that "Interrogation Techniques" is another word for torture. Bush's "fluffed" language can be found anywhere: "...Bush’s Executive Order authorized interrogators to use military dogs, “stress positions,” sleep “management,” loud music and “sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc.” to extract information from detainees in Iraq" (msnbc.com). By using phrases such as "stress positions" and "sleep management" Bush is able to make torture sound not bad at all.

What is most sad about the act of using language to distort reality? Those who do not have the intellect nor knowledge of how reality is distorted are oblivious to reality, and fall into what the "distorter" wants. The good thing in our society is one cannot be "vaporized" for housing the knowledge and intellect needed in order to see the truth.

Cloning

With all of the information I have obtained thus far, my opinion on cloning has not changed since the start of this topic being discussed in class. I am still against it. I believe that by cloning, we are messing with something that is not meant to be messed with: human lives. I do not believe it is safe NOR morally ethical to play "God." Sure, maybe choosing the sex of your baby is not too bad, but in America I believe we have a problem "drawing the line." Where would the cloning stop? Pretty soon we would be "creating" all smart, athletic, beautiful babies. One may ask what the problem with this is. The problem is that we would loose all diversity in America.
The Newsweek article polled Americans asking whether they approved of embryo testing to choose the gender of their baby. Only 28% approved. However, they were also polled to see if they approved of embryo testing for just genetic tests. A large 74% of citizen's approved. This is an interesting statistic. Americans seem to believe that genetic testing is more "ethical/moral" then simply choosing the gender of their child. I also agree, but, I believe that through genetic testing we are still playing "God." If one scientist goes through embryos and tests for diseases, those embryos most likely will NOT be used. I think that this "selection" is immoral and too "God like." Of course, in the situation of being a mother, I would want the best for a child...but I don't even think that the option should be available. It will only escalate to larger and more "selection." This would send us on our way to a bland, not diverse America.
In the cloning video, straight cloning was discussed more than genetic engineering. I feel the same way about straight cloning. Cloning even seems more like a waste to me. I know it is a really cool scientific breakthrough, but again I believe we would be playing "God." I am not an extremely religious person, but I do believe that not one person is like another. I know there are twins, but twins are not a scientific breakthrough..they have always been in existence. The video says that cloning could open more doors in all aspects of life, and I agree. Cloning food, seeds, and other organic materials could greatly benefit our lives. I do not think human or animal lives should be messed with. Playing "God" is immoral and just plain wrong. Although cloning is a scientific discovery and pretty neat, it should be kept with things such as food, not humans.

Karl Marx Blog

With a capitalist society, class conflict is inevitable. Karl Marx proposed this ideology within his lifetime from 1818-1883. In the article "Karl Marx," there is a lot of evidence to support what Karl Marx believed. One of his stronger points implies that Capitalist nations do not care about the labourers, only the products created: "The Capitalist possesses this power, not on account of his personal or human qualities, but inasmuch as he is an owner of a capital." This, in turn, causes separation of classes. When each labourer is paid differently, there is a natural separation of classes. The higher paid labourers are the "high" class, and the lower paid labourers are the "lower class." When one is paid more, he is able to afford more and be seen as a "higher" individual. This proves Karl Marx's belief that Capitalist nations make class conflict inevitable.

I agree with Karl Marx, however, I do not see class conflict as a negative aspect of life. I do not see Communism as a positive political system like Karl Marx does; I believe there is no problem with class conflict. Separation between classes is inevitable within a positive political system. If one works harder, he makes more money. Others choose to see the members of the "high class" as high class. It is an individual's choice to view others based on their appearance and possessions. If there is a separation of classes, so be it. I do not believe there is much negative that can come from it. Therefore, I believe with the idea that class conflict is inevitable in a Capitalist Society, but see no problem with that conflict.

In both Brave New World and Marx's ideology, class conflict is caused by a "higher force." In Brave New World, class conflict is engineered while in a Capitalist Nation the government causes it. In both references, the higher force "creates" classes to it's wishes. Also, there is an undeniable class conflict in both. The only difference is that the citizens in Brave New World don't control their class and members of a real society do (even if Marx doesn't believe so). There is much more control for citizens of a Capitalist nation compared to those in the novel Brave New World.