THE ADVANTAGES OF STUPIDITY

Most people say being stupid will lead no where. They claim that it is the worst possible condition in which to spend one’s life, and if possible, it should be completely avoided. They would even suggest if the symptoms of stupidity are caught in the early stages, it could easily be treated by a surgeon. The most effective method used to do this is the chainsaw technique, later described in volume two. Yet, perhaps if people took a closer look at some of the advantages stupidity had to offer, they wouldn’t have such a negative attitude toward it. After reading this paper, one will understand the advantages of stupidity.

Admittedly, stupidity has certain disadvantages. Life isn’t a bowl of cherries. And being stupid doesn’t make it any fruitier. Being stupid can annoy even the most sensitive people. If one acts stupid, and does it in the wrong crowd, like a group of adults, it will seem more immature than funny. If one is forced to act stupid while dealing with lower life forms, for example, high schoolteachers, one may encounter barriers such as cruelty and insensitivity, with the utterance of statements like, “Think with your head straight!” or, “You have a brain, use it.” Yet these are all true, there are still many advantages to stupidity.

The first advantage is very easy to understand. Stupid people are never asked to do a lot. Many have noticed that people tend to steer away from someone they feel may be stupid. This is for a very good reason. The stupidity which they posses makes a name for themselves, a name which can be very difficult to shake. Possibly,it is a word which describes the working habits of the person, such as “crappy”. Yet, this creates a positive situation for the stupid person. They will have a lot of free time on their hands for more of live’s truly meaningful pleasures. Some of these activities are combing facial hair, and counting the pixels on a Sony TV.

Now, there has been a rumor going around that suggests that stupid people have low expectations. This is true. They are so stupid that they don’t realize great from O.K. They could have a Sanyo cordless phone, but would probably choose instead a Pierre Cardin alarm clock telephone, because it comes free with their sensamatic folding bed.

And someone with the “advantage” of stupidity might have a hard time doing certain tasks, or setting things up. Yet this isn’t all bad. For example, if a stupid person leaves the chore, and comes back to it later, no one will be able to understand it. Would they get fired from their job? No. For the very simple reason that no one would understand their work except for them. The job would have to be given back to the stupid person, perhaps with a higher salary, or someone would do it for them, leaving them with even more free time!

Free time is great for brainstorming (Admittedly this seems to be a bad choice of words!). Yet the ideas stupid people create tend to be original. For example, when was the last time someone stupid said something, and made one think about it? It seems that people are always talking about someone else’s dumb idea. An example of such an idea would be, “How many stories will that English teacher drop before having a stroke?”

This would suggest that stupid people may have the upper hand when it comes to thinking up original ideas. In fact, the next time someone wants an original idea for something, they should try talking to their local, community stupid person. The reason for this is that while a stupid person thinks with his head, he does not do so an organized manner. This is why they have so much creativity. By thinking in this fashion, their ideas have a natural tendency to flow more easily, without the interruptions which occur from the editing of thoughts that logical people would have normally. Thus if someone else should say to one, “That was a stupid idea!” one should merely look that person straight in the eye, and say, “Thank-you!” This also means that the claim, “Stupid minds think alike.” is not true. All stupid minds have different ideas, each idea being original.

One of the final advantages of stupidity is that stupid people are always remembered, even after graduation day. It has been noticed how a quiet person is always hard to detect, and often remains anonymous. There is a very good reason for this. The mind has a hard time keeping quiet people in its memory track. But it is much easier and pleasing for the mind to remember someone really stupid. Any ways, when was the last time one laughed at an idiot in one’s grade 12 class? When was the last time one laughed at the little kid at the back of the room? The evidence here proves how stupid people last longer in someone’s thoughts. The largest advantage which arises from stupidity is that it takes up 2/3 of DNA storage space, which is excellent for keeping stupidity in the family.

Thus, stupidity clearly has many advantages, as long as someone is smart enough to use them! It is important to understand that stupid people are like all other humans physically. Yet, because of the difference between smart and stupid people, smart human beings should give them some breathing space. Teachers can learn that someone graced with stupidity, deserves more respect. After all, they are special.

Social Darwinism

The stratification of the society in this society was illustrated by Norris using the concept of Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is an extension of biological evolution to human social systems. Theorists, such as Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), proposed and popularized much of what we now know as “Social Darwinism.” Social Darwinists use evolution to explain existing social and economic stratification among groups and among nations.

Stephen T. Asma, a Darwinists, states that society:

“At the domestic level, we convince ourselves that the poor are hopeless failures in the natural capitalist “survival” game. The crucial point to be understood in social Darwinism is that the poor and homeless classes represent a biologically or inherently inferior group of individuals. Spencer used this principle—where competition for limited resources results in the survival of the inherently “better” candidate–to explain past, present, and future social conditions. We know that they are inferior because they have “lost” the struggle. Americans have become convinced that sympathy for the less fortunate represents a blemish on the competitive spirit that made this country great. The underprivileged are turned against the impoverished.” (Asma, 97)

At the beginning of the novel, Norris explained how the people of different classes were active at different times of the day, he also describeed where these people lived. First the day laborers woke and went off to work at about seven o’clock. Next, the conductors and swing men of the cable car company went to work. At this time the night workers went home to sleep for the next night’s work. Then it was policemen, Chinese gardeners, shopkeepers and then the shopgirls, all had their time to make their way through the streets.

“At the same time the school children invaded the street, filling the air with a clamor of shrill voices, stopping at the stationer’s shops or idling a moment in the doorways of the candy store.” (Norris, 9)

“Toward eleven o’clock the ladies from the great avenue a block above Polk Street made their appearance, promenading the sidewalks leisurely, deliberately.” (Norris, 9)

Through all these descriptions Norris suggested that all these people had their place and they knew it. Not until noon were the streets mixed with all these people. Also Norris remarked that the “ladies from the great avenue a block above Polk Street…” (Norris, 11), here he suggested that the people have levels of their society and that the people who lived above Polk Street were above those who lived on Polk Street — Polk Street being of the working class.

Later in the story, when McTeague was not married to Trina he was living just as he thought he should. He lived at a comfortable level for himself. But when Trina married him, she brought her views on living into their marriage. Trina moved McTeague up somewhat on a social scale. He left his old habits for more expensive habits. He stopped drinking steam beer and replaced it with bottled beer which was more expensive.

With Trina’s lottery winnings they could have moved up the social ladder, but Trina refused to spend her winnings on anything. Since Trina did not want to spend this money and McTeague lost his job, they could not live at their previous standard. Without McTeague’s job they could not sustain their level in society, so they again moved down. Also when Trina lost her fingers, she moved down again.

At the end of the story, after McTeague killed Trina for her money, he was chased by a pose and Marcus. Marcus finally caught him at Death Valley. They fought and McTeague killed Marcus, but not before Marcus got him into handcuffs. In this last chase Marcus wanted McTeague more for the money than for the honor of life of Trina. This situation is so similar to that when two animals fight each other for one piece of food. The winner gets the food, but too weak to eat it.

In conclusion, Norris showed exactly how social Darwinism works in a society by using the movement of McTeague, The McTeagues, and Trina through their society. The rule of Darwinism, the fittest lives, applied well to the phenomena in the society.

Works Cited

Asma , Stephen T. Human And Society. 2nd Edition. New York: Osborne, 1987.

Norris, Frank. McTeague. New York. Penguin Group, 1964.

The Superior Culture

When white immigrants from Europe settled in America, they believed that the native residents – native Americans were inferior to themselves. If you look into the origin of Thanksgiving, you will find that without the help of the Indian tribes, the immigrants could never survive the harsh winter and drought. Thanksgiving should actually be directed to the Indians. However, native American were killed, tortured, enslaved, and concentrated. Native Americans were almost eliminated after more and more white immigrants came in from Europe.

Nonetheless, native American culture was also wiped out at the same time and not until recent years, it had a chance to revive. Native American culture is not inferior to any other cultures, including Judeo-Christian white culture. There are indeed many differences between the two cultures, but one can never claim the other is inferior. Native American culture can be traced back into the Ice Age. It has a complete system of beliefs, languages, some races even have their own characters and written languages. In this paper we will discuss the differences between native American culture and Judeo-Christian white culture in three different aspects, nature, belief, and community.

Many followers of native American today spirituality do not consider their beliefs and practices as a “religion” in the way which many Christians do. They believe that their beliefs and practices are all part of an integral and seamless part of nature. Native Americans believed in the harmony with nature. On the contrary, white Christians believed in the exploitation of nature; they wanted to dominate, take, use, spend, and expand lavishly. A good example is in the movie “Dance with Wolves.”(Costner) When the Sioux tribe found the buffalo, they were excited because buffalo was their major food supply. However important, they had never over-hunted buffalo. When the white people came in, they killed hundreds of buffalo just for fun. The Indians, even Lieutenant Dunbar (“Dance with Wolves”), were astonished. They were so depressed seeing the dead bodies of the buffalo. The white hunters had violated what they had believed in, man could only live in harmony with nature. This idea is well-accepted in today’s society, however, at the time of Lieutenant Dunbar, it was considered stupid and primitive.

Native Americans believed that all creatures were equal while white Christians believed that mankind, especially white man, was superior to other nature. Also in the movie “Dance with Wolves,”(Costner) the wolf “two-socks” was a spiritual companion of Lieutenant Dunbar for a long time. As a white Christian solider, when he saw the wolf the first time, his intuition was to pick up the gun and shoot the wolf, but he didn’t. After several weeks together, they became “good friends,” that’s how Lieutenant Dunbar was named “Dance with Wolves.” Later in the movie, when the white soldiers captured him and shot at “two-socks,” he risked his own life to protect the wolf. He had turned himself into a real Indian “Dance with Wolves.” Even today, many white people still believe that they are superior to other races. Racism is still one of the biggest problems facing America.

Native Americans and Judeo-Christian whites also differs in their view of community. First, older people were considered wise and smart in native American culture, while they were considered as stupid and slow in white culture. “Chief Seattle’s Lament”(Chief Seattle) is a profound understanding of nature, land and God. It summarized his lifetime experience and thoughts – only an old man could have. Second, native Americans seek conformity in their society, while white Christians promoted competition. In “Dance with Wolves,”(Costner) all the members of the Sioux tribe fought for the tribe, their honesty and bravery were far superior than the behaviors of the white soldiers. However, the competition did bring more and more land into the white territory, as it depicted at the end of the film, the Sioux tribe finally disappeared. Third, There was only one strata in native American society while there were many in the white society. After Lieutenant Dunbar joined the Sioux tribe, he became a member of the big family, “Dance with Wolves,” he was an Indian fighter, as other Indian fighters. No one looked down on him in the tribe. Things like this could never happen in a Judeo-Christian society.

In conclusion, all religions, cultures and people are not created equal. There will always be differences between different religions, cultures and people. The distinctions between native American culture and Judo-Christian white cultures are only differences. There is no better or superior culture of any kind.

 

Works Cited

Costner, Kevin. Dance with Wolves. Video Cassette. 1990. Pioneer LDCE Ltd.

Chief Seattle. The Land is Sacred to Us: Chief Seattle’s Lament.

The Ethics of Science and Technology

– Some Thoughts after Jurassic Park

The word “ethics” means a set of moral principles or values. It is a matter of making choices: whether to be friendly or unfriendly; whether to tell the truth or lie; whether to be generous or greedy; whether to study in order to pass an exam or to spend valuable study time watching television and cheat to pass it. Ethics is ubiquitous in our daily lives – work, study, marriage, relationship, etc.

The ethics of science and technology is as complicated as the ethics in our daily lives. Sometimes it is almost impossible to tell whether an action is right or wrong, ethical or unethical. For example, the last batch of smallpox virus sample will be destroyed on June 30, 1999, (Lundberg) which will make it extinct. It is still debated in the biomedical field what the long term effects there will be. Even so, more than 190 countries have agreed on the destruction of the virus. Usually, when there is a conflict between human and other species, human life always “wins out” others. Is this kind of decision ethical? It is hard to say. No matter how complicated the ethics of science and technology is, human will is always the determining factor. We are the ones who determine what the science will do and where it will go. Our scientists have accumulated enough power to destroy ourselves.

Jurassic Park was intended to warn the general public concerning the inherent dangers of biotechnology first of all, but also scientists in general. The interactions between these characters in the novel have clearly exemplified some central scientific ethical issues. Consider this comment from the author Michael Crichton: “Biotechnology and genetic engineering are very powerful. It suggests that [science’s] control of nature is elusive. And just as war is too important to leave to the generals, science is too important to leave to scientists. Everyone needs to be attentive.” (Begley) Overall, I would agree with Crichton. All too often, scientists purposefully refrain from asking ethical questions concerning their work in the interest of the pursuit of science, fame, money or are just ignorant.

Let us now hear from the director of the movie Jurassic Park, Steven Spielberg, quoted in the pages of the Wall Street Journal on scientific ethics: “There’s a big moral question in this story. DNA cloning may be viable, but is it acceptable?” (Cox) And again in the New York Times, Spielberg said, “Science is intrusive. I wouldn’t ban molecular biology altogether, because it’s useful in finding cures for AIDS, cancer and other diseases. But it’s also dangerous and that’s the theme of Jurassic Park.” (Spielberg) So Spielberg implies that the real theme of Jurassic Park is that scientists have wielded a lot of power and need to be cautious.

Jurassic Park directly attacked the scientific establishment. Throughout the book, Malcolm voices the concerns about the direction and nature of science. You may remember the conversation around the lunch table just after the group had watched the three velociraptors devour an entire cow in only a few minutes. Ian Malcolm brashly takes center stage with comments like this: “The scientific power….didn’t require any discipline to attain it….So you don’t take any responsibility for it.” The key word here is responsibility. Malcolm intimates that Jurassic Park scientists have behaved irrationally and irresponsibly.

Later in the same scene, Malcolm adds, “Genetic power is the most awesome force the planet’s ever seen, but, you wield it like a kid that’s found his dad’s gun.” Genetic engineering can be more destructive than nuclear and chemical or computer technology because of its ability to restructure the very molecular heart of living creatures, even to create new organisms. Use of such power requires wisdom and patience. Malcolm punctuates his criticism in the same scene when he says, “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.” Malcolm’s criticisms should hit a raw nerve in the scientific community. As human beings we ask similar questions and raise similar concerns when scientists want to harvest fetal tissue for research purposes or experiment with human embryos. If Malcolm had limited his remarks to Jurassic Park only, I would have no complaint. But Malcolm extends the problem to science as a whole when he comments that scientific discovery is the rape of the natural world. Many youngsters will form the opinion that all scientists are to be distrusted. A meaningful point has been lost because it was wielded with the surgical precision of a baseball bat.

Surprisingly, computers take a more subtle slap in the face. Nedry, the computer genius behind Jurassic Park, is a spy who tries to steal the embryos and brings the whole security system down. You are left with the impression that computers are not for normal people and the only ones who profit by them or understand them are people who are not to be trusted. Nedry was clearly presented as a dangerous person because of his combination of computer wizardry and his resentment of those who don’t understand him or computers. His lack of the ethics is the direct cause of the many deaths in the park, including his own.

My point is that technology is not the villain. Fire is used for both good and evil purposes, but no one is calling for fire to be banned. It is the world view of the culture that determines how computers, biotechnology, or any other technology are to be used. The problem with Jurassic Park was the arrogance of human will and lack of humility before God, not technology. Science and technology can benefit us or destroy us. Strong ethics is an extremely important trait for scientists to have because they have the knowledge and power to manipulate nature. Fortunately, many scientists today have realized the importance of this and developed a code of ethics to regulate scientific activities, and to “make decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the public.” (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)

References

“Smallpox Virus Faces Own Death”. http://kadets.d20.co.edu/~lundberg/smallpox.html (26 May 1996).

Begley, Sharon. “Here come the DNAsaurs.” Newsweek. 14 June 1993: 61.

Cox, Patrick. “Jurassic Park, A Luddite Monster.” The Wall Street Journal. 9 July 1993.

Spielberg, Steven. Quoted by Patrick Cox. WSJ. 9 July 1993.

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. http://web.mit.edu/ethics/www/codes/IEEEcode.html (August 1990) Check http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/org/e/ethics/www/ for more ethics codes.

Managing Scientific Conduct

Discussions of misconduct in science have become prevalent in the literature. Within the past few years, many more misconduct instances have come under scrutiny than ever before. A search using the key words “SCIENCE FRAUD” on the Internet yielded over ten thousand citations. The general public has become increasingly aware of these activities in science. The question is, do we need to regulate and manage scientific conduct? Do scientists need a professional code of ethics?

Scientific research, like other human activities, is built on a foundation of trust. Scientists trust that the results reported by others are valid. Society trusts that the results of research reflect an honest attempt by scientists to describe the world accurately and without bias. But this trust will continue only if the scientific community devotes itself to transmitting and enforcing ethical scientific conduct.

The self-regulating process has stimulated great scientific discoveries in the past centuries. In the past, young scientists learned the ethics of research largely through informal means – by working with senior scientists and watching how they dealt with ethical questions. That tradition is still vitally important. But science has become very complex; it is closely intertwined with other social activities, especially commercials. A more formal means of enforcing scientific research ethics is needed-a professional code of ethics. It will provide a common rule for all the scientific activities, whether it is right or wrong. It will provide a means to isolate scientific activity from other social activities. It will provide a firm foundation upon which science is built.

We need a formal code of Professional Ethics. The American Association for the Advancement of Science has offered the following definition: “Professional Ethics refers to those principles that are intended to define the rights and responsibilities of scientists in their relationship with each other and with other parties including employers, research subjects, clients, students, etc.” (Chalk, Frankel, and Chafer). General moral norms specify that scientists must play by the same fundamental rules that apply to society-at-large. Professionals typically have a certain power advantage over others that must be moderated and restrained. People of such authority should be frequently reminded of their professional code of conduct. If they offend the code, they should be punished, sometimes severely.

As depicted the in book “The Frankenstein Syndrome”, “there is unquestionably a tendency among scientists to ignore or minimize dangers growing out of scientific activity” (Rollin 70), “[they] tend to be cavalier about the dangers emerging from science and technology” (Rollin 71). “The Frankenstein Syndrome” expresses a deep and pervasive fear of the consequences of unrestrained scientific and technological development. While the two major sources of this fear are nuclear and genetic technologies, other technologies are significant contributors as well. One recent example of what technology can do was a miracle happened on Christmas Day, 1993. A 59-year-old British woman gave birth to twins and became the oldest woman on record to have a child (Smith A-1). How did this happen? Through modern technologies, test-tube pregnancy. She was artificially impregnated with eggs from a younger woman. The case could result in more complex social and economical issues, since the woman will be 69 when her children are only 10 years old. This kind of practice has raised many social and medical questions, including if such procedures are fair to the children; whether they are the best use of limited medical resources; and whether they pose too high a risk to older women. None of these questions has a simple answer. We have to formulate some general guidelines to answer these questions and regulate these activities.

Moreover, there are two types of scientific misconduct – negligence and deliberate dishonesty. Negligence is where scientists have provided erroneous information, but with no intent to fraud. Deliberate dishonesty involves the deliberate attempt by a scientist to be dishonest. No matter what kind of misconduct it is, the net result is the same: wrong information provided to the scientific community and the public. They are equally deleterious according to Schmaus: “…negligent, careless, sloppy, and reckless work [are] just as much a violation of moral duty as fraud. The potentially disastrous effects for science and society that may accrue from false information are the same regardless of the intention of the author. Erroneous data reported from the testing of new drugs, for instance, can be dangerous whether they are a consequence of unintentional negligence of deliberate fraud” (12). In both cases, time is wasted by those who attempt to reproduce experiments that do not offer a chance of success. Time is wasted by those who must carefully scrutinize questionable results. Time is wasted by those who must participate in outside investigations and hearings into such matters. In both cases, the time lost could have been better allocated to potentially fruitful research activities. We have to have severe punishments for the offenders and thus discourage people from doing it.

Perhaps even more troubling is the damage inflicted upon the reputation of science. Just as society must be able to trust their policemen, firefighters, and doctors, they must be able to trust their scientists as well. It looks very bad for police officers everywhere when a few of their own physically attack a motorist late at night on a California interstate highway. It looks very bad for doctors everywhere when a doctor uses his own sperm to impregnate as many as seventy-five women at a fertility clinic (The Economist A27). Obviously, it looks very bad for scientists everywhere when a few of their colleagues tell the world that something can be accomplished when it cannot. Finally, it looks bad for all scientists when a number of their colleagues adamantly defend forged data towards which they should have exhibited skepticism. As a result, if the scientists want to enjoy the privilege of self-regulation, they must have a professional code of ethics to enforce it.

In conclusion, scientists need a well-defined and clearly written professional code of conduct. Scientists should know the rules and the nature of their punishment if they fail to abide by their code of conduct. They should be frequently reminded of their professional obligations, formally or informally. A professional code of conduct will provide a means of protection to both the scientific community and the general public.

Works Cited

“Cutting Out the Middle Man: Fertility Fraud.” The Economist. 4 Jan. 1992: A27.

Rollin, Bernard. The Frankenstein Syndrome. UK, 1995.

R. Chalk, M. S. Frankel, and S. B. Chafer. “AAAS Professional Ethics Project.” American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1980. Available URL: http://www.nas.edu.

Schmaus, W. “Fraud and the Norms of Science.” Science, Technology & Human Values. Fall 1983: 12.

Smith, Hebert J. “Woman, 59, Gives birth.” The Roanoke Times. 28 Dec. 1993: A-1.