Fiction, and the Awful Non
Spent half an hour at Borders yesterday, while I was waiting to meet up with Irene. Picked up a book titled "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time", by Mark Haddon. Read a few prime-numbered chapters, since Krystal has been cajoling me to. Apparently, someone lent her the book, and she couldn't see what was so nice about it.
Some kind of friend, asking me to read a book she doesn't appreciate. Hurmm... although Krystal doesn't dig fiction as much as I do - her favourite genre's more non-fic self-help - we have similar word-sense the way we appreciate prose more than verse. Not like Chris, who really digs poetry.
Anyway, back to the book which I had to read for my friend's sake. The main character's autistic, and although he can commit to memory hard facts, like all the countries of the world and their capitals and prime numbers up to 7,057, he is unable to figure out metaphors and human emotions. One night, he chanced upon the murder of his neighbour's dog, and he then set about trying to solve the mystery of the murder.
That was what I gathered from the few chapters I read. Which I guess isn't much, 'cept it got me rather hooked. The quirky main character, which other characters in the novel are struggling with, has in him a kind of bizarre, eccentric charm. His failure in understanding emotions and anything not scientific brings on a different perspective that makes alot of sense, only I haven't thought about anything like that before, because I'm not wired to think like that. The style's rather wry, like Salinger's in The Catcher in the Rye.
I'll try to finish Oryx and Crake fast, so that I can move on to the next book. Oryx and Crake's quite good, by the way, although I wish it were more fantastic so that the all the genetic mutation and harvesting of organs don't sound so near in the future. It's scary how man try to play God, and think we can get away with it.
I read this article on Singaporeans seeking designer babies in Malaysia, and felt utterly awful. I don't know, there is something inside me that is screaming against this trend of designer babies. Something is very wrong.
Of course, everyone hopes to have children that are bright and good looking; few would pray for a kid with Down Syndrome or autism. But I am sure many parents who have kids born with special needs will tell you, they wouldn't trade their kid for any other, that each child is unique and should be loved.
Each of us born more "normal" are imperfect in our own ways too - too tall or stingy or fat or stupid or bad-tempered or agressive or lazy or emotional or greedy or plain-looking. That is what makes us need and love one another. And that love is regardless. Don't we all love Forest Gump, his simplicity and kindness, and his below-normal IQ and straght bluntless, all in?
The idea of parents turning to baby designers scare me, because it is not about loving who the kid really is any more. Now they are modifying babies to the choice gender, and to correct genetic disorder. Next may be a higher nose, fairer skin, well-proportioned breasts and waist and hips, super model height, Einstein's IQ, Van Gogh's art talents... and then what? Everyone fighting to be king? No one taking instructions from anyone because I am as smart and beautiful as you are, why should I? Everyone thinking it is beneath them to do "dirty work" like clearing the rubbish?
Or will we end up in a society where only the rich have the money to modify their young to be everything, and the poor ending up never being able to match their natural "some good things" against the scientific "all good things"? The gap between rich and poor is already widening now because of access to education and nutrition (the brain needs food to do critical thinking). Do we want to play it up, more?
My sympathy goes out to these parents who badly want their own children, yet face high risk of giving birth to children with deformed genes. But I am dead against allowing baby designing, for where does society draw the line between need and want? What if one day enough people in society decides that looking like Anna Nicole Smith is "essential" for females to succeed in life? Do we then all design our baby girls to grow to fit cup E bras (and risk having half the world falling on their face due to unstable centre-of-gravity)? Joke aside, I am reiterating this - NO ONE should try to play God, because it really is not up to us. Baby designing, as I see it, is opening a pandora's box of ills.
If my parents had designed what I would be like, I would be a male - maybe smart, swoonsome, chilvarous, musically talented, brilliant in calculus and linear algebra, have the highest EQ...
But, you see, I wouldn't be me.
Some kind of friend, asking me to read a book she doesn't appreciate. Hurmm... although Krystal doesn't dig fiction as much as I do - her favourite genre's more non-fic self-help - we have similar word-sense the way we appreciate prose more than verse. Not like Chris, who really digs poetry.
Anyway, back to the book which I had to read for my friend's sake. The main character's autistic, and although he can commit to memory hard facts, like all the countries of the world and their capitals and prime numbers up to 7,057, he is unable to figure out metaphors and human emotions. One night, he chanced upon the murder of his neighbour's dog, and he then set about trying to solve the mystery of the murder.
That was what I gathered from the few chapters I read. Which I guess isn't much, 'cept it got me rather hooked. The quirky main character, which other characters in the novel are struggling with, has in him a kind of bizarre, eccentric charm. His failure in understanding emotions and anything not scientific brings on a different perspective that makes alot of sense, only I haven't thought about anything like that before, because I'm not wired to think like that. The style's rather wry, like Salinger's in The Catcher in the Rye.
I'll try to finish Oryx and Crake fast, so that I can move on to the next book. Oryx and Crake's quite good, by the way, although I wish it were more fantastic so that the all the genetic mutation and harvesting of organs don't sound so near in the future. It's scary how man try to play God, and think we can get away with it.
I read this article on Singaporeans seeking designer babies in Malaysia, and felt utterly awful. I don't know, there is something inside me that is screaming against this trend of designer babies. Something is very wrong.
Of course, everyone hopes to have children that are bright and good looking; few would pray for a kid with Down Syndrome or autism. But I am sure many parents who have kids born with special needs will tell you, they wouldn't trade their kid for any other, that each child is unique and should be loved.
Each of us born more "normal" are imperfect in our own ways too - too tall or stingy or fat or stupid or bad-tempered or agressive or lazy or emotional or greedy or plain-looking. That is what makes us need and love one another. And that love is regardless. Don't we all love Forest Gump, his simplicity and kindness, and his below-normal IQ and straght bluntless, all in?
The idea of parents turning to baby designers scare me, because it is not about loving who the kid really is any more. Now they are modifying babies to the choice gender, and to correct genetic disorder. Next may be a higher nose, fairer skin, well-proportioned breasts and waist and hips, super model height, Einstein's IQ, Van Gogh's art talents... and then what? Everyone fighting to be king? No one taking instructions from anyone because I am as smart and beautiful as you are, why should I? Everyone thinking it is beneath them to do "dirty work" like clearing the rubbish?
Or will we end up in a society where only the rich have the money to modify their young to be everything, and the poor ending up never being able to match their natural "some good things" against the scientific "all good things"? The gap between rich and poor is already widening now because of access to education and nutrition (the brain needs food to do critical thinking). Do we want to play it up, more?
My sympathy goes out to these parents who badly want their own children, yet face high risk of giving birth to children with deformed genes. But I am dead against allowing baby designing, for where does society draw the line between need and want? What if one day enough people in society decides that looking like Anna Nicole Smith is "essential" for females to succeed in life? Do we then all design our baby girls to grow to fit cup E bras (and risk having half the world falling on their face due to unstable centre-of-gravity)? Joke aside, I am reiterating this - NO ONE should try to play God, because it really is not up to us. Baby designing, as I see it, is opening a pandora's box of ills.
If my parents had designed what I would be like, I would be a male - maybe smart, swoonsome, chilvarous, musically talented, brilliant in calculus and linear algebra, have the highest EQ...
But, you see, I wouldn't be me.
posted by kite @ 9/25/2004 01:12:00 pm
<< Home