Cindy Vong English 1A Prof K Lonsdale 20/9/18 Rough Draft For what reason do researchers depict nature and procreation the way that they do? In Stephen Jay Gould’s article ‘Nonmoral Nature,’ he examines the religious elucidation of creatures. In nature and recommends a logical (as opposed to man’s) way of dealing with the study and understanding of nature. He gives readers an example; by describing the Ichneumon Wasp in critical detail. Gould brings into the paper “natural philosophers” who justifiy that nature can’t be anthropomorphized on the terms of the virtuous or the wicked.
On the other hand, Mary Shelley, author of Frankenstein, discusses nature in a similar fashion. Not only does it appear to reestablish and influence the characters’ states of mind, Nature can also act with retaliation when it is mistreated. Shelley utilizes nature as a remedial operator for Victor Frankenstein. While he is by all accounts overcome with grief due to the deaths of of his loved ones (especially stricken by his mother’s), he continuously evades mankind, religion, and looks to nature for his own wellbeing in addition to expanding his “knowledge” of nature beyond the norm.
In the end, both Shelley and Gould convey the the idea that they both disagree on messing with nature’s law– everyone knows, the Monster was something that shouldn’t have been created to begin with. Gould sorts out his article by beginning with the general subject of animals in nature not having the capacity to be classified as neither righteous nor wicked. He, at that point, proceeds with his prime case of the Ichneumon Wasp, later advancing to discuss morality in conjunction to nature’s laws. According to a quick Google search, the Ichneumonidae are a parasitoid wasp family, and unlike other parasites, parasitoids end up killing their hosts, which go to demonstrate that it is in reality instinct, not morality.
The ichneumon fly is a various gathering of bugs that lay their eggs on or in different bugs setting into movement a synchronized chain of events that opposes any idea of morality. According to Gould, “It is a strategy that works for ichneumons and that natural selection has programmed into their behavioral repertoire” (Gould ¶30).
The parasitic bugs embed their eggs into the body of their host and let the hatchlings, upon hatching, painstakingly eat their host’s organs – firstly by eating up the less significant tissues, sparing the vital organs for last just so they can prolong the life of their dinner. Basically, the wasps devour their hosts little by little from the inside out. Now, where is the morality in that? Gould also wrote about natural philosophers who were determined to understand this predicament by humanizing the mother’s affection for its offspring and by making light of the host’s pain.
They reasoned that creatures are not knowingly moral or nonmoral, and that they actually feel close to zero, if any, pain. They proposed that “lower living things and even ‘crude’ individuals endure not as much as cutting edge and refined people. Obviously, these contentions neglect to determine the situation on the off chance that one fights that there is a ‘sneaking goodness behind everything.’
In Frankenstein, Shelley exhibits an image of nature that is without a moment’s delay ugly and cruel, stunning in its excellence and shattering in its severity. The natural world is nurturing and sustaining to humans, however she is constantly under the stress that is the progression of mankind and technology. So much so that men like Victor Frankenstein would dare to completely disregard the laws of nature and take control (or try to) of the mother earth.
In retaliation, nature turns into an instrument of hardhearted retribution. Impacted by the characteristic scholars of his past, Victor trusts that the answer to each riddle in life is secured away in the natural world. Through thorough and efficient investigation of the natural world, humankind can understand everything – not just about the universe and how it functions, but also about ourselves and God. So in conclusion, both authors advise us that with regards to Nature, one can neither look far nor wide.
The topic of life and passing, creation or destruction unequivocally falls in the domain of God and/or nature itself, not man. The message is loud and clear; the untold mysteries of Nature are best appreciated when permitted to remain a mystery. Any endeavor to transgress or trespass the human confinement can be as appalling as on account of a youthful scientist like Victor Frankenstein.
