reflection 1

After the teachers and students conference with Rachel, I make a self- examination again. Actually I think most of classmates’ issues and subjects are fun and interesting but also difficult. Comparing to them, my topic “is it right for men to control lives” becomes very simple and easy. I set my position first clearly that I strongly oppose that men can control lives: even though men might have the ability to control lives, but the real problem is that men cannot solve the following troubles or even cannot predict what will happen next. In my opinion, it is selfish and unwise for human being to try to challenge lives. Because my position is so clear, so the four annotations are not that difficult to me: the only thing I should do is to find four related information and find out “what can really support me”, and use these proofs to combine with my works. As the teacher says, the function of the four annotations is to support our standpoints. I think some of our members forget this main point that makes it even more difficult for them to write the annotations.
My problem appears in the third annotation. Here my information is conflict with my topic. So my solution is to make my topic clearer: the original one is “do men have the right to control lives”, and I change it to “is it right for men to control lives?” I think it is better after I change the topic.

Annotation 4(revised)

Reference：Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft(1797-1851),(2009).Frankenstein.
Mineola, N.Y. : Dover Publications

“Frankenstein” was written by Mary Shelley (1797-1851). Frankenstein is a young man indulges in science. Devoting every effect to the scientific experiment, Frankenstein finds that he successfully discovers the secret of life: the power of bestowing lives to lifeless matters. This makes him go wild with joy and forget this discovering actually comes along with dangers. It is when the giant, ugly Monster he creates awakes and shocks him that he comes to realize his error. The Monster kills its creator’s most loving people just because it hates the desolate state it has. Frankenstein tries to do everything with utmost effort to destroy the Monster’s life but all in vain. The Monster keeps killing and Frankenstein continually fails to catch the Monster. At the end of the story, Frankenstein dies before finishing his task, and the Monster decides to go to the most northern extremity of the globe and embraces the death.
Actually Frankenstein symbolizes human being’s ambitions of experimenting, discovering and creating. “But this discovery was so great and overwhelming that all the steps by which I had been progressively led to it were obliterated, and I beheld only the result, what had been the study and desire of the wisest men since the creation of the world was now within my grasp.” (p.47)As a scientist, it is undoubtedly that he is full of excitements to see his experiments finally yield positive results. The secret of life motivates him to bestow life to lifeless creature, and it is so fascinating to him that he can’t pay any attention to the potential dangers. “I was like the Arabian who had been buried with the dead and found a passage to life, aided only by one glimmering and seemingly ineffectual light.” (p.48)That’s the mistake Frankenstein makes which leads to the miserable tragedy. He doesn’t consider any possibilities of wrongs or mistakes about his actions.
The other character, the Monster, actually symbolizes the ill effects produced by human being’s ambition, impulse and proud. The Monster once said to his creator: “Remember that I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed.”(p.107) Men try hard to challenge nature and control the power and secret of life, but have no ability to control the lost situations. We can see numerous of creations (even babies included) are born with deformity from men’s experiments. It is unfair for them to live with abnormal shape or functionless organs. The Monster says to Frankenstein, “How dare you sport thus with life?” (p.106)Indeed. How dare men treat life and nature in this way?

Annotation 3(revised)

reference: http://news.discovery.com/human/sperm-donor-overdependence-incest-accidental-111009.html Discovery http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/209570/20110906/sperm-donor-sperm-bank-150-children-fertility-clinc.htm The International Business Times
The two articles from “Discovery” and “The International Business Times” are both focus on the problems of sperm banks. Some couples might have the difficulties of breeding, but they don’t prefer to adopt a child to solve this problem. Under this circumstance, the emergence of the sperm banks seems to be the light for these worried couples. There are successful cases that the wives finally pregnant and have their own child. But is that safe enough? Are there any serious defects hiding in the shadows that people just not discover and see?
Actually there are indeed some terrible and even dangerous flaws of sperm banks. “The New York Times ran a story this week about a 48-year old woman who discovered that her son - conceived through artificial insemination - had 149 siblings, with more on the way.” It is only one of the cases happened in the world that being mentioned for audience to know this “truth”. With 149 siblings exist in the world (or even more siblings that you can’t imagine), it becomes dangerous for these children if they fall in love with their siblings and breed their child after they grow up. “People who seek sperm donation are from the same socio-economical status. They know each other, they are advised to see the same doctor, and they live in the same neighborhood. It's not randomly distributed.” It is not impossible for the siblings to meet or even get marry in the future. The worst of all, the sperm donor might have the chance to have sex with his daughter. Actually, it is very probable.
The “dangerous meetings” might cause serious problems: incest. The inbreeding might spread the gene diseases, including rare diseases. “Specialists warn over-reliance of one donor increases the risk of the transmission of genetic diseases and malformations, and some say there are dangers of inadvertent incest between half-siblings.” It seems men always ignore the potential and possible dangers while challenging nature. Men might have the ability to change lives, but it still doesn’t mean that it is right for men to do so.

Annotation 4:Feankenstein

After days and nights of incredible labour and fatigue, I succeeded in discovering the cause of generation and life; nay, more, I became myself capable of bestowing animation upon lifeless matter.
The astonishment which I had at first experienced on this discovery soon gave place to delight and rapture. After so much time spent in painful labour, to arrive at once at the summit of my desires was the most gratifying consummation of my toils. But this discovery was so great and overwhelming that all the steps by which I had been progressively led to it were obliterated, and I beheld only the result, what had been the study and desire of the wisest men since the creation of the world was now within my grasp. Not that, like a magic scene, it all opened upon me at once: the information I had obtained was of a nature rather to direct my endeavours so soon as I should point them towards the object of my search than to exhibit that object already accomplished. I was like the Arabian who had been buried with the dead and found a passage to life, aided only by one glimmering and seemingly ineffectual light.

經過日以繼夜的勞累，我成功發現了生命發生的原因。哦，甚至，我有能力對無生命之物賦予生命。這項發現之初，我感受到的驚愕很快轉為狂喜。花這麼多時間在如此令人難以忍受的勞累上之後，突然間達成我最大的願望，我的辛勞換得了令人滿意的成果，但這項發現太偉大，令人難以承受，使我忽視了發現過程中的所有步驟，只見到結果。打從開天闢地以來，人類最富智慧之士所研究、想達成的東西，如今在我的掌握之中。它並不像變魔術，突然之間呈現在我眼前；我所獲得的資訊是要引導我的努力投注在我追求的目標上，並不是要我展示已完成的成績。我就像個陪葬的阿拉伯人，發現了逃生之路，但輔助我的只有一盞乎明乎暗、似乎無啥功用的燈火。 47-48

I beheld the wretch -- the miserable monster whom I had created. He held up the curtain of the bed; and his eyes, if eyes they may be called, were fixed on me. His jaws opened, and he muttered some inarticulate sounds, while a grin wrinkled his cheeks. He might have spoken, but I did not hear; one hand was stretched out, seemingly to detain me, but I escaped and rushed downstairs. I took refuge in the courtyard belonging to the house which I inhabited, where I remained during the rest of the night, walking up and down in the greatest agitation, listening attentively, catching and fearing each sound as if it were to announce the approach of the demoniacal corpse to which I had so miserably given life.
Oh! No mortal could support the horror of that countenance. A mummy again endued with animation could not he so hideous as that wretch. I had gazed on him while unfinished; he was ugly then, but when those muscles and joints were rendered capable of motion, it became a thing such as even Dante could not have conceived.

我看見了怪人—我創造的那個可怕怪物。他掀開床幔；而且他那雙眼睛—如果可以稱之為眼睛的話—正凝視我。他張開口，咕噥了幾個聽不懂的聲音，同時咧嘴笑著，弄皺了雙頰的皮膚。他或者說了什麼，但是他逃開，衝下樓梯。我逃到我居住的那棟屋子院落中，待了一整夜，激動得來回走著，仔細聆聽著，害怕每一個聲響，似乎每一個聲響都顯示出我自討苦吃。我賦予生命的那個怪物般的死屍出現了。哦！無人能承受那種形貌帶來的驚恐。就算是起死回生的木乃伊也不可能比那個怪人更可怕。未完成前我曾凝視他；當時他就很醜陋，但等到那些肌肉和關節可以活動時，他變成一個即使但丁也想像不出來的東西。 54-55

Two years had now nearly elapsed since the night on which he first received life, and was this his first crime? Alas! I had turned loose into the world a depraved wretch whose delight was in carnage and misery; had he not murdered my brother?

打從他獲得生命的那一夜起，迄今已過了將近兩年，那麼，這可是他犯下的第一樁罪行？啊！我把一個以殘殺和不幸為樂的邪惡怪物縱放到人世間；他不是已殺害了我的弟弟嗎？77

I considered the being whom I had cast among mankind and endowed with the will and power to effect purposes of horror, such as the deed which he had now done, nearly in the light of my own vampire, my own spirit let loose from the grave and forced to destroy all that was dear to me.

我想到自己縱放到人世間的那個生物，我賦予了他可以達成恐怖目的的意志和力量，例如眼前他已做過的事；他簡直就像我自己的吸血鬼，就像我自己的鬼魂從墳墓中被釋放出來，去摧毀我所珍愛的一切。 77

Remorse extinguished every hope. I had been the author of unalterable evils, and I lived in daily fear lest the monster whom I had created should perpetrate some new wickedness. I had an obscure feeling that all was not over and that he would still commit some signal crime, which by its enormity should almost efface the recollection of the past. There was always scope for fear so long as anything I loved remained behind. My abhorrence of this fiend cannot be conceived. When I thought of him I gnashed my teeth, my eyes became inflamed, and I ardently wished to extinguish that life which I had so thoughtlessly bestowed. When I reflected on his crimes and malice, my hatred and revenge burst all bounds of moderation.

悔恨毀滅了一切希望。我是造成無法改變的惡行的始作俑者，日日活在憂懼中，擔心我所創造的怪物會再犯下新的惡行。我隱隱約約感覺到一切尚未結束，他還會犯下某種重大罪行，其嚴重性幾乎會使過去的恐怖記憶相形遜色。只要有任何一個我所愛的人還在，就有恐懼的理由。無人能理解我對這個怪物的憎惡。一想到他，我就咬牙切齒，雙眼冒火，殷切希望毀滅這個我未加考慮便賦予的生命。想起他的罪行和惡毒，強烈的仇恨之心便油然而生。 97

“All men hate the wretched; how, then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us. You purpose to kill me. How dare you sport thus with life? ”

所有人都憎恨可憐人；那麼，我這個比所有生物更可憐的人，必然要受到多大的憎恨啊！然而你，我的創造者，鄙棄我，你的創造物，你與我的關係只有靠消滅我倆之中的一方可能消失。你決意殺死我。你怎麼敢如此玩弄生命？ 106

Life, although it may only be an accumulation of anguish, is dear to me, and I will defend it. Remember, thou hast made me more powerful than thyself; my height is superior to thine, my joints more supple. But I will not be tempted to set myself in opposition to thee. I am thy creature, and I will be even mild and docile to my natural lord and king if thou wilt also perform thy part, the which thou owest me. Oh, Frankenstein, be not equitable to every other and trample upon me alone, to whom thy justice, and even thy clemency and affection, is most due. Remember that I am thy creature; I ought to be thy Adam, but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed.

生命，儘管可能只是痛苦的累積，但是我珍惜它，我會保衛他。記住，你已把我創造得比你更強大有力；我比你高，我的關節較粗壯。但是我不會受激與你為敵。我是你的創造物，只要你盡你的職責—這是你欠我的—我就會對我的生命主人更馴服。哦，Frankenstein，不要對其他人都公正，唯獨踐踏我。你最應該給我公道，甚至你的仁慈和感情。記住，我是你創造的；我應是你的亞當，但我卻是個墮落天使，沒有犯錯卻被你剝奪喜悅。107

“It was your journal of the four months that preceded my creation. You minutely described in these papers every step you took in the progress of your work; this history was mingled with accounts of domestic occurrences. You doubtless recollect these papers. Here they are. Everything is related in them which bears reference to my accursed origin; the whole detail of that series of disgusting circumstances which produced it is set in view; the minutest description of my odious and loathsome person is given, in language which painted your own horrors and rendered mine indelible. I sickened as I read. `Hateful day when I received life!'I exclaimed in agony. `Accursed creator! Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust?”

那是在我創生之前四個月間你所寫的札記。你在這些文件上詳細記錄了工作進展中的每一個步驟；這份紀錄中還夾雜了一些家庭事件。無疑你還記得這些札記。這就是。其中內容記載了我這天譴的生命源始的相關資料；那一連串製造過程中的噁心事件歷歷在目；對我這個可憎之人的詳細描述刻化出你自己的驚駭，也使我的驚駭永遠難忘。我越讀越難過。「我獲得生命那一天多教人憎恨啊！」我痛苦吶喊。「天殺的創造者！你為什麼要製造一個如此醜陋的怪物，連你自己都厭惡地棄我而去？」144

Annotation 3:Sperm bank and inadvertent incest

reference: http://news.discovery.com/human/sperm-donor-overdependence-incest-accidental-111009.html Discovery
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/209570/20110906/sperm-donor-sperm-bank-150-children-fertility-clinc.htm The International Business Times


‧The New York Times ran a story this week about a 48-year old woman who discovered that her son - conceived through artificial insemination - had 149 siblings, with more on the way.

‧Inbreeding(使同系繁殖) - and for that matter, large numbers of children with the same parent - can spread genes responsible for rare diseases, potentially increasing the prevalence of those diseases.

‧Unlike in some countries such as France and Britain, there are no laws in either Canada or the United States officially limiting the number of children who can be born from a single donor, the Canadian health ministry said.

‧Specialists warn over-reliance of one donor increases the risk of the transmission of genetic diseases and malformations(殘疾), and some say there are dangers of inadvertent incest(亂倫) between half-siblings.

‧We can't exclude the possibility that children of one donor can meet and have sex, and children, and indeed the possibility that the donor himself could have sex with his daughter," said Stevens, who has made films about his search for his real father and his half-siblings.

‧"People who seek sperm donation are from the same socio-economical status. They know each other, they are advised to see the same doctor, they live in the same neighborhood. It's not randomly distributed," she said.


‧"We have a group of 150 children of one donor, and this number keeps growing," said Wendy Kramer, executive director and co-founder of the registry which she established in 2000 to connect so-called donor families.
"It's overwhelming for those kids, and we don't know how they will react."

Annotation2 (revised) Do men have the right to deprive the creatures' right to protect their body?

“My Sister’s Keeper” is a novel written by Judy Picoult in 2004. The subject in this novel is so controversial that more and more people put emphasis on it. We start to think over that whether it is legal or not for men to save one life by creating and using the other life with specific purposes. The main character in this novel, Anna, is one donator, who donates part of her body to save her older sister, Kate, since the moment she was being born. Anna’s birth was not a gift from God. Actually, her birth was elaborately planned by her parents after Kate was being diagnosed of APL (acute promyelocytic leukemia). When she is 13-year-old, Anna decides to protest for herself, and the only forceful way is to sue her parents, Sara and Brian. Anna’s ultimate demand is to “gets to make all future medical decisions”. This is the only method for Anna to protect her kidney and her own body.
It seems both natural and right for Anna to provide part of her body or even organ to cure Kate since she is planned to birth. But is that legal? Or we should say, is that reasonable for creators to use the creation in any kinds of use, no matter this creature has emotion or not, since he/she has the power to control this creation’s life? After reading “My Sister’s Keeper”, readers are compelled to face this question. It becomes far more complex and dilemmatic because the creature here is not an inanimate object but a human being with her own will, intelligence and sensibility. Indeed, Anna is born to save Kate that makes her shoulder the stress of donation no matter she is willing or not. But here we should focus on Anna’s humanity. As Anna’s counselor says, “Anna Fitzgerald’s life she has been medically treated for her sister’s good, not her own. “The operations of donation are actually gone against of Anna’s will. Sara’s demands for Anna to donate cord blood, lymphocytes or even one of her kidney are violate the morals and the basic demands of humanity. Since Kate has the right to struggle for her life, and equally Anna has the right to protect her freedom of person.
“The fact that the only reason I was born was as a harvest crop for Kate.” It is Anna’s shout and anger from her deep heart because of the unfair treatment. There should be no reasons or excuses for any people to deprive the other man’s right of protecting himself. The unfair and barbaric deeds should not appear in the high civilization modern world today.

Annotation 2: My sister's keeper

Reference:
Jodi, Picoult (2009).My sister's keeper. London: Hodder Paperbacks


‧APL= acute(急性的) promyelocytic(早幼粒細胞) leukemia(白血病)=急性前骨髓白血病

Dr. Farquad nods. ”Leukemic is a blood cancer.”
“Think of bone marrow as a child care center for developing cells. Healthy bodies make blood cells that stay in the marrow until they're mature enough to go out and fight disease or clot or carry oxygen or whatever it is that they’re supposed to do. In a person with leukemia, the childcare-center doors are opened too early. Immature blood cells wind up circulating, unable to do their job. It’s not always odd to see promyelocytes in a CBC, but when we checked Kate’s under a microscope, we could see abnormalities.” She looks in turn at each of us. “I’ll need to do a bone marrow aspiration to confirm this, but it seems that Kate has acute promyelocytic leukemia.”…
“APL is a very rare subgroup of myeloid leukemia. Only about twelve hundred people a year are diagnosed with it. The rare of survival for APL patients is twenty to thirty percent, if treatment starts immediately.” P31-32
「想像骨髓是個發展細胞的兒童保育中心。健康的身體會製造血球，這些血球住在骨髓裡，等到他們發展成熟之後才出去跟疾病對抗，或凝結或運送氧器或做些它們該做的事。罹患白血病的人就像兒童保育中心的門太早開。不成熟的血球終止循環，無法做它們該做的工作。在檢查血球數值的時發現前骨髓細胞，也就是未成熟的白血球，這並不奇怪。可是當我們在顯微鏡下觀察凱特的前骨髓細胞時，我們可以看出它是畸形的。」她輪流看我們夫妻倆，「我會抽取凱特的骨髓來確定，但看起來凱特似乎罹患了急性前骨髓白血病。」
「急性前骨髓白血病，APL，是骨髓性白血病很少見的子群。一年只有一千兩百個人被診斷出罹患這種病。APL的病人如果一發現馬上開始治療，存活率大約是百分之二十到三十。」

My own blood seeping into my sister’s vein’s; the nurses holding me down to stick me for white cells Kate might borrow; the doctor saying they didn’t get enough the first time around. The bruises and the deep bone ache after I gave up my marrow; the shots that sparked more stem cells in me, so that there’d be extra for my sister. The fact that I’m not sick, but I might as well be. The fact that the only reason I was born was as a harvest crop for Kate. The fact that even now, a major decision about me is being made, and no one’s bothered to ask the one person who most deserves in to speak her opinion.
There’s way too much to explain, and so I do the best I can. ”It’s not God. Just my parents,” I say. “I want to sue them for the rights to my own body.” P18
我的血必須不時輸進我姊姊的血管；護士必須壓著我，抽取我的白血球以備借給凱特；醫生說他們第一次抽取的量還不夠。我捐出骨髓後報受瘀青與深度的骨頭疼痛之苦；他們得打更多針，抽取更多我的幹細胞，寧可多抽些讓我姊姊有多餘的幹細胞可用。事實是我沒生病，可是我可能也病了。事實是我之所以被生下來的唯一理由是做凱特的藥糧。事實是即使是現在，他們已經做了一個關於我的重要決定，可是沒人問過我這個最該表達意見的人一聲。
要解釋的事情太多了，我只能言簡意賅的說。「我不是要控告上帝，我是要控告我的父母。」我說，「我要控告他們奪走我的身體使用權。」


“The state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, family court for providence county. In re: Anna Fitzgerald, A.K.A. Jane Doe. Petition for Medical emancipation.”
“That she gets to make all future medical decisions”.”
“That she not be forced to submit to medical treatment which is not in her nest interests or for her benefit”.
“That she not be required to undergo any more treatment for the benefit of her sister, Kate.” P49-50
普洛維頓斯郡家事法庭。原告：安娜．費茲傑羅，亦名安達美朵。
訴請解除她的醫療決定權。
將來她得以擁有她自身的醫療決定權。
她不能被迫屈從於對她自身的利益和福祉有影響的醫療行為。
她不必為了她姊姊凱特的利益而接受任何醫療行為。


I came because without her, it’s hard to remember who I am. P136
我來是因為，沒有她，我很難記得我是誰。

“Anna Fitzgerald’s life she has been medically treated for her sister’s good, not her own. No one doubts Sara Fitzgerald’s love for all her children, or the decision’s she’s made that have prolonged Kate’s life. But today we have to doubt the decision she’s made for this child.”
P285
安娜．費茲傑羅的一生都是為了醫治她姊姊而活，而不是為她自己。沒有人懷疑莎拉．費茲傑羅愛她所有的孩子，或她決定延長凱特的生命有什麼錯。可是我們今天必須懷疑，她為她這個孩子安娜所做的決定是否偏頗。

Annotation1 (revised) Dilemma: Conservative safty or beneficial riskiness?

1. Because there was only one classmate gave me a feedback, I just add some context to answer her suggestion. Here she mentioned that there are not only flaws but also advantages from bio-technology. Because my standpoint is to against the way human control the power of lives, I write the last part to support my stand that there are actually high risks there if men try to control the power of lives. I also change my title of this annotation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dilemma: Conservative safty or beneficial riskiness?

Jurassic Park” was a science fiction adventure film which filmed in 1993. The main issue of Jurassic Park is about whether men have the right or not to play the role of God. In this movie, scientists try hard to recreate dinosaurs. With high technology and biotechnology, scientists take bloods from mosquitoes inside the ambers which become fossils. Men successfully create extinctive dinosaurs 65 million years ago. It seems that human do control the power and secret of gene to overtop the whole ecosystem. Ecology is no more mysterious and delicate at all because human successfully break the code of eco- system. But is that true? Do men really control the power and rank above nature?
In the forepart of the movie, the birth of dinosaur is just like a miracle that enchanted all the characters except the mathematician Dr. Malcolm. Without other characters’ passion, Dr. Ian Malcolm shows distrustful attitude to the whole action and idea in the very beginning. “If there's one thing the history of evolution has taught us, it's that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, expands to new places, and it crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously…but there it is.” Here Dr. Malcolm plays a role for audience to see things beyond scientists’ superficial and short victory from a detached way. The rational distrust challenge modern technology and remind audience that life is unique. It has no limitation that men cannot even try to change it in any unnatural way.
It is not the main problem to discuss whether men have the right or not to control the power of natural in this issue, instead, the most important question is, do men have the ability to control this kind of power and well-arrange it? From the example of the film Jurassic Park, scientists can recreate dinosaurs with high tech, but it doesn’t mean that men can arrange this power in a proper way. The billionaire investor, John Hammond tries to fight for his behavior and idea, “Our scientists have done things which nobody has ever done before.” But as Dr. Malcolm responses, it is “wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun”. No men can promise there won’t be any dangers after doing these huge changes. Most of the time human do the so-called invention is not for the real benefits for environment but actually hurt it through the improper way. In Jurassic Park, people cannot even image how catastrophic these creations cause that make their lives all in danger. If there is no absolute safe presupposition, and there won’t be any real absolute safe presupposition exists, then men have no right to play the role of God. “What you call discovery…I call the rape of the natural world.” Dr. Malcolm’s word perfectly defines men's behaviors which originate from ambition and desire to conquer the natural.

The dilemma between innovation of bio-technology and the danger of no ability to control the power is the most radical and urgently problem men have to face. There are advantages that benefit people’s lives from these innovations that we can’t deny, but still more unknown and uncontrollable dangers are hidden in the unexplored field. Should we ignore the potential problems just for the present benefits? Conservative attitude is safer than beneficial riskiness.

Annotation1:Jurassic Park(Subtitles)

“Jurassic Park” was a science fiction adventure film which filmed in 1993. The main issue of Jurassic Park is about whether men have the right or not to play the role of God. In this movie, scientists try hard to recreate dinosaurs. With high technology and biotechnology, scientists take bloods from mosquitoes inside the ambers which become fossils. Men successfully create extinctive dinosaurs 65 million years ago. It seems that human do control the power and secret of gene to overtop the whole ecosystem. Ecology is no more mysterious and delicate at all because human successfully break the code of eco- system. But is that true? Do men really control the power and rank above nature?

In the forepart of the movie, the birth of dinosaur is just like a miracle that enchanted all the characters except the mathematician Dr. Malcolm. Without other characters’ passion, Dr. Ian Malcolm shows distrustful attitude to the whole action and idea in the very beginning. “If there's one thing the history of evolution has taught us, it's that life will not be contained.

Life breaks free, expands to new places, and it crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously…but there it is.” Here Dr. Malcolm plays a role for audience to see things beyond scientists’ superficial and short victory from a detached way. The rational distrust challenge modern technology and remind audience that life is unique. It has no limitation that men cannot even try to change it in any unnatural way.

It is not the main problem to discuss whether men have the right or not to control the power of natural in this issue, instead, the most important question is, do men have the ability to control this kind of power and well-arrange it? From the example of the film Jurassic Park, scientists can recreate dinosaurs with high tech, but it doesn’t mean that men can arrange this power in a proper way. The billionaire investor, John Hammond tries to fight for his behavior and idea, “Our scientists have done things which nobody has ever done before.” But as Dr. Malcolm responses, it is “wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun”. No men can promise there won’t be any dangers after doing these huge changes. Most of the time human do the so-called invention is not for the real benefits for environment but actually hurt it through the improper way. In Jurassic Park, people cannot even image how catastrophic these creations cause that make their lives all in danger. If there is no absolute safe presupposition, and there won’t be any real absolute safe presupposition exists, then men have no right to play the role of God. “What you call discovery…I call the rape of the natural world.” Dr. Malcolm’s word perfectly defines men's behaviors which originate from ambition and desire to conquer the natural.

Subtitles

(25:17)
Mr. DNA:
100 million years ago,
there were mosquitoes just like today.
一億年前的蚊子就像今天的蚊子

And just like today,
they fed on the blood of animals.
像今天一樣吸動物的血

Even dinosaurs.甚至吸恐龍的血
Sometimes, after biting a dinosaur, mosquitoes would land on the branch
of a tree and get stuck in the sap.
有時候吸了恐龍血之後，蚊子會停在樹枝上被樹液包住


After a long time, the tree sap
would get hard and become fossilised, just like a dinosaur bone,
preserving the mosquito inside.
時間一久樹液硬化成了化石，就像恐龍的骨骸樹液保存了蚊子

This fossilised tree sap, which we call amber, waited for millions of years
with the mosquito inside until Jurassic Park scientists came along.
樹液化石又稱為琥珀，包住蚊子等了幾百萬年等到侏儸紀公園的科學家前來

Using sophisticated techniques,
they extract the preserved blood from the mosquito,
and bingo: dino DNA!
他們高科技抽取蚊子吸的血，中獎一樣獲得恐龍DNA!

A full DNA strand contains
three billion genetic codes.
完整的DNA所有三十億遺傳密碼

If we looked at screens like these
once a second for eight hours a day, it'd take two years
to look at the entire DNA strand.
這樣一秒鐘看一種一天看八小時，看完DNA索也要兩年

It's that long.
Since it's so old, it's full of holes.
那麼長的DNA索由於它很老所以盡是漏洞

Now that's where our geneticists
take over.
這就要我們的遺傳學家接手了

Thinking machine super-computers
and gene sequencers break down the strand in minutes.
思想的機器超級電腦，基因順序在幾分鐘內破解

And virtual-reality displays show our geneticists the gaps
in the DNA sequence.
現出了DNA序中的斷層

We used the complete DNA of a frog to fill in the holes and complete the code.
我們用青蛙的DNA序來補漏洞，拼出完整的密碼

Whew! And now,
we can make a baby dinosaur.
現在我們能創造恐龍寶寶了









(29:22)
John Hammond:
They imprint on the first creature they come in contact with. Helps them to trust me.
她們對最先接觸的人印象最深。對，幫助她們來信任我。

I've been present for the birth
of every creature on this island.
島上的小東西出世我都在場。

Dr. Malcolm:
Surely not the ones
that have bred in the wild.
當然，在野地出生的不算。

Wu:
Actually they can't breed in the wild. Population control is one
of our security precautions. There's no unauthorised breeding
in Jurassic Park.
其實她們不能在野地繁殖，數量控制試本園的安全項目。侏儸紀公園不准私生恐龍。

Dr. Malcolm:
How do you know they can't breed?
你怎麼知道她們不能繁殖?

Wu:
Because all the animals
in Jurassic Park are female. We've engineered them that way.
因為園裡的動物都是母的。我們精心設計的。

John Hammond:
There you are.
你出來了!

Ellie:
Oh, my God. Look at that.
天啊你們看!

Alan:
Blood temperature seems like
about high 80s, maybe.
血溫似乎有華氏80多度。

John Hammond:
Wu?
小吳?

Wu:
91.
91度

Ellie:
Homeothermic? It holds that temperature?
是恆溫動物?它能保持這溫度?

Wu:
Yes.
是。

Dr. Malcolm:
But, again, how do you know
they're all female? What, does somebody go out in the park
and pull up the dinosaurs' skirts?
再請問你，怎麼知道都是母的? 有人到園裡掀恐龍的裙子看嗎?

Wu:
We control their chromosomes.
It's really not that difficult. All vertebrate embryos
are inherently female. They just require an extra hormone
given at the right developmental stage to make them male.We simply deny them that.

我們控制她們的染色體，其實也不難
所有脊椎胚胎天生是母的，只需要在發展時期適時加所需的賀爾蒙就變成公的。我們就是不給她們。

Ellie:
Deny them that?
不給她們?

Dr. Malcolm:
John, the kind of control
you're attempting is not possible.
約翰，你嘗試要控制的事是不可能的。
If there's one thing the history
of evolution has taught us, it's that life will not be contained.
進化史如果有教我們什麼，就是生命不受抑制。
Life breaks free. Expands to new places, and it crashes through barriers,
painfully, maybe even dangerously…but there it is.
生命是奔放的。生命開拓新的領域衝破障礙，有痛苦甚至危險…但是生命就是如此。

John Hammond:
There it is.
生命在此!

Wu:
You're implying that a group composed
entirely of female animals will breed.
你是指全是母的也會繁殖?

Dr. Malcolm:
No, I'm simply saying that life finds a way.
不是，我只是說生命會找出路











(34:54)
Dr. Malcolm:
The lack of humility before nature
that's being displayed here staggers me.
對大自然缺乏謙卑叫人怕怕!

Lawyer:
I think things are a little different
than you and I had feared.
但是這跟你我所怕的不同。

Dr. Malcolm:
I know. They're a lot worse.
我知道，更可怕。

Lawyer:
Now, wait a second, we haven't even seen the park yet--
我們還沒參觀園區…

John Hammond:
Donald, let him talk. There's no reason,
I want to hear every viewpoint.
不要緊，唐納，讓他說，我要聽各方意見，真的。

Dr. Malcolm:
Don't you see the danger, John,
inherent in what you're doing here? Genetic power's the most awesome force
the planet's ever seen, but you wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun.
你沒看見這樣做的危險嗎?遺傳是地球上最可怕的力量，你等於是小孩偷玩大人的槍。

Lawyer:
It's hardly appropriate to start hurling--
事前談危險並不恰當

Dr. Malcolm:
If I may. I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power you're using here.
It didn't require any discipline to attain it.

容我說句話，你在此用的科學力量問題在於它沒有任何約束
You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves so you don't take any responsibility for it.
你讀別人的研究然後採取行動，你的知識不是自己的，所以你不負任何責任。
You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could. Before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunch box, and now you're selling it
你站在天才們的肩膀上盡快地去做成一些事，還沒弄清楚已申請到專利，然後包裝，現在快要銷售了。

John Hammond:
I don't think you're giving us our due credit. Our scientists have done things which nobody has ever done before.
你對我們的批評有失公道，我們的科學家們成就了前無古人的創舉，

Dr. Malcolm:
But your scientists were so preoccupied
with whether they could. They didn't stop to think if they should.
但是你的專家只知道埋頭硬幹，沒思考應不應該做。

John Hammond:
Condors. Condors are on the verge of extinction. If I created condors on this island, you wouldn't have anything to say.
禿鷹，禿鷹正瀕臨絕種，如果我在島上造一群禿鷹，你就沒話說了!

Dr. Malcolm:
This isn't some species that was obliterated by deforestation or the building of a dam. Dinosaurs had their shot and nature selected them for extinction.
這個物種並非因為砍伐森林或建水壩而絕種的。恐龍曾經有機會生存，是大自然要他們滅絕。

John Hammond:
I don't understand this Luddite attitude.Especially from a scientist.
竟然有人因噎廢食，尤其還是個科學家。
How can we stand in the light of discovery and not act?
我們在發明的光照耀下，怎麼能不行動?

Dr. Malcolm:
What's so great about discovery? It's a violent, penetrative act that scars what it explores.
發明有什麼好?那是暴力，它是狂暴刺穿的行為，到處留疤痕。
What you call discovery…I call the rape of the natural world.
你所謂的發明，我叫它強姦自然界。

Ellie:
The question is, how can you know anything about an extinct eco-system? How could you ever assume that you can control it?
問題是你如何能了解一種滅絕的生態系統?因此你如何設想控制的辦法?
You have plants in this building poisonous. You picked them because they look good. But these are aggressive living things that have no idea what century they're in and they'll defend themselves. Violently, if necessary.
你這棟樓裡有含毒的植物，你見他好看而擺設。但是恐龍有侵略性，它不管時代，必要時它們會用暴力自衛。

John Hammond:
Dr. Grant. If there's one person here who could appreciate what I am trying to do….
葛博士!如果在座有一個人能欣賞我在做的努力…

Alan:
The world has just changed so radically and we're all running to catch up....
I don't want to jump to any conclusions, but dinosaurs and men, two species separated by 65 million years of evolution have just been suddenly thrown back into the mix together. How can we possibly have the slightest idea what to expect?
世界急劇的改變，我們在迎頭趕上，我不想妄下論斷，但是人類和恐龍，兩個物種相差六千五百萬年，突然間被送做堆了，我們能期望什麼呢?

Issue paper 1:Do men have the rights or not to control lives?

I would like to discuss about the question about whether men have the rights or not to “control” lives. Control here includes creating, changing or wiping out lives unnaturally. Like the most famous example of Dolly the Sheep, is it agreeable for men to create, give or even change lives which is not nature? A man has 250 children in the world but most of them he even won’t know in his later lives. Why? Being a donator of the sperm bank, the problems he brings may be too serious to image: incest and immoral sins happen unwillingly. Or is it moral for men to create genetically modified organism (GMO) or genetically-modified foods? Do they harm men’s bodies or the whole ecological system? Even with the proper reasons or with suitable plans, will it be dangerous or harmful to create lives by technology?
The issue of “lives” is being argued endlessly. Technology today can provide men a chance to challenge nature. Creating lives through the natural way is the most simple and necessary behavior in the ecosystem, but how about cloning, changing or even creating lives through an unnatural way? From excitement to fearfulness, men start to think about the dilemma and try to find the balance of lives. Can Men replace God? Or is it actually a self-destructive course of action? I incline to agree the opposite side.
I would like to make a deeper inquiry from the texts like movies and novels. There are three subject matters included in this issue. They are Jurassic Park, Frankenstein and My Sister’s keeper. From the three source materials, we can see different levels and types of creatures’ ideas and actions which they try to convey their own will -how do they protest and fight back to their own creators for their own lives. In Jurassic Park, the dinosaurs alter their DNA automatically and break the limitation that human set to control the situation. In Frankenstein, we hear a monster’s pain and anger from his heart. From its accusation we start to think over is it fair or not to create lives in a non-natural way. In My Sister’s Keeper, we see the contradiction between live and death. Here eugenics is also a controversial issue that worth to probe into.
Through the three levels of creatures: animal, monster and human being, we see the unpredictable characteristic of lives. No matter whether with emotion and wisdom or not, lives cannot be controlled.