To continue our debate from today, listen to one of the listed section from our Radiolab episode, "Inheritance."
Do you find yourself believing more in nature or nurture? How can we support each claim? More importantly, how does this debate fit into Mary Shelley's Frankenstein? Are our characters creatures of their genes or their environments? Be sure to respond to the podcast but also respond to each other. Feel free to contributed additional resources (links please) to continue our debate!
THANK YOU TIME MAGAZINE!!!! I have been going on about epigenetics for a while and no one understands me... Now they will!!!
ReplyDeleteEven after watching this podcast, I still find myself believing more in the fact that people act the way that they act because of the way they are nurtured/their environment. Scientists have proven Lamarck's theory that we can rewrite a person's blueprints/genes wrong because the fact is that DNA cannot be naturally changed. However, one could argue with epigenetics that what your grandparents did can affect the way you are. For example, a study mentioned in the podcast shows that if your grandparents starved between the ages of 9 to 13, then their grandchildren will be born with specific genes that make them healthier and less prone to diseases.
ReplyDeleteIn Shelley's Frankenstein, the topic of whether the creature's actions were due to nature or nurture is controversial. I think that the creature's actions are due to the environment instead of Victor's genes because firstly, Victor's DNA is not even present in the creature because Victor made him from dead body parts. Also, it is the way Victor treats the creature, and the fact that everyone shuns him that leads him to become the monster he is.
I find myself believing more in nature. When one is born, they are assigned a set of genes given to them by their parents! Even if the parents try to treat the child some way, they can never alter the genetic makeup of the child. However, the child can acquire certain characteristics, but science says that acquired traits are not passed on to offspring (meaning that the trait it not embedded in the child's genes). On the other hand, it is part of human nature for us to evolve to fit certain adaptive pressures. This can include mutation and the influence that the environment has on the person. Certain mutations can be helpful and is continually passed on through the offspring. The environment also has an effect on the person. If, for example the toads mentioned in the podcast, adapted to live in the water as the environment became very high in temperature. We can fit this debate into Mary Shelley's Frankenstein because it shows how the creature came to be and whether it was the father of the creature (Frankenstein) or the environment that influenced the creature to become what he is. In this case, the creature is mostly influenced by the environment. This is because even if Frankenstein accepted the creature, the creature would still be exposed to the world around him, where most likely, he will be shunned and frighten many. This would lead the creature to take out his anger on the innocent people. He would eventually become a reckless being roaming the Earth. His presence would pose a threat to mankind.
ReplyDeleteI am still persuaded to believe in the nurture argument. Both claims are supported by strong points. The nature side proves their view by explaining that we are born with a natural blueprint(DNA) that may or may not influence our decisions. In the podcast, the parent felt a bit "trapped" knowing that this is unchangeable. However, parents have held an influence over child as shown in the example of blacksmiths. Their offspring were more susceptible to have a muscular body. This shows that our parents have an immediate control over what we acquire and express. This relates to "Frankenstein" in that the creature may have become this murderer because of his creature's abandonment or due to the actions of others(Felix). Frankenstein had very little to do in creature's upbringing. At first, Frankenstein was even unaware of his creator's feelings towards him. Even after finding out, he did not plot revenge but pitied himself. ONLY after Felix spurns the creature, does he become angry.
ReplyDeleteAdding to what Lucy discussed, the creature doesn't posses Victor's genes but other peoples. It would've been very interesting if Mary Shelley included all the death stories of which the creature is made out of. (just a suggestion)
Living with two brothers, I find myself siding with nature. Though we were raised in the same way, we are very different when it comes to our likes, dislikes, personalities, and habits. Recently, I read "Twins And What They Tell Us About Who We Are" by Lawrence Wright and was amazed to learn about twins who although were put into an adoption agency in New York City in 1960 and then separated, when taken in by two families, turned out to be quite the same. While Amy's family was lower class with a mom whose personality was "flat" and self-esteem, low, Beth's was well off. Her mom in contrast with Amy's, was pleasant, and confident in both herself and her daughter. The outcome - "Beth's personality followed in lockstep with Amy's dismal development." Thus, while the twins were placed in opposite environments, they retained qualities from birth.
ReplyDeleteTo connect this with Frankenstein's creature, I feel that while acceptance and kindness from society may have helped shape part of his development, he would still have had temper problems as well as other emotional and physiological issues, like his creator.
I believe that nurture has a stronger influence on people than nature does. Different environments will cause people to express different traits. Some studies show that twins raised in different environments grow up to become very different people. What a person is born with does not define what he or she will become. The Radiolab podcast talks about how caring rat mothers affect the way that their rat children grow up. The rat mother’s licking activates a process in the baby rat’s DNA that allows for it to be a good mother when it grows up. However, others may argue that nature has more power than nurture in shaping someone’s life. Genetics does play an important role in how individuals may behave and especially in the way that they look. People born with green eyes are going to have naturally green eyes for their lives which is something that a person’s environment cannot change.
ReplyDeleteThis fits into Frankenstein, because the characters in the book are results of their environments. If Frankenstein had cared for his creature, the creature would not become bitter and kill everyone that Frankenstein loved. When Walton seest the creature, he tells Walton that he was benevolent and good at first, but then “evil thenceforth became my good” showing how his rejection and the harsh environment caused him to become evil (Shelley 222). One theme in Frankenstein, is parental figures; the story contains a cycle of parental figures in which the father or creator rejects the son. This cycle of rejection is not part of Victor’s father’s, Victor’s, nor the creature’s DNA. This shows that the rejection comes from the environment that the character grew up in influenced his behavior later in life.
The debate of nature versus nurture is very contentious because there are legitimate arguments to both sides. It is well documented that parents pass on physical traits to their offspring, and as the podcast acknowledges, many scientists have predicted that personality traits can be passed the same way. On the other hand, it has also been debated that the way a child is loved and nurtured, along his or her general interactions with others, has more of an impact on who the child becomes as an adult. Otherwise, how do you explain how law-abiding parents can birth and raise a murderer? In regards to Frankenstein, it is evident that the lack of nurturing the creature receives both by his creator and by greater society affects him profoundly. As the text notes, the creature is born with a desire to connect, interact and be accepted by society. However, when everyone ostracizes him, the creature’s desire to fit in is overtaken by his need to retaliate by hurting those who hurt him. The creature attacks and murders a number of people throughout Frankenstein, and these actions define who he is for the rest of the story. Because the creature commits these acts of violence solely for the purpose of coping with his abandonment, his environment has truly shaped who he has become.
ReplyDelete