The House of the Scorpion, Clones and Doctor Who

I am currently reading The House of the Scorpion by Nancy Farmer. The book is about a little boy named Matt who is actually the clone of a rich drug lord, Matteo Alacran. While most clones are, by law, altered at birth so they have no intelligence and can only stand around and drool, Matt was not, because Matteo Alacran didn’t want him to be. So Matt feels like any other 7 year old boy, but when the general population of the house finds him, they put him in a pen and treat him like he is the most disgusting thing simply because most clones are like that.

Our group is only about fifty pages in, but this book already raises some pretty big questions in my head. Specifically, what does it mean to be human? Matt is not seen as a human. He is seen as animal or beast. He is not even considered a “he” but an “it”. I think that Matt is a human. He lived until he was seven like any other human boy would. He is just as different from Matteo Alacran as one identical twin is from another. He has his own memories and experiences to make him his own person. It is our memories that make us who we are. Matt has a life and memories and experience different from Matteo Alacran, and he is therefore his own person and definitely human.

This made me think about an episode of Doctor Who I watched recently (don’t judge me). The episode was called "The Rebel Flesh". In this episode, the characters meet a group of people who are using copies of themselves created from a special type of matter to stay safe while working near dangerous chemicals. These copies are temporary bodies the real people control like puppets and only exist while in use. That is, until a big storm comes are the copies become entirely individual people with control over their own minds. But they have the same memories as the people they are copies of, up until the moment the separation occurred.

I couldn’t help but ask myself if these people were humans who should be allowed to live as well, or if they were just matter and a collection of stolen memories that should be killed. After all, they are going to want to go home and live the lives they were living in the memories they unintentionally stole. It is very clear to me that these people are alive, but I am not sure if they are human. I believe that our memories are what make us who we are, and these copies have no true memories of their own. At the same time, it isn’t their fault that they are an exact copy of someone else. They didn’t choose to take someone else’s memories. I don’t think you can kill the copies. They are human and they didn’t ask to be what they are.

I think the point of all of this is that it isn’t how you are born or the way you are born or even if you are born that make you human. They thing both the clone type character have in common is that they believe they are human. If you have a real and true belief that you are human, then you are, and should be treated as such.

Psychopaths Rule the World

I am currently reading The Psychopath Test by Jon Ronson. The book is about psychopaths and the author’s journey through discovering more and more about them. Psychopaths rule the world. 1% of the world’s population is psychopathic but 4% of corporate CEOs are psychopaths. They can’t feel empathy or remorse and while this can lead to great economical success (even if it is not through entirely moral ways). It also leads to mental institutions and prison. In the author’s first encounter with a psychopath, he meets a man named Tony.

Tony is a psychopath who got put in a mental institution when he pretended to be crazy to get out of jail time. Once he arrived in the mental institution it was determined that he was actually psychopathic, not crazy. Tony has been trying to get released since he first entered the institution. Evidence presented by the author of the book shows that being a psychopath is most likely a physical deformity in the brain rather then a mental illness. It is even believed by some people that it is genetic. There is currently no known therapy to treat psychopaths. Tony has been in the mental institution for four years longer then the seven year maximum on the crime he commit, with currently no chance of release.

This question has been bothering me since I first read about it. On one hand Tony has served his time. I don’t want to feel empathy for a man who can’t feel it himself, but I can’t help but think how strange it must be for him. He has been in jail since he was seventeen because he made a stupid decision. The crime he committed was not particularly psychopathic. He could become a regular functioning member of society. But he is also a psychopath and that can’t be cured. 25% of prisoners are psychopathic but psychopaths commit 60% of crime in prisons. They don’t learn from punishment, and Tony’s experience in the mental institution wouldn’t stop him from committing another crime. He is a danger to others because of the way his mind works. Its wrong to lock him up but it is probably for the greater good if he is locked up.

If I could release Tony I don’t think I would. I really and truly feel bad for him. At the same time if he went out into the world to kill someone, it would be on my hands, and I don’t think I could live with that.

Seeing Inside Your Head

I am reading An Abundance of Katherines by John Green. The book is about a boy named Colin who was a child prodigy and is slightly socially awkward. He goes on a road trip with his friend Hassan and they end up in a small town called Gutshot where they meet Lindsey. Lindsey is popular in her small town but isn’t an airhead. She is also a social chameleon. She fits into whatever situation she is put into. When Lindsey and Colin are sitting and talking, Colin asks Lindsey “Do you every wonder whether people would like you more or less if they could see inside you?” Colin thinks they would like him less, or at least the Katherines (Colin only dates girls named Katherine, hence the book title) would like him less because they always seem to dump him when they get to know him. Lindsey thinks that people would hate her because they would see through the façade she puts up in different situations to the real her.

I think the whole idea of people seeing you on the inside is really interesting. I think that there would be less animosity and hate in the world if we could see inside each other. We would be forced to see the humanity in everyone. That being said, I don’t think I would want people to see inside my head. I think that my head is my place. Lindsey isn’t just a social chameleon because she wants to fit in. I think she puts on different aspects of herself for different people so that no one can get to close to her and that private place in your head stays that way. Colin seams pretty upfront. Even so, he hides certain things. He hides his failures and how emotionally tormenting they are for him because that is one part of him he doesn’t want people to see. I think everyone has at least one of those.

To answer Colin’s question in the beginning, I don’t know if people would like me more if they saw me on the inside. Part of me says no and the other says yes. It is hard to tell. Even if showing me on the inside would make everyone love me, I don’t think I would do it. I don’t want to entrust that much of myself to anyone. So, do you every wonder whether people would like you more or less if they could see inside you? Would you let them if you could?

This Blog Post Has Been Banned

I just recently finished The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman. The book is incredibly complicated and I am not going to explain the entire plot to you! The book does take place in a fantasy world in which the church runs basically everything, and they appear to be very corrupt and controlling. This is a really controversial topic. Philip Pullman paints the church as an awful politically motivated body that tries to eliminate anything that could remove their power.

When the book was published, I know this caused a lot of controversy. People said that they didn’t want their children reading this because of what it implied about religion and the legitimacy of God as a perfect being. People said they didn’t want a child reading the book because they didn’t think it was “appropriate content” for kids. This is ridiculous. All of the content in this book is appropriate for any child over the age of eight. The real reason that people don’t want their kids reading this is because it gives a world-view different from their own. People who refuse to listen to the other side of an argument are never going to have their views evolve and become more complex and sophisticated. This is why I am against banning books because of the ideas contained in them. It is important to read books from all different points of view.

When we refuse to listen to an idea we disagree with, we deny ourselves the chance to understand that idea a little better. Our nation is so divided right now that our legal system can barely get anything done. If we stopped trying to sensor ideas we disagreed with, we might be able to more easily work together. I am not saying whether or not I agree with the ideas in The Golden Compass, but I appreciate the book for its great writing, great characters and interesting ideas. That should be enough to get it put in any library.