UIL READY WRITING
CONTEST TOPICS AND STATE ACADEMIC MEET 1ST PLACE ESSAYS
SPRING 2013
INVITATIONAL A
Topic I
“That’s what makes death so hard – unsatisfied curiosity.”
–– Beryl Markham, West with the Night, 1942
Topic II
“You can accomplish anything in life, provided that you do not mind who gets the credit.”
–– Harry Truman (1884-1972), President of the United States
INVITATIONAL B
Topic I
“There is no worse mistake in public leadership than to hold out false hopes soon to be swept
away.”
–– Winston S. Churchill, The Hinge of Fate, 1950
Topic II
“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”
–– Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910), Russian Writer
DISTRICT 1
Topic I
“Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience of trial and suffering
can the soul be strengthened, ambition inspired, and success achieved.”
–– Helen Keller, American Author, Political Activist, Lecturer
Topic II
“Normal is not something to aspire to, it’s something to get away from.”
–– Jodie Foster, American Actress, Film Director, Producer
DISTRICT 2
Topic I
“All politics is local.”
–– Tip O’Neill, American Politician, and Speaker of the United States House of Representatives
Topic II
“Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if
you do, and damned if you don't.”
–– Eleanor Roosevelt, Former First Lady and Activist
PAGE
2
UIL READY WRITING TOPICS & STATE ESSAYS • SPRING 2013
REGIONAL
Topic I
“When our governments want to sell us a course of action, they do it by making sure it’s the only
thing on the agenda, the only thing everyone’s talking about. And they pre-load the ensuing
discussion with highly selected images, devious and prejudicial language, dubious linkages, weak
or false ‘intelligence’ and selected ‘leaks.’”
–– Brian Eno (1948), English Composer and Visual Artist
Topic II
“Punishment is now unfashionable . . . because it creates moral distinctions among men, which, to
the democratic mind, are odious. We prefer a meaningless collective guilt to a meaningful
individual responsibility.”
–– Thomas Szasz (1920-2012), Social and Moral Critic
STATE
Topic I
The Nature Conservancy and Harvard University released a new study examining the
effect of staggering urban growth on nature and people that finds if we don’t improve urban
planning now, we may lose some animals, plants and natural resources for good.
“As a species we have lived in wild nature for hundreds of thousands of years, and now
suddenly most of us live in cities—the ultimate escape from nature,” says Peter Kareiva, chief
scientist at The Nature Conservancy. “If we do not learn to build, expand and design our cities
with respect for nature, we will have no nature left anywhere.”
This study is the first-ever global analysis of how urbanization will affect rare species,
natural resources and protected areas in proximity to cities.
In 2007, the United Nations revealed that at least 50 percent of the world’s population is
living in cities. By 2030, that number will jump to 60 percent, with nearly 2 billion new city
residents, many migrating from rural areas. According to the report, humans are building the
equivalent of a city the size of Vancouver every week. While most of the growth is occurring in
developing countries like China, India and Africa, ecologically rich areas such as coasts and
islands are also at risk.
Kareiva and Robert McDonald, applied scientists at The Nature Conservancy, built
scenarios of urban growth and examined how, at the current pace of urbanization, natural
resources and ecosystems could by 2030 be severely damaged. Their findings include:
• 8 percent of vertebrae species have been labeled as “endangered” due to the
effects of rapid urban development, and that number may continue to rise with
new urban expansion and growth.
• In some regions, the proximity between protected areas and cities will greatly
increase. For example, in Eastern Asia the average distance from city to protected
area will be 14 miles by 2030, as compared to 27 miles in 1995. Such proximity
will increase the pressures on natural resources and increase the likelihood of
resource extraction and other threats to these protected places. “While we found the effects of urbanization to be localized, cumulatively, they pose a big
threat to biodiversity,” said McDonald. “Our urban footprint covers much of the globe and is
coming closer to stomping out many endangered species and posing new risks to protected areas
and parks.”
Economic concerns will also emerge with rapid urban growth. For example, accidental
and intentionally started fires will increase, costing additional dollars and resources to suppress
PAGE
3
UIL READY WRITING TOPICS & STATE ESSAYS • SPRING 2013
the flames that threaten homes, businesses, and buildings. Water quality is also becoming a grave
concern, as urban areas pose significant threats to the health of freshwater systems.
Fortunately, there is hope for turning back this tide of destruction. Governments, cityplanners and conservationists can work together to predict and plan in advance for urbanization’s
threats to nature. Having information on cities’ impacts to these endangered species and protected
areas enables planners to shape the growth of cities before it’s too late, and to implement more
sustainable urban planning.
However, a lack of funding, especially in developing countries, may prevent the
implementation of smart-growth plans and expanded public transit systems – paving the way for
more vehicles and drivers contributing more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, a major cause
of climate change.
“This is yet another vivid example of why conservation cannot simply be about
sequestering nature in parks and reserves,” says Kareiva. “We can set up all the reserves we want,
but if we do not take care in where we place our cities, how we grow our cities, and how we live
in our cities, we will fail in our mission to protect biodiversity.”
–– Global Impact of Urbanization Threatening World’ Biodiversity
and Natural Resources, Science Daily, 2008
Topic II
In China, the world’s manufacturing powerhouse, a new industry is taking shape: the
mass production of mutant mice. Peek into the 45,000 mouse cages at Shanghai’s Fudan
University and you’ll see a growing collection of misfits. By randomly disabling the rodents’
genes, the scientists here are churning out hundreds of odd animals assembly-line style. They
have created mice studded with skin tumors and mice that grow tusks. There’s a mouse with
male-pattern baldness, hair everywhere save for a lonely spot on its head. Some of the mice have
strange behavioral quirks—they endlessly bury marbles, for instance, or make only left turns. One
strain ages at warp speed. Another can’t feel pain.
While some of the rodents have obvious abnormalities, others reveal their secrets over
time. One variety appears normal on the outside, with thick white fur and healthy pink ears and
noses. But the animals are klutzes. They are clumsy and spectacularly uncoordinated. They fail
miserably when researchers put them through their paces at a special rodent boot camp.
Even stranger, perhaps, are the Lonely Hearts Club Mice. The males of this strain look
like regular rodents, but the females consistently refuse to mate with them. The poor guys,
lacking some certain je ne sais quoi, simply have no sex appeal, and they are rejected time and
time again.
These mice are just a small sample of the more than 500 different kinds of mutants the
Fudan team has created. Ultimately, the researchers hope to create 10,000 strains of modified
mice, each eccentric in its own way. It would be enough to fill a carnival sideshow thousands of
times over.
Science has given us a whole new toolbox for tinkering with life, and we have the power
to modify animals in profound ways. We are editing their genetic codes, rebuilding their broken
bodies, and supplementing their natural senses. Indeed, we have a long history of refashioning
animal bodies. As wolves become part of human society, moving from cold ground to warm
hearth, they lost many of the traits they needed to survive in the wild. Their bodies and heads
shrank, their faces and jaws grew more compact, and their teeth decreased in size.
Today the tools of molecular biology allow us to target one specific gene, to instantly
turn it off, to silence or amplify its effects. Genetics isn’t the only field providing us with the
power to reengineer other species. Advances in electronics and computing make it possible to
merge animal bodies with machines, to use tiny electrodes to hijack a rat’s brain and guide the
rodent, like a remote-controlled toy, through a complicated obstacle course. Breakthroughs in
PAGE
4
UIL READY WRITING TOPICS & STATE ESSAYS • SPRING 2013
material science and veterinary surgery are helping us build bionic limbs for injured animals, and
we can train monkeys to control robotic arms with their thoughts. Today, our grandest science
fiction fantasies are becoming reality.
Some of us may find our growing control over living, breathing beings to be unsettling.
After all, biotechnology is the stuff of dystopian nightmares, and many an apocalyptic scenario
has been constructed around crazy chimeras or world-conquering cyborgs. Ethicists and activists
worry about whether we should be altering other species when we can’t possibly get their
consent. Some say manipulating the planet’s wild things—whether we’re inserting genes or
electrodes—is profoundly unnatural, causes animal suffering, and turns other life-forms into
commodities. Critics worry that our effort to remake the world’s fauna is the worst example of
human hubris, the expression of an arrogant desire to play God.
If there is peril here, there is also great promise. Biotechnology could do more for
animals than it’s given credit for. Sure, we can make animals sick, but we can also choose to
deploy our species-shaping powers to help other species survive and thrive, to create healthier,
happier, fitter critters, and some scientists are doing just that. With the sophisticated techniques at
our fingertips, we may even be able to undo some of the damage we’ve done to other species,
alleviating genetic disorders in dogs, for instance, or bringing wild animal populations back from
the brink of extinction. Some forward-thinking philosophers are dreaming of more extreme
interventions, such as boosting the brainpower in apes, and using genetic modification and
electronic enhancement to help animals transcend the limits of their own bodies.
Now that we can sculpt life into an endless parade of forms, what we choose to create
reveals what it is we want from other species—and what we want for them. But even if you feel
no affection for the creatures with whom we share this planet, our reinvention of animals matters
for us, too. It provides a peek into our own future, at the ways we may start to enhance and alter
ourselves. Most of all, our grand experiments reveal how tangled the lives of human and
nonhuman animals have become, how intertwined our fates are.
–– Anthes, Emily. Frankenstein’s Cat: Cuddling Up
to Biotech’s Brave New Beasts, 2013
1ST PLACE ESSAYS • ACADEMIC STATE MEET • SPRING 2013
THE MASTER PUPPETEER
Riley Earnest, Plains HS
Conference 1A
1st Place
Hidden deep within the darkest crevasses of every human heart lies the desire to feel
control. Feeling a sense of order in our lives brings us tranquility and puts us at ease. In a sense,
power has become the pacifier of the human race. Gaining control has become an everyday game
that all too many desire so desperately to win. In the pursuit of winning, many people lose sight
of everyone and everything around them. They abandon reality altogether and allow themselves
to become completely engulfed by the twisted game. They are willing to do WHATEVER it takes
to emerge victorious in their fantasy game of power. Though drastic game are not commonplace
for all humans, small games come as a default setting in our minds. In recent years, the longing to
control our own lives has morphed into the desire to control the lives of other living things.
Scientists have begun to experiment with the genetics of mice. Though information gained from
these studies have proven beneficial to human medicine, we cannot lose sight of the issue at hand.
How far are we willing to go in order to get what we want? Instead of playing a game against
ourselves, we have ventured into the world of controlling those weaker than ourselves. By
controlling the mice, we have essentially become puppeteers of others. They rely on our voice—
PAGE
5
UIL READY WRITING TOPICS & STATE ESSAYS • SPRING 2013
which is not always truthful. While exploring the delicate checks and balances of nature we must
keep in mind “how tangled the lives of humans and nonhuman animals have become, how
intertwined our fates are.
Because animals cannot speak for themselves, they are easily suppressed prey. Like mice,
many people fall victim to the lies of power hungry authority of figures each day. An up and
coming businessman embarks on his first day of work. Each day he arrives with a smile on his
face and ambition in his heart. He has been taught right from wrong and clings tightly to the
scruples of his upbringing. He diligently works to climb the corporate ladder. Before long, he is
almost at the top. One morning he finds out he will have a new boss. The first months with the
boss are not what he expected. For so long as he earned his living the honest way. But now, his
boss has began to control his decisions. He no longer feels the guilt that used to come with lying.
Unethical business practices are now his life. At night he lies in his bed in a cold sweat. He
cannot sleep. He has become completely emerged in lies. He never meant to take anything that
far. His boss manipulated him into being under his complete control. Over the time the young
man’s strings have grown weary from stress and pain. On this night he decides to take control of
his own life. He finds a gun, puts it to his head, and ends it all by pulling the trigger. His strings
have snapped.
The pain and disfunction caused by the need for control is consistently demonstrated in
William Faulkner’s As I Lay Dying. When hard-headed Addie Bundren falls ill and realizes she
is dying, she decides to have her family take her to Jefferson, Mississippi to be buried. Addie had
lived a life of hatred toward all of her family except her son, Jewel, whom she had from an affair.
She believed that the family’s journey to Jefferson would cause turmoil among her family, thus
bringing her revenge of hatred upon them. On the way to her final resting place, deceased Addie
continues to wreck and haunt the lives of the children and husband. Addie’s desire for the control
of her family’s happiness got her what she wanted by caused irreversible damage in the process,
including the insanity of her son, Darl. She had tugged at the strings of her own puppets in order
to make them uncomfortable. She laughed at the thought of her misery. Watching the strings and
delicate limbs become dreadfully mangled was her dying wish.
Total power is a selfish desire and leads to catastrophe. On April 12th 1861, power hungry
men fired upon Fort Sumtner and began what would become the deadliest civil war in history.
Southerners refused to give up control of their slaves and were willing to kill other Americans in
order to keep their way of life. They had grown used to controlling many puppets. Undermining
those of a different color gave them a false sense of courage and strength. In the American Civil
War, brother turned against brother all in the name of power. Years of bloody wars followed,
with more than 600,000 dying. Finally, four years later, the war ended and America began the
process of rebuilding itself and trying to fix the mistakes of self-serving hearts.
Each day the world whispers its sweet lies into our ears. It promises prosperity to those
who help themselves. We cannot forget about the importance of humanity. Looking out for those
weaker than us is our duty. Taking advantage of situations for selfish benefit only brings harm
and suffering. It is not easy to resist the desires of our hearts. The desires are there each day
trying to find a way to overtake the good that lies within everyone. The game of self control is not
an easy one, but one we must win. Each of us longs to be the master of someone or something.
We look for power everywhere in our lives. Though the art of puppetry seems satisfying, we must
diligently fight our default urge of pursuing the position of master puppeteer.
•••••••••••
PAGE
6
UIL READY WRITING TOPICS & STATE ESSAYS • SPRING 2013
HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM…OR DO WE?
Alli Owen, Holliday HS
Conference 2A
1st Place
A crowded 7 billion people living on the planet, our DNA serves as a symbol for the
celebration of diversity. This prized DNA arranged of 20 amino acids that form proteins and
combine with the nucleotides guanine, cytosol, thymine, and adenine, stamps each person with
their own distinctive qualities, making conforming a genetic impossibility. This genetic code,
thus, proves the beauty of life by marking each individual with a sparkling personality, unique
purpose, and clever ideologies unbeknownst to anyone else. Now, with modern innovations in
science and technology through genetic engineering, DNA lies at our fingertips, twisting and
turning with new possibilities—but do the potential rewards mask the underlying risk of
conformity?
While China experiments with genetic alteration in various mice species, other experts
desire to research genetic alteration in humans as well to weigh the hefty prose and frightening
cons of the decision. For example, a few years ago a medical doctor in California encountered
legal and ethical trouble when he guaranteed the sex of an embryo to wealthy parents. His
practiced opened the door to vehement debate on both sides of the aisle, and his research
consequently shut down and inspired other scientists to quietly conduct further experimentation
with genetic engineering in both animals and humans. Stemming from the controversial issue, the
movie Gataca climbed to fame and instilled even more doubt and indecision within viewers. In
the film, a new human society breeds—a society of class systems based not on wealth or power
but on genetic codes. The social elite earned their prestigious title through their impeccable
games, making them immune to many detrimental diseases, increasing their athletic ability, and
highlighting their favorable traits. However, their births of the elite derive from concocting a
perfect genetic sequence from a willing father and mother—or a sperm and egg donor as the
practice escalates. Births born out of love, or “natural births”, experience extreme disdain and
scorn for their imperfect genetic sequences, while society glorifies the test tube babies specially
designed for flawless appearances and substantial intellect levels. This new society engendered
by the engineering eliminates emotion for reason, and the society breeds humans like the
common dog. Such a superficial, vain society thus undermines the value and significance of life
with eradication of hope, ambition, and self-worth. These specimens of people now employ the
philosophy determinism to the letter—a philosophy claiming that all causes of the will actually
stem from the forces that determine them, or all decisions actually derive from fate. By living
such a bland creed, they transform the art of living into a science, science of callous, hollow souls
with no actual personality or warmth. This futuristic film seems far-fetched and a slippery slope,
but consider the lengths to which humans already go to achieve so-called perfection. Women
undergo painful, expensive surgeries to obtain the model body, and sometimes they inflict this
drive upon their children at an early age by pushing them to take more lessons, receive However,
if humans already possess the capability to alter to almost flawlessness, would we not seize the
opportunity? If a test tube, worth gold in this modern world, brimmed with award-winning DNA
that promised a lifespan of 1,000 years with perfect skin, insane intelligence, and unfathomable
talent would we not pay any price to obtain it? The movie offers perspective insight into the
lengths at which we will strive to achieve a certain level of superiority made all too easy by the
advancement in modern day genetics. Instead of living by our normal, God-given DNA that
separates us from billions, we might choose to capture the universally accepted model of
perfection that embodies the very essence of conformity and vanity.
However, whatever flaws genetic engineering may possess, the argument stands for both
sides with the positive benefits reaped from acting on such an opportunity. With diseases
swarming humans and animals alike, the rational for genetic alteration seems logical and sound.
If we could eliminate the propensity for genetic diseases, like Tay-Sachs, Color-blindness, etc,
why not spring upon the technology for the sake of thousands of lives? This philosophy of
PAGE
7
UIL READY WRITING TOPICS & STATE ESSAYS • SPRING 2013
thought employs a new style of utilitarianism—the belief that humans ought to engage in
behaviors promising the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. Using this
analysis, one easily deduces the power and positive intention of the technology especially when
triggering our emotional reaction to the outcomes. How can we, as empathetic humans with
powerful emotions, look upon our brethren infected with terrible diseases and turn a blind eye?
The possibility of such technology looms just out of our reach, brimming with hope that
thousands of ill, suffering people and animals might conquer their diseases before they even form.
Think of all the diseases yet to be curable and the epidemics that might occur without taking
action to prevent them. Consider the catastrophic effect, for example, an outbreak of the E Bola
virus. In fact, several years ago in a small suburb in the New England area rocked our nation with
the confirmation of E Bola in an infected monkey laboratory. We immediately informed
USAMRIID who bombed the facility and skirted the life-threating issue of large-scale
repercussions. However, if the disease occurs in our population, we cannot simply bomb innocent
victims, so the problem must be circumvented in a more humane, practical manner, and what if
that mechanism for elimination of diseases lies in the altering the immunity of our genes? In
certain instances, does the price of surrendering our genetic variations pale in comparison to the
number of lives saved by enforcing the practice? While genetic engineering strips diversity from
animals and individuality from humans, the utilitarian response remains strong and valid for the
discussion.
An option not considered in the Science Daily, the festering problem of genetic
engineering lies more in the machinists than the technology itself. No one can really dispute the
promise of fixing disease for the masses, but one can argue that even perfect technology crumbles
when operated by imperfect people. For example, consider Hitler’s aim to create a “super-race”
of Arians in Nazi Germany. Utilizing studies from eugenics, he vowed to destroy those not
displaying the characteristics he desired, exacerbating his genocide and crimes against humanity.
While Word War II notably affected the Jewish population, something not as spoken of by history
books and scholars exists in the eugenic mindset of Hitler. By erasing genetic codes from the
world, will we first slay thousands of innocent lives? Hitler exhibited traits of extreme
intelligence, but he exuded negative characteristics that strike terror in all who study his life. He
exemplifies greed, selfishness, and impulsiveness, and cruelty—combinations cataclysmic for the
human race. If we do indeed continually study this genetic engineering, can we definitely trust
those who control technology? Even one small mistake, one error of hubris, of greed, of ambition
can destroy the global population and eradicate the genetic diversity our world revolves around.
Even if the argument poses a “slippery slope” fallacy in that it jumps to the worst possible
conclusions without concrete proof, consider the communism mindset and the detrimental effects
produced by a controlling force of government or leading officials. Reflecting on George
Orwell’s 1984, we observe the snaring trap of absolute power and the atrocious repercussions
inflicted upon society. In the novel, a concept praised as a deity reigns with ultimate, omniscient
power—“Big Brother.” Stalking the citizens in their daily lives, controlling their occupations and
conversations, stifling individuality and creativity, this looming threat of the ultimate totalitarian
leader dims the potential of society. Once the government sculpted their mind-control to a
science, the lifeless people carry on their daily activities without noticing the lackluster, mundane
quality of their world. The protagonist of the story, Winston, finally realizes the peril of his
society and strives to transform society into a blooming flower of differences and creativity and
hop and wonder, yet instead finds himself tortured by the all-knowing, all-powerful Big Brother
army. This fear of absolute control and distrust of communism materialized from the atrocities
incurred from Josef Stalin’s reign of terror in Russia in which 1984 exhibited a reality, not fiction.
If we cannot trust positions of power with governance, can we trust leading experts with our own
genetic makeup? Since our DNA essentially creates everything and diversifies the masses, should
we allow imperfect, immoral people to mold that into what they want? Perhaps the real debate of
PAGE
8
UIL READY WRITING TOPICS & STATE ESSAYS • SPRING 2013
genetic engineering rests not so much in the technology and its fantastic promises but in the
conniving, unethical behavior of those in charge.
The DNA alteration debate presenting glaring religious conflict, two completely different
sides take stands on their beliefs. One school of thought detests the very thought of
experimentation with genetic alteration of any kind whether in animals or humans, while the
other justifies their position to enhance our genetic codes and fix our disease problem. Some
argue that genetic engineering enables scientists and medical experts to “play God.” This
argument largely stems from Psalms 139, “In the deep depths of my mother’s womb you knit me
together, and I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made, Your works are
wonderful and I know that full well…” These verses highlight the fact that compassionate,
perfect God lovingly stitched us together in the sacred warmth of our mother’s wombs.
Contrarily, genetic engineering allows a mortal scientist to assemble us together in a sterile, cold
chamber with plastic gloves and medical posters surrounding. Furthermore, opponents reiterate
the beauty and wonder of God’s masterpiece and compare His works to our own celebrated
pieces. If someone simply sauntered up to the Mona Lisa, snatched it off the hallowed museum
halls, and painted even a teeny corner, public outcry would reverberate, so how can we take the
Lord’s masterpieces and “fix” them when He possesses much more power and beauty than
Leonardo da Vinci? These opponents refuse to accept the progress in genetic advancement
because the possibility of humans taking on God’s job looms frighteningly in the not-so distant
future. Contrarily, some religious supporters promote the genetic engineering mindset because of
the probability for serving mankind. Since the Christian faith stems from “love one another” and
denying ourselves in order to help others, why shouldn’t we strive to ensure people do not suffer
from terrible genetic diseases? We cannot love and provide for one another if we balk at any
notion of solving the underlying problem. If we do indeed prove successful to prevent certain
diseases in animals, should we not apply that information in a human setting to save the injured?
Both sides of the religious aides provide keen arguments both for and against genetic alteration,
so the issue of DNA alteration poses a perplexing and insightful question for the coming years.
Our DNA serves as celebration for life by diversifying us from billions of the global
population. This genetic code acts as a trademark for who we are and who we strive to be,
proving that stifling individuality simply cannot be done. Altering such a divine blueprint, thus
engenders important questions and springs vehement debate from both sides regarding the
controversial issue. If we acquiesce our DNA to benefit mankind with genetic breakthroughs and
newfound immunities, do we encounter the risk of losing ourselves in the process? A question
haunting scientists and medical experts for years to come, we should exercise caution when
comprising our individuality for the unknown.
•••••••••••
GENETIC REWIRING; GODS OF MERCY? OR GODS OF CALAMITY?
Marcos Rubio, Burkburnett HS
Conference 3A
1st Place
As the knowledge of humanity has grown; from the philosophies of Greece, to the might
of Rome, from Shakespeare’s language, to Einstein’s relativity, we continue to yearn for a higher
understanding of the universe, to grasp the cosmos and harness it for our benefit. In many ways,
this new frontier into the DNA of the universe is yet another stepping stone to our mastery. The
benefits of tapping into the code of our genetics are numerous, but the catastrophies which could
be unleashed are equally plentiful. In this new world of discovery we must ask if these controls to
life make us merciful gods, or harbingers of calamity.
By tapping into the font of genetic code, humanity can begin creating life resistant to the
harmful effects of our existence, or life which is sturdy enough to withstand the plagues which
have devastated species for centuries. In this way, we can populate our oceans with aquatic life
PAGE
9
UIL READY WRITING TOPICS & STATE ESSAYS • SPRING 2013
hardy enough to survive the pollution caused by humans, alter breeding patterns in species such
as whales so the aquatic universe can again be plentiful of life hunted to the brime of extinction.
Or by creating as resiliency to pestilence such as “parvo,” which affect even household animals
and lead to their death. By controlling their genetic code, we can sculpt life to reproduce more,
withstand greater stress, control their behaviors, eventually, humans can use this wealthy, and
growing treasury of knowledge to create a planet where our fauna, even the flora, are not so
easily crippled by humanity’s touch. By using mice, such as what Shanghia’s Fudar University is
doing, or other test species, we can observe the changes which occur when we flip certain
switches or perform a certain combination of changes to the code. As Emily Anthes states “…we
can also choose to deploy our species-shaping powers to help other species survive and thrive, to
create healthier, happier, fitter critters…” Perhaps by flipping the right switches, we, as humans,
can begin to create a Utopian planet.
If genetic modification can achieve so much in beasts, why therefore, can change not be
implemented in man? What could happen if we married this new technology with our grasp of
mechanics and our understanding of the human body? Doctors and scientists could begin to
fashion bionic limbs for our military veterans who have served our country and given their bodies
for the ideals this land represents. Or bionic limbs for trauma patients maimed by the chaos of
life. These limbs can be developed to act and feel and function like a normal limb, and not feel as
though it is a crude artificial attachment. With already existing technology, skin can be grafted
and manipulated to provide the appearance of an undamaged body. And yet bionics is hardly the
stopping point. We can control cancer, Diabetes, Alzheimer’s, even obscure hereditary diseases
such as Minear’s disease, which families, like my own, suffer through and potentially face. If we
tap into the human code, life could be altered to create healthy and productive humans, by acting
as gods we can transcend our mortal flaws and achieve more, these advances in genetics can
shape the flow at history, and the flow of life.
Yet, the position of God should be left to the universe. While we could alter this planet,
create Utopia and even the perfect human, there lies room for corruption. The power which
comes with the title of God could provide fuel for man’s greatest fallacies; pride and arrogance.
Taking control of life provides the ultimate stroke to man’s ego. Imagine if Adolf Hitler and likeminded sympathizers held the tools of genetic control. The ideal of Hitler’s Millennium Third
Reich could have been realized by the creation of his Aryan nation so coveted by Hitler’s ideals.
Even further, with the tools and funding, should a country or collective enact these ideals, no
longer will war be fought by mortal man or computers. It will become a Genetic Cold War, the
race to create, not the perfect man, but the perfect God. A war such as this would lead only to our
certain destruction as a race. Who wins in all-out war?
However, with world governments and humanitarian groups to keep a watchful eye, a
war or the collapse of man would lie beyond the scope of a worst-case scenario. With guidelines
and rules, laws and codes, only constructive manipulation would exist and Utopia can be realized.
Humans would not have to worry about “crazy chimeras or world-conquering cyborgs” as Anthes
states, but could enjoy life free from sickness and disease, and enjoy the comforts of longevity.
Species of planets and animals would not face the threat of extinction, but thrive away from the
necrotic touch of man and rebuild nearly devastated populations.
The science and knowledge to play God may come centuries from now, or within our
lifetimes. One must realize the large amount of good which could come from these developments.
Although this science can be twisted to harm humanity, the effects of not utilizing genetic
rewiring can be even more detrimental to our race. Life ebbs and flows, and death is constant, the
one thing we can change is the length of time between the gift of life is bestowed and the ghost of
death embraces us. The world is ever-changing, so let us change it for the best, and create Utopia.
•••••••••••
PAGE
10
THE PARADIGMS OF CHOICE
Jacob Segal, Friendswood HS
UIL READY WRITING TOPICS & STATE ESSAYS • SPRING 2013
Conference 4A
1st Place
A long, long time ago, before there was a Steinbeck to question the strength of family and
the common man, before there was a Hawthorn to question the ambiguousness of blind
adherence’s morality, before there was a De Sade to give a taste of the darkest side of human
desire, and before even Abraham walked bare-footed with little more to his name than the words
that would come to shape the Western world, there was Sophocles to question the ways of Man to
Society, and Society to the Gods. The bitter drink of poor Antigone’s tale, forced to choose
between adherence to the crown of her uncle to a higher throne, leaves us with a burning
crawling, clawing its way out of our throats, and if we are intoxicated enough, we may just loosen
our jaws to let it escape in the curt and unvarnished question, “To whom is my highest
obligation?” In truth, I remain skeptical we will ever know. Faced with the paradigmatic choice
between the self, the society, and the supernatural, man seems wholly incapable of choosing a
debtor to which his moral due is paid.
The individual mind, weighing in at about ten pounds and carrying upwards of one
hundred thousand thoughts a day, is wholly remarkable device. By itself, it is capable of giving a
person the basic programming necessary to survival, sending tremors to a hungry stomach, stings
to a dry throat, and adrenaline to an endangered existence. It can reason between life and death,
fight or flight, and soup or salad, all on the turn of a dime. A single human being is the perfect
animal, learning faster than any predator or prey can adapt- but, with no other of its kind, a
human being is just that – an animal in its highest form. Were we capable of subsisting on selfish
choices without impeding on the lives of others, I have no doubt that we would have a perfect
world. Unfortunately, that can only be achieved by total isolation from the rest of mankind, and
simple sociology states that man is, by nature, a gregarious creature. In the simplest words,
“isolationist Utopia” is an oxymoron.
Typically, what comes to mind when speaking on the value of the individual in the moral
exchange are the ones who have truly gone off the deep end—the Enron executives, the
embezzling preachers, the snake-oil merchants—their self-appraisal needs no introduction nor
explanation. They seek happiness through currency, and currency through the abandonment of
their fellow man’s wellbeing. But what of the starving thief? The lone mercenary? The drowning
man who must force his friend under so that he may continue breathing? The abortive mother
who must choose her unborn child’s merciful death over the agonizing life of squalor they would
both lead after its birth, and the abandoning father whose reasons were the same? Johnny Cash
might sing that they are all victims of the times—but the somber hymn that I sing is that there
will always be instances where our personal hierarchy of needs must overshadow those of others.
When such a total eclipse of self-actualization is threatened, there is no offer a clear escape with a
guarantee of a clean consciousness. The paths for the standard, sympathetic individual are too
often future regret or present death, and what person can argue that the needs of the few in such a
vivid parallax might not be skewed to outweigh the needs of the many?
Ralts attempts to present a solution on the next rung up—the societal level. In A Theory
of Justice, he suggests that an individual, establish a justice system which distributed worldly
goods and assistance based on individuals needs to meet the ends of the greater social whole,
going even so far as to theorize that one would choose to favor those in need over those in power.
He is completely right, to a degree—human beings wish to live comfortably, and when their
needs are satiated, they would want others to be likewise satisfied. Charlie Chaplin once stated in
his role as the Great Dictator’s altruistic doppelganger, “I don't’ wish to rule or control anyone. I
should like to help everyone, if possible. Jew, Gentile, black man, white…” This presages one of
the most beautiful and wholly humanitarian speeches that I have experienced, but the ultimate
vanity is this: altruism requires innocence, and pure altruism, just as Ralts states, requires
ignorance. The only tried and true humanitarian is an unspoiled infant. While I would love to live
PAGE
11
UIL READY WRITING TOPICS & STATE ESSAYS • SPRING 2013
in the mindset of the child for the rest of my days, the words just echo too profoundly of Huxley’s
Brave New World, where their society, verbatim, strove to live like infants, but were ultimately
branded as cattle. We are creatures of thought, and therefore must either sacrifice our basic
natures for the extreme of a wholly charitable world, or find that our cradles are now hay, and we
are guided by a shepherd’s hook to a slaughter so that others may eat.
So, it is not an altruist who is the savior of society. While it may sound just a touch dark,
I would elect the cynics, skeptics, and rationalists over the claimed “humanitarians”. When one
lives in the inevitably imperfect system where the individual unwaveringly sacrifices his or
herself for the greater community, we see something worse than our Mustafa Monds—keep in
mind, Huxley wrote of the World State before he know the ravages of World War II- we see our
Stalins, who ascend to a regulatory position only to usurp total dictatorial power. When the blind
bow to a creaking wooden chair, they cannot see the throne that replaces it. So, I choose them,
over Ralts, two men: my beloved Johnny Cash, and the famed Immanuel Kantz. Kantz’s
proposition on morality is one of reason and exception-that men will build their lives on
principles both vioable and inviolable, and when not bent by a world into a mold of its choosing,
they will do good for the basic human need to do good. His categorical imperative leaves room
for an individual to achieve his own ends without using others as mere means to those ends, and
will thus not be starved of their own aspirations nor stripped of their morality. Cash just gives that
final touch of balance with the elegant, simple words “Man in Black,” “Some things will never be
all right I know/things need changing everywhere you go./ But until we make a move to make
some things right/ You’ll never see me wear a suit of white.” He humbly reminds us that there
will always be those who simply feel no obligation to their fellow man, and that we will always
have trials to overcome-but as long as there are those who question the greater good for those
who “died believing we were all on their side,” there is hope for the World of Man in man
himself.
But what of a more final authority than appointed judges and elected officials-believed
higher than our peers, friends, families, and figureheads? Something we hold to have more power
over the fate of our lives than even ourselves? As for the discussion of the individual, I will
exclude the skewed examples of theistic value such as the Westboro Baptist Church, the radical
Islamic terrorist cells, and the Borgia’s purchase of the papacy-they are cheaply bought and
abundant. For our reference, we will examine that of Oedipus Rex. After leaving the city for his
uncle Creon’s failure to abdicate the throne, one of Oedipus’ sons returned with an army to do
battle with his brother for the chance to occupy the city and claim the throne. He fought well, but
was ultimately defeated and killed. The play begins with Antigone speaking to her confidant on
Creon’s mandate that none of the invading soldiers, including her brother (she was the sister of
the two who did battle) should have the burial rites dictated by the Gods. They would be left to
rot in the fields, so that none would find honor in their betrayal. Antigone ultimately defied her
uncle’s order after plagues begin to spread and sacrifices would not burn, willing to accept the
punishment of the King for the knowledge that her brother’s spirit would not be doomed, and the
Gods would be appeased.
Martyrdom is a rather great extreme, but it is also the most simplistic and easily
understood image. Joan of Arc’s flame-licked body bound to the stake will be burned into many
generations’ eyes as the very eidolon of faith- a true submission to what one believes as a higher
power, just as Antigone would risk not only her royal standing, but her life, for the satiating of the
burial rites. Above themselves, above society, they choose to obey a doctrine that they find
transcendent. The question is not in the extent of faith-the truth is that one is either devoted to
their cause or they are not- but the extent of what is to be believed. Just as the individual may fall
to selfishness, the society to corruption, so too does the mosque, steeple, and belfry crumble to
manipulation. There is a vile cascade, where the religious becomes political, and the political
becomes personal. In The Crucible, we see the entire town of Salem turned on its ear- from being
a community of the most faithful and devout puritans, they metamorphose into vindictive and
PAGE
12
UIL READY WRITING TOPICS & STATE ESSAYS • SPRING 2013
petty creatures. Abby testifies against Misses Proctor, claiming supernatural visions, and she is
sentenced to death merely by the jealous passions of this single creature. I can’t say that I’ve been
unaffected by this single example: “God is dead” and “Vengeance is walking Salem,” guilty echo
in my ears during docile theological discussions. The propensity for manipulation through faith is
just as strong, if not moreso, than that from those of societal position. Kings may hold the gold,
but priests hold the souls. But for those that truly believe in their righteousness, and are
unshakable in their faith in a truer authority- dead Joan and bygone Antigone- there will be a light
for them to walk in, beyond the shadow of the few and the many.
Perhaps we’ll never settle on what is right-perhaps rightness truly does not exist. In our
would, we walk in a realm of ambiguousness: a twilight of obligations, where chasing the setting
sun will lead us down many a shadowy and twisting path to finally find our waiting valley. Those
that walk alone must be careful not to trample others- those that walk together must be careful not
to lose themselves-those that walk in ascension must be careful not let their footing slip. But
whatever path one walks, if they get lost along the way, for a little direction, they merely need to
ask a man in black.
•••••••••••
VINNI, VIDDI, SUBJUGATI
Max Huang, Taylor HS, Katy
Conference 5A
1st Place
As the water begins to swirl around their feet, the sailors begin to panic. The timbers of
their ancient trireme creak ominously, barely able to withstand the churning ocean. These men,
supposedly the most seasoned and stalwart of all sailors, fall to the decks, hands clasped in prayer
to their various deities, begging for salvation. Unfortunately, the gods did not hear this particular
plea: the whirlpool picks up speed, quickly becomes a vortex of death that none can escape, and
all the men, as well as their ships, are swallowed by the gaping monster of a mouth known to the
Ancient Greeks as “Charybdis.” This fiend, supposedly the result of divine punishment towards
an overly gluttonous woman, is nothing but a gaping mouth connected to a bladder-like body,
fueled by a hunger that no meal can satisfy. The Greeks created this abomination to personify the
phenomenon of a whirlpool, but have also generated an excellent metaphor for today’s society:
humans continuously take advantage of the world’s once abundant natural resources, and yet have
done nothing to give back to Mother Nature. We, like Charybdis, are a monstrous vortex that
swallows all but remains hungry. It is this unquenchable hunger, this nonstop encroachment of
natural resources, this perpetual taking and never returning, that will come to doom this
generation, and many to follow.
Human violation of nature’s rights has seen continuous mention throughout both literary
and historical anecdotes, the most prominent of which remains George Orwell’s Animal Farm. In
this wittily satirical fable, Orwell uses various farm animals to parallel the Communist
revolutions of the Soviet Union. However, if taken at face value, the tale also unintentionally
serves as a reminder that humans are the most damaging species towards the earth. One of the
pigs in the novel, Old Major, incites the other animals to rebellion by reminding them that
animals constantly slave for Man’s every whim yet receive nothing but the most Spartan of
accommodations, and must subsist on gruel and dirt while the humans devour their produce. As
the elderly pig notes, “humans are the only beings on this planet that continuously consume food
without producing any themselves.” Orwell, with his dry humor, gave the animals a voice and
very accurately conveyed what they might have said. While there are many animal activists
working throughout the world to better the living conditions of domesticated animals, one need
only to take a trip to the local butchery or slaughterhouse to see that Old Major’s rebellion was
completely justified: the various animals are confined to tiny cells with a large number of others,
PAGE
13
UIL READY WRITING TOPICS & STATE ESSAYS • SPRING 2013
and live their short lives covered in filth and feces, all while being underfed the majority of the
time. Humans have abused their higher processing capabilities, utilizing them to take advantage
of those who were once his equals, and herein lies the root of all of today’s environmental issues.
The theme of human encroachment upon others has been prominent throughout much of
history as well, as evidenced by the imperialistic era of the late 19th century. During these times,
European explorers and merchants made their ways to Africa, the Americas, and the Far East,
seeking cities of gold and fountains of youth. When they found nothing of the sort, the
Westerners decided to engage in their favorite hobby of subjugating the natives of a newly
discovered land. They were unfortunately quite proficient at this task, as shown by the Berlin
Conference, during which various monarchs and political leaders divided all of Africa’s
considerable landmass without ever consulting the native inhabitants. The Europeans did not see
the Africans as humans, and therefore treated them like animals. These times were a dark epoch
of fear and distress for the indigenous population, who needed to be alert at all times, as they
could be captured at any moment and shipped off to work as slaves until their deaths. These
actions of the imperialists directly parallel Modern Man’s ways towards his beastly (and
environmental) counterparts. We come in expectant herds, hoping to take full advantage of every
resource that the environment has to offer, and upon doing so, immediately move on to the next
patch of land to complete the same pattern. As Agent Smith said in the popular film The Matrix,
“humans are the disease of this planet.”
I recently had the opportunity to visit a second-grade classroom, and was immediately
struck by the number of posters concerning environmental awareness. All around the classroom
hung sings telling the reader to “turn off a light, save a polar bear,” and many kids were singing
“save the earth, recycle, recycle, recycle!” Society is an ironic creature: it injects the young with
notions that “living green” is the best choice, and yet continues to do the exact opposite, building
power plants and factories wherever there is enough space. However, one must think: if the
children, as the purest and most uncorrupted members of today’s society, know to protect our
limited resources, perhaps the adults will eventually learn to embrace such ideologies. Confucian
teachings note that children are a window into the soul of the parent. Though his body may
mature and his thoughts change, there remains a piece of childlike innocence within each adult in
the world. If the young of this nation know to save the earth, maybe the older generation can learn
as well.
When gazing upon the situation of today’s world, one cannot help but to think of better
times and places. While inspecting the smog-filled skies of major cities around the world, the
viewer is drawn to contemplate on nature, and how humans have come to destroy her beauty and
majesty: The Aral Sea, once a center of fishing and tourism, has now, through human misuse,
shrunk by early 40%; the Nile River, those seven cataracts that served as a cultural hearth and
bloodline of ancient Egypt, has been dammed by the modern need for hydro-electric power; the
once-mighty Tigris and Euphrates rivers, the cradle of civilization, the fertile crescent, are now
nothing but dusty steams. We think of these instances of disappearing natural wonders, and start
to doubt the longevity of magnificent sites such as the Grand Canyon and Mount Everest. The
world is in a story state. But there is still hope. A wise man once said that “No matter how far you
go off the path, you can always turn back.” I believe him. After all, we are not Charybdis.