In her article, “Human/Nature: Ecological Philosophy in Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake”, Jayne Glover talks about how Atwood constantly shifts the perspective of the readr between the utopian ideals of the lead characters and how it leads to dystopian ends. She argues that the novel challenges the reader into thinking about how an ecologically sustainable world can be created without losing what is essentially human about it.
Glover in her article talks about how science fiction deals with the issues raised by ecological philosophers and eco critics such as the divide the exists between culture and nature and what leads to the development of humans as well as the continuance of the world in harmony with one another. This harmony happens when differences disappear and everyone is treated the same regardless of the gender, race and sex. It is where humans live in tandem with nature. In the novel, the scientist Crake says Glover is clearly a product of his environment. She also suggests that the scientists in the novel play God, what she calls instrumentalism (Soper, 132), where science is used as a tool to objectify nature. The scientists create strange animals not because it helps them with their daily work or save the human race but because they can do it. The novel thus is an exaggerated version of what really happens in the world. As in all dystopian novels, the state has the ultimate power and here it is science. It is a novel set in the future where everything that is human is being wiped out to create something that is incongruous with nature and the ecosystem.
Glover brings into focus in her article the disparity and the inequality that exists between the haves and the have nots. In the novel, the protagonists, Jimmy and Crake live in a compound that is safe, ecologically sustainable, unpolluted and self sustaining. This is because their fathers work for a scientific concern and they are the elites. However this utopian world of the protagonists is juxtaposed with the reality of the world outside of their compound. the ‘pleeblands’ as it is called is a place filled with disease, where there is a lot of pollution, prostitution and where it is generally unsafe to live. This disparity helps the reader in understanding the novel and the world at large. As Atwood’s novel suggests the utopian world that is being built does not have enough space for everyone. It isn’t really sustainable and can support only the people who can afford it or are a part of it. Glover’s explanation of instrumentalism is also useful in understanding the novel. it is obvious that the scientists and eventually Crake create prototypes of a new human race that would be different and be developed in such a way that there is maximum optimization. It also brings out how the scientists have no moral or ethical problems about what they do as they think of themselves as God. They are so convinced in their work that they are no longer unable to separate the things that were natural and the things that they had created. Since they had created new things, they believe themselves to be the creators. Although dystopian novels are exaggerations of what the future entails as the result of man’s scientific experiments and greed, they nevertheless have their base in reality and Glover through her analysis helps the reader understand that this threat to human existence and the planet which is happening in the present is what Atwood writes about in the novel.
The article makes the reader question if dystopian novels aren't too far stretched. Given that they are based on the events that are happening in the present and it is a fact aht science and technological advances show no signs of slowing down, is it really a possibility that whatever has been written could become a possibility. Glover’ article and the way she supports her arguments and analysis with critical thinkers and eco-philosophers does leave the reader with a question if we are, the human race are orchestrating our own destruction and what has been written in the novel is not a fantasy but could become a reality and a way of life soon. Glover points out that in the novel, in order to achieve utopia or their version of the utopian world, the scientists have to destroy what already exists. In this case, Craker wants to create a world in which the humans are not violent , do not discriminate based on sex, religion, class and race, a world where there are no minerals so they wouldn’t be able to damage the environment and so on. But to develop the Creakers as he calls them, he has to first destroy the humans that currently inhabit the planet.Although he might seem to have a just point because he is only trying to make the world a good place, the question arises if the means justify the end. Can people be killed because the killing leads to a reduced population and a better world? Deep ecologists like Naess and Sessions argue that the, “The flourishing of nonhuman life requires a smaller human population (Naess, 68)”. Does this justify the killing of millions of people? And who gives anyone the right to decide who can make the cut and who cannot? If the end is acceptable to the powers , are any means used to achieve it justifiable? What about the moral and ethical implications of such decisions taken which affects the world as a whole?
Glover really brings out the essence of the novel and throws light on the reasons that are causing the current ecological crises. She just like Atwood brings the pressing concerns of today’s world into explaining how this might lead to a future catastrophe. She gets to the crux of the novel and her arguments and analysis are not that far from that of the author it is hard to disagree with the paper. Her work also has implications outside of the novel. Even without the references from the novel, the article could stand on its own, for it is an article about a universal topic that talks about the problems with today’s world and how if unchecked the problems of today would lead to catastrophic events in the future.
Glover finds parallel to the characters in the novel and the places that are being described in the novel. It is not uncommon to find gated communities and enclaves in big cities that are accessible only to the rich. These communities have green lawns even in times of drought, the security is impeccable even when the crime rates in the city could be really high and they generally have everything that the outside world lacks. The people who live outside of these communities only exist to serve the needs of those who live within these gated communities. The protagonists are scientists who work on cloning and who work on creating genetically engineered crops and animals which would yield high but would eventually destroy the environment that they are raised on. It is difficult to say for certain that they would not direct their attention to humans in the near future. The article serves as a reminder to the reader that a dystopian world or a dystopian novel is not the exaggerated imagination of the novelist but in fact a work that deals with the pressing issues of today.
Environmental degradation, genetically modified animals and food, pollution, destruction of the world and inequalities are events that happen at an alarming rate today and the novel only highlights this issue. If they sound exaggerated it is the genre of the work and Glover does a good job in suggesting to the reader that the novel isn’t just a work of fiction but throws up important and pertinent questions to the reader. She suggests that there is an imbalance between the utopia as evinced by the scientists in the novel and the dystopia that they end up creating. Like Glover and Atwood suggest and argue in their respective works, the question most predominant in the minds of the readers is if in creating these utopian version of the existing world, will the existing humanity disappear? Are moral and ethical principles outdated and something that does not make sense in front of the scientific advances made in the world?
Works Cited
Glover, Jayne. “Human/Nature: Ecological Philosophy in Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake.” English Studies in Africa. 52.2 (2009). pp 1-50.
Atwood, Margaret. Oryx and Crake. London: Hachette Digital. 2003.
Naess, Arne. 'The Deep Ecological Movement: Some Philosophical Aspects.' Deep Ecology for the Twenty-First Century. Ed. George Sessions. Boston and London: Shambhala, 1995. 64-84.
Soper, Kate. What is Nature? Culture, Politics and the Non-Human. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.
