Designer babies are here.

[Elok]

I'm not sure why artificial selection would perform worse than whatever natural selection occurs now, in first-world countries.

Well, in this case there is (or should be) the concern that we're still learning how exactly it is genes are expressed, and why. We might not turn on the switches we think we're turning on, or turn them on improperly, or under- or overestimate their effects. Potential catastrophes vary widely, from the kids coming out deformed to something more wacky and scary. Like the gene for "increased muscle mass" being linked to emotional instability, and "heightened intelligence" increasing the chances of antisocial behavior or violent ideation or what-have-you, and all those changes not becoming clearly manifest until mid-adolescence, when a whole generation of lil' supertots have already been manufactured for the wealthy. The fact that we take about two decades to mature to adulthood is another big bump in the road, you'll note.

Or something else entirely; use your imagination. Leaving the job to nature might not be exciting but it's at least reasonably predictable.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't know if you know this, a lot of those books, when placed in the context of when they were written, are social commentary.

Yes, but for the most part we are sufficiently removed.

I was just going over the list of books for the last 30 years and I've yet to find one that could remotely be seen as uplifting, which I think says it all about modernity.

[Arrian]

The classics have not forgotten the good things in life. Hope, joy and love abound.

You assign books like that, rather then our old drudgery, you will see students read the books.

No.

-Arrian

[Q Classic]

Yes, but for the most part we are sufficiently removed.

So you're for teaching the books either without context or drastically minimizing it? So that the students who learn those books don't understand their significance, or their actual meanings?

I was just going over the list of books for the last 30 years and I've yet to find one that could remotely be seen as uplifting, which I think says it all about modernity.

You don't think that in some ways, Atlas Shrugged, Fahrenheit 451, Catch-22, and Watership Down are uplifiting?

Just because you didn't enjoy your schooling and disliked the literature you were taught doesn't mean it was bad. Just because a lot of modern literature in the canon focuses on the absurdity of life doesn't make it bad. And for ****'s sake, some of the books you've included are hardly uplifting.

If you want to go back before the turn of the century, be my guest, but don't drag me along with it. You might be fine without modernity, but I like it just fine, thank you very much.

[Kuciwalker]

Well, in this case there is (or should be) the concern that we're still learning how exactly it is genes are expressed, and why. We might not turn on the switches we think we're turning on, or turn them on improperly, or under- or overestimate their effects. Potential catastrophes vary widely, from the kids coming out deformed to something more wacky and scary. Like the gene for "increased muscle mass" being linked to emotional instability, and "heightened intelligence" increasing the chances of antisocial behavior or violent ideation or what-have-you, and all those changes not becoming clearly manifest until mid-adolescence, when a whole generation of lil' supertots have already been manufactured for the wealthy. The fact that we take about two decades to mature to adulthood is another big bump in the road, you'll note.

Or something else entirely; use your imagination. Leaving the job to nature might not be exciting but it's at least reasonably predictable.

If the only argument is "we don't actually have the tech to do it" [and therefore we'll mess up], then there's nothing inherently wrong with designer babies.

[Q Classic]

I think the problem is more that we don't have the ethical framework to deal with it yet.

[Ben Kenobi]

So you're for teaching the books either without context or drastically minimizing it? So that the students who learn those books don't understand their significance, or their actual meanings?

I don't really see how the Man of La Mancha is primarily social commentary.

You don't think that in some ways, Atlas Shrugged, Fahrenheit 451, Catch-22, and Watership Down are uplifiting?

Uplifting? No, quite the opposite.

Just because you didn't enjoy your schooling and disliked the literature you were taught doesn't mean it was bad. Just because a lot of modern literature in the canon focuses on the absurdity of life doesn't make it bad. And for ****'s sake, some of the books you've included are hardly uplifting.

It's depressing the list of books that we do read, and are assigned. This is one of the reasons for the disconnect between what people actually choose to read, and what is considered 'high literature'. If the goal is to depress people and sour them off of books, the canon is a great way to do so.

Which books aren't particularly uplifting that I have listed?

If you want to go back before the turn of the century, be my guest, but don't drag me along with it. You might be fine without modernity, but I like it just fine, thank you very much.

I think we've shifted too far on the other side. I don't see any reason why it has to be all depressing books, and I was trying to make a list that represented every period. Erich Remarque's All Quiet on the Western Front isn't uplifting, but you need something on the first world war.

[DaShi]

Ben's curriculum reminds me of the school in "Moral Orel" where you're punished for thinking. Given his Ovid thread, I can understand why he'd want a school like that.

[Q Classic]

I don't really see how the Man of La Mancha is primarily social commentary.

I didn't say they all were. But why am I trying to explain that nuance, when you'll just conveniently ignore it? In any case, readings of that particular text change depending on who's talking. I know I've read at least one critique which did suggest some sort of social point to it.

Uplifting? No, quite the opposite.

Atlas Shrugged: Objectivist thought, primarily, but the fact that John Galt leads the capable into a enclave where they can be free to pursue their passions, that's not uplifting?

Fahrenheit 451: In a dystopian society that's killed reading, someone discovers its power and escapes to find a utopia where thought, learning, and books are once again revered. Yeah, we can't have heroes like that.

Catch-22: Faced with the absurdities of war, where any action leads to loss, the hero decides the only way to win is to not play--and leave the field. He does so to maintain what little morality and sanity he has left after it's been shredded by nonsense. I guess finding one's peace isn't uplifting.

Watership Down: I guess defeating tyrrany isn't uplifting. Man, that explains why everyone was so depressed in the late 40's and 50's.

It's depressing the list of books that we do read, and are assigned. This is one of the reasons for the disconnect between what people actually choose to read, and what is considered 'high literature'. If the goal is to depress people and sour them off of books, the canon is a great way to do so.

Which books aren't particularly uplifting that I have listed?

No canon is perfect. Yours included. It's not like Paradise Lost, Frankenstein, Moby Dick, and All Quiet on the Western Front are particularly uplifting. Even Don Quixote isn't that great, because after being "right" and chivalric for so long, when he gains his sanity, he's lost everything that made him who he was.

Of course, you're welcome to disagree. It's useless, though, because what is "uplifting" is highly subjective anyways. The catharsis acheived in Othello or King Lear are enormously powerful, but they might not work for you. The absurdities highlighted in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead and Waiting for Godot or even the short story "The Lottery" might not appeal to you, but they do to others.

I think we've shifted too far on the other side. I don't see any reason why it has to be all depressing books, and I was trying to make a list that represented every period. Erich Remarque's All Quiet on the Western Front isn't uplifting, but you need something on the first world war.

But nothing on World War II, or Vietnam? Or the bizarre party that led to the 1929 Stock Market Crash? What about novels criticising the excesses of the 1960's hippie movement? Or novels that speak to the African-American experience before and during the Civil War?

Just because you don't want to be depressed doesn't mean that those books don't have merit. Just because you think something's uplifting doesn't mean everyone things so.

If "uplifting" is the only criteria you want, we might as well stick The Secret and Bridget Jones's Diary into the canon, for ****'s sake.

But your answer doesn't even respond to my charge. You've said before that you think things were better back in the past. Before modern complexities made things not so black and white, which you seem to view things in. If you want to do that, feel free. Some of the novels I've pointed out, that you don't think are uplifting, have the message that you should do exactly that, and if society doesn't support you, leave it. At the same time, I don't want to join you. Go enjoy your Republic of Gilead somewhere else.

[Ben Kenobi]

Atlas Shrugged: Objectivist thought, primarily, but the fact that John Galt leads the capable into a enclave where they can be free to pursue their passions, that's not uplifting?

Fahrenheit 451: In a dystopian society that's killed reading, someone discovers its power and escapes to find a utopia where thought, learning, and books are once again revered. Yeah, we can't have heroes like that.

Catch-22: Faced with the absurdities of war, where any action leads to loss, the hero decides the only way to win is to not play--and leave the field. He does so to maintain what little morality and sanity he has left after it's been shredded by nonsense. I guess finding one's peace isn't uplifting.

Same problem with all three. Society is unredeemable so the only solution is to flee society altogether. All three present different dystopias.

No canon is perfect. Yours included. It's not like Paradise Lost, Frankenstein, Moby Dick, and All Quiet on the Western Front are particularly uplifting. Even Don Quixote isn't that great, because after being "right" and chivalric for so long, when he gains his sanity, he's lost everything that made him who he was.

Paradise Lost, we know that Satan despite his struggles is defeated and heaven is victorious, with man free to pursue his destiny, despite being expelled from the garden.

Frankenstien, agreed. No question there, it's a tragedy through and through. Moby Dick. I don't know. I like Moby Dick, because it is the perfect understanding of rage and revenge from Captain Ahab.

Of course, you're welcome to disagree. It's useless, though, because what is "uplifting" is highly subjective anyways. The catharsis acheived in Othello or King Lear are enormously powerful, but they might not work for you. The absurdities highlighted in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead and Waiting for Godot or even the short story "The Lottery" might not appeal to you, but they do to others.

I don't think every book needs to be uplifting, but very few of the books assigned are uplifting. If I were to look at the curriculum of most English courses, I'd be hard pressed to find any.

But nothing on World War II, or Vietnam? Or the bizarre party that led to the 1929 Stock Market Crash? What about novels criticising the excesses of the 1960's hippie movement? Or novels that speak to the African-American experience before and during the Civil War?

None of these are as seminal as the first world war.

But your answer doesn't even respond to my charge. You've said before that you think things were better back in the past.

Yes, I think they were better in the past. I don't believe it's helpful to have book after book which says that society in itself is irredeemable and that the only escape is some 'Utopia'. Why not go with the original if you are going to have book after book.

I think tragedy has a part, but so does comedy. Where are the modern comedies? Tolkein has one which is why he's been so successful. I am having difficulty seeing any significant comedies of the last 50 years.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben's curriculum reminds me of the school in "Moral Orel" where you're punished for thinking. Given his Ovid thread, I can understand why he'd want a school like that.

Couldn't be farther from the truth. I'm sure if I lived in medieval Times, I'd be the Hobbes sticking his grubby finger into the pie.

[Jon Miller]

While I love Catch-22, I have to agree that it isn't uplifting. I don't think it is meant to be though.

While I haven't read Atlas Shrugged, I find Randism to be one of the worst and most depressing philosophies in existance.

JM

[David Floyd]

Kids today - hell, PEOPLE today - will either read, or not. It doesn't matter what their curriculum in school is. The fact of the matter is, that most people are not on the upper end of the intelligence bell curve. That means that given the option between TV and reading, most people will pick TV. More specifically, if the average American is asked to choose between "The Real World" and "Don Quixote", for instance, I think we all know what the decision will be.

[Q Classic]

Same problem with all three. Society is unredeemable so the only solution is to flee society altogether. All three present different dystopias.

I find that uplifting, actually. Because the framework doesn't work for them, they strike off on their own to live how they wish.

Moby Dick. I don't know. I like Moby Dick, because it is the perfect understanding of rage and revenge from Captain Ahab.

And I don't see that as uplifting. Informative, perhaps.

I don't think every book needs to be uplifting, but very few of the books assigned are uplifting. If I were to look at the curriculum of most English courses, I'd be hard pressed to find any.

And I disagree.

Because what's "uplifting" is subjective.

None of these are as seminal as the first world war.

A subjective judgement on your part.

Yes, I think they were better in the past.

And I disagree. I think things were worse in the past.

I don't believe it's helpful to have book after book which says that society in itself is irredeemable and that the only escape is some 'Utopia'. Why not go with the original if you are going to have book after book.

Honestly, there's no point in arguing with you, because you won't change your mind, and you're utterly failing to even remotely convince me.

I think tragedy has a part, but so does comedy. Where are the modern comedies? Tolkein has one which is why he's been so successful. I am having difficulty seeing any significant comedies of the last 50 years.

Even if you don't wish to see them, they're there.

[Ben Kenobi]

QCubed, I'm not trying to convince you. You are educated.

My point is that even if you use the same subjective criteria, you can get very different canonical literature. If, as you say the listings are merely subjective, then there's no way to value the current listing over mine.

All I am calling for is more of a balance. I really don't see why that would be an issue at all. Happy stories, sad ones.