Pigoons: Future Lifesavers

Before I start, I should probably begin by providing you readers with an explanation to what a “pigoon” is. Pigoons are fictional characters created by Canadian bestseller Margaret Atwood, first introducing them in “Oryx and Crake”. As you read in the book, “The goal of the pigoon project was to grow an assortment of foolproof human-tissue organs in a transgenic knockout pig host – organs that would transplant smoothly and avoid rejection […] and fend off attacks by opportunistic microbes and viruses”(23).

"Organ-Oink Farms"

The book, preferably described by its author as being speculative fiction (and not sci-fi), offers the readers an insightful preview of what and where our world is heading. Corrupted societies markedly separated into either “rich” or “poor” classes, corrupted government, mega corporations (also corrupted) holding the future of society in the palm of their hands, and the growing, evolving branch of science are all things we must expect in the future if keep going down that path.

This “path” I speak of involves scientific advancements and breakthroughs having to do with xenotransplantation, genetic engineering, bringing back to life extinct animals, cloning, and so on. Also, all these buttocks injections and anti-wrinkle/anti-aging creams are something to consider as well. Indeed, in the book, Atwood mentions experiments in which “The main idea was to find a method of replacing the older epidermis with a fresh one, […] a genuine start-over skin that would be wrinkle- and blemish-free” (55). However, even in the book there were no effective methods found yet, and the volunteers came out looking like the “Mould Creature from Outer Space” with a greenish tone and peeling skin.

Anyways, pigoons are a perfect example of xenotransplantation – the transplantation of nonhuman tissues or organs into human recipients[1]. Although I am reluctant to the idea of making such experiments on animals only to dump them when we’re done with them, I actually like the idea developed in “Oryx in Crake”. In the book, the host does not get destroyed when their extra kidneys and livers are taken away; in fact, they keep living and grow more organs. Thus technically, no one gets hurts and lives are being saved. But does this make it ethical? Does it make it “okay”? And instead of keeping these “pigoons” locked up in a top-secure building and put them in an environment that suits them better, would any of you have anything to say against this kind of science?

"Man is not truly one, but truly two" - Dr. Jekyll

As I was reading Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, I found the notion of good versus evil quite interesting. Actually, it  was particularly the idea of both good and evil residing in a single person that got me thinking about the duality of human nature. Are we born good? Are we born evil? Or are we born both? 

When Dr. Jekyll sees himself for the first time in the mirror as the deformed and decayed Edward Hyde, he expresses a feeling of relief: “And yet I looked at upon the ugly idol in the glass, I was conscious of no repugnance, rather of a leap of welcome. This too was myself. It seemed natural and human” (81). Relief of finally being able to do the things he would not have otherwise done, as laws are to be respected in order to maintain social order. The importance of maintaining an honorable reputation is also made clear throughout the book. However, all falls into pieces when Hyde is actually seen committing a murderous act, thus becoming a hunted criminal. Dr. Jekyll loses control over his transformations, and keeps changing back into Mr. Hyde, causing him to withdraw himself from society.

           Dr. Jekyll is obviously the “good” side of himself, and Hyde is his alternate evil ego whom he has kept restrained for the most part of his existence.  Does this mean that Dr. Jekyll was born good, but turns bad, or was he always struggling with both personas to finally let his evil side take over at the end?

Anyhow, I was reading an article from the Daily Mail, and there was this one passage that got my attention. The article mentions the 18^th century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau speaking about the total absence of “fundamental perversity in the human heart” (Daily Mail) and that society is what leads humans to commit evil deeds. This immediately got me thinking of the creature in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, who only craved for love and affection, but only ended up being abandoned by his creator, Victor Frankenstein, and violently rejected by society.  This forced seclusion from the human society sparked a feeling of hatred in his soul, which caused him to murder several people that were close to Victor, all in the name of revenge. Thus, the creature initially had a good and genuine soul, which society twisted into something evil and vengeful.