The central narrative line in Margaret Atwood’s dystopian tragedy Oryx and Crake is built around the story of a man named Snowman, who lives in a post-apocalyptic world alongside humanoid-like creatures called Crackers. At first glance, this story may seem to be about a fantastical, unreal world and Snowman’s adventures in that environment; however, reading it makes it clear that Atwood’s book reveals fundamental social and environmental issues prevalent in modern society. One such theme raised by the author is the philosophical problem of anthropocentrism, the teleological teaching that the ultimate purpose of the universe’s existence is centered on man. Anthropocentrism is an idealistic worldview that places the value of human life above all else, and it is a man in this paradigm that is regarded as the immutable pinnacle of evolution.
Atwood speaks out powerfully against this worldview, offering plot twists that demonstrate the author as a critic of the idea of anthropocentrism. The main criticism of this philosophy is the excessive self-centeredness of man in the natural environment — in other words, a man puts himself above everything else, by which he creates a disruption of the ecosystem cycle and begins to control nature illegally. Excellent words were spoken by Atwood when she writes “nature is to zoos as God is to churches…” (Atwood, 2004, p. 159). In this short but succinct quote, Atwood views humans as gods to the animal world, creating artificial conditions to keep them and preventing the free existence of wild specimens.
In fact, Atwood’s narrative is more in line with the concept of biocentrism, which puts the interests of wildlife first, than with anthropocentrism. As a result of RejoovenEsense’s deliberate alteration of the ecological agenda, the human community dies, leaving behind an almost pristine world without humans, replaced by humanoid Crackers. Biocentrists might consider this story respecting the ideas of the supremacy of nature and reading evolutionary teachings, for Atwood has shown that humans are only one step in such evolution and can easily be replaced. This argument fits well with the idea expressed by Abram (1999): the author argues that the individual can enter into harmony with nature if he renounces his down-to-earth thoughts and “temporarily sheds the accepted perceptual logic of his culture” (p. 150). As is clear after reading, Atwood has shown just such a deliberate renunciation of human community, launched by Crake’s hands.
Consequently, Oryx and Crake legitimately raise an ethical dilemma about how humans should relate to the natural world: whether they should be part of it or, conversely, get out from under the control of ecosystem cycles and become above it. In fact, this choice determines the future behavior and ethical obligations that characterize humans and society. For example, the character Crake in the novel is not an anthropocentrist because his interests are more global than the idea of human community; a man seeks to make an artificial contribution to human-independent natural evolution. In his monologue, referring to human hope as despair, Crake says of animals that “they put their energy into staying alive themselves until times get better. But human beings hope they can stick their souls into someone else…” (Atwood, 2004, p. 90). This thought shows the bioengineer’s careful and respectful attitude to the mechanisms of nature and Crake’s deliberate detachment from humans.
There are, however, other views regarding human ethical behavior in relation to nature. Crake’s example is illustrative because although the character was more interested in animals than in people, he was still creating artificial species. Jimmy’s father once said, “there’d been a lot of fooling…: creating-animal was so much fun,; it made you feel like God” (Atwood, 2004, p. 35). From this perspective, one might think that Crake is playing God when he decides to create genetic modifications and move evolution forward with his own hands. Consequently, it is impossible to say with certainty what is natural and what is artificial, even with respect to real motives. There is no way to pinpoint the ultimate goals of people like Crake since it is unlikely that they are driven by unambiguous, one-sided worldviews. On the one hand, the individual is trying to invest in nature and be on a par with it, but his actions show supremacy over the natural community and a desire — albeit unconscious — to be above it.
In this context, the idea of patenting life, which is necessary for biotechnological developments, is exciting. Any product created by bioengineers, including Crackers, must be patented because it is ultimately the result of intellectual activity. Meyer (2000) wrote that the idea of patenting life “is… vital (for) the identification of genetically engineered life as a human creation” (p. 157). This argument further creates a tension between the natural and the artificial, forcing the reader to question Crake’s motives for creating new life. The question is whether he really wanted to get out of the human community by investing in the development of wildlife or whether he instead sought to be the creator of that life.
Environmental ethics seeks to address a number of issues related to placing humans in the same lineage as other living things in order to define the relationship between them. Examining Atwood’s novel from the perspective of environmental ethics does not make it unequivocally clear who exactly should be called human. All the characters used are literally human, but few of them can be called human from the perspective of this paradigm.
To continue with the ideas of ecological ethics, only those Homo sapiens sapiens who are respectful of nature and show ecological awareness should be called human. A life of disregard for animals, the creation of zoos and circuses, along with hunting for fun does not allow the proud word human to be assigned to an individual in this way. Atwood, however, prevents the reader from reasoning in such unambiguous terms instead of showing the ambivalence of humanity. Crake, on the one hand, a genius scientist, says that “people come here from all over the world… Gender, sexual orientation, height, color of skin and eyes — it’s all on order, it can all be done or redone…” (Atwood, 2004, p. 221). In other words, Crake cannot be called human because he is also dismissive of natural creatures, humans; only his talents are realized on a scientific level, not a domestic one. On the contrary, Snowman (Jimmy) used not to be human because he was inattentive to the nature around him — but after the pandemic, he became part of the wild environment and realized what his mistake was. Jimmy says of himself, “…Snowman must serve as a reminder to these people, and not a pleasant one: he’s what they may have been once” (Atwood, 2004, p. 80). This quote should serve as a reflection of the change in Jimmy’s worldview as an individual who was still able to become human once, or at least followed this metaphysical path of evolution.
As a result, there is no way to determine precisely what it is that human beings are in terms of real life. In fact, environmental ethics is also highly dynamic, which means that its conceptual terminology differs according to the state of society; it should be remembered that ethics was primarily created by humans to explore the world. Dobson (1995) wrote that “deep-ecological thinking has become an extremely complex and often an affair…” pointing out the impossibility of unambiguous identifications (p. 231). The basic idea, however, remains intact: ethics postulates unconditional respect for all living beings, which means that each of them, be it a plant or an animal, deserves moral respect.
In part, the dynamism of environmental ethics is related to the development of technological thinking in the human community. The large-scale use of digitalization and genetic engineering raises a number of new questions about rethinking moral choices. Among these is the question of whether all living beings require unconditional respect or only naturally born individuals. Dobson (1995), speaking of biotechnology, writes that “biotechnology is the most extreme instance of the modern, anthropocentric desire that we be ‘masters and possessors of nature’” (p. 231). In contrast to natural mechanisms of hybridization, biotechnology creates artificial life endowed with genes alien to the species; it solves humanity’s applied problems. Once again, however, one cannot be unequivocal in judging exactly what such science is for environmental ethics.
On the one hand, biotechnology alters the natural cycles of ecosystems and generates chimeras, the likes of which are shown in Atwood’s novel. On the other hand, the use of genetic modifications can help nature defend itself against pathogens and predators and provide improved resources for a more comfortable life. This ambivalence generates even more debate about the role of biotechnology in environmental ethics. Atwood wrote of biotechnology: “we can give people hope. Hope isn’t ripping off…” (Atwood, 2004, p. 40). This quote perfectly captures the critical purpose of biotechnology, which is to help humanity, not nature. This creates a problem for viewing this science as eco-friendly since it is indeed primarily anthropocentric. Meyer argues intelligently about this when he writes that “we might be better off looking to standards of a natural right to defend the system — if, in fact, it can be defended…” (Meyer, 2000, p. 161). It is therefore correct to conclude that biotechnology solves humanity’s problems and can indeed respond to a number of serious challenges, whether famine or drought. However, from the position of environmental ethics, they are not acceptable because they violate the naturalness of ecosystems.
In the concluding section, it is worth looking at Crake’s actions to consider them from an ambiguous perspective. In fact, Crake creates new life, and his actions seem to be aimed at caring for nature. An important quote from the novel reports that Crake “thought of the pigoons as creatures much like himself. Neither he nor they had a lot of say in what was going on” (Atwood, 2004, p. 71). This thought suggests to the reader the virtuousness of Crake’s intentions — a man did not look to introduce alien, evil creatures into nature or generate unnatural disaster. His ultimate goal was a biocentric concern for the environment as a world that requires attention and sensitivity in connection with human development.
In addition, Crake was strongly opposed to everything that was artificial. The most obvious example is the viral pandemic launched by the character, which destroyed humanity. This gesture proves Crake’s hostility toward his fellow human beings, as the protagonist’s motivation is far greater than his desire to care for humanity. The end, in Crake’s case, clearly justifies the means. Of human culture and tradition, Crake wrote that they are insignificant aspects of human development, while God “is a cluster of neurons” (Atwood, 2004, p. 120). In other words, a man’s biocentric intentions are easy to justify, and that is why he should be seen as a positive character in the novel whose intentions and goals did not correspond to the conventional human ones because they were more global.
Crake, on the other hand, was highly bloodthirsty and cruel to people and all the creatures that had been created. Crake should be described as a rational but cold-blooded killer who did not hesitate to kill humanity for his own vision of what wilderness should be. This begs the legitimate question of whether a man should really be seen as biocentric. Abram wrote that “… our bodies have formed themselves in delicate reciprocity with the… animate earth. To shut ourselves off… is to rob our own senses of their integrity… We are human only in contact, and conviviality, with what is not human…” (Abram, 1999, p. 154). From this perspective, it is clear that Crake’s actions are not permissible because he did not go down the path of true biocentrism, human and wildlife living in cooperation, but radically addressing the problem of that cooperation. This argument allows us to view Crake as a sociopath who sought to comfort his motivation and become the creator of a new world. Jimmy, in this sense, became the atonement for Crake, as he himself killed the genocidal man and took the sin for it.
References
Atwood, M. (2004). Oryx and Crake: A novel. Anchor.
Abram, D. (1999). A more-than-human world. In S. J. Armstrong & R. G. Botzler (Eds.), Environmental Ethics (pp. 148-155). McGraw Higher Education.
Dobson, A. (1995). Biocentrism and genetic engineering. Environmental Values, 4(3), 227-239.
Meyer, J. M. (2000). Rights to life? On nature, property and biotechnology. Journal of Political Philosophy, 8(2), 154-175.