Premium Essay

Ecotopia: Callenbach's Ideas of the War Games

In:

Submitted By nem0929
Words 738
Pages 3
Nicole Myhre
Callenbach.2 Question #2 A

Reader Response I think Callenbach’s ideas of integrating sex and aggression is interesting. The whole idea of the war games is kind of interesting I think. It makes sense and it doesn’t. The Ecotopians hold these games to so that men can get rid of their aggressions. The Ecotopians believe that men are having these biological desires to be aggressive. The war games are so that men can let these aggressions out. Some men die in the War Games. It kind of reminds me of the Hunger Games except it is just men. The Ecotopians also believe that if these aggressions that men have deep down aren’t able to be let out they will result in things such as war. For that reason, the Ecotopians believe they should take the risk of the War Games, so that they won’t have to deal with an outbreak of war. What doesn’t make sense is that some men die in the War Games, so isn’t that kind of the same idea as war anyways? The book basically portrays women as sluts and political and they portray men as fighting murderers. The idea is supposed to be equality and at the same time this book portrays it as inequality in so many ways. I don’t really think that the War Games make Ecotopia more civilized. I don’t really think war and killing people really has anything to do with being civilized. I think it relates to how the real world is, but I don’t think that in a so-called “perfect world” people would be killing each other. If you were to look up what civilized means in the dictionary it has part of the definition that say polite, well-bred, and refined. It also says easy to manage or control, organized, or ordered. The idea of the War-Games do not seem to fit any of those adjectives that were listed. Men are killing other men and that does not seem to me like it fits the idea of organized and order or even having control. It

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Social

...Where Is Utopia in the Brain? DanieL s. Levine Introduction The designer of utopian societies, whether fictional or real, often confronts the limits of what is possible for members of our species. But how severe or flexible are those limits? The explosive growth of behavioral neurobiology and experimental psychology in the last decade has produced many results on the biological bases of social interactions. This growth suggests that we can now look to science for some partial answers to the question of limits. Until recently, the social sciences and the biological sciences have mainly developed separate and disconnected accounts of human behavior. In the “nature/nurture controversy,” for example, anthropology has tended to emphasize cultural influences on human nature whereas behavioral biology has tended to emphasize genetic influences. The journalist Matthew Ridley (Nature via Nurture) provides an accessible account of the intellectual history and rhetoric of these two fields. Yet an increasing number of scholars in both areas are now realizing that behavioral biology and anthropology are studying the same human phenomena from different viewpoints. This overlap means there should be an underlying reality that is consistent across the different disciplines regardless of any disagreements in terminology. The behavioral biologist Edward O. Wilson calls this type of interdisciplinary commonality consilience, a term coined earlier by the nineteenth-century philosopher William Whewell...

Words: 9281 - Pages: 38