Friday, December 12, 2014

Final Project

Irene Magdon
Seminar in Composition
Dr. Adam Johns
Final Project
December 12, 2014

Peace through Understanding
            It is an all too often occurrence in our world’s history that foreign cultures and peoples are chastised by what is deemed normal and socially excepted. Ignorance to the acceptance of difference frequently results in violence and many times, war. We have seen such ignorance and judgment targeted towards Native Americans in the early settlement of North America and towards the treatment of African Americans through the cruel means of slavery. Currently we see the media and government damning the actions of Palestinian suicide-bombers but they have failed to try and understand what made these people so desperate. Cultural gets ignored by those who think that their way is the only right and just way. Peace is only found by those who take time to understand new things; who set aside their idea of normal and right to see other reasonings. This is the outlook that is developed through the study of cultural anthropology. Ironically, in Lilith’s Brood, Lilith was an anthropologist. It is my belief that Lilith’s study of anthropology made her conducive to her peaceful approach of the Oankai which led to them favoring her. Lilith’s disposition is also shown in her children Akin and Jodahs. These characters exemplify this willingness to learn before judging often leads to peaceful understandings rather than needless conflict. I believe that if everyone possessed in them this willingness to understand, there would be far less conflict and unrest in our world.
            To grasp these ideas fully you must first look at the fundamentals of cultural anthropology. As an anthropology textbook defines it, to study cultural anthropology is to “strive to look beyond the world of everyday experiences to discover the patterns and meanings that lie behind that world,” (Robbins, 2). As this text explains, we often participate in ethnocentrism or “the idea that our beliefs and behaviors are right and true, whereas those of other peoples are wrong and misguided,” (Robbins, 8). By taking an anthropological view you must abandon much of that ethnocentrism and open yourself to understanding. You cannot just look at a person’s actions, but at the cultural factors that lead to those actions.
As hard as it may be, one cannot just look at the death and destruction caused by Palestinian suicide bombers as the media and government often prompt us to. Instead you must look at what caused these people to take such drastic action against innocent lives which they view as martyrdom. The media and government fail to mention the Palestinian connection to their land. This is an almost spiritual connection that was broken by the Israeli occupation that forced Palestinians into concentrated clusters. Nasser Abufarha takes an anthropological view of this in his book The Making of a Human Bomb: An Ethnography of Palestinian Resistance. He concludes that the systematic separation of Israelis and Palestinians and fuels the tension between the two and, in the minds of the Palestinians, legitimizes the destructive actions. Yet measures are not taken to aid the Palestinians because people fail to look into these other factors. The Israelis are seen as the victims and the Palestinians are treated as lesser peoples. (Abufarha; 4, 238)
            Lilith displays Abufarha’s way of understanding in her actions of the Oankali. When she met her first Oankali she did not react violently as many others did. In fact, Lilith was able to be comfortable with Jdahya faster than other humans. When talking to Paul Titus about her life back on Earth, she mentions her study of anthropology. She even makes the remark, “I suppose I could think of this as fieldwork,” (Burlter, 87). Lilith eventually becomes part of an Oankali family and sets to her job to Awaken and teach other humans how to survive on the post-apocalyptic Earth and even allows of genetic alterations in her body to be made. This full integration into her subjects’ culture that only intensifies throughout the trilogy has strong parallels to that of anthropologist Kenneth Good who studied the Yanomami.
            Good was participating in fieldwork in the Venezuelan Amazon by studying a tribe of Yanomami. An immersive study that was supposed to last only fifteen months, ended up becoming a life-altering experience that included his marriage to a member of the tribe. Anthropologist and other groups had classified the Yanomami as the “fierce people.” Their culture included a normalcy of rape and premarital sex along with the betrothal of young children. Despite this, Good did not create preconceived ideas of these people or judge them; nor did he try to change their ways. Instead, he worked to understand them.
Deep down, all I really did want was to find some way to make a living and to get back into the jungle. Not only to study the Indian – I already had enough data for three books – but to live with them. More especially, to live with Yarima. That was what I had come to, after all these years of struggling to fit into the Yanomami world, to speak their language fluently, to grasp their way of life from the inside. My original purpose – to observe and analyze this people as an anthropological researcher – had slowly merged with something far more personal. (Good, 103-104)
As Lilith ended up mothering children conceived by the Oankali, Good ended up fathering two children with his Yanomami wife, Yarima. It is in this way that Lilith echoes the fictional side of very really possibilities.
            The adverse of these two scenarios are prevalent is our history. In colonial times, Native Americans were driven out of their sacred lands and often murdered. They were seen as uncivilized savages due to the Europeans’ ethnocentrism. People did not try to understand their way of life. Instead they reaped genocide or attempted to force their Christian beliefs on them. This dispute over land and ideology caused bloody conflicts that almost always ended in tragedy for the Native populace. Had the settlers been more open to these people and less greed-driven, I believe that our history would have much less bloodshed.
            Lilith is exceptionally different in her beliefs. This becomes prominently noted as she begins to Awaken the other humans in the first book of the trilogy. She is attacked several times and she is made to look like a traitor to the humans because of her cooperation with the Oankali. Despite her best efforts to persuade the other humans that she was acting in their best interest, she develops the reputation equivalent to that of Satan. Fear and ignorance overpower the other humans, Lilith’s partner is murdered and the project fails.
            Lilith is not the only character to embody this anthropological understanding. Her part-Oankali son, Akin, also demonstrates great eagerness to understand those that are different. For him is humans who chose not to live the safer Oankali-based lifestyle. These “resisters” fascinate him despite their potential danger. While it is in Akin’s genes to be naturally curious of new and different things so that he may learn and share his findings with the Oankali at large, he possesses a genuine concern for these people. Since Lilith was taught that human nature is conducive to conflict, she gives Akin heartfelt advice; “When you feel a conflict, try to go the Oankali way. Embrace difference,” (Butler, 329). Akin connects with the humans and feels sympathy towards them. He understands that their only desire (to have children) cannot be granted to them because of the Oankali’s belief of a flawed human genome. As we become more familiar with Akin we see how his qualities shared with his mother are almost beyond the abilities of the superior Oankali. While they see mostly practicality, he sees the emotional and psychological consequence that plagues the resisters. By having longer lives, infertility, and almost no meaningful purpose; the resisters often resort to extremes such as kidnapping, violence, and suicide.
            The Oankali are not unreasonable beings. Earth was destroyed and they saved what they could and worked with the human species to assist the Oankali’s survival. No human should have survived but, when they were ungrateful for their situation which allowed them life, the humans were given an alternative option to live on Earth free of the Oankali. Infertility was no a punishment but, instead a means to prevent a reoccurrence of the disaster that almost killed all of mankind. The Oankalis’ perception of humans is not a biased judgment. It is a perception based on genetic evidence supported by the history and destruction of Earth; facts.
            On page 426 of Lilith’s Brood, Dichaan tells Nikanj that Akin’s infatuation with humans will lead him to try and save what’s left of them from their dying out. What they don’t know is how he would be able to do such a thing. Once he matures, they believe, he won’t be as interested in the humans and will focus more on the other sexes. But, upon his maturity, he finds his life purpose in working with the resisters to give them an alternate to living infertility on Earth or mating with the Oankali. Although Akin’s genetic makeup should make him see the logic and practicality within the Oankali’s decisions/views, he lived among the resisters and understood their grievances. This is the same anthropological approach that Lilith and Kenneth Good used in their situations.
            The Oankali can be viewed as beings of peace and understanding. The see the genetic makeup of humans as conducive to violence. However, humans living in Phoenix reject the idea of trading or using firearms because of their inevitable cause of bodily harm when conflict breaks out among the people. Guns are only brought into Phoenix when they are required to defend themselves against other villages. It is Akin’s openness to this different culture that leads to the ultimate understanding of the people and the development of the Mars colonial. He showed the rest of the Oankali, even though he was not yet mature, the resisters’ side and was able to give the resisters another option to their existence.
            Rape is a prominent topic to both the resisters of the Oankali and the Yanomami tribes. It is in the reactions of the act that is significant. With the resisters so eager to reproduce, women are often kidnaped, raped, and traded among other resister villages. When the Oankali are witnesses to these acts they intervene to protect the women. When Kenneth Good witnessed the very common act among the Yanomami, he did not intervene but deeply regretted it afterwards. Before leaving once, Good threatened the tribe to not touch Yarima.
Until Good provided the anthropological world with his story, the Yanomami were viewed as the “fierce people” for their brutal actions. Although Good’s approaches of intervention are not always supported for anthropological research, it is also a part of anthropology to know what can and cannot be accepted. If the brutal acts of different cultures were always acceptable as a cultural ideal then Hitler and the Nazi party’s actions would have been excusable. Being a detached observer, as anthropology usually suggests for research, is not always ideal to the culture. The Oankali protect the humans from destructive acts just as Good became more intervening with the Yanomami.
Parallels in the fictional world of the Oankali and the real world of the Yanomami are always prevalent and lead to the validity of Butler’s work. Butler’s work can be viewed as a means to promote peace and understanding to her readers by the showing them the destructive effects of our current actions and aggression towards each other. If we do not approach each other with the same willingness to learn and protect one another as Good and the Oankali do, we can only imagine what outcome we may face. The connection between the fictional and nonfictional works provide us with the validity of Butler’s ideas behind her warning.
            Lilith had another child who exemplified her approach of peace. Jodahs is not very similar to its brother, Akin, at first. Early in “Imago,” Jodahs views the Mars colony as a cruel set up for another human disaster. He sees giving the option of Mars as almost a false hope for humans to continue their lives with fertility. Jodahs even tries to convince a human woman to join with the Oankali instead of going to Mars on pages 530 and 531. He tells the women and her partner that, because humans are hierarchical and intelligent, their new world would be destroyed as before because of their urge to dominant it.
            As Jodahs begins to mature and is conflicted with his potential gender, it begins to escape into the forest to be alone. When it meets and heals Jesusa and Tomás, Jodahs becomes infatuated with the fertile humans and is appalled by their physical afflictions. As it becomes closer and closer to the humans it sees how desperate they are to keep their species alive. They don’t want to be bred into a species of alien hybrids; they would much rather suffer from the genetic corruption caused by inbreeding. It begins to see why the Mars colony was created and begins to advocate the option without pushing a preference. While the Oankali side of Jodahs tells it that mating with the aliens is their best logical decision, the human side shows it the importance of carrying on the human species is.
            Jodahs also shows us how it does not discriminate. It heals his guards while it is in captivity and ends up curing a large amount of the resisters who are disgusted by its kind. By its peaceful approach of the people and its eagerness to help them, they begin to have a more peaceful and calm demeanor towards it. Jodahs tells the people, “My people are coming here, nut they won’t kill. They didn’t kill your elders. They plucked them out of the ashes of their war, healed them, mated with those who were willing, and let the others go. If my people were killers, you wouldn’t be here,” (Butler, 730). This is yet another lesson told by Butler of the positive outcomes that come with calm and reasoned approaches of others even when they are different in beliefs and physical appearance.
            It is said that the scent of the Oankali can make one relaxed and less inclined to violence as they are. I believe that this is merely a symbol for their calm and logical approaches being adopted by those they interact with. This is the extraterrestrial version of the Golden Rule. If you treat others the way you want to be treated, they will treat you as you want to be treated. Jesusa did not like the Oankali but she eventually risks her life to save Aaor. By the end of “Imago” the resisters are cooperating with the Oankali and willing to stop their inbreeding to partake in one of the alternative options presented by the Oankali. Had a more aggressive approach been taken, they would probably have been causalities on both sides.
            One may say that Lilith was too inexperienced of an anthropologist for her actions to have anything to do with her studies. This may be true to an extent. Perhaps her actions have nothing to do with anthropology. This however, has no effect of the overall message. Even if Lilith is inexperienced in the field, she still had knowledge of her subject ad was able to put it into practice with the Oankali. If Lilith and her children are naturally open to learn from others than we should be as well.
            One may also say that all these links and symbols are probably just coincidence and that I’m reading too much between the lines. How could aliens mating with humans after an apocalypse serve as any kind of warning to the readers? I do not think that Octavia Butler would write a trilogy with no message behind it especially considering her background in writing about social issues such as race and power as mentioned at the end of “Imago.” There must be some type of lesson that is to be learned from this reading. What would it be if it isn’t the promotion of peace and understanding? These lessons can be put into effect throughout the world and in our personal interactions. Between understanding the conflict in Israel and Palestine and approach others with the intention of resolving issues instead of fueling conflict, we can use Lilith’s Brood as our guide.
            The world is made up of so many different cultures that it is inevitable to have disagreements between them. But we must not be so conceited to believe that our ways are the only right ways. We have to be sensitive to one another and not so inclined to change people, who are not harming anyone, to practice our ways. Butler shows us, just as Good did, to know when to intervene and when to understand difference.
            While the Oankali may be right in believing that humans are a flawed species, they are also right in believing that we are intelligent. We are intelligent enough to know when we are wrong. Hindsight may be 20/20 but if we just sit down to think about our actions towards one another we may see the potential mistakes before we make them. Kenneth Good shows us how to adapt to different ways and be open to new ideas without always voicing your opposing opinions. Lessons are more likely to be learned when your mouth is closed and ears are open. Perhaps if Butler’s predicted outcome for Earth were to happen to our aggression and misunderstandings, we won’t be as fortunate as Lilith to have aliens save us.




Works cited:
Abufarha, Nasser. The Making of a Human Bomb: An Ethnography of Palestinian
Resistance. Duke University Press: 2009. Print.

Butler, Octavia. Lilith’s Brood. New York; Warner Books, 2000. Print

Good, Kenneth. Into the Heart. New York: Longman Publishers, 1996. Print.

Robbins, Richards H. Cultural Anthropology: A Problem-Based Approach. Wadsworth, 2006.

Print.

final paper

Ruthie Cohen
Professor Johns
Seminar in Composition
15 October 2014

The Human Genome Project: A Step in the Right Direction


Throughout the first few chapters of Lewontin’s Biology as Ideology, he is a harsh critic of modern science, arguing that specifically the Human Genome Project offers false hope for those affected by cancer and similar research is corrupt with poor intentions. Validly pointing out some of the major flaws in modern scientific research practices, especially the logic involved in the Human Genome Project, Lewontin’s criticism of modern science—discernable from that of an “anti-science” advocate—offers a bleak, pessimistic, and impractical approach to a constantly progressing society. If scientific possibilities are not explored in an effort to boycott exploitation and avoid failure, the functionalities of the institutions that might, one day, cure cancer have no fighting chance.
Although Lewontin is correct in his depiction of modern science as a sometimes selfish and corrupt venture, the possible outcomes of this research deem such a claim insignificant. He notes, “and I sometimes suspect that the claimed significance of the genome sequencing project for human health is an elaborate cover story for an interest in the hermeneutics of biological scripture.” Accusing scientists and doctors alike of using endless funding in order to simply appease curiosity despite whether a cure is actually attainable, Lewontin suggests that the Human Genome Project is not directly benefitting those it is supposed to serve. What Lewontin neglects to address, however, is the overwhelming evidence of progress and the promise of success. According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, results of the Human Genome Project are already aiding doctors in the ongoing battle against cancer. For example, specific knowledge gained from research has led to a more accurate diagnosis of certain cancers, paving the way for more effective treatments. In particular, patients carrying a mutation with metastatic melanoma have responded well to a treatment option that only works for that mutation. In another case, a set of twins in California suffering from “life-threatening neuromuscular symptoms” benefitted from research conducted at the Human Genome Sequencing Center at the Baylor College of Medicine. Upon discovery of a rare mutation present in the twins’ sepiapterin reductase gene, one that would not have been discovered if not for intensive genetic research, doctors were able to effectively treat and save the lives of these children. Lewontin’s caution of “the failure to turn knowledge into therapeutic power” (69), while it may be compelling in a general aspect, does not acknowledge albeit small successes, yet ultimately ones that matter and may lead to larger ones.
            Lewontin presses, “Why, then, do so many powerful, famous, successful, and extremely intelligent scientists want to sequence the human genome?” (Lewontin 51). The answer, Lewontin believes, is in the promises of this work. Although not quite there yet, scientists are seeing through to the end of the tunnel—“Nobel prizes…honorary degrees…important professorships…huge laboratory facilities” (Lewontin 51). Additionally, at the conclusion of “Causes and Their Effects,” Lewontin claims, “what appears to us in the mystical guise of pure science and objective knowledge about nature turns out, underneath, to be political, economic, and social ideology.” (Lewontin 57). Lewontin’s argument suggests that such scientists are nothing but false, self-made martyrs seeking out the possible gains of a cure to cancer only to further their own careers. However, evil in the form of corruption and ill intentions exists in all aspects of life; an attempt to avoid such evil demonstrates ignorance and naivety. Rather, a hard look at the past successes and future rewards of continuing with research like the Human Genome Project puts the negatives in perspective. Recognized specifically by Lewontin, James Watson’s “lobbying effort…aimed at capturing very large amounts of public funds and directing the flow of those funds into an immense cooperative research program” (60) is certainly worthwhile.
James D. Watson’s article The Human Genome Project: Past, Present and Future provides the optimistic yet realistic future outcomes of genetic research.  As is needed to justify the amount of money, time, and effort put into the Human Genome Project, an exploration of past breakthroughs offers hope for future ambitions. The founding of the double helical structure of DNA in 1953, a seemingly “undreamable scientific objective,” gave scientists the ability to isolate bacterial genes, allowing for later discoveries in the late twentieth century. Although this research has only involved the sequencing of several bacteria, and much more time would be put into sequencing the human genome, results will “not only help us understand how we function as healthy human beings, but will also explain, at the chemical level, the role of genetic factors in a multitude of diseases, such as cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and schizophrenia, that diminish the individual lives of so many millions of people.” Often mental illnesses such as schizophrenia become heavy burdens on society, the prevalence of which increases crime rate, expenses for institutions, and homelessness. While costly, research of the human genome is beneficial not only for inflicted patients, but for society as a whole.
            Similar to Lewontin, Watson acknowledges the setbacks of a project such as the Human Genome Project. These are issues not ignored by Watson, but rather taken into account by himself and other competent scientists measuring the pros as they outnumber the cons. Watson discusses an NRC (National Resource Council) meeting in which the launching of the Human Genome Project was debated. Those opposed expressed “fear that the project would be divorced from the main currents of biological research.” Additionally, there were “strong reservations about any project in which the ultimate control of resources lay in the hands of administrators, as opposed to control by the scientific community itself.” This concern is reminiscent of Lewontin’s argument that certain information may not be used with the best interests of those the project benefits in mind. This is yet another example of Lewontin too heavily criticizing the evils inherent in many systems and institutions.
Another important aspect of implementing such research is the ethical dilemma it poses, an issue briefly touched upon by Lewontin. The groundbreaking knowledge of genetics coming out of the Human Genome Project could cause havoc if released to the public. If differences in genetics are found among, say, different races, ethnicities, sexual orientations, etc. it could be the basis of genetic discrimination. If taken advantage of, such information could be detrimental to society. In an article titled Ethics, Business and the Human Genome Project, Tim Symanietz expands on Lewontin’s worry regarding ethics and the Human Genome Project. With more information available regarding genetics, people will one day be able to learn that they will have a certain disease but may not be able to do anything about it. This creates even more problems, such as whether the doctor should be required to inform the patient of red flags or whether this decision should be left up to the patient. Even if the ailment is preventable, an individual may lead a very different life knowing a possibly grim future awaits. Symanietz lists “other ethical concerns” including “human cloning, gene modification for treatment of diseases and manipulation of genes to produce superior traits.” On the other hand, if scientists who have the capability and the means to possibly cure cancer do not follow through, is this an even worse ethic violation? Personally, I believe that the latter. The Human Genome Project, underneath the robotic aspects of science, becomes an issue of personal opinion. Are these lives worth saving at any cost? Advocates of the Human Genome Project may take into account the criticisms of Lewontin, yet are convinced that indeed lives are priceless and worthy of any endeavor.
Finally, Lewontin questions the time and money put into the Human Genome Project, an effort that “might take thirty years and occupy tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars” (48-49). This major setback of the project, seemingly deeming it a failed business venture, is put in perspective by economic benefits. So far, the project has generated “800 billion dollars and has also employed just under 4 million people in such a short period of time,” not to mention the money made from new drugs and methods of treatment aiding newly diagnosed patients.
            Lewontin’s Ideology as Biology: The Doctrine of DNA is built on the largely accepted theory that our biology is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. Lewontin’s less vehement points about the Human Genome Project, including misguided funding, inaccurate scientific claims, among other reasons, are ultimately in support of a larger argument. Criticizing those in favor of genetic determinism—the belief that genes and genes alone are responsible for one’s composition—Lewontin argues that the Human Genome Project does not account for environmental factors and therefore is not effective in finding a cure for cancer.  Recognizing the significance genetics have in the cause and treatment of cancer, Lewontin puts it simply: “we get cancer because our genes are not doing their business,” (41) however insisting that more care should be taken to include “environmental insult theories of the causes of cancer” (41). These ideas are explored in depth in the chapter Causes and Their Effects, in which Lewontin discusses the causes and effects of our surroundings on our health and the consequences of ignoring them. It is true that in the modern sense, tragedies such as “alcoholism, criminality, drug addiction, and mental disorders” (46) are thrust under the genetic umbrella. Society blames genes for a variety of issues that have strong environmental influences. Perhaps the Human Genome Project, described by Lewontin as “the current manifestation of that belief in the importance of our inheritance in determining health and disease,” (46) could use a supplemental investigation of environmental factors that may lead to cancer or rather a method that incorporates both. While Lewontin is no doubt a harsh critic of modern science, particularly the Human Genome Project, its discontinuation is not necessarily in support of the arguments made in Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA or in the best interests of those 1,665,540 individuals diagnosed with cancer in 2014 and the many more to come.
            It is apparent that Lewontin is not against the Human Genome Project for the sake of cancer research nor for the sake of modern scientific research at all, rather he is opposed to the corrupt nature of its administrative forces and the misunderstandings among glorification of the project. Therefore, instead of dismissing important genetic research for it’s subliminal support of genetic determinism, methods that address the environmental influences of cancer as a third perspective is worth considering. Of course, it is now common knowledge that smoking cigarettes often leads to lung cancer and careless exposure to radiation from sunlight can cause skin cancer such as melanoma; harmful toxins like asbestos and lead paint are also generally known to cause health problems, many of which lead to cancer. As is the case with most criticisms, Lewontin points out many problems with The Human Genome Project, which is no spectacle given the inherent uncertainty and experimentation that goes hand in had with breakthrough scientific research. Only some kind of representation of genetic factors in addition to the continuation of research like the Human Genome Project will appease critics like Lewontin while minimizing the public’s risk of cancer. If the environmental impacts on cancer as well as genetics are not addressed, the two forces can not both be accounted for. As I have expressed in my defense of the Human Genome Project, I believe that philosophically and ethically—and to a certain degree intellectually—it is necessary to support such research. In order to keep this project in full swing, and in consideration of Lewontin’s claims, I agree some representation of environmental factors needs to be accounted for.
            Lewontin and other critics of the Human Genome Project have a point—perhaps efforts made by the project have not been entirely successful and pose many ethical and intellectual problems. Morally, there remain issues regarding privacy and genetic discrimination, however, the moral implications of delaying a process with potential that we are capable of starting now are much more drastic. The research involved in the Human Genome Project represents a step in the right direction, a trial-and-error process that may very well end in error. Still, there remains a small glimmer of hope in the form of small successes that give scientists a reason to think that this is a cause worth pursuing.
           

Works Cited

Collins, Francis S., MD, PhD, and Victor A. McKusick, MD. "Implications of the Human Genome Project for Medical Science." JAMA Network. The Journal of the American Medical Association, n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2014.

"Human Genome Project Pros and Cons - HRF." HRF. Healthresearchfunding.org, 17 Feb. 2014. Web. 12 Dec. 2014.

Lewontin, R.C. Biology as Ideology. New York: HarperCollins Publishers; 1991. Print.

Symanietz, Tim. "Ethics, Business and the Human Genome Project." Ethics, Business and the Human Genome Project. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2014.




Thursday, December 11, 2014

Final Project

Ryan Cooley
December 11, 2014
Seminar in Composition
Adam Johns
Urbanization: Not the Bad Guy, but the Key to our Future

The world is urbanizing rapidly, with cities today concentrating more than half the world’s population. While it is widely accepted that development and urbanization go hand in hand, the expansion of cities gives rise to both opportunities and challenges, with countries urbanizing in quite different ways. Urbanization has occurred at different times and different paces, and some countries have concentrated the urban populations in few mega cities, while others have spread the urban populations across many smaller towns. Perhaps the most interesting question that has come with increased urbanization is its effect on education and poverty. In fact, today most do not know about the relationship between the nature of the urbanization process and reduction in poverty. The majority of people opposed to this argument and even kids in school are taught to associate urbanized life with negatives like pollution and the poor. However, I hope to show the full potential of urbanization and the direction in which the nations in our world are going. For in the near future the world will likely encounter a great need for technology and energy that can only be achieved through more urbanization. Thus, while adversaries argue that there are many negatives to living in an urban environment, in this essay I hope to show the reader that increased urbanization has many positive impacts: including a reduction in poverty, increased environmental benefits, and stronger education for those who live in urban communities. And instead, it is through increased urbanization that we as a race can hope to one day eliminate these problems.
              It is no secret that countries love their large cities because they make money and the larger the attraction the more money a country reels in. Governments see their cities like business’ see their products, let me use the movie industry to illustrate this. A production studio gets pitched thousands of scripts but only produces a handful of theatrical films per year. While reading over scripts, executives of a studio meet and discuss a couple things: is it a good script with potential and how do they think audiences will respond. For every movie is greenlit, the studio wants to study do people care about this movie, basically how large is the audience. If the executives decide that the movie will produce good profit, the movie is made, simple as that. The same goes for most all industries, if the product is has a high demand and will make a lot of money, it is made. The same goes with a country and their attractions like a city. Urbanized communities make money and assist in economic growth. This is why it seems as if so much money is thrown at places like New York City and Washington D.C., tourists are greatly attracted to them.
                As a result of all this, Jude Clemente of Forbes Magazine found “movement into urban areas is occurring on a staggering scale, over 70 million people a year” (Clemente). His research continues to point out that over fifty-three percent of the world is now urbanized and by 2050 the percentage is projected to reach seventy percent along with the growth from twenty-four to one hundred “megacities” (population of ten million). In turn, urbanization will bring new jobs and higher productivity because of its positive externalities and economies of scale (long run advantages), dimming the population of the world living in poverty. A current example, “Asian urban productivity is more than 5.5 times that of rural areas” (Clemente), explaining why the most developed nations are “around 80% urbanized, versus less than 30% for the least developed [nations]” (Clemente). If cities were the main cause of poverty, none of these facts would exist for government and heavy investors would not put their money into a failing project.
              In a twenty year case study (1991-2010) performed by Luc Christiaensen, Joachim De Weerdt, and Yasuyuki Todo of the World Bank, “Urbanization and Poverty Reduction –The Role of Rural Diversification and Secondary Towns,” 3,300 people living in rural Kagera and Tanzania were analyzed as to their daily living. The study followed them as they exited poverty. Which, according to the study, they did by transitioning from agriculture into the rural nonfarm economy or secondary towns. The authors state their paper to be “a different view and seeks to shift the dialogue beyond the oft stale dichotomy between rural and urban development communities” (3, Christiaensen). Through this quote Christiaensen is drawing attention to the negative and incorrect view of the urbanization process. Furthermore, when analyzing their data over four decades (1970-2010) they noted increased urbanization and decreased poverty at a greater speed. Their results showed poverty among the individuals of Kagera and Tanzania almost halved (from 58 percent to 30 percent) and almost half of the poverty decline could be attributed to “rural diversification and migration to small towns (i.e. the transition out of agriculture into the middle).” (23, Christiaensen). Furthermore, the study found that intriguingly “only 1 in 7 of the people who exited poverty, did so through migration to the larger cities.” What this may imply is the importance of rural diversification and the better ability of poor rural households to connect with the rural economy and smaller towns in exiting poverty, even though average consumption growth was substantially higher among those moving to the cities. In other words, this stat expands my argument to urban communities not necessarily narrowed to cities.
              On the other side of these claims are people who view these developments with more suspicion and see them as an omen of new sources of poverty. These people point to “congestion effects hindering growth and the negative externalities from geographically concentrated poverty (such as violence) as well as the irreversibility of urban migration” (3, Christiaensen). This is the explanation for what I pointed out in my introduction where we are taught to associate the poor with cities because when we visit and study large cities it comes to fruition that a larger share of the poverty stricken population appear to be living in urban areas even though my cited studies show that poverty has come down substantially.  While I will address the geographical and environmental effects later in this essay, the ‘congestion effects’ are a side effect of the nature of urbanization unfortunately because where there is jobs, there is an over saturation of people. These counter arguments are short sighted because if you sit back and think about the big picture urban communities “reduce the area that humans can impact onto the environment,” (Clemente) thereby indirectly protecting nature elsewhere.
              While it seems as if the deeper you travel into an urban community, the more blight stricken areas you see, however this is not always the case. For example, in Pittsburgh: the suburbs are very nice and attractive to families then one enters Oakland which has strong culture and of course a strong college vibe then moving into the city of Pittsburgh, one will experience a quality city with personality. “Cities may concentrate poverty, but they also represent the best hope of escaping it. Although cities embody the environmental damage, namely, increasing emissions due to transportation, energy consumption and other factors, policymakers and experts increasingly recognize the potential value of cities to long-term sustainability. It could be that these potential benefits of urbanization outweigh the disadvantages.”(18, Zarzoso).  At each deeper level the number of poorer people seems to grow but that’s simply a generalization, “Urbanization is the pathway to eradicating global poverty…to that end, everyone deserves the quality of life enjoyed by the urbanized West.” (Clemente). Together these case study and article results “call attention to the spatial allocation and orientation of infrastructure and policies in steering the world’s ongoing urbanization and development.” (24, Christiaensen). Poverty is not a problem caused by urbanization but an advantage reduced by urbanization.
              The most common arguments against urbanization, often coming from voices of environmentalists, is how it hurts the environment and while I am not denying the existence of negative externalities resulting from the likes of construction and factories, the notion that the environment suffers from urbanization is short-sighted. In the chapter, “Resources and Rural Communities: Looking Ahead,” by Kathleen Segerson, she claims “industrialization and developments that lead to environmental externalities can often affect communities” (211, Frontiers). But, in a journal by David Dodman, “Blaming cities for climate change? An analysis of urban greenhouse gas emissions inventories,” Dodman’s findings conclude that “analysis of emissions inventories shows that – in most cases – per capita emissions from cities are lower than the average for the countries in which they are located” (1, Dodman). While this does not directly shoot down Segerson’s claim, it does prove why I call the blame of urbanization on hurting the environment short-sighted because pointing the finger at a city without scientific proof is too simple of a solution. Dodman cites a study by United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UN–HABITAT) has stated that cities are “…responsible for 75 per cent of global energy consumption and 80 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions” but in response Dodman states “urban residents tend to generate a substantially smaller volume of greenhouse gas emissions than residents elsewhere in the same country” (2, Dodman). In other words, this means that the only reason urban areas output a disproportionate amount of pollution is simply because lots of the world still has very little access to resources. As Dodman said, those in similar situations actually expend less energy in urban environments than in non-urban ones. Furthermore, this is also because of environmental laws and taxations that cause large polluting companies to either move away from urban communities and cities or are (more commonly) required to reduce their admissions. Throughout his journal Dodman cites cities in all regions of the world, not just North America because pollution is not a national problem for America but a threat to our Earth that together we created during the Industrial Revolution and together the whole world is trying to correct our mistake.
              Getting into the more specifics, this paper is focusing on Greenhouse gas and CO2 emissions as the main form of pollution and combining with Dodman’s study, another study “The Impact of Urbanization on CO2 Emissions: Evidence from Developing Countries” by Inmaculada Martinez-Zarzoso, there is a lot proof that cities are not to blame anymore for CO2 pollution. What I have found to be very interesting from Zarzoso’s study is that developed countries are not the ones to place the blame on regarding air pollution, but instead developing countries. During the time period of 1975 to present day developing nations are responsible for over half of the world’s CO2 emissions. This pattern reminds me of the proverb ‘what comes up must go down’ because during the Industrial Revolution there was a major rise in greenhouse gases in countries that embraced industrialization (U.S., China, U.K., etc.) but because they have settled, their responsibility of air pollution has since decreased. So these new developing countries, of which Zarzoso does not name, are too going through their initial climb in the latter half of the twentieth century and within my lifetime it could be predicted that they settle and begin to decrease their emissions too. He concludes with, “this result has a very important policy implication: once urbanization reaches a certain level, the effect on emissions turn out to be negative, contributing to reduced environmental damage” (18, Zarzoso), what goes up does come down.  
              Returning to Clemente’s article, I only touched upon one half of his argument, the other half has to do with like it says in the title “Helping the Environment.” He primarily focuses on the China and India for they are coal-based and “in the midst of the largest urbanizations in world history, and it will continue for decades” (Clemente) continuing boldly by claiming that they will have a main role in the future of the world’s energy. With over eighty-percent of the world still living in “undeveloped nations” (Clemente), once they develop, in parallel to Zarzoso’s study, the energy demand on the horizon appears quite massive.
              According to Clemente’s Data, the last time this type of boom happened from 1955-2010: coal demand increased from 2 billion tonnes to 7.1 billion tonnes, oil demand grew from 10 million b/d to 88 million b/d, and natural gas use rose from 8 Tcf to 113 Tcf, cement use rose over 3 billion tonnes, steel consumption increased from 200 million tonnes to 1,400 million tonnes and finally nuclear power rose from nil to 2,500 TWh.
              Without great knowledge of environmental engineering hopefully you can realize that those numbers indicate quite the boom. Starting in 2013, China is going through a twelve year project to bring four hundred million people into cities bringing the country to seventy-seven percent urbanized. On the other side of the spectrum, India is easily the most energy-deprived nation on Earth, with “over 300 million people lacking access to electricity” (Clemente). Fortunately, urbanization will help lift India’s per capita annual electricity use of “just 700 kWh” (Clemente), a figure that is comparable to the U.S. in the 1920s. As a result, in context with the imminent next boom India’s urbanization will also bring huge amounts of coal for energy consumption for the world. Clemente conclude by stating “those who have stated their aspirations to achieve universal energy access must comprehend what it will take to reach that goal” because as a species we have what seems to be an innate drive to always raise the bar and overcome new challenges that further our success.
              Onto the final of my topics, educational benefits of urbanization which I believe to the most obvious results of urbanization. At the same time it might also be the most beneficial on a grand scale and according to “Sustainable Urbanization” by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organiaztion “the school is a unique institution where connections are made between world problems and local life.” In an article by Paul Romer of Urbanizationproject.org “Education complements Urbanization,” Romer’s research of underdeveloped nations like those in Latin America showed that there was nothing wrong with the school systems in the region but when he studied what the students were actually learning he found that schools in the region dramatically underperformed those in the rest of the world. Allowing Romer to hypothesize “the skills gap was so large that it could easily account for the region's chronically poor growth performance(Romer) proving a positive correlation between urbanization and higher education. This is because as I mentioned earlier, urbanization can have positive effect on economic growth thus more money gets flushed into an education system. Additionally, Romer cites a proverb of the book “The Chosen Few” and states “[these statistics] show that urbanization and literacy reinforce each other” (Romer). All in all of his article, urbanized or currently urbanizing countries can use education to reach their full potential whereas lesser developed nations like Brazil, weak education systems is their roadblock to catching up with the rest of the world.
              I would to bring attention to a quite famous article by Robert J. Havighurst called “Urbanization and Education in the United States” which proves correlation in our national rising education ever since we became an urban which was “in this sense until after the first World War” (3, Havighurst). He goes onto claim since urbanization is a process of bringing people together in towns and cities, this process has increased the average size of schools and decreased the number of school districts with small enrolments, this data gathered up until the 1970’s. His data shows that just over two-thirds of school children and teachers are located in a metropolitan and suburban areas because cities are basically a centralized place for intelligence. He then goes onto analyze school quality by economic class in the country and there is quite the obvious disadvantage for lower economic class in education but to sum up his argument. At any level there is still a higher form of education in cities and urban areas than is found in most countries around the world. Havighurst concludes with “The schools do not simply reflect the structure of the community of today. They also influence the structure of the community of tomorrow” (407, Havighurst) which highlights the not only the importance of urbanization but also its greatest contribution to our world.
The higher standard of living seems to be associated with urbanization providing people with “better food, education, housing and health care” (Clemente) and a solution to not only future energy problems and problems of all kind. Urban growth generates money that is flushed into the infrastructure of better public life. Further suggesting that growth promoting interventions that enable poor people to access growth and basic infrastructure services more directly (as through rural diversification and secondary town development) are also more likely to “lift more of them out of poverty, than when the benefits of growth have to trickle down from the metropolis” (24, Christiaensen). Urbanization continues to prove the “green” people wrong along with those who find a city to be the sanctuary for the poverty stricken. But most importantly, increasing urbanization improves education. Improving the minds of the next generation saves the generations after them and more generations to come.

Works Cited:

Wu, JunJie, Paul W. Barkley, and Bruce A. Weber. Frontiers in Resource and Rural Economics: Human-nature, Rural-urban Interdependencies. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 2008. Print.

Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, Friedrich Engels, and Ellen Meiksins. Wood. The Communist Manifesto. New York: Monthly Review, 1998. Print.

Dodman, David. "Blaming Cities for Climate Change? An Analysis of Urban Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories." (n.d.): n. pag. Sage Journal. 2009. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. <http://eau.sagepub.com/content/21/1/185.full.pdf html>.

MARTÍNEZ-ZARZOSO, INMACULADA. "The Impact of Urbanization on CO2 Emissions: Evidence from Developing Countries." Diss. CESIFO VENICE SUMMER INSTITUTE, 2008. Abstract. The Impact of Urbanization on CO2 Emissions: Evidence from Developing Countries. Repec, 2008. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. <https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_2377.html>.

Clemente, Jude. "Urbanization: Reducing Poverty and Helping the Environment." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 22 July 2014. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2014/07/22/urbanization-reducing-poverty-and-helping-the-environment/>.

"News." 2nd Urbanization and Poverty Reduction Research Conference. The World Bank, 12 Nov. 2014. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. <http://www.worldbank.org/en/events/2014/07/07/urbanization-and-poverty-reduction-research-conference>.

Christiaensen, Luc, Joachim De Weerdt, and Yasuyuki Todo. "Urbanization and Poverty Reduction The Role of Rural Diversification and Secondary Towns." Urbanization and Poverty Reduction (2013): n. pag.Wider.unu.edu. Apr. 2013. Web. 8 Dec. 2014. <http://www1.wider.unu.edu/inclusivegrowth/sites/default/files/IGA/Christiaensen_1.pdf>.

 

Havighurst, Robert J. "Urbanization and Education in the United States."International Review of Education 13.4 (1967): 393-409. Web. 11 Dec. 2014.

"Sustainable Urbanization." UNESCO. United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization, n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unesco.org%2Fnew%2Fen%2Feducation%2Fthemes%2Fleading-the-international-agenda%2Feducation-for-sustainable-development%2Fsustainable-urbanisation%2F>.

Romer, Paul. "Education Complements Urbanization." 

Urbanization Project. Urbanization Project, 19 June 2013. Web. 11 Dec. 2014. <http://urbanizationproject.org/blog/education-complements-urbanization#.VIoDaDHF83k>.




The End.

Samuel Li
Dr. Adam Johns
English Composition 0200
28 November 2014
Lilith’s Namesake
The tale of Lilith had a profound effect on literature, art, and the lens with which we view and interpret religion. In Abrahamic lore, she was the first wife of Adam, a demon and succubus, a symbol of sin. Yet artists and writers developed a fascination for Lilith, portraying her in steadily more tragic and sympathetic lights. Her story has made her a symbol of modern feminism, yet her nature is that of a demon. Traditionally, Lilith symbolizes evil and sin, yet as time goes on, we interpret her story in more positive lights; where before we saw disobedience, we now see independence. Where before she was hated and fear, now her story is admired.  Reinterpretation of the what we already know not only paints our previous views in new lights, but also challenges our original beliefs. This being so, it’s no surprise that the titular Lilith of Lilith’s Brood acts as the protagonist and hero of the story, as an allegory of the original Lilith’s tale. Her portrayal in the story makes a statement on the original tale and the values behind it. More specifically, with her novel, she constantly challenges the traditional perspective, reinterpreting evil into good, showing how mere association does not set morality in stone.
To begin, a disclaimer: Lilith, despite her cultural impact and widespread popularity, did not appear in the original Bible, at least not enough to have a story. At best, something can could be interpreted as Lilith appears in one or two lines, yet it makes no mention of her as Adam’s first wife, or as the temptress who has Eve eat the forbidden fruit. Originally, she was merely a Babylonian demon, who preyed on infants and pregnant mothers, and she remained that way for quite a while. However, the Old Testament mentions God creating a woman even before he created Eve from Adam’s rib: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (KJV, Gen. 1.27) Therefore, some people theorized that another woman must have existed before Eve, and so Lilith’s story was born. She did not get her own story until the apocryphal Alphabet of Ben Sira, an anonymous Jewish text that first establishes her tale, additions to the original texts. (Gaines)
It begins with Ben Sira’s account, when God creates Adam out of the earth, and decides to create another human from the earth: a female, Lilith. Contrast this with how Eve was said to be created from Adam’s rib: whereas there the female was derived from the male, here, the male and female were created side-by-side. Whereas Eve submitted, Lilith did not. This became a source of conflict, where “She said, 'I will not lie below,' and he said, 'I will not lie beneath you, but only on top. For you are fit only to be in the bottom position, while am to be in the superior one.' Lilith responded, 'We are equal to each other inasmuch as we were both created from the earth.'” (Anonymous) Their fights escalated to the point where Lilith pronounced God’s true name, a terrible sin, and left the Garden, flying away as a winged demon. God further punished her by killing a hundred of her children, the Lilim, each passing day should she not return to the Garden, and she retaliates  by killing babies. (Gaines) Her story only gets longer from here. In the Treatise on the Left Emanation, “...evil Samael and wicked Lilith are like a sexual pair who, by means of an intermediary, receive an evil and wicked emanation from one and emanate to the other.” (Ha-Kohen) God, fearing the onset of their demonic children, forbids them to procreate, and Lilith turns promiscuous in retaliation. More and more artists and writers added their interpretations and spins on her character. Some were sympathetic, like in Robert Browning’s “Adam, Lilith, and Eve”, where Lilith was the one who truly loved Adam. Others were not, where Lilith makes a deal with the devil to assume the shape of a serpent, to be the serpent who tempts Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. The important parts to take away from this, however, is that first, Lilith gets banished from Eden for defying God, representative of the ultimate authority. Second, she symbolizes promiscuity and fertility, and couples with demons, birthing even more demons, the Lilim. Third, while it is a tentative point, Lilith is a temptress, often associated with the serpent that convinced Eve to eat the fruit, resulting in their banishment.
So, who symbolizes who? As the main character, Lilith stands at the center of it all; who the others represent is mostly defined by their relationship with Lilith herself. But to begin, a fundamental question, who symbolizes God? In this case, it’s not a who, but a what. Seeing as how this story lacks any real characters on the level of a deity, God isn’t symbolized by any single character, but a concept. In the original tale, God is merely represents the authority Lilith defies. She refuses its values, defies its orders, and speaks its true name, causing it to banish her from Eden. However, she still makes a deal with God, promising not to kill any children that wear an amulet with her name on it, showing how she’s not completely free from its authority. (Gaines) Thus, in Lilith’s Brood, God is symbolized as the concept of humanity, as the sanctity of humanity is the ultimate authority for the humans in the novel. “Humanity” is what literally every human in the novel holds as sacred, even Lilith. This becomes even more apparent as the Lilith awakens more humans, where they start to turn against Oankali, fighting back in the name of preserving their humanity. When they discover Joseph to be modified, and no longer “pure human”, they kill him. They refer to Lilith and the Oankali, the “inhuman”, as “...you and your animals.” (Butler 227) In all their scenes, they value their humanity above all else, even their own survival. Even Lilith, the supposed betrayer of humanity, fears that their children “...won’t be human. That’s what matters. You can’t understand, but that is what matters.” (Butler 248) This ties in to Lilith’s deal with God. Even if Lilith from the myth betrays God, she is not free from its influence and authority. Similarly, even if Lilith from the novel “betrays” humanity, she is likewise not free from its influence, and still wishes to protect it. Seeing as how the humans view human purity as the ultimate “good” in this conflict, being the main idea to protect and obey, it stands to reason that the concept of humanity represents God, the ultimate purity and ultimate authority. On the contrary, the Oankali, as the threats to the idea of “humanity”, are the demons.
The difference, however, is that where the original myth portrays Lilith’s betrayal of humanity as negative, Butler’s portrays it as positive. Whereas Lilith’s original refusal to obey God was condemned, in the novel, it was the “right” choice. By positively portraying the novel’s Lilith’s actions in the novel, Butler makes a statement on the original myth, that the myth’s Lilith’s actions were right and justified, which is consistent on a feminist interpretation of the myth. As Lilith refuses to submit to Adam, insisting that they are equals, Lilith has become a symbol for modern Jewish feminists, to the point that one of the most prominent Jewish feminist magazines out there is named after her. Today, “Ignoring or explaining away Lilith’s unsavory traits, feminists have focused instead upon Lilith’s independence and desire for autonomy.” (Gaines) Butler takes a similar stance, where in the novel, Lilith does not submit to the other surviving men, despite multiple attempts to subdue her: rape attempts, demonization, and so on.
Lilith’s relationship with God and Adam as individuals isn’t quite as important here, seeing as how in the novel, there is no clear “Adam”. The sentiment is the same, in that they both defied “authority”, and what was perceived by humanity to be morally right, and were thus cast out for it. Admittedly, the exact motivations were different. In the myth, Lilith wanted to assert her independence. In the novel, independence, at least from the male gender, is almost a non-issue. Instead, Lilith believes her actions are the best for humanity, even if it sacrifices what makes them human, which causes her ostracization. The resemblance still holds, in which both Liliths abandon God for “demons”. In the case of the novel, the “demons” are both partially figurative, where they seek to destroy what makes humanity human, and partially literal, with “Medusa children. Snakes for hair. Nests of night crawlers for eyes and ears.” (Butler 43) This comparison with demons becomes even more important when the Lilith in the novel starts to “mate” with the Oankali, the demons, paralleling how the Lilith in the myth mates with Samael after her banishment. The fact that said “snakes” and “night crawlers” act as the medium with which the Oankali mate with the humans further reinforces the comparison with Lilith and Samael, equivalent to “the serpent who is in the image of an intermediary between Lilith and her mate.” (Ha-Kohen) Similarly, mating with Samael causes Lilith to gain a reputation of promiscuity, while Lilith’s “mating” with the Oankali causes the other humans to react in the same way: “Strip and screw your Nikanj right here for everyone to see, why don’t you. We know you’re their whore! Everyone here knows!” (Butler 241)
Similarly to the previous example, the portrayals are reversed in the myth versus the novel. In the myth, her coupling with demons is the ultimate sign that Lilith has betrayed God. In the novel, her coupling with “demons” is not an act of betrayal, but loyalty, in that she does so to save humanity. “I don’t like what they’re doing, and I’ve never made any secret of it. But they’re in this with us.” (Butler 282) In both versions, the ultimate authority denounces Lilith’s actions and the coupling with demons, yet in the novel, the narration and general plot makes it clear that the coupling is not only justified, but the most optimal decision. This serves to further hammer in the theme of inverting traditional values established by religion and myth.
One of the most important aspects of Lilith’s character, and what this all leads up to in the end, is her association with serpents, and her nature as a temptress. While her relationship with the serpent that tempted Eve is not quite as widespread in the reinterpretations of her myth, it still exists, and fits in with her novel counterpart. The serpent tempted the pure humans into eating the fruit of knowledge, and as it turns out, “eating fruit in Genesis 3 is a simple metaphor for intercourse and, therefore, the biblical narrator wishes to tell the reader by means of this metaphor that Adam and Eve experienced sex for the first time in the Garden” (Veenker 57), an interpretation that comes from how fruit is prevalently used in sexual metaphors, especially in Near Eastern and Mesopotamian literature. Similarly, in the novel, it’s thanks to Lilith’s influence that the humans mate with Oankali, a decision which they regret, because it stains their humanity. In the same way “eating the fruit of knowledge” causes God to banish Adam and Eve from Eden, mating with the Oankali causes the humans to fear for their humanity, and each time, Lilith is the “temptress” who causes, directly or indirectly, this “fall”.
Yet again, Butler’s portrayal challenges the original. Whereas in the original, this led to humanity’s fall from grace, in the novel, it’s a necessary evil, required for humanity to survive and progress. She was not the first to come up with the idea. If we are to take the eating of the  fruit of knowledge as a sexual metaphor, then the banishment from Eden could easily represent growth, loss of innocence, and most importantly, maturity. “In Eden they were childlike and innocent, hardly fit for the world outside paradise. Then they ate fruit, i.e., they “knew ” each other sexually, thus beginning the “ascent of knowledge” which led them to make clothes for themselves, a further sign of their civilization. Now they were ready for life in the world beyond Eden.” (Veenker 71) Similarly, mating with, or “knowing” the Oankali gives them the abilities they need to survive down in Earth, with improved bodies, minds, and hastened development. While the process is ugly, to the point where man humans refuse it and try to rebuild humanity while sterile and incapable of procreation, it’s presented as necessary for humanity to survive. The ideal of human purity demands that the humans refuse the Oankali’s help, because their ways taint them, stain their purity, and make them lose their humanity. Yet, in the same way Adam and Eve are not beyond all redemption for losing their innocence, Lilith believes that “some of what makes us Human will survive, just as some of what makes them Oankali will survive.” (Butler 282) Even if accepting the change means sacrificing their purity, it doesn’t mean sacrificing the entirety of their humanity.
A common theme among all of these reinterpretations of the myth is an inversion of good and evil, or more specifically, finding good in what was previously considered evil. By presenting alternative reinterpretations challenging the traditional ideas, Butler challenges its authority. Often, people will bring up religious anecdotes and excerpts to prove a point, as if being part of an established religion makes it valid or sound evidence, a practice that still goes on today. Some people will use it to justify sexism, citing Eve’s role in being the first to eat the fruit of knowledge, and to know sin. Others will use it to justify arguments against certain civil rights issues, the matter of same-sex marriage being one of the most prominent ones. Even today, we have people who will take the rules put forth by the religious texts as law. Butler’s reinterpretations neatly demonstrates that even when a situation mirrors those of the religious texts, that doesn’t set the morality in stone. Similarity to specific myths does not automatically set one side as good, one side as evil, simply because of the similarities in themes.
Because of the prevalence of religious texts in our moral values, specific themes are held sacred for the sake of holding them sacred, merely by association. We value purity and innocence, for example, yet staying pure prevents us from growing as people, or developing new morals or ideas. We get a choice of what we can put on a pedestal: staying forever pure and unchanged, or accepting the change, both good and bad. Yet simply because influential texts say that purity is the way to go, doesn’t mean that we have to accept that unquestioningly and unconditionally. If we want to change for the better, we will have to challenge the morals that have already been established, to determine if they are morals truly worth following.

Works Cited
Anonymous. "Alphabet of Ben Sira Question 5 (23a-b)." Trans. Bronznick, Norman. Jewish and Christian Literature. Alan Humm. Web. 3 Dec. 2014.
The Bible, King James Version. Bible Resources. Web. 1 Dec 2014.
Butler, Octavia E. Lilith’s Brood. New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2000. Print.
Gaines, Janet H. "Lilith - Seductress, Heroine, or Murderer?" Bible History Daily. Biblical Archaeology Society, 11 Aug. 2014. Web. 29 Nov 2014.
Ha-Kohen, Isaac. "Treatise on the Left Emanation." Trans. Kiener, Ronald C. Jewish and Christian Literature. Alan Humm. Web. 3 Dec. 2014.

Veenker, Ronald A. “Forbidden Fruit: Ancient Near Eastern Sexual Metaphors” Academia.edu. Academia, 1 Jan. 1999. Web. 2 Dec. 2014.