Frankenstein Rehash

I was never curious about Frankenstein's monster.  What I wanted to know was mainly what the "scientist's" motives were.  I am curious how a book that involved sewing pieces of dead people together to make some electrified monstrosity was tolerated in the supposed Age of Reason where people were supposedly interested in exploring and exposing the power of human thought.  I am not going to rag on Mary Shelley here, it is my understanding that she based the book and creation of the monster after persistent dreams as a child.

What is so frightening to me about the concept in our modern age is that it is technically feasible.  You take some corpse out of the morgue that has been embalmed and rig it up with a robotic skeleton that runs on solar power or some weird shit, and then program it through remote control to walk around and talk according to the desires of the controllers.  If the possibility seems remote, remember that there are such devices in popular medical usage that use robotics and even mechanics to replace organs, to control motorized prosthetic limbs, and to provide for communication for people with degenerative diseases.

It makes one wonder if the hidden experiments in the cult of the physician have been hidden.  Have we passed amid strangers who were already literally dead, but were revived for the thinly veiled and monstrous purposes of a Church of Science that has shown itself persistently to be lacking in moral compass through its past involvement with weapons designs, prisons, institutions, genetic engineering, and civil oppression?

What I wonder now is if Science is legitimate, or if it pursues experiments, variables, equations, and inventions that are only mere reflections of the grotesque nature of its men and women who have done little to help humanity survive beyond certain measures like water sanitation.  It did not provide a solution for poverty or hunger, as we can well see in this nation which has sprouted only billionaires and a trifling number of improvements (those of which even can be traced back to the end of World War II, including computers).  I do not want to be anti-Science.  What I wish to be instead is inquisitive, like a philosopher but without those games.  My questions is not really "do the dead live among us as remote control robots" but rather "what prevents Science from utlilzing demoically destructive or grotesque discoveries when they have the ability, either socially, politically, economically, or technologically to do so?" and more importantly "where is the Science Police Agency?"

Unfortunately, in a technologically induced age of global climate change, we cannot point to ways of operating or incorporating science in the past.  It is my contention that the discoveries of funded polticians working on new market and military products are not science, but rather the downturn of major political, economic, and humanitarian philosophies.  We cannot let the same people who put a form of shoe rubber in Subway sandwich bread to make it look more appetizing act as custodians for our future, just as we cannot belief all the skewed studies that come from research labs that are tied and used by advertising agencies to install complacency in the public at large.

The only real solution I see is a tough gambit.  It involves setting up educated Citizen's Boards as legally viable watchdogs in every community, abandoning politics, and coming to terms with clear facts.  If driving vehicles increases greenhouse gases and ruins the planet, why shouldn't communities incorporate walking, bicycling, and pushes for development of alternative energy sources?  I wonder even why these should not be seen as jobs more important than Congressional Voting, as it is directly connected to our lifestyles, our health and wellness, and our futures.

In reality it is my understanding that data and facts are met with skepticism, but with watchdog commissions and policing units, it should be our duty as people who aspire towards brighter futures to insist, insure, and fight for futures devoid of new inventions that may be worse than the atomic bomb, to bolster oversight of past technologies before they ruin the ever-loving planet, and first and foremostly to insure for the sake of our collective grandchildren that the world will no longer be or become a Frankenstein's monster.