Sum up the excerpt.

Compare the scientist Capaldi with Victor Frankenstein from Mary Shelley’s novel.

As a contribution to its monthly topic “Science Meets Literature,” your online book club has asked its members to contribute a blog entry, commenting on the following statement by software programmer Justin Rosenberg:

“[A]s the frontiers are pushed further and further, the unintended consequences of how science and technology are used could affect who we are as humans, the viability of our planet, and how society evolves.”

Write the blog entry, also referring to the text at hand and materials studied in class, such as Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein.

In this excerpt, Klara, an Artificial Friend (AF), secretly discovers that Mr Capaldi has created a life-size replica of Josie. After Klara is noticed by Josie’s mother and Mr Capaldi, they ask her what she thinks about the replica. Klara explains that she recognised it as an artificial version of Josie and confirms that it closely resembles her.

Josie’s mother then reveals that Klara’s visit to the studio is not only meant to help create the replica. Instead, Klara has been observed and tested to determine how well she understands Josie’s personality, emotions and behaviour. Klara believes she is only expected to teach the replica how to act like Josie, but Mr Capaldi explains that the actual plan is for Klara herself to become the new Josie if the real Josie dies from her illness.

Mr Capaldi argues that Klara has already learned enough about Josie to continue her life. He claims that a person’s identity can be completely reproduced and transferred to an artificial being. While Josie’s mother still has doubts about replacing her daughter, Mr Capaldi insists that the replica would not merely copy Josie but would actually be the same person, making it possible for her family to continue loving her.

Both Mr Capaldi and Victor Frankenstein are scientists who attempt to push beyond the natural limits of human life. In doing so, they raise important ethical questions about science, identity and the consequences of human ambition. However, they differ significantly in their motivations, their attitudes towards their creations and the outcomes of their work.

One important similarity is that both characters believe science can overcome death. Victor Frankenstein creates a living being from dead body parts in an attempt to defeat mortality. Likewise, Mr Capaldi develops a life-size artificial replica of Josie that is intended to replace her if she dies. He claims that Klara can completely absorb Josie’s personality and continue her life (ll. 54–77). In both works, science is presented as challenging the natural order by trying to preserve human life through artificial means.

Another similarity is the scientists’ confidence in their own abilities. Victor Frankenstein is convinced that he can create life through scientific knowledge, while Mr Capaldi argues that there is nothing unique about a human being that cannot be reproduced (ll. 69–77). Both therefore place great trust in rational thinking and scientific progress.

However, the two characters differ in their motivations. Victor Frankenstein is mainly driven by personal ambition and the desire for scientific fame. He wants to achieve something no one has done before and only later realises the consequences of his experiment. In contrast, Mr Capaldi presents his project as a practical solution to a personal tragedy. His goal is not scientific glory but to help Josie’s mother cope with the possible loss of her daughter. Although he is proud of his work, he justifies it as an act of compassion rather than ambition.

A further difference concerns the relationship between the scientists and their creations. Victor Frankenstein rejects his creature immediately after bringing it to life because he is horrified by its appearance. He refuses to take responsibility for it, which ultimately contributes to the deaths of several innocent people. Mr Capaldi, on the other hand, remains fully committed to his project. He carefully explains his ideas to Josie’s mother and Klara and is convinced that the artificial Josie will succeed. Unlike Victor, he never questions the morality or feasibility of his work.

Finally, the two scientists have fundamentally different views of human identity. Victor Frankenstein accepts that creating life has unpredictable consequences and gradually recognises the limits of science. Mr Capaldi, by contrast, insists that human identity is nothing more than a collection of memories, feelings and behavioural patterns that can be copied completely (ll. 69–77). He rejects the idea that every human being possesses a unique inner self.

Overall, both Capaldi and Victor Frankenstein challenge the boundaries between life and technology and illustrate the dangers of scientific progress without ethical limits. Nevertheless, while Victor Frankenstein eventually realises the disastrous consequences of his experiment, Mr Capaldi remains convinced that science can replace a human being entirely and sees no moral problem in doing so.

Science Meets Literature: Are We Creating a Better Future – or Losing Ourselves?

Science fiction often imagines the future, but many of its questions are becoming surprisingly relevant today. Software programmer Justin Rosenberg argues that scientific and technological progress may change not only our world but also who we are as human beings. I believe his warning should be taken seriously. While science has improved our lives in countless ways, literature reminds us that progress without ethical responsibility can have dangerous consequences.

Kazuo Ishiguro’s Klara and the Sun explores exactly this issue. In the extract, Mr Capaldi believes that Josie can be replaced by an artificial copy inhabited by Klara, an Artificial Friend. According to him, a human personality can be fully understood, transferred and recreated. He even argues that there is “nothing inside Josie” that cannot be copied. His view reduces a human being to information and behaviour that technology can reproduce.

However, Josie’s mother is clearly uncertain. Although she wants to save her daughter in some way, she hesitates because she senses that replacing a person is not the same as preserving a person. This conflict raises an important question: Is a human being only the sum of memories and actions, or is there something unique that technology can never copy? Ishiguro deliberately leaves this question open and encourages readers to reflect on the limits of artificial intelligence.

A similar warning can already be found in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Victor Frankenstein also believes that science can overcome natural limits by creating life. His ambition blinds him to the ethical consequences of his experiment. Once his creature comes to life, he refuses to accept responsibility for it. As a result, innocent people suffer and several lives are destroyed. Shelley therefore suggests that scientific knowledge alone is not enough. It must always be accompanied by responsibility, empathy and moral judgement.

Even though Frankenstein was published more than 200 years ago, its message remains highly relevant. Today, developments in artificial intelligence, genetic engineering and robotics raise similar questions. AI systems can already imitate human conversations, generate realistic images and support medical research. Gene-editing technologies such as CRISPR may one day help cure inherited diseases, but they also raise concerns about designing future generations or increasing social inequality. These developments offer enormous opportunities, yet they also show that technological progress always creates new ethical challenges.

At the same time, it would be wrong to reject science altogether. Modern medicine has saved millions of lives, renewable energy technologies help combat climate change, and AI can assist doctors, scientists and teachers in solving complex problems. The problem is therefore not scientific progress itself but how people choose to use it. As Rosenberg points out, technology influences not only what we can do but also how society develops.

In my opinion, literature plays an important role in this debate because it allows us to imagine the consequences of our decisions before they become reality. Novels such as Frankenstein and Klara and the Sun do not argue against science. Instead, they remind us that every technological breakthrough should be guided by ethical reflection and respect for human dignity.

Scientific progress will continue, whether we welcome it or not. The real challenge is ensuring that our humanity develops alongside our technology. Otherwise, we may succeed in creating extraordinary inventions while forgetting what makes us human in the first place.

As science continues to transform our world, we should not only ask what technology can do but also what it should do. After all, the future will not be shaped by scientific discoveries alone, but by the ethical choices we make. So before crossing the next scientific frontier, perhaps we should ask ourselves one simple question: Just because we can do something, does that mean we should?