How Frankenstein saved humankind from probable extinction

October 28, 2016, Dartmouth College
A photo of Boris Karloff from the film "The Bride of Frankenstein" as Frankenstein's monster. Credit: Universal Studios

Frankenstein as we know him, the grotesque monster that was created through a weird science experiment, is actually a nameless Creature created by scientist Victor Frankenstein in Mary Shelley's 1818 novel, "Frankenstein." Widely considered the first work of science fiction for exploring the destructive consequences of scientific and moral transgressions, a new study published in BioScience argues that the horror of Mary Shelley's gothic novel is rooted in a fundamental principle of biology.

The co-authors point to a pivotal scene when the Creature encounters Victor Frankenstein and requests a female companion to mitigate his loneliness. The Creature distinguishes his dietary needs from those of humans and expresses a willingness to inhabit the "wilds of South America," suggesting distinct ecological requirements. Frankenstein concedes to this reasoning given that humans would have few competitive interactions with a pair of isolated , but he then reverses his decision after considering the creatures' reproductive potential and the probability of human extinction, a concept termed competitive exclusion. In essence, Frankenstein was saving humankind.

"The principle of competitive exclusion was not formally defined until the 1930s," said Nathaniel J. Dominy, a professor of anthropology and biological sciences at Dartmouth. "Given Shelley's early command of this foundational concept, we used computational tools developed by ecologists to explore if, and how quickly, an expanding population of creatures would drive humans to extinction."

The authors developed a mathematical model based on human population densities in 1816, finding that the competitive advantages of creatures varied under different circumstances. The worst-case scenario for humans was a growing population of creatures in South America, as it was a region with fewer humans and therefore less competition for resources. "We calculated that a founding population of two creatures could drive us to extinction in as little as 4,000 years," said Dominy. Although the study is merely a thought experiment, it casts new light on the underlying horror of the novel: our own extinction. It also has real-word implications for how we understand the biology of invasive species.

"To date, most scholars have focused on Mary Shelley's knowledge of then-prevailing views on alchemy, physiology and resurrection; however, the genius of Mary Shelley lies in how she combined and repackaged existing scientific debates to invent the genre of ," said Justin D. Yeakel, an Omidyar fellow at the Santa Fe Institute and an assistant professor in the School of Natural Sciences at the University of California, Merced. "Our study adds to Mary Shelley's legacy, by showing that her science fiction accurately anticipated fundamental concepts in ecology and evolution by many decades."

Explore further: The origin of Frankenstein exhibit taps into angst over science

More information: BioScience, bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/ … 0.1093/biosci/biw133

Related Stories

Halloween Special: The science behind Frankenstein

October 28, 2010

It has all the makings of a great monster story: an attempt to draw lightning from the sky, a scientist passionate to show that electricity held the secret of life, body parts and, of course, reanimation of the dead.

Recommended for you

China seems to confirm scientist's gene-edited babies claim

January 21, 2019

Chinese authorities appear to have confirmed a scientist's unpublished claim that he helped make the world's first gene-edited babies and that a second pregnancy is underway, and say he could face consequences for his work.

2 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Oct 28, 2016
But - Monster Frankenstein and his bride were pieces of humans cobbled together. Wouldn't they still be - human?
ddaye
not rated yet Oct 28, 2016
But don't we need to include the rest of the ecology of South America? The Americas had almost no beasts of burden, and geographic features didn't support the widespread latitudinal contact between cultures that Eurasia had. Those are among explanations I commonly see for technological civilization developing so much farther that the eventual European invaders were able to rapidly conquer American native peoples. And the invaders would still have brought diseases capable of decimating naive Frankensteinians, while the European peoples might have an advantage against new world diseases due to their much higher numbers. It seems like a very fertile topic for speculation though.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.