Science for the "Greens"

If you want to tell the "Romantic" environmentalists to become turquoise environmentalists, watch the following Red vs. Blue video, from 0:50 to 1:42. The rest of it's not bad, but that clip makes the point.

Einstein and E-mail

Here is an interesting post from Discover Magazine's site on the possible impact of modern technology on past persons. Einstein is always an interesting persona to study, and this article (and the comments attached) brings up some cool points.

Biodiversity

If we're going to revive the mammoth, then I think it's high time we brought these back as well:

#1. Dinoriders


#2. The Bear Holding a Shark



#3. And finally, bring back the Diatryma, but engineer it to be YELLOW!

Analogy!

I was not satisfied with Brand's analogy of the global whatevering movement, and hereby present my own, which I feel more accurately reflects the situation:

You are down by the docks and see two men. One is struggling in the water, the other is on the dock, with his arms on the other man's shoulders. You have a gun. Do you:
a)The man is saving a drowning man, go help him!
b)The man is drowning that guy, blow his head off!
c)Let's get a closer before we jump to any conclusions!

IDK

My problem with the enviromental problem is that there is no way to know for sure if its going to happen. There are many small things we can do to help slow down what might happen, but I'm not sure thats enough. I have another problem with the big solutions that Brand wants us to use in his book. He shows a lot of good ideas of what we could do to prevent the problem, but he doesn't really show us that its safe. In my opionion his aruement for nuclear power is not convincing. I understand that its a small part of his big plan, but is it really safe. I don't know if its worth the risk of another disaster to try and stop another.

Texting, Smexting

Why text? This is such a fundamental question that has drastically changed how people communicate today. About twenty years ago, it was extremely rare that people had cell phones, and today it is extremely rare that someone does not have texting. Referring back to Borgmann, texting takes away from the focal purpose of conversing. You loose that interpersonal connection and the focus on the action. Texting is good for quick communication, but it is not an appropriate means of communicating in the personal aspect. Is it bad enought that we rely on e-mail, instant messaging, and cell phones to relate with people, but is texting too much? There is a fine line between what Borgmann would deem as appropriate or not, referencing communication. If there was one thing I have learned in this class and will take with me, it would be that you need to sometimes take a step back from technology, digital detoxing, and I think Borgmann is right on here. People do lose focus of why they are talking with another individual. I spent three weeks during December using as little technology as possible. I left my cell phone in my room and tried to stay off the Internet. It was so peaceful, and I suggest that everybody needs to do this every once in a while, so that we do not lose focus of what is truely important and real.

The Mammoth Phenomenon

Earlier in class, we discussed bringing back mammoths, or other such creatures in today's modern era. I was having a little difficulty understanding it's relevance in class, but it all goes back to what to the title of this course- Ethics and Technology. Is it appropriate to bring back these creatures and disrupt the whole natural system of events, or would it be a spectactular phenomenon? This particular subject does reflect some things mentioned by Midgley and Stuart Brand, in which conflicts with some things mentioned by Borgmann. Is it our duty as humans, whom were created, to create things? What is considered natural? Back to the point now, what would be the advantages and disadvantages of creating a mammoth today? Who benefits? These questions are relevant and play a part in the future of testing, cloning, stem-cell researcth, etc. What is appropriate or not?

Digital Detox

There is a small movement happening among people of the digital age these days known as the "Digital Detox". Losely this is when someone who is an avid user of technologies such as cell phones, the internet, and especially social networking decide to take a break from such things.

This can be as light as no texting for a week or no FaceBook for a few days all the way to people who try to completely remove themselves from the grid. Most of the information I have seen includes people who live professional lives that are cluttered with Blackberries, excel files, and power point presentations that feel overwhelmed by going home from work only to be attacked by social networking and text messages.

Upon reading the accounts of people who have attempted this "detox" the results and reports tend to be fairly interesting. One account came from a woman who decided to delete her FaceBook account for a month (though, if you try this, you'll come to find that you can't actually delete it and all of your information is saved for eternity is their servers... I have a feeling one day this is going to cause some issues). As she reported daily you got the feeling that she almost seemed a fair bit lost in her day to day activities. FaceBook is useful... it's a way to stay updated with friends, to invite/get invited to parties and social events, and share your good times with others. But this writer came to find that she felt once it was gone that she realized she was really not involved at all and eventually realized she needed to spend more time actually interacting (though she did reinstate her account after 26 days or so).

Another account was from a young business man who decided to rid his life of email, his Blackberry, and all forms of technology. He wrote letters to his co-workers, used land-line phones at all times, and he reported actually being "anxious" at first. He eventually found a sort of "peace" in the detox but he also noted that his work performance sort of when up and down. His personal productivity skyrocketed as he was able to spend all of his time focused on work without distractions yet his team productivity plummeted as no one knew how to get a hold of him or would take the effort to dial a phone or walk to his office.

I personally believe we will eventually hit a plateau of self disclosure. Even this day I find that things such as FaceBook can have a negative effect on friendships and relationships as things get revealed and misunderstood on them. With texting I can think of many arguments that came from a text sent to the wrong person or one that was read in the wrong context. I think one day we will actually start to value our privacy and personal interaction over these electronic billboards we participate in.

Unintended Results

Texting.

Texting is something that I have thought about a lot recently. What was it's original purpose? Texting, properly called SMS (Short Message Service) was first used in 1992 by a computer engineer when she sent "Merry Christmas" to a coworkers phone via her computer over the Vodaphone network (mostly a European cell phone service). I can only think that this seemed like a novelty at first as the whole point of a mobile phone was that you could actually TALK to a person who was not near a land line. By this time e-mail had started to become popular and the notion of text being sent to a phone rather than a real, human voice seems silly in hind sight.

But as we all know texting has become possibly the most common type of communication for some people and a daily part of most peoples lives that possess a cell phone. There are some disturbing trends I notice such as the people who text while driving and how peoples walking speed is cut in half when they bury their nose in their phone while on the sidewalk. But my real curiosity lies in what will become of texting...

It is easy to see that it will become more prevalent among more people (wireless carriers take advantage of this, it costs them less than 1 penny of data service to transport a text message yet they still charge incredible amounts of money compared to what they are taking as a hit) or will it evolve into a different beast? Or may it die completely? A part of me thinks it will die off, as a fad perhaps, I wonder if people will eventually "discover" the joys of face-to-face communication one day after we begin using text based messaging as a primary form of communication. Or maybe people will keep buying the 6 year olds phones and this will be something that sticks around for eternity.

Brand on Chernobyl

Stewart Brand, as you know, makes the following claim about the Chernobyl nuclear accident:

Asked about the “black swan” for nuclear, he (Brand) answered that Chernobyl wasn’t so bad – a lot of radiation released, but only 56 deaths. Brand noted that half a million cancer deaths were predicted after the incident, but recently the UN had found that only four thousand might die a little earlier of cancer, given that one-half to one-third of us will die of cancer at some point anyway. Emphasis mine.

On the other hand, this is what a new report from the New York Academy of the Sciences concluded regarding Chernobyl deaths,

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environmenthas just been published by the New York Academy of Sciences. It is authored by three noted scientists: Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the Russian president; Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, a biologist and ecologist in Belarus; and Dr.Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. Its editor is Dr. Janette Sherman, a physician and toxicologist long-involved in studying the health impacts of radioactivity.

The book is solidly based—on health data, radiological surveys and scientific reports—some 5,000 in all.

It concludes that based on records now available, some 985,000 people died of cancer caused by the Chernobyl accident. That’s between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004.

More deaths, it projects, will follow.

The book explodes the claim of the International Atomic Energy Agency—still on its website – that the expected death toll from the Chernobyl accident will be 4,000. The IAEA, the new book shows, is under-estimating, to the extreme, the casualties of Chernobyl. Read the rest of the essay here.

If correct, this is, needless to say, a fairly serious distortion of the magnitude of Chernobyl on Brand's part. It turns out that Brand is not counting deaths from cancer as "deaths due to Chernobyl." Brand accepts the "4000 might die a little earlier from cancer" claim, but does not count those deaths in the same way as the 56 who died in the accident itself. The damage to wildlife has been quite significant as well, contrary to Brand's claims about a Chernobyl-produced environmental refuge. Reactions?

Steve Jobs on Books and Kindles

The following excerpt is from a current article from The New Yorker on the future of books. The full text can be read here. For Jobs, the traditional form of the book (paper) is apparently already a thing of the past. The future of reading is electronic, and Jobs hopes the iPad will supplant the Kindle as the reading gadget of choice for today's readers. The text in italics sums up his view, and backs it up with some sobering statistics.

At the Yerba Buena Center, it took a while for Jobs to mention books, and when he did he said that “Amazon has done a great job” with its Kindle. “We’re going to stand on their shoulders and go a little bit farther.” It would probably have been more accurate to say that Jobs planned to stand on Amazon’s neck and press down hard, with publishers applauding. The decision to enter publishing was a reversal for Jobs, who two years ago said that the book business was unsalvageable. “It doesn’t matter how good or bad the product is, the fact is that people don’t read anymore,” he said. “Forty per cent of the people in the U.S. read one book or less last year.” But if reading books was low on the list of things that the iPad could do, it was nonetheless on the list, which meant that Amazon had become a competitor. “There’s a lot of heat between Apple and Amazon and Google,” an adviser to Jobs said. “Steve expresses contempt for everyone—unless he’s controlling them.” An Apple insider said, “He thinks Amazon is stupid, and made a terrible mistake insisting that books should be priced at $9.99.”

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/04/26/100426fa_fact_auletta?printable=true#ixzz0lw0KP9BR

Reevaluating Brand’s Optimism

After reading through Brand’s chapters on genetic engineering, I have to admit that his argument is convincing to the reader. However, it is difficult for me to immediately embrace Brand’s viewpoint because it seems like he is guilty of the very thing that he admonishes others for in later chapters: romanticizing. By focusing only on the cases and research data that highlight the positive aspects and potential of this technological science, Brand’s words seem to direct a glittering beam of light on the idea of genetic engineering to the point where I half-expect to hear chimes and cherubic harmonies mingling in the background. Moreover, last week in my "English Novel" course, we read Aravind Adiga's 2008 text The White Tiger, which offers a culturally accurate narrative perspective of a villager who ends up working in the city, and this novel confirmed my suspicion that Brand also falsely deifies the presence of cellphones in ‘squatter’ cities in developing countries. While I can accept and acknowledge Brand’s argument that cellphone capacities have increased literacy and access to banking, trading, and other opportunities, I am beginning to think that cellphones have simply been added to the mix in the struggle for survival rather than having elevated the people above it.

The White Tiger, which is based on the author’s first-hand experience of the injustices in contemporary Indian society, has opened my eyes to the wrinkled, dirty faces and crushed souls of the people behind the optimistic statistics. The reality is that even though over half of the Indian population possesses a cellphone, there are still children swimming in sewer water due to a lack of proper sanitation systems and construction workers squatting and defecating in rows out in the open next to construction sites due to lack of public restrooms. In other words, statistics can claim that cellphones have permitted certain impoverished individuals to earn some extra income, but is this additional money enough to improve the quality of life and the preservation of human dignity to the extent the Brand suggests? Not when the government and the social elite depend on the degrading servitude and financial exploitation of over half of the population to sustain India’s economy—not when those who have the power to initiate change are corrupted by greed and the discrimination of the caste system. As both Balram Halwai, the novel’s narrator, and Borgmann would doubtlessly claim, national values and ethics need to be addressed and perhaps redefined before technology can hope to be utilized to benefit the public in dramatic ways.

Brand has suggested, and we discussed this briefly in class, that the only solution, now to reverse anthropogenic global warming is by geo-engineering and on a large scale. This I think is quiet foolish. One, lets suppose that we are causing global warming, and it is by a very tinkering with the planet that caused this global problem. Couple our assumption with the fact that we cannot predict future global climates changes accurately, then, how do you suppose we fully understand what are geo-engineer will have in the long run? Let me back up my statement "we cannot predict future global climate changes" with quotes from an annual scientific review form the Intergovernmental Panel For Climate Control (IPCC)
1. "The state of science at the present is such that it is only possible to give illustrative examples of possible outcomes"
2. "Accurate simulation of current climate does not guarantee the ability of a model to simulate climate change correctly"
3. "While we do not consider that the complexity of a climate model makes it impossible to ever prove such a model "false" in any absolute sense, it does make the task of evaluation extremely difficult and leaves room for a subjective component in any assessment."
4. "In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long term prediction of future climate states is NOT POSSIBLE"
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html

One, these official statements cast serious doubt on my assumption being true, and it does at the very least show we DO NOT understand the repercussions of a massive invasive actions to 'cool' down the planet from global warming. Since 'long term prediction of future climate states is not possible." I think when it comes to massive geo-engineering we should invoke the precautionary principle.

Blog #8- Video Games: Corrupting our Youth

I want to begin this post by saying that, yes, I do occasionaly play video games. It's a good way to kick back from reality, veg, and not have to think about anything; its one of many ways to relax. But the problem with the world these days is that people, especially our youth, is oblivious to the many ways of relaxation, and has turned to video games as their sole form of relaxation (and strangely enough for some, their primary hobby...if it can be called a hobby). When I watch television every once in awhile, there is about a 40% chance I will see a commercial either promoting a certain video game, or promoting a store selling exclusively video games. In my opinion, it's gotten out of hand.

Parents need to realize that the good ol' XBOX360 and PS3 are pulling their children away from the world; they are being deprived of life experiences that everyone should have. It's a shame as everytime I drive home less and less youngsters are outside playing; sure, it may just be that they're not home, but to notice that the numbers of outsiders are dwindling after such a long period is saddening. Because of video games, children are starting to develop eye issues (minor, but still), health problems (obesity, anyone?), psychological problems (social awkwardness), etc. From the rate video games have risen in popularity, I find it will be a HUGE uphill battle to bring
children to understand the importance of socializing, playing outside, and having actual hobbies. This goes for some adults as well; it's sad when i'm shopping for some CDs at Best Buy and see people in their 30's and 40's looking through the video game racks (you can tell the ones obviously buying games for themselves and not their kids).

Thoughts on GM Foods

Deciding on which side of the GM debate to stand on has always been a tough decision to think about for me. I realize that I unknowingly consume GM foods on a daily basis, yet I have always for the most part been against them. As I began analyzing my own objection to GM foods I found myself jumping back over the fence in support for them. My first objection was that I was very skeptical of big businesses and the part they now play in the market of genetically modifying the very foods that I will consume. Though this will always make me a little uneasy, it is no reason to resist a possible solution to the massive population crisis at hand. My other objection was that I didn't feel GM foods were truly authentic. It’s nice to think that the food you are eating is natural but in reality most everything today has been altered in some form. What does it mean to be natural anymore? Processed foods are always packed with preservatives and other artificial additions. I believe that we should absolutely move forward with GM foods however we must exercise caution. We don’t want to find out that we have made mistakes that could have been avoided by using some restraint. If society did not have such a pressing need for food, I would be against genetically modifying it. We do need it and even though it is hard for some of us living in the United States to imagine extreme poverty and food shortages, we must think about them. The thought of mixing spider genes with goats is rather ugly and disgusting but millions of starving children is also an ugly reality.

Escalator Fallacy

In the Philosophy in Human Nature course with professor Langguth we spoke of a fallacy that humans are always looking to get "better." More evolved one would say, like that song we listened to before we left class on Tuesday. Nevertheless, disregarding his credibility and moving all intellectual things aside. I simply do not agree with Jefferey Smith. I think, like Brand, it has been a huge benefit for us. The ability to create more crops with less use, or ability to integrate two strands of something to create a better crop to me is just an amazing thing to think of in an of itself. Yet, the negatives being some people getting sick, or repercussions with perhaps the plants dying out all together is a pretty big issue. Lets look at the issue of sickness, if people are getting sick off of these new strands, treat it like a food allergy, use the old or non-genetically altered food. A simple way to avoid any issues there, and if it becomes to big we will just rid of that strand. Also the extinction of that crop, just conserve some of the old crop and voila all negatives avoided. I look at the plants similar to the human body, there are so many things out there now to put you in better shape or to improve you strength. If you take it and you see side effects, stop, but if you see the results you wanted or the results that the product was supposed to give you. What is the harm?

Biotechnology

I think biotechnology or the science of genetically engineering foods is a technology that has been a huge benefit for us. Although some critics have issues with altering the natural genes of organisms, it has definitely improved the quality of the food we eat, and allows the process of accumulating the food more efficient. Many plants such as potatos and tomatoes have been genetically engineered to improve the nutritional quality of the plant providing better health for those consuming it. Others are being engineered to increase yield and plants are now capable of being grown in more harsh conditions where they previously couldn't survive. Biotechnology can also be used to increase the durability of plant seeds to increase chance of survival as well as to slow down the process of food spoilage so food will stay fresh for longer periods of time. Biotechnology has definitly been a benefit to us as humans and also to the quality of the food we eat. It has continued to spark new findings in agriculture, and it will be exiting to see what biotechnology has in store for the food we eat in the future.

The Technology of Blood

As I was donating blood today, a thought crossed by my mind- Without this new found technology of blood donation, would it be possible to save another's life? Even the difference from three years ago, when I began to donate, through my experience a few hours ago, I have noticed some differences in the devices and techniques used by the nurses. Agreeing with some of the things mentioned in class about Brand, it is not about the possible devastation of the future and loss of the focal point (Borgmann's view) with the use of technology, but what opportunities we could have to use the technology for the benefits for others. About one hundred years ago, donating, preserving, and providing the blood would not have been safe or sanitary. It is our duty as partakers in the world to use our minds. We must do what we feel necessary with the technology we have been provided. I really like something that was said in discussion during class about man-made vrs. not- that is- if it is made and in existence, then it is man-made. Even if machines have produced it, it was from the human mind that we thought of the product and made devices that could make it. Although technology can be dangerous if misproperly used, it is what we make of it's use and opportunity that is important and vital to the future.

Bio-tech vs. Techy-tech

VS













In the spirit of keeping this blog from becoming to scientific and wordy, I once again bring up a vaguely-relevant discussion topic. This week: with Brand focusing so much on how easy it is to whip up a personally mutated microbe, what are we going to see first? A mechanical powered exo skeleton* like Warmachine, or a bio-tech powered suit like Guyver?

*Cyberdyne's system doesn't count, it's being used for hospital work, not fighting terrorists.

Natural?

I don't know what others think about things being natural or not. But I think that in order for something to be natural it has to be untouched by humans. Brand says that its natural just because you can't do anything unnatural because you wouldn't be able to do it if it was natural. What I think is would it happen if we were not here? Some things do change on its own and pass things on to one another using natural selection, but they can't pass things on to other species. An example is the tomato with the fish gene would the tomato have acquired that gene on its own.

But I don't think if it matters whether or not its natural. What matters is solving the earths problems. If we can use G.E. and its safe then we should. If we can use nuclear power and its safe then we should. All that matters is if doing something will cause more trouble than good.

Chat with a Robot!

In accordance with our classroom discussion on the nature of the robot and Steve Reich’s “Dolly” music video, I thought it would be interesting to explore the character of one of the most well known and universally accessible robotic celebrities on the internet: Cleverbot! This chatterbot was created by a British programmer, Rollo Carpenter, and is designed to learn from real people in order to stimulate authentic human interaction in the form of online chat—quite the Borgmann-esque paradox.

By storing information from past conversations, Cleverbot’s personality seems to evolve over time. However, this growth fails to demonstrate maturity or increased academic proficiency. According to one caustic entry on Urban Dictionary, “it is [a] horribly failed system, who is racist, sexist, [and] stupid [. . .]. It is understandable though, it DOES learn from real people, and that’s what real people truly are”. Indeed, I have noticed over the past few months that the site owners have had to add an obligatory warning to parents that reads: “the AI knows many topics - use ONLY WITH OVERSIGHT.” Already, something as simple and seemingly innocent as this chatterbot has been corrupted, which seems to verify the fear the when placed in the wrong hands, robotic technologies could do more harm than good. In addition, as Cleverbot continues to increase in popularity, it is becoming more disturbing to me that children and adults alike are forgoing relationships with real human beings to engage in conversation with a robot. It is interesting to consider that there might be psychological motivations for this choice; to begin with, unlike some friends and family, Cleverbot will never ignore a person.

Regardless of its flaws, including its tendency to ask the user to marry it, Cleverbot occasionally surprises me with its philosophical and witty conversation. For instance, at one point, I asked it what the meaning of life was, and it replied that “[t]he meaning of life is to search for the meaning of life. A paradox.” Of course, its next statement informed me that Michael Jackson was my father, but the point is that there are moments when it really does feel like the user is talking to a real person who is capable of metacognition. Also, Cleverbot acts insulted when you call it a robot and will argue that it is indeed human. I remember on one occasion when I was playing around with the program, I asked it how it could consider itself a human, and it responded, “I think therefore I am.”

If you have not yet been introduced to Cleverbot, you can do so by visiting this website: http://www.cleverbot.com/.

Revisiting some previous ideas

1)After today's discussion of bioengineering, I thought I would link back to a previous post I made on bioengineered soldiers.

2)Japan must have a thing for deictic discourse. Fullmetal Alchemist is a great show in its own right, but I found several episodes dealing directly with some of the questions raised about bioengineering.
Depressing one on hybrids
What is a human?
The end of this episode and onward are dealing with an army of clones

Blog #7- Music is Becoming to "Loopy"

I challenge anyone to listen to a rap or hip-hop song and seriously consider if this is actually composed and genuine music, or if its rather just a continued pattern of sounds layered over one another. Some can argue that it is indeed music, but I don't see the talent in throwing a bunch of loops together to make something sound "cool" and call it music. "Loops" are sound samples that are recorded continuosly, and are usually electronic in nature; although some loops may indeed be recorded instruments (this could be called music), again, most is just electronic sampling.


A person has absolutely no talent if they create a song using loops. Such a song is unauthentic and obviously shows a lack in the author's creative abilities (a true composer would at least mix in composed melodies with loops). However, I do not mean to claim loops are worthless; many temp scores (musical cues) for film scores use loops to get an idea of what they want the scene to have musically. Thus, loops can serve as templates from which the compsoer can work upon.

To clarify, I do not mean to berate all rap and hip-hop music. Some is actually well composed, with the authors taking time to focus more on the message of the music (the lyrics) rather than the musical background itself. It just really irks me when people claim such music is "better" than classical music, or any other musical form that obviously takes talent to create.

Cell Phones

After contemplating Brand's viewpoint I got to thinking about the cell phone. As I type this mine is in my shirt pocket so I do partake in the usage of said device. But I cant help but wonder if life wouldnt be more simple without them. How many times have we had to drop what we are doing because of a cell phone? How much time have we wasted on them? Sure they make talking to people easier, and allows us to be connected to everyone all the time, but is that a good thing? Have we lost the ability to be individuals from being constantly connected to everyone else? I am not saying I am ready to throw mine away, I was just merely pondering their effects.

The Corn will kill us all!

The Kh factor is the real reason environmentalists hate genetically modified corn.

Robots Smarter Than Humans?

Today in class we discussed the possibility of robots ever being smarter than humans. I guess I would have to say it’s possible however under current conditions where humans are designing the robots it would never be possible. Humans could never create AI that is as smart as or smarter than us. A computer only knows what we program it to know. No matter how complex or intelligent of a robot we may create, there will always be someone who understands how it works and therefore we will be more intelligent than it. For robots to be more intelligent than us they would literally have to begin building and designing themselves, which at this point in time I don't see as a possibility.

Robots will always lack emotions because they will never be able to genuinely experience them. In order for a robot to actually have a soul I would have to say that they would be required to do things beyond the bounds of their programming and that’s just not a possibility. Even if someone where able to program a robot to have a sense of itself giving it at least some form of a soul, is it the same as truly having one? After all, the robot cannot freely reason beyond how it is programmed to.

Technology in Hospitals

Over the past month now I have been in and out of hospitals for some family misfortunes. Family members are fine now, but every time I went to the hospital I could not believe how much testing and diagnosing is done by using technological devices. I have not been in a hospital and noticed these things for about five years now and I could not be live all the technology in use. There were of course all of your devices like CT machines MRI, X -Ray, EEG, and etc.... They even have monitors that monitor your heart rate , blood pressure, pulse oxygen level in lungs and the whole nine yards. While being in the hospital I noticed that technology is doing a vast majority of the work rather than nurses and doctors. And the medical field seems to be relying on these devices quit heavily. I would like to know how this will effect nursing and doctor jobs in the future.

Genetically Modified Organisms

Being a redneck, I am not as informed as might be necessary to carry out a logical conversation/debate on the implementation of GMO's. But it seems to me that the arguments against them, especially those from the environmentalist side, are unfounded and ignorant. It seems to me that, from their prospective, that the implementation of GMO's would reduce the impact of agriculture on the environment. GMO's yield more product per acre than their traditional counterparts. So less land would be needed for farming. Less land needed for farming means less land is deforested, which is a goal that I believed environmentalists wanted. If I wrong, or sadly misinformed, please inform me.

Blog #10: A Reformation of the Will…

So how do we do it? Just how are we supposed to reform this evil paradigm that has taken hold of us? I mean from the way Albert Borgmann talked, the paradigm is already so entrenched that it has even become almost totally inconspicuous. Devices now overrun our world and smother those activities which formerly proffered us an important center and enlightenment, opportunities to interact with others and the world around us in a multitude of enriching ways. Our consumerism and seeking after commodities have left our ends in life stripped of any sort of substantive value and wealth. We now strive after a skeletal form of what was once considered to be joy and happiness. Apparently, the promise of technology has not been realized to the degree to which we thought it would be. Throughout his treatise, Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life, Albert Borgmann has painted such a picture of the present predicament of modern technology. His arguments and reasoning have been very persuasive and eloquent. The verbiage and phraseology he utilized to diagram his examination of the character of modern technology and contemporary life is compelling and works to engender alarm and fear in the reader. And, in light of his analysis, this alarm and fear is most undeniably warranted. Seriously, after reading the above description, one would have to be totally apathetic in order to not realize that we have some societal problems with which we must deal.

Although the extent of the disaster which Borgmann sees can be debated, the premises of his arguments remain intact and apparent to anyone willing to genuinely consider the present state of our culture and society. Yes, our culture is increasingly concerned with commodity. Yes, the development of modern technology has led to an overabundance of cryptic devices, machines impenetrable to the ordinary user. Yes, the promise of technology is certainly not what its founders had envisioned. We now live in a world where superficiality of interactions and relationships is the norm and where full-body experiences have been streamlined into hollow, enrichment-lacking proxies. And from the correlates that Borgmann draws, it’s not very difficult to see how the development of modern technology and its devices have worked to exacerbate these problems. We are now, arguably more than ever before, farther from the healthy experience and centering illumination of which Borgmann writes. Borgmann’s solution to these dilemmas lies within the realm of reclaiming focal practices/things. In regards to reforming technology, Borgmann argues that we must return to focal practices and objects because “[t]hey provide a contrast against which the experience of specifically technological liberty and prosperity remains alive and appreciated” (page 247). In other words, “the context of technology…is restored to the dignity of its original promise through the focal concerns at its center” (page 248).

In my estimation, Borgmann’s solution to the paradigmatic problem of technology is reasonable and beneficial. Nonetheless, I believe that we must also stress the importance of our own will and desire to return to focal things and practices. Throughout his work, Borgmann focuses on a need to return to focal things and practices. He, however, does not emphasize enough the importance of the reformation of our will and personal character which is also concomitant to this reformation of technology. The inconspicuous tenor of the device paradigm is so interwoven into our societal interactions and our daily lifestyles that we have adapted our minds and ways of coping at a foundational level. We now yearn for attenuated experiences and loathe anything enriching which even slightly taxes us. In order to reform technology, we must first inculcate a renewed love for focal things not devices, for engagement not disengagement, and for the enrichment of experience not commodity. The change must first occur within. After we change the ways in which we see our world and view experience, I believe the technological revolution will soon follow. The transformation of our minds is absolutely necessary if we ever wish to reform technology.

Better Safe than Sorry

The precautionary principle states that we should take action now in order to avoid any possible catastrophes or damage that may occur due to a lack of satisfying scientific evidence. While searching the internet regarding this topic I have found that there are many people who oppose the principle because they say it goes too far. People oppose it because in the "most recent application of the doctrine it is proposed that innovation should be prevented even when there is just a perception of a risk among some unspecified people." This infuriates many because it only takes a small number of people claiming something could be harmful and backing that claim up with no further evidence to bring innovation to a halt. The burden of proof is left to the innovators to prove beyond reasonable doubt that something is not harmful. Proponents of the principle believe that we should always assume something to be dangerous or harmful until it has been definitively proven otherwise.

In the 1900's paint was being recognized as a leading cause for lead poisoning in children living in Australia. Despite this finding lead was not banned in the United States until over 70 years later. The ramifications of the failure to act have resulted in learning deficiencies and behavioral problems in people. The current annual cost to treat lead poisoning in children is over $54 Billion.

There are countless examples where the precautionary principle was not applied and as a result the lives of people are affected. As humans I believe that it is our obligation to prevent harm to others by making sound and safe decisions. Yes, using the principle may mean a slow-down in innovation, however it may save us from finding mistakes in the future and its always better to be safe than sorry.

Chicken Little

For any of you convinced of a consensus on anthropogenic global warming, I thought I'd post a neat little link to a petition where over 30,000 American scientists have flatly rejected the idea of anthropogenic (man made) global warming. Over 9,000 of these scientists have PhD's. As this is an ethics class, I thought that academic and scientific dishonesty would be an appropriate subject to discuss. The idea, to me, that any credible person would try to pass off the idea of a consensus on this subject to be disturbing in itself, and a great example of technology being utilized to spread an agenda, via mass communication(technology). I'm not giving my opinion about global warming, but would just like to see if anyone out there feels it ethical the way advocates of anthropogenic global warming spread their message. Al Gore refuses to debate anyone on the subject, and has deep financial ties to the issue.... Ethics??? I don't think so. Scare tactics utilizing technology as a medium, maybe.

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

Either way, the idea of a consensus on anthropogenic global warming is a scam, whether or not anthropogenic global warming occurs or not. THERE IS NOT, AND NEVER HAS BEEN, A CONSENSUS. I suppose it is a decent example of the device paradigm, as mass communication systems have not only allowed us to be brought together on a global scale, but duped on a global scale as well. A few decades ago leftist environmentalists said we'd have mass starvation within a generation. Never happened. Another good one from a few decades ago was that we were entering another ice age that would ravage everyone... Didn't happen. What will the next critical emergency be??????? Again, I'm not trying to push anyone's opinion either way, just thought it would be an interesting subject to put out there.

A Short Coming of Borgman's Function

In developing our theory of technology, we only discussed at length what state T(t) technology is in at some time t, and in particular Borgman discussed and established the nature T(now) . However, this erroneous in nature, because technology is evolving and Borgman fails to predict the possible states T3 T4, T5, T6, ... that T(t) could evolve into. Lets look at the history of technology and how it evolved. Technology in it's infantile stage was in the form ofcrude hand tools (an instrumentalist dream). As time increased the complexity and autonomy the tools developed slowing moving state to state and finally into a state that is dominated by devices. Devices are semi-automatic and partially tool-like. I'm going to make an assumption for furthering this argument that technology is moving toward near-full-auton0my. This gives a time-spectrum form as shown.

Instruments_________Semi-Automatic Devices__________Near-Full Autonomy__(t-axis)

At any point along this spectrum, there is a possibility cone that determines the number of possible states that technology could develop into. Let's do a rock hard example (heheh). Suppose we a the point in time, where predominately stone tools are the technology, with some metal tools in the mix. We could project at a future point that metal tools will dominate, however what kind of metal tool? Iron or Bronze? Iron or Bronze metal tools are examples of possible future states T1 and T2 that T(now) could move into.

I'm sure you are wondering why this is a cone, and not a line where T1 moves to T2 to T3 to T4...., this linearity only make sense in hindsight, if we project into the future, technology has several possible ways it could develope along the t-axis. Therefore we have a possiblity cone, where the radius of the cone at any point t determines the amount of possible states it could move into. Super far into the future, there is very, very many possibilities technology could go into, however say a year from now, there is more definite states that technology seems to be directed to, like example one with the stone tools moving metal.

Lets jump to now, we are solidly in the device paradigmn, but what will technology become?

Now that i've established my conical model, I perdict that technology have effective 3 distinct states it could move into. Fully Inogranic Technology, Linear Combonation, and Fully Bio Technology, with the most probably state being a linear combonation, with majority weight on the biological side, a merger of machine and creature.

Book in iPad commercial

So I got to wondering what book was shown in the iPad commercial because I am interested by subliminal messages by advertisers. Anyways... the book shown is called "True Compass" by the late Edward M. Kennedy. I did some research on the book and the author because the only thing I knew was that he was a Kennedy for one and a senator. Through all the political garbage that came up, it was interesting to see that his book is being called "Book of the Times" and "An American Classic." I believe, just like the intentional Star Trek placement, that they are intentionally trying to express the idea that the iPad is the new big thing for our generation. On further research of the iPad, I found that this device comes just short of being a smaller and lighter version of a laptop. This device is said to be ideal for users who just want to surf the web, do social networking, view audio and video files, and do the occasional creative content. There are no USB hook ups, no capability to edit and review large excel sheets, no web chat, and does not support Adobe Flash software. To seek more information for yourself, just to to apple's homepage and there are a shitake ton of sites to give you the run down.

Death to Pluralism

This is a short blog, but I'm tired the inductive arguments of the pluralist camp. Their death comes from a qualitative describtion normal distributions, and the physical interpretations from the distribution's sharpness. (If you, do not know what a normal distribution is, wiki it.) Let suppose we have a rating system of 1-100. One being a fledgling tool, barely even a piece of technology and 100 a piece of technology that is a paragon of "the device paradigm", then let us have 10^4 people survey 10^4 different technological objects selected at random from a database of all technologies. The prepare a histogram plot of the survey. However the distribution and where the mean lies doesn't matter, if the peak is sharp and not a plateau then, clearly their is some paradigm to how technologies behaves and, with some certainty an N-number of individuals can take a random object (not surveyed) and the object's rating will statistically fall within error of one another. The pluralist view of, oh shit everything too complicated we have to look at case by case basis, is a weak cop-out instead of really analyzing the data.

Precautionary Principle / Global Warming

In class we had a discussion about the precautionary principle and were presented with the question, if you knew a plane had a ten percent chance of the wing falling off would you still fly on it? A couple of people ventured to say yes however realistically if this scenario were reality I highly doubt anyone would get on the plane. Ten percent is a lot to risk when your gambling with life, its all or nothing.

I agree with Stewart Brand's view that the Earth is a self regulating mechanism that will eventually remove humans. Yes global warming is occuring but it is only its natural cycle. Polution, though definately not a good thing for the environment, is not the sole cause for temperature increases. Since theres always a small possibility that either side of the debate is wrong I believe just as the precautionary principle states we should be as responsbile as realistically possible and reduce our pollution. At the very least it will be better for everyone else living here. We must be responsible in our actions and not abuse the Earth and its resources but at the same time we must not go overboard wasting precious time and money trying to support a view of humans as the primary catalyst for everything bad with the Earth.

The Cellular Device: Stewart Brand's Perspective

As anyone who reads the first few chapters of Whole Earth Discipline will discover, Stewart Brand’s perception of the potentially positive impact of technology contrasts with Borgmann’s notion of the Device Paradigm’s devastating effects on ‘focal practices’ and the natural world. One of Brand’s most interesting claims so far is that cell phones prove to be advantageous to the quality of human life. For instance, he notes that cell phones and text messaging are promoting the spread of literacy in developing countries, functioning as “offices” or “middlemen” in small businesses, and “allow[ing] people to be able to own themselves” (Brand 51).

Because I have always seen our current dependence on the cellular device as a predominantly negative attribute, this passage in the text made me stop to consider all of the positive elements of the cell phone. First of all, the capabilities of the cell phone are beginning to be utilized in the classroom. Teachers use it as a time keeper and as a method to let the students know when class is cancelled. In my German class, the cell phone is even part of the curriculum; for homework and in-class assignments, students can call a number that records them as they recite a story in German, which the teacher will later listen to and grade. On a social level, cell phones also allow people to quickly and easily make plans and thus, save time and prevent stress in the midst of chaotic daily routines. Furthermore, cell phones allow distant friends and family to communicate with each other during business trips, academic programs, and vacations at fairly reasonable prices. Finally, cell phones permit prompt emergency phone calls after accidents and encounters with criminals or rapists. Although cell phones offer little physical defense against guns, knives, and brute strength, I always have my cell phone out and open in situations where I am alone and feel threatened by the people in my surroundings; it is the only weapon I have on hand that could potentially deter assault in the sense that it connects me to others who would be able to hear any screams of distress and offer quick assistance.

In light of the fact that the cell phone is transforming academic and work environments throughout the vast global community, perhaps it is possible that the innovation of the cell phone is “as big as fire, the wheel, and the railway” (Brand 51).

Blog #9: My Favorite Focal Things…

In Albert Borgmann’s closing arguments, he makes an effort to demonstrate how we can best reform modern technology and its paradigm. A return to focal things and practices, for Borgmann, plays an important part in reforming technology. Although I needn’t recapitulate any of Borgmann’s arguments, it’s not very hard to understand how a fostering of focal things and practices could engender greater physical engagement with the world around us. Focal things do just what their name explicitly denotes: force us to “focus” and enrich our engagements. They provide powerful ways for us to better interact with our surrounding world. The important difference between this interaction and that provided by devices, however, is that focal things proffer us the possibility of invigorating all of our senses within a context that is intimately linked to our greater world. Focal practices and things, as Borgmann so simply states, “can center and illuminate our lives” (page 4). And here is where we discover the power of some of our most beloved focal things and practices.

After reflecting upon the existence of focal things and practices and their importance to our lives, I started to come up with some of my own favorite focal activities and decided to reflect on them.

One of my favorite focal activities is hiking. I love to hike. I believe that Borgmann would agree with me in regards to the power of hiking. When I hike, a lot is required of me. Each and every one of my senses is employed. I am forced to smell the cool, crisp, refreshing scents of the current season’s air. I am guided through flowery brush and wooded groves by enlisting the aid of my sense of sight. My ability to hear allows me to envision the smooth, swiftly flowing current beyond the grasp of my eyes and affords me the ability to learn the natural calls and bleats of a diversity of animal life. My sense of taste coordinates with my sense of smell to allot me an enriched but subtle impression of my surroundings. And, arguably most importantly, through the power of touch, I am able to physically connect with nature in an unrivaled way. Texture becomes the touched and the world around me takes on a whole new meaning. This high degree of engagement is why I like to hike. As a matter of fact, I have hiked in the Rocky Mountains in northwestern Montana, the same area which Borgmann so often describes in his work, and I would highly recommend it. For the above reasons, I also love to ski. Skiing probably requires more physical stamina and skill than hiking but can be just as fun with a little practice. Skiing in the Rockies is also a lot of fun, and I would highly recommend it as well.

Another one of my favorite focal activities is swimming. Like hiking and skiing, swimming also provides an opportunity to enlist your senses. Additionally, when you swim, especially if you’re swimming in a natural environment like a river or stream, you are freed from the earthly environs of gravity because of your buoyancy and allowed to interact with nature in exotic ways. Swimming gives us a taste of what traveling to the moon or another small planetary body would feel like and allows our imaginations to run rampant. When you’re swimming, almost all of your electronic and digital devices are forced to sit idle. We are given a break from the technological stream of disengagement and consumerism and allowed to interact with what water and our imaginations have to offer.

When I compare hiking, skiing, and swimming to surfing the internet, watching TV, or playing a video game; the focal activities win out for me almost every time. It’s not that I don’t like activities which aren’t as focal, but it’s probably just that I like focal activities more than I do those which aren’t focal. Focal activities and practices really do enrich our lives and provide us with total-body experiences that devices and the like could only dream of providing. Albert Borgmann’s emphasis upon reawakening a love for focal things/practices is not inordinate because maybe such a reawakening is just what we need to relearn what we once loved most in our world.

From class I think that if there is like a ten percent chance for something to happen that we should try to avoid it. If the disaster that could happen is avoidable and we decide to get on the plan anyway, then we crash. I think that if there is even a slight chance that something will happen and we knew in advance that it was going to happen and also we new things we could do to avoid it then we should do those things.
It doesn't matter if global warming is caused by us or not. If it is and we know somethings to prevent it then we should do those things. I don't know if global warming is real and I don't think there is a way to be sure that it is, but we should do things to slow it down or prevent it even if we don't know if its real.
Some scientists say its real and others say its not real. They shouldn't be trying to prove their point because they can't. What they sould be doing is if they think its real then they should find ways to solve the problem. Either of them can put any numbers together, but they still can't put a convincing aruement together. All they can say is what might be. We need proof, but their is no way to prove what is causing it or what is going to happen in the future. We should still go things to prevent it.