Assignment # 8

In Mary Shellie's Frankenstein, she explores the depths of the human creation.  The question of unlimited advancement of science is a very delicate one.  While one may say that if we could make life better why shouldn't we continue to push the envelope, the only problem would be: would it really be better?  Perhaps death is something that we should accept instead of playing God.  The issue of human cloning has an eerie ressemblance to the theory of Frankenstein.  While one is more gruesome, the concept is the same.  the problem with Science is that even if certain things are illegal, that doesn't mean someone won't do it.  So at the end of the day, the issue will not be circumventable.  The only thing we can do as a society is try to shape the morality of the social conscious of the people as a whole.  As depicted in Frankenstein, human ambition can sometimes backfire.  Dr. Victor Frankenstein's quest to create life while successful came at the price of his own life.  Not in the literal sense but in the sense that living is more than just being alive.  Being alive also and more importantly involves loving, having a community, and a sense of identity.  I can however say, that Dr. Frankenstein’s  act in creating life was actually a moral one under Kantian Ethics.  Kantian Ethics adhere to the following, 

"Because motive is the most important factor in Kantian ethics, it is possible for an action to have negative consequences while still being a moral act. For example, if acting out of a sense of duty you attempt to save a drowning child, but in the process you accidentally drown the child, your action is still considered a moral one" (http://www.theologicalstudies.org/articles/article/1527417/17142.htm).
  
When Victor experienced the death of a loved one he had a duty to spare others his pain in facing death; therefore his quest in creating life had just intentions. 

Blog # 7

In my opinion a scientist is not only a man or woman that wants to make the world a better place through science; he or she must also want to help society in any way they can.  Percy Julian was such a man, a true scientist.  When his home was burned down out of racism, he stood his ground.  He understood that this was an experiment.  Racists forces were trying to prove that they can push around the oppressed.  Not only did Percy Julian debunk the theories of the racist arsonists, they were an example for other people to replicate their success in fighting against racism.  Percy Julian synthesized cortizone and helped millions with arthritis.  He was a black man fighting not only deseace and pain, but also inequality and racism. 

Blog # 6

for my research paper I will use the topic of cloning humans and using them for organ harvesting.  I had the idea from an old research paper I did on the black market of organ harvesting.  As it turns out, there is actually a movie about the exact same thing.  In "Never Let me go", the topic of cloning for the purpose of organ harvesting is explored.  I will also use an article entitled "who is related to whom", as it explores the issues that relate to cloning and some of the ethical issues involved.  this article is from The Journal of Law, Healthcare and Ethics.  the main argument of this section is that " Human cloning should be respected as a barometer of what is intiitively unacceptable" (Rai, S.K et al).  Another good issue addressed int his article is the fact that the cloned person would have psychological problems knowing that it's fate had been already planned, "that his or her fate has already been substantially laid out, and so have difficulty freely and spontaniously taking responsibility for and making his or her own fate and life" Rai, S.K et al).  The issue of taking responsibility is one that is very interesting.  If a clone knows it's ultimate destiny is to be used as spare parts, what darkness can brew out of such a breach of human rights. 

blog # 5

I don't think that any of us really understand how serious the issues facing our generation are.  Perhaps its better not to think about things that scare us.  The seriousness of peak oil has made it clear that our growth and consumption is beyond sustainable conditions.  How many cars does a household need?  Does it need two, three or just one?  Should the Goverment impose mandatory carpools for people who travel to heavily congested areas?  If we have spent half of the available petrolium reserves in the last 100 years, then shouldn't we run out altogether in the next 100?  Shouldn't the Goverment do more to solve this problem?  Are we going to wind up going to war with other superpowers when the world's reverse of oil reaches critical levels?  Maybe one day only the elite and famous will have access to the last bit of oil.  If G.M can be partially blamed for the problems that suburbia has caused, then shouldn't they have a responsibility to promote earth friendly cars?  Specially after the fact that they recieved federal funds when they made such crappy cars that they couldn't compete and went bankrupt  Technically if cars are such a problem, then car manufactures should put aside profits for the sake of a sustainable future.

I have always been a fan of the terminator franchise.  A robot with human features is very appealing to me because at the end of the day, aren't we all souls trapped in a body.  Technically we are energy, so this body we have is kind of a vehicle.  Therefore if a robot has a shell, then it is similar to us.  Obvioulsy the difference would be that the robot has a  computer chip and we have a soul, but it is interesting that the body isn't what defines us.  What defines us is our soul.  If a robot were hunting me and trying to kill me, then I probably wouldn't think it is so cool, However, if such technology was available, then we could send these soldiers to fight our wars.  We could spapre the lives of so many human soldiers.  The problem is: what if the programmer of the robot makes a mistake.  We are a cocky society, we think we can fix everything by pressing the "Backspace" key.  Sure it is not the end of the world when the newest Iphone doesn't work, but what if they made a soldier that still had a few kinks.  You couldn't just tell the robot to sit down so we can fix his computer chip.  Even if the technology to make an android soldier was avaiblabe today, I think we as a society need more time to mature and not make so many mistakes regarding technology.  The fact that there are so many recalls with cars, and phones, and even baby cribs shows us that we like to push the newest technoligy was recklessly as possible.  We will not be ready for this type of technology until we re-evalute our priorities as a society

A historical analysis of a scientist would probably be the most boring idea to pick.  A good idea tailored to the way I like to work might be a close reading might be more fun.  I like to find the little needles in a hay-stack that prove to be very revealing.  The issue would be that I would wind up doing that any way when I cite any material.  The more I think about it, the more I want to take on a controversial issue and combine it with cloning technology.  My first year here at Laguardia I did a research paper on the ethical dilemas that organ harvesting in relation with the unmet demand create.  In the U.S if you go by the book and simply wait for that heart or kidney, you would most likely die on the waiting list.  Doing some research I found out that the situation is extremely desperate.  People in India are so poor that theys sell their oragns for a few thousand dollars.  A person on a U.S 5 year waiting list for an organ can hop on a plane to China and have a new heart in a matter of weeks.  The speed that these organs are available is indicative of the illegal practices employed for the sake of the wealthy.  Paying up to 100,000 dollars for a new organ is the oil that keeps the Organ blackmarket gears.  If we could clone ourselves in order to make a duplicate heart, maybe we can spare people around the world such misery.  This idea seems to lean towards the question : Does science give us promise or peril?  Even though these atrocities occur around the world, is it right for us to play God and create life just to serve as a supermarket of organs to keep us alive. 

When I think about science fiction, the best example is the "Time Machine" by H.G wells.  I saw a movie version of it not so long ago.  Perhaps the movie is a bit different from the original book so don't penalize me if I got some things distorted from the original.  The initial word that flashes through my mind is "awesome".  Awesome even though the developments were extremely scary.  As he goes more and more into the future, he arrives in a destroyed future.  A future where the "warlocks" (deformed mutations of our former form), torment the humanity that still lives above ground.  Major events in the earth divided the human races in two species.  One that was devoid of pigment and that was forced to live underground.  A future where humans are eaten by creatures is certainly not one to look forward to.  However, it does show us that humanity is fragile thing.  And if Darwin is correct, then it is theoretically possible that the human species could separate into two different species.  Given enough time in different envirements, the two sects of people could evolve differently.  I think most people who watch the film and believe in Darwin's findings would agree with me.  Insterestingly enough, I personally do find this type of film much more entertaining than the segment we watched on Darwin.  People are far more interested in watching humanity spilt into two species than to dwell on Darwin's ethical dilema.  It's just the society we live in.  Science fiction sells because it takes us to "la la land".  Science itself does too, but not as much I guess.