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.

Blog

My name is Jose Carbonell, I was raised in Queens.  I started at Laguardia as a Paralegal Major; I didn’t want to rule out Law school from my future prospects so I changed my major to one that would lead to a more appealing to Law school admission.  While it certainly isn’t impossible to get into Law school with a Paralegal degree, it would not be the preferred path.  Anyway, so my major is now Liberal Arts: Social Science/Humanities and I plan to go on to study Political Science.  Being very familiar and fairly immersed in the curriculum in the Paralegal program, I can certainly tell you that there is a lot less writing involved in Paralegal studies.  I wouldn’t place Paralegal studies in the Science section.  It would be better described as Technology.  From my choice of classes it can be seen that I definitely consider myself leaning toward Humanities.  It’s like that old saying “you’re either a left brain or a right brain”, to me this means that some people have an easier time working with numbers or formulas, while others like to play with words and ideas.  In no way am I proposing that Mathematics majors or Science majors aren’t creative, I’m just saying that they have more of an inclination to other things.  At the same time I could spend countless hours trying to figure out Calculus or Statistic problems, and only achieve an average grade.  I’ll give you a better example, Michael Jordan is arguably the best basketball player of all time.  With that being said, he was only a mediocre baseball player.  Surely his work ethic wasn’t vastly different as he practiced in different disciplines of athletics.  The only reasonable explanation why he was able to excel so much in basketball, but fail in baseball was an inclination for one over the other.