How are advances in science and technology affecting the way we define our humanity? Post your contributing pieces and an explanation of the piece's relevance to the unit question. Also respond to at least one other post. Post by 3/12 and turn in write up.
Have you ever wished that you could run a little bit faster? How about heal quicker to be able to get back on the field again? Scientists have found a way to manipulate a person’s genes to make them able to do things like running faster and healing quicker. This process is called gene doping and it can be very dangerous. The technology to do this process was discovered in 2004 and many scientists have hurried to apply the new knowledge to in hopes of improving athletic ability, furthering research in stem cell research, and possibly finding the cure for aids. Gene doping is used to create any change purposely to a person's DNA through various means, from injection to pill. This advance in science and technology is affecting the way define our humanity by creating a way to for humans to change the way they are by a simple use of a pill. Up until this point, humans could not control the way they are. Humans believe that they are all powerful, but in reality they are not. But this discovery could possibly change all that because now humans can control some things and I’m sure that this process will advance to more complicated ideas. Humans are going against nature with this process and are almost “playing God”. Do you believe this science discovery could potentially be dangerous?
ReplyDeleteHere is the link to the article:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/19/genetic.doping/index.html
INTERESTING “A chemistry professor at Harvard University is trying to shrink a medical laboratory onto a piece of paper that's the size of a fingerprint and costs about a penny” the article reads. In other words, they are making a tiny finger size piece of paper that can indicate by color a disease you may have by putting a drop of blood on it, (It would cheaply diagnose deadly diseases such as HIV, malaria, tuberculosis, hepatitis and gastroenteritis) They say the product will be ready in about a year and it can also show how severely a person is infected rather than producing only a positive-negative reading. These cheap devices are expected to be in use with mobile phones. Mobile phones are becoming very popular in the developing world so now, in remote parts of developing countries, people can take a picture of the paper and send it to their doctor. Technology every day is continuing to be progressive. Although there are many things that are negatively impacting our society, inventions such as these can really help people who can’t afford medical treatment or travel to a nearby hospital. These inventions are redefining the way we think about humanity by allowing people to hold the power and knowledge of life in the palm of their hand. You could look at it in two different ways. 1. That new medicine, cures, and doctors are preventing death but they are also defying the natural process of disease and death. If everyone was cured and no one died, if they found a way that we could live even older than we already are, where would we stop manipulating the natural world? Or 2. Humans possess the power to help people that have never had the opportunity before, so we are really living up to the definition of humanity: the ability to be kind. What do you think?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/25/whitesides.chip/index.html
Here is a link to a cartoon that connects to technology’s effect on our definition of humanity:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=12263
This cartoon shows a man trying to help his mother with her computer. He grows very annoyed as her naivety of technology grows more and more apparent. The cartoon contrasts her stress about how complicated she views technology to how simple the man thinks of it.
I think this cartoon connects to the unit question because it shows how technology is changing how we define humanity, especially older people. The cartoon even goes as far to label them as, “Infantile morons.” This cartoon emphasizes how technology is geared towards a younger generation, leaving the elderly in the dust. It is somewhat disrespectful to older folks, however holds much truth because I know from personal experience that it is sometimes a challenge to help those not too technologically savvy with using technology.
What do you guys think of technology in relation to older generations? Do you feel that it is more beneficial to younger generations? It seems that phones and computers are getting smaller and smaller to benefit those who need something small to carry rather than lug around a big technological device, but do older generations need these new advances? Some health advances in technology are beneficial to older generations, but what else is directed to help them?
Regarding how we define humanity, is technology changing how we view older generations? Is it causing us to lose respect for them because they may be behind on technology?
~Gennavieve
In responce to Racheal's post about "gene doping", I believe that is very wrong and dangerous. One of the coolest things in life, in my opinion, is deveristy and that no two things are they same, and everybody excells in something different. It seems with gene doping, people can change the way nature intended them to be, which seems so sickening. Coming from a runners point of view, I would never even think of having my genes "doped" so I could run faster or heal quicker. One of the best things about sports and competing is putting in hard work, and seeing yourself achieve. It might be kind of dramatic to say, but taking genetic injections and pills to make one preform better reminds we of steroids, the both go against nature.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Gennavieve’s post, I believe that advances in technology are much more beneficial to younger generations rather than older generations. I also think that older generations do not need these technology advances. Older generations have gone their entire lives without using any of the technology we have now, so if they never used to use it, why should they have it now? I don’t think that we are losing any respect at all for older generations. I think one of the most amazing things about older generations is the fact that they don’t rely on technology to make it through the day. Also, our generations is very knowledgeable about technology so yes we can teach older generations about the advances in technology, but older generations can teach us about life and things they have learned from all their experiences which is just as important if not more.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Rachel's post, I agree with Alissa in saying that gene doping sounds very dangerous. Our body is designed to take care of itself and the interference of these injections and pills could throw off our natural state and be very harmful. Technology is constantly coming up with new ideas and inventions, each trying to outdo the last. But there comes a limit when it has to do with a human's body. Who doesn't want to be in control of their own body? I would think everyone would want to but with the competition in sports, etc. in this day and age, people will go to great limits to be the best. But i believe that being the best that you can be is better than being the best unnaturally and with dangerous help.
ReplyDeleteAlso to comment on Rachel’s post on gene doping, I agree with Kelsey and Alissa that gene doping in sports is unnatural and could potentially have negative effects on the spirt of competitive sports. On the other hand though, I do believe that gene doping could have the potential to save lives and help cure those born with muscle-wasting disorders. Gene doping would need to be heavily regulated and strictly used to treat those with health conditions not enhance an already healthy body. Gene doping could bring hope to those born with disorders and who would otherwise never have a chance to step onto a field or stand up from their wheelchair.
ReplyDeleteAnne-Elise Duss
Check out this link discussing Stanford researcher Yi Cui and his team reconceptualizing batteries using nanotechnology:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1825878/nanotechnology_sparks_energy_storage_on_paper_and_cloth/index.html?source=r_technology
Imagine being able to simply plug your portable appliances on the go into an outlet woven into your T-shirt or having a home that could one day be lined with energy-storing wallpaper. This is the result of dipping ordinary paper or fabric in a special ink infused with nanoparticles to cheaply and efficiently manufacture lightweight paper batteries as well as stretchable, conductive textiles known as "eTextiles". Cui, the inventor of this new creation, quoted "How do you really make a revolutionary impact in this field? It requires quite a dramatic difference of thinking." This says it all in being able to keep up with today's fast-paced world of science and technology. But do you ever wonder if everything is moving too fast? Sometimes i feel lke everything is just flying by and there's never any time to pause and breathe. ALthough I do find this paper battery fascinating, does it seem scary to anyone how rapidly our world is changing?
In response to Natalies post, I think that the self-testing for diseases could be really dangerous. First, if someone tests their own self for a disease and it comes positive what next? If someone finds out they have HIV, they might just think there is nothing they can do and not even go to a doctor when there are treatments. Doctors are there for a reasons, to make sure that patients know every possible scenario, side effect, treatment, etc. This kind of testing could downplay the importance of doctors when they really are very important.
ReplyDeleteAlso, how are these people going to be getting their blood from inside their bodies to the paper? Someone who is HIV infected could have a chance of infecting others if they are cutting themselves, which also puts them at more risk, in order to run the test.
Embryonic stem cell research is a highly controversial subject because of the fact that cells of a blastocyst (an early stage embryo) are utilized. These cells are the first stage of life and have the potential to develop into 200 different types of cells in the human body given the correct environment. This fact gives humans the power to manipulate a potential human life into simply skin cells or bone marrow. This technology affects the way in which we define humanity by determining the future of an embryo. Whereas previously an embryo was simply the first moments of human life forming, now this natural process can be interrupted and instead used to produce another type of cell that can prolong someone's life or cure someone born with a life threatening disorder. Here is a link to a cartoon that displays the way in which our society is torn over this powerful technology because of its potential effects on society.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.duke.edu/web/pps114/project/10/Stem_Cell_Cartoon.jpg
Anne-Elise Duss
In response to Kelsey's post about the nanoparticles infused in paper as well as textiles, thats amazing!! I can't imagine how easy that would make it for appliances and electronics to be charged at all times. But, at the same time, I do think that it would be a very radical change for almost every aspect of life. By making charging appliances THAT convenient I feel like there would be an even greater loss of the connection between the real world and cyber space. I'm sure that many would use this newest form of convenience wisely but there are still many who would manipulate it and I think would cause a negative affect for sociery.Regardless, I am still extremely impressed with these newest developments. Technological advancements are incredible :)
ReplyDeleteRegarding Natalie's post, I think I'm stuck in between. For one, with ever increasing technology, humans have the ability to help people that have never had the chance to be helped before. Helping others is part of the definition of humanity, so why wouldn't we want to help others? However there are many risk factors that come in to play with self testing for diseases. More disease could be spread if the tests are not handled carefully, and doctor's jobs have the possibility of becoming at risk if technology takes over. So, I guess until the device actually is on the market, and rules are established regarding its use, I am uncertain of where I stand.
ReplyDelete~Gennavieve
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kelsey's post I am a little blown away by all of these new advances in technology...it's crazy! Yes i do agree that it would be very convenient for some people to charge their appliances and electronics via paper and textiles, but is it really necessary? I feel like that is the question that needs to be asked as all of these up and coming inventions are being introduced. I too believe that this invention could possibly have a negative effect towards society. I feel like people would misuse this invention, and the main purpose of sole convenience would be replaced with, constant use. I could never imagine owning a piece of clothing that charges my phone at the same time...to me that just sounds ridiculous!
ReplyDelete-Emily Mattevi
http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/05/twitters-mysterious-10-billionth-tweet/
ReplyDeleteThis entire article is about the “mysterious” 10 billionth tweet, that’s right, an entire article about one tweet. This article goes in depth about about 3 tweets the 99,999,999,999th, the 10,000,000,000th and the 10,000,000,001th.
This article relates to the Unit because, America’s humanity is changing because of people caring about a meaningless website and actually reading articles on cnn.com about it. Fifty years ago, computer’s didn’t exist, neither did the internet, and twitter definitely was not invented. Fifty years ago families used to talk together and play together and now they read each other’s tweets. Twitter is definitely changing the way humanity is defined, but not only that, but now articles regarding Twitter are changing values. Are you more likely to read an article on the public heath care bill or Twitter? Years ago that choice wouldn’t have existed, but now, the “obvious” choice is Twitter, let’s read about meaningless garbage. The way we define humanity is completely different, it is no longer important to watch the real news, turn on E! news and learn what Brad Pitt had for lunch, and that is a truly sad thing indeed.
What do you think, is this article harmless or is an indicator of what America and it's values has become.
Here is the link from Apple, Inc. introducing the new iPad.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.apple.com/ipad/
Just when you thought that Apple had designed the best technology imaginable, the iPhone, they began designing their newest and largest product ever, the SDK iPad. The iPad is a large Multi-Touch screen with built-in applications that incorporates the best web-surfing, email, photo, and video experience. It is a high-resolution, 9.7-inch LED-backlit IPS display screen that can run almost 150,000 apps. This product is one of the best examples of how science and technology are affecting humanity and society. More convenient than ever, the iPad allows people to connect to the cyber world, up close and personal with the simple swipe of a finger, literally with the multi-touch screen. The more that society develops technologically, the more advanced products that will appear. This is apparent with the release of the iPad. This is a really cool new invention, but do you think it is actually necessary? Do you think that people should be spending $499 on this new product offered by Apple?
-Emily Mattevi
In response to Emily M’s post about the Ipad, I think that it is a waste of money. It truly isn’t necessary, the people that are going to buy this product don’t really need it its just another way for Apple to make more money and for buyers to get more lazy and wrapped up in technology. And soon they will just come out worth something better then I Ipad, like the ITV or some other invention that will make the I Pad seem worthless and just some other gadget for people to sell. With all that money spent on research and funding for the IPad and money that will be spent of purchasing the Ipad, we could be putting it to saving the children in African like we saw today at the Invisible Children. People need to think more about other ways money should and desperately needs to be spent other then just some continent cool toy that it not a necessity.
ReplyDeleteHave you ever gone on Facebook and felt really lonely and depressed? Well your not alone, according to Duke University, between 1985 and 2004, the number of people who said there was no one with whom they discussed important matters tripled, to 25%. This article I found called Facing the Facebook, http://chronicle.com/article/Facing-the-Facebook/46904
ReplyDeleteBy Michael J. Bugeja, explains the fact that websites such as facebook are leading our world to an absence of real face-to-face interaction, which contributes to creating a lonely America. Bugeja also targets college students because of the easy access they have to technology and he thinks that it is taking away from their creative thinking and communication.
What do you think, does technology have that much of an effect on you r people you knows lives? Why does our society not want to talk face to face anymore?
In respone to Jessica B's post on whether or not technology is making people more anti-social, I would have to agree with Bugeja. My brother plays games and watches TV and surfs the internet more than anyone else in my family. I won't say he's anti-social, but the only time we seem to have a "face to face" conversation is in the car on the way to school and I'm watching the road the whole time. Even at school, in class he's on his cell phone, and I'm not going to say I'm NEVER on mine because I'll admit, I am. It just seems that our generation in particular is suffering more from anti-social behaviors as opposed to past decades and it's really sad because I think we need to know how to interact with one another to create a stable society and learn successful and much needed people skills. Most conversations we hear nowadays revolve around a piece of technology like "Oh, I was texting her and she said..." (cell phone)or "Oh yeah I was facebooking him and he told me..." (computers) etc. I think we need to be more aware of how our society might soon become an anti-social one and take action to turn the events around before it gets too out of hand.
ReplyDeleteHave you ever imagined what would happen if you suddenly came down with a neurological disorder like Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimers or cerebral palsy? How would you go on living life, being unable to engage in all of it's wonderful activities and pleasures? It would be a very sad state of affairs. For some time now, scientists, physicians and engineers have been working to find a cure for these diseases that can go so terribly wrong. Do you think it makes sense to bring technology into the picture in order to preserve one's life even if it means they will be denied of their independence as a whole as well as their natural instincts? In other words, does it seem logical to let a machine do all the work for you when your mind and body are numb?
ReplyDeletehttp://med.stanford.edu/development/priorities/neuro.html
In response to Jessica B's post on the development in technology and how it is effecting social conversations and such. I totally agree with what the article was saying on how our generation is becoming more and more anti-social. Just for example with texting, that has altered how we talk with each other. It has made it so it is easier to have more personally conversations with people because there is no face to face interaction which further shows that we are talking less and less with people face to face, but are using texting, intertent etc. to talk to people. This is not reality though but it is slowly becoming what is real and is going to be a bad thing. We need to get off our computers, get off of our couches, and put down our cell phones and go out and hang with some friends play outside just be SOCIAL!
ReplyDeleteSanofi -Aventis has developed that may help those diagnosed with prostate cancer who are in the advances stages of the disease. The new drug, cabazitaxel, would be administered with a drug that is used now, Taxotere, stopped working. Taxotere is primarily used on patients whose cancer has spread, and it helps decrease the body’s production of testosterone, (which can feed cancer growth). So far, when taxotere has stopped working, the only option has been to begin chemotherapy; however, the new drug cabazitaxel may work instead of chemo which is very hard on the body.
ReplyDeleteIn a trial done, men who took cabazitaxel as opposed to another drug after taxotere lived an average of three months longer. Right now, 27,000 American men die every year of the disease and Dr. Oliver Sartor, a professor at the Tulane Cancer Center says, “The drug represents a new therapeutic option for these patients who are very difficult to treat”.
There are side affects; it exhausted infection-fighting white blood cells which led to a fever in in 7.5 percent of patients, as opposed to 1.3 percent of those who were treated with the other drug. Nevertheless, Sanofi-Aventis has been working to finish its application to submit to approval to the FADA and if approved, should be ready to use by late this year or early next year.
Often we see how technology and science is negative and/or how it is hurting people. In my opinion, in this instance it's a positive. However, some have argued that it changes the natural progression of evolution. Do you agree with this?
I read in this article about how police, paramedics, and fire fighters are forced to have all types of gadgets inside their vehicle. You can find in any one of the vehicles a dashboard computer, sophisticated radio, navigation system and cellphone all jammed into one car. Now they say having this technology at arms length away provides precious seconds to either look up info on a suspect and to find the location of a man having a heart attack. Sometimes the drivers are forced to use these gadgets at high speeds, while weaving through traffic, sirens blaring. The article give anecdotal stories of men and women on the job using the tolls on board while driving and have nearly missed pedestrians and stories of where they have hit and paralyzed and even killed people. It has a stat in the article that states around 75 percent of police cruisers have on-board computers, a figure that has doubled over the last decade and 30 percent of ambulances have such technology. But are these tools that are ment to aid these men in women protecting usand that are required to use in their vehicles truly making everyone's lives safer. Or is it more endangering our lives and the lives around these driving distractions. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/technology/11distracted.html?ref=technology
ReplyDeleteIn response to Greg’s post, I think the answer is easy. The cellular phones, dashboard computers, and other technological pieces should only be used by someone other than the driver. Some policemen have partners but most ambulance drivers have a passenger in the front seat that can act as the operator. Not only will that aid the driver in getting there faster (since the driver won’t have to fumble around with the device) but it will also help to ensure the safety of the people in the car as well as innocent pedestrians and bystanders
ReplyDeleteThe following is a link to an article posted today in The New York Times online Science section...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/science/09gene.html?ref=science
This article talks about the innovative new discoveries that are being made in the science field right now towards developing a means of more accurately and effeciently detecting cancer. By monitoring complete strands of DNA from the mitochondria located around ones cells, traces of cancer (or lack of traces after a successful treatments) could easily be monitored. While this form of testing is far less expensive than compared to the costs required for stringing together total strands of DNA, it is still a constly experiment and furhter amounts of research are needed before it can be released as a clinical treatment. After reading this article I was reminded of a statement that Adah had made in The Poisonwood Bible when she stated that parasites were needed to keep a population in check and that it was a natural occurance that should not be controled by man. Reading this made me wonder how the advancements of technology could possibly affect humantiy in that we would be able to control all circulstances of life and how people would react with such power. Any thoughts?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=44717
ReplyDeleteThis is a link to a political cartoon by The Cartoon Group.
It shows the new world of communication among teenagers today. How many have multiple e-mail accounts including: Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, and others. It is a satiriacl piece depicting the desintegration of face to face confrontation within our society, especially concerning teenagers. I think that the many new technological ways of computer and phone communication are slowly decreasing the verbal skills of our society. The lack of face to face confrontation we have is despicable. Children are learning that they don't need to really face their problems, they can just post mean things about the people they don't like or end relationships over texts. The new generation of technology has created a new generation of communication and a new generation people who avoid confrontation.
I really like Clair's question concerning the manner of controlling population through disease. We currently have an over population problem throughout our world, not just in the U.S. In the last few decades numerous medical discoveries have been made revolutionizing our society. The average life of a human being was 40 at one point in time. It is now almost 80. It sounds hard and cold to say that maybe we should not be looking for a cure to the common diseases in our society, but it is one obvious solution that could aid our ever growing population. Though it is a solutuion that will never be possible. No matter how bad the issue gets, not many people in the cluthches of death concerning either a friend, family member, or themselves can say that they don't wish their was a cure or decline treatment. People would cause a riot if funding was pulled and reserch stopped. If treatment was haulted and people were allowed to die. The only other logical solution would be to stop the input rate if we can't control the output. However then we would be like China, and I don't think anyone really wants to go there.
ReplyDeleteI had heard on the radio in a short blurb that scientists had found significant evidence to prove the theory of evolution originating from the “Big Bang”. I researched up on this, and found that an article in a scientific journal, Geology, had had an article about these scientist’s discoveries. Professor Parnell of Aberdeen University in Scotland and a group of scientists from London went to the Haughton crater on a Canadian Island to research the rocks there. The samples taken from rocks within the crater, Parnell claims, show primitive microbes may have survived the meteorite of the Big Bang Theory, dating back to 4 billion years ago, the beginning of human life as we know it. According to this article, this microbe was able to bury itself deep within the Earth’s surface, withstanding temperatures beyond boiling point and survive the meteorite that melted the Earth’s surface, only to resurface and begin the evolution of life. Personally, because I have such a strong faith in Creationism, this article didn’t make me question humanity, but it did make me wonder about the majority of people who don’t have a firm belief in the origin of our being. These scientists claiming they have proven the existence of human life does spin the definition we have of our humanity. Can these scientists claim their supported hypotheses as fact to millions of people who have firm, opposing beliefs in the origin of the human race?
ReplyDeleteThis link isn’t the original article from Geography magazine because I wasn’t able to access it without paying a fee, but it is a summary of what was said in the article:
http://www.zeenews.com/news610397.html
In response to Natalie's article, I agree with the first point she made. Yes, although these advancements in technology are making this world easier to live in, are we making it too easy? I know that in Advanced Biology we did a whole unit on overpopulation of the Earth; at the exponential rate we are growing at, we will inhabit the Earth's surface area in a few hundred years or so (approximately, I really don't remember exactly what the timeline was). But with these advancements comes the consequences of what most of the world strives after: the defiance of death. But at the same time, the rewards of saving a human life. It's a Catch 22. A dilemma where no matter how long or how much we contemplate it, there is no correct answer, because it comes down to the moral system of each individual. Personally, I have a hard time determining which is more important: saving a life, or meddling in life's natural cycle that could have negative consequences effecting the population. But this was a good article Natalie! Good job, makes you think
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/health/23liver.html?pagewanted=2&ref=science
ReplyDeleteI found an article that deals with new procedures that may help liver transplant patients recover better in the long run. Unlike traditional transplant surgeries where the whole liver is removed and replaced with a new one, the new procedure leaves a small part of the old liver when the new one is added in hopes that the old liver will grow back and the new liver will disinagrate. This is a risky procedure, but if it succeeds, and the old liver and grow back, the patient will no longer be dependent on anti-rejection medicine to keep the immune system from attacking the new liver. This new invention in medicine and health helps humanity in creating new effective ways to save lives and help people live longer, healthier lives without being dependent on drugs. This advancement in medicine is very risky, however even though we are becoming so much more advanced, new procedures like this not only help save lives, but if successful allows people to live life without relying on drugs to live.
In response to Alissas post, I think that this is a great medical advancement that could only lead to great results. Of course there will always be risks with new medical discoveries but there wil also be positive results. I think it's great that doctors are discovering new ways to help the old liver regenerate into a healthy 'new one'. This will save people money and allow them to lay off the medication which is better for their body as well.
ReplyDeleteI found this article on the NYTimes website:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/technology/11basics.html?ref=technology
This article is about new tricks and techniques to allow your cell phone to last longer. I thought this related to the unit question because all of the new technologies that are built are never good enough for people. Phone companies come out with great phones and new advancements but there is seemingly something that isn't good enough for people. For example, the iPhone is basically a handheld comouter with all of it's endless apps, video, camera, etc. But people are complaining about them because the battery doesn't last long enough. All of these new technologies may have great intentions, but they cause people to be concerned with materialistic items and the problems that tag along with them. People shouldn't be concerned with simple things like how long their cell phone battery will last. If the general public was more concerned with their families rather than disposable items, the world could have the potential to be a happier place to live.
I agree with Brittney that people are never satisfied with their materialistic possessions, or anything for that matter. Technology is a distraction from the emptiness people feel, it is easier to confront problems with a phone battery than it is to work on a relationship and sadly people chose too often to focus on the frivolous and neglect things in life that truly matter. Technology in many instances gives people one more distraction.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/cma0035l.jpg
ReplyDeleteThis cartoon hows a man playing virtual gardener on a computer. As technology gets more advanced we as a society are spending more and more time in "virtual realities" for example world of warcraft people are so absorbed into it that they become addicted. This hurts their ability to deal with the real world because someday they will need to actually get a job. What will happen if technology get so advanced that more people become involved and our society breaks down.
The horizon has been defeated is a song by Jack Johnson, in which he touches on technology going to far in an artsy way;
ReplyDelete"future complications
in the strings between the cans
but no prints can come from fingers
if machines become our hands
and then our feet become the wheels
and then the wheels become the cars
and then the rigs begin to drill
until the drilling goes too far."
He is singing that we have gone too far with technology with an exaggerated scenario, somewhat suggesting that we are becoming the machines we create or at least that they are playing too big of a role in our lives. In a way he is also saying that technology is taking away from our personal identities by saying no prints can come from fingers if machines become our hands.
I like the song by jack johnson on gabes post. I think that if machines become to good then humans won't need to do anything with their lives and we will lose our sense of purpose since machines will do all the work. I also agree that we are slowly losing our personal identites. Look at accents around the globe. They are not as pronounced as they used to be which is just the surface.
ReplyDeleteIn reflection to what Keith said i think that even if machines or robots take over our lives we will not lose our sense of purpose. That is, we will have more time to do the things that really matter to us. We will always be humans searching for our places in humanity. No machine or robot can feel or judge genuine people feelings. Our identities are not fading they are becoming more dominant and easier to recognize because of new technological help and advances.
ReplyDeleteFrom time Magazines article "Why genes arent Destiny", Scientists have developed a drug called “Azacitidine” which silences the bad genes and jump starts the good ones. Through epigenetic research scientists can now switch certain genes on or off to help cure disease like Alzheimer’s, Cancer, Autism, diabetes and schizophrenia. Scientists have even gone as far as turning mice’s coats yellow; through the diet of their mothers. This breakthrough is still being tested and manipulated to see how effective it can really be on DNA. How do you think this will have on our future and society. Do you think messing with DNA even in a minor way is morally right? or wrong?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jessica's statement, I think that DNA manipulation can be very dangerous but very helpful if not taken advantage of. What parent, if given the opportunity, would deny the chance to insure their child is happy, healthy, disease-free? I think that research is moral to enrich the lives of people. However, because of its vast capabilites, there does need to be restrictions so as to not get out of control. Research should not be limited but how that research is applied should be carefully outlined (not allowing commercial market to form). To me, it could be considered immoral to NOT use this information to help the lives of others.
ReplyDeleteSo I looked into stem cell a little bit. Here is a cartoon that expresses an argument for stem cell research:
ReplyDeletehttp://edweb.tusd.k12.az.us/uhs/Perspective/images/Stem_Cell_Research.gif
The cartoon obviously attacks the religious point of view. In terms of the science and technology unit, is killing an embryo changing our prespective of humanity? Some might argue that an embryo is a living being and stem cell research is demoralizing by desensitizing murder. On the other hand, stem cell research could be seen as uplifting morals, putting emphasis on preserving and improving humanity. As far as morals relate to humanity, is stem cell research aiding or diminishing humanity?
In response to Karla's post, with the influence of my religious background, I believe that using embryos in stem-cell research is murder (life starts at the moment of conception). If the use of embryos was the ONLY way to research and test cures for currently incurable illnesses, I would be much more accepting of the practice--but it's not the only way, and definitely not the most effective. Skin cells and umbilicus cells have been found to be much more reliable than embryos.
ReplyDeleteWell here is something that when i saw it, it shocked me.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/5311151/Robot-teacher-conducts-first-class-in-Tokyo-school.html
This article talks about a robot designed in Japan, that was actually teaching a technology class. This robot was originally designed to be a secretary at Japaneses companies it can now be remote controlled into a class room setting. Saya is the robots name and she is capable of six different emotions due to facial expressions that she can do with her eyebrows: surprise, fear, disgust, anger, happiness and sadness. The reason i choose to use this, is because it is a huge change in our way of life. The robot may not be mass produced, and is limited right now to technology, but it is a huge change in the way life is. It will allow us to have even some of the biggest jobs that require humanity to become a job for robots that dont think twice. The article itself says that its for the shortage of technology teachers, but the question is, what happens when technology is full and other classes need it, there is a great possibility that teaching could be completlely replaced in out culture. As well, we learn from our teachers, their emotions their ways of doing things, what happens when thats gone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0USn7eufXps
ReplyDeleteAbove is a parodic video of a Microsoft commercial. At first, I watched it and thought it was humorous, as intended; however, after replaying it, I realized that it was more satirical in the fact that it bears an underlying message that humans, more and more, are becoming over-dependent on technology and the progression of it. It's getting to the point of being ridiculous--for instance, the digital newspaper (reminded me of Harry Potter)and digital coffee cup. If we keep relying on technology for so many things, we will not know what to do with ourselves if their ever comes a time when we can't access the technology we've come to depend on.
In response to Gabes posting of the song by Jack Johnson, i agree with it totally. Now a days people are truly focused on the new next hot thing that they can be used to show off to everyone. Because of that people dont really care about whats going on except for whats being made and how they can get it. I have seen people in a two year cell phone contract with a perfectly good phone just go and buy a new one costing 400 dollars. Its ridiculous how badly people lose themselves in the technology that they think they need. People are everywhere that are like this, no one can really be considered special when everything about them is so obsessed with the technology that people all act the same
ReplyDeleteWould you ever think that the idea of the evolution of vein design in plants could be applied to help us as Americans in society? Well, Dr. Magnasco and his partner Eleni Katifori worked together to research the evolution and layout of leaves. They come to the conclusion that the way that leaves are designed is so that at each point of the leaf there is more than one access point, so in case of damage the important fluids can still be delivered. Then they began to wonder if we could apply the effectiveness in the transportation in the leaves to the way that we commute and travel, making traffic better. It is just kind of weird to think that we could get the layout for roads all from the simple build up of a leaf. Anyhow, it's an interesting video and i encourage you to look at it! the website is : http://www.sciencefriday.com/videos/watch/10277
ReplyDeleteresponding to Gabe's post: i love Jack Johnson. And i feel like a lot of what he's saying is true. part of me does feel that we as a society have become too dependent on technology to do work for us. Is there a machine or robot that can't do something that we can? we have machines that pick up garbage cans and dump them into the dump truck, we have machines that place together the motherboard for a computer. People are no longer special to their talents, because we can have a machine do it for us. also as we become depended on technology, we all become like the same. most people have texting and it has become a habit for a lot of people to put priority on texting rather that actually communicate face to face with people. So it makes people a like in preferring to connect though a device rather than in person.
ReplyDelete-Lauren Dillier
I agree with Lynda's post.Technology is a great help in making our lives easier, but is there a point that life will become too easy? I think that hardwork is the best character builder and people learn from doing, not by having things done for them. If we get to a point where robots do everything for us, then what will life be. There will be little stuggles and little joy over personal accomplishment. In a sense humans would become robots themselves.
ReplyDelete-Emily Hentschke
For my contribution I found a political cartoon that boldly addresses the issue of technology altering family dynamics. The cartoon can be found at http://www.caglecartoons.com/viewimage.asp?ID={5248D4AD-4DA8-4400-885E-F0854F351F90}.
ReplyDeleteSadly, I think there is some truth to this argument that if technology is not monitored personal relationships will give way to personal computers. What do you think? Will families eventually not have the close knit bond because of the excessive amount of technology in the home?
-Emily Hentschke
My contribution is the song Video Killed the Radio Star by the Buggles the lyrics can be found here http://www.lyricsondemand.com/onehitwonders/videokilledtheradiostarlyrics.html
ReplyDeleteThis song talks about how the the technology of video replaced the radio and good music. Some people of this era believed that good music was being truly replaced with the use of more electronic sounds as well as video instead of good lyrics and good acoustics. the song also has a much wider audience then just to old radio fans but really people who enjoy any older technologies that have been almost entirely replaced. another band did a spoof called Internet Killed the Video Star, how do you think this song relates to today?
in response to Emily's post my answer is no. I dont think that families will grow farther apart due to technology but instead they will be enabled to remain closer. Families live together therefore it wont come to a point where they communicate through internet instead of personal contact. however in every family theres comes the time when the children must move out. 30 years ago it was very hard for the parents and siblings to remain in touch with the other family members through "snail mail" and long separating distances. today however the cell phone and internet allow me to talk to my siblings on a daily basis and have updates about things that are going on with them at reall yany point of the day through the internet. so ibelieve that technology actually allow the family to stay closer as the move apart.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Gennavieve's post, I think that a huge barrier is being created between generations of people. I think the way our generation defines humanity is completly different than the way our grandparents defined humanity. Technology plays a huge part in changing that. It not only affects the way we live, but what is expected of us. Our parents expect to know where we are 24/7. But when cell phones and texting didn't exsist, there was no way th know where children were. HUmanity for teenagers is being changed slowly, and I fear that it might actually be changing for the worse. The people who invent technological advances are extremely smart, however they are causing intelligence to become hard to come by, because so many students just watch TV, goof off on the computer and text. Intelligence has taken a backseat and that's a shame. Intelligence itself has even been redefined. 100 years ago, being smart didn't mean knowing how to use a computer.
ReplyDeleteMy contribution was the song "Welcome to the Future" by Brad Paisley. Its a popular country song that came out late last year. What really sparked my interest in using this song was Paisley's positive attitude towards the growth of our nation, both technologically and historically. These days people are mostly criticizing our fascination and dependence on technology compared to what things were like in the "good ole days." However, Paisley shows excitement towards our advancements of being able to watch TV in the car, and have the option to use email rather than mail letters. He even talks about our generation having the first black president and saying that both Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King would be proud of how far our country has grown. I agree with Paisley, yes we have had our mishaps, but overall, everyday we grow a little better as a country. Do you agree with this perspective? or is Paisley overlooking some important details?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Emily's comment, I believe there is truth in that idea as well. Thanks to phones and email and computers people are able to get their work done emitting almost all social interaction. The amount of time family members spend glued to their technology varies in families so its hard to determine specific areas were this could be hindering a family's relationship. However, one example I know from experience is watching TV during dinner. When I was younger, we never watched TV during dinner, but now in my dad's new house we have a TV (or two) in every room and we always watch a soccer game or a fight during dinner. This has negatively influenced our relationship because for me I don't like watching the games and since I know we aren't going to talk I usually eat while doing my homework or skip out all together. We do talk before and after so our relationships are still great, but I do miss the non technology interrupted dinner we used to have as a family.
ReplyDelete