the last post was my answer to the extra credit question

The notion that global population witnessed a significant boom in the proportion of young people after World War II. There are several positive sociatal indictations that attributed to the increasing population numbers, including decreased childhood mortality and other improved living conditions. At the world level, the population in 1950 was relatively young, having 34% of its members under age 15 and barely 8% aged 60 or over. This was despite the fertility decline of the Great Depression and the massive loss of young lives in World War II. Between 1950 and 1975, as mortality decline accelerated, particularly in the less developed regions, both the proportion under age 15 and that aged 60 or over increased, to reach 37% and about 9% respectively. Overall, therefore, the population of the world became slightly younger from 1950 to 1975. So the world remained in demographic balance, and major demographic changes did not take place until after 1975, after population control and feminism had begun to take firm hold in most of the world. And now population control has lead to the specter of rapid population aging and attendant social and economic decline as fewer and fewer workers attempt to support more and more elderly, first domestically within respective nations, then globally. The United States should insist on population control as the price of food aid, using all necessary diplomatic and economic pressures on governments and religious groups impeding the solution of the population problem. We know that the policy has been implemented. Abortion has been legalised in most countries. Millions of men and many more women have been sterilised. In China a one-child policy is accompanied by forcible abortion and sterilisation. Disobedience can result in punitive taxation or having your house burnt down.

QUESTION for T.F.

How do we know if we got any extra credit points? I posted mine back on the 21st, but I don't see it listed in the grade book on black board...
Thanks.

Extra Credit

Most scientists concur that we are very likely hundreds of years away from a population crisis, or reaching the earth's sustainability point (the point at which it can no loner sustain the number of people inhabiting it); however, there is an obvious population situation. While birth rates have declined in man regions of the world such as in Mexico where in 1970 the average number of children per woman was seven and is today at only three. Much of this can be attributed to education about birth control and health but it can also be attributed to economic hardship and high mortality rates for infants and women in childbirth as health resources become more scarce. In specific regions of the world, there is already a population problem, such as in China where the population is 1.2 billion for approximately the same area as the United Sates where the population is only 270 million (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/population.html). I
It is unlikely that we will reach a population crisis based solely on numbers of people though as environmental concerns or “footprints” become a dominate issue. An environmental footprint is the mark that people leave on the world. Countries with larger populations leave, on average, six times the footprint of less developed countries. These footprints are irreversible damage to the environment, thus diminishing its ability to support us in ways we are accustomed to being supported (healthy crops, clean water, breathable air). Since methods of birth control and understanding of natural population growth and declines have been resolved by modern science, our real task is to determine how the environment can sustain population growth at any rate. We must educate people on population trends and methods of birth control in order to maintain numerical population but we must also educate people on how to minimize their environmental footprint. The idea is that population (numerically) can always be slowed or enhanced, given planfulness, but our environment cannot be rejuvenated once it has been damaged. I would suggest, in conjunction with educational programs already in place, populations become educated about how to treat the environment in such a way that our resources are not outlasted by our lives.

A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift

This was not the first time I have been asked to read this. In fact, I have been asked to read it for the past three consecutive semesters. I never mind reading it though because I appreciate the shock value that this type of satire carries. Swift presents this absurd solution in such a way that the reader must have sat and wondered if he was serious, particularly given the upheaval of the times it was written during. People were desparately looking for a way to improve their lives to a reasonable state and escape oppression of landlords and Swifts pamphlet was marketed as a solution to their problems. The irony of course was that it was in an effort to make the landlords realize how absurd their own suggestions, not to mention their treatment of people, was in reality. I don't think I could pick one part of this satire that I like the most but I will comment on the seamlessness of the transition from a 'proposal' to a satire. Many literary critics have noted people often confused to pamphlet as an actual suggestion for cannibalism because they were unfamiliar with classical satires. Definitely a piece that everyone should read if for no other reason than to see how magnificently satires can be composed to define the absurdity of a situation.

Chapter 18 Discussion

I have to admit that the majority of the time I was reading this chapter I was wondering why I was reading it. Initially, the rainbows interested me because what child wasn't fascinated by them? But then Darksyde starting using words that made me change my major from Biology. All familiar terms, but difficult to understand what they really mean beyond knowing they have to do with light and sound. Then the topic turned to Hubble and I thought, alright heres some interesting stuff. I like to learn how discoveries were made. Then that turned into several pages of garble about radio. I did spend several minutes looking at the pictures taken by the HST. They really were amazingly beauiful. Its astonishing how many beautiful things there are that most people never have the opportunity to see or even realize exist. I don't think that I really started to appreciate Darksyde's point until the last few pages when he began discussing the Supernova (SN1987A) and that, even though it was not observed until 1987, it had occurred in 166,000 BCE.
What caught my attention though was one of the last paragraphs when Darksyde stated that "the body of science is sustained by the life-blood of free thought, and often grows along unexpected veins of serendipity." The entire article had discussed galaxy altering discoveries that were pure chance. The antenna, the supernova discovered through binoculars, and Einsteins oversight were all chance occurrences that changed important perceptions and ways of thinking about the world. Ironically, Darksyde goes on to say that defending science is not a priority to him accept for people to realize that "its all tied together: the integrity of science, the integrity of the nation, the future of the species, the core liberties we all hold dear." These chance changes in the way the world is perceived are what makes us human. The ability to discover and evolve are inseparable and significant.

Class Discussion 6/18/07

As a society, I think we avoid making sure that we know more about science and technological issues because they are unsettling. Most of us do not have the knowledge to fully understand the issues and lack the motivation to get the information. If we understood science and technology, then it would very likely revolutionize the way that we think about ourselves and our relationships with others. Apathy is a much easier itinerary. As cheezy as it sounds, Serenity gave an excellent example of this because the Alliance chose to ignore the repercussion of using science/technology in favor of pursuing their goal to bring peace throughout the galaxy. The little pieces of information that are brought to the table are more easily ignored because they would raise questions. If people had known about Miranda, they would likely have rebelled against the Alliance more vehemently.

Similarly, our society avoids talking about the broader impact of new science/technology because it is usually more convenient. For example, research shows cell phones may cause cancer. We do not stop using them because they are a way of life for most of us. Or, there is also research that shows smoking causes cancer. Cities, restaurant, and other organizations are banning smoking because it is convenient for patrons who are allergic or feel strongly in favor of the research. The examples of varying degrees to which people accept science/technology could go on forever, but the point is we usually accept what is convenient or fits with our existing norms and values. A a society we possess little motivation, nor are we motivated by others (very often anyway) to investigate what science/technology is telling us.

Class Discussion Question 6/11/07

There are many dangers of science and technology differentials, the most obvious of which were highlighted in Dr. Strangelove. On a more realistic scale(or tangible scale), the dangers of differentials in science and technology between regions includes warfare but on a more everyday level it effects medical care, nutrition available, and communication. The US is a very technology rich country. We have acces to some of the best advances in modern medicine, which you have unlimited access to for the right price and have necessary access to regardless of ability to pay. Science has extended our life expectancies and made giving birth safer thus increasing our population. Both science and technology have allowed us to determine what foods are healthiest and to genetically engineer foods when crops are destroyed or limited due to poor growing conditions. We have the ability to opnely and instantly communicate with anyone aorund the world through the computer or a phone. Other nations have primitive access to medicine and rely soley on the kindness of prgrams such as Doctors without Borders and the Red Cross. Mortality rates are higher due to disease, dangerous conditions, and lack of basic needs. Starvation is a problem because if crops fail, there is no way to supplment food needs. Communication can take days because technology is not available in the most remote regions of the world. These differentials result in many ethical debates about how reasonable it is to pursue 'unnatural' things and also about how immoral it is to have resources and information available and not to make it available to the rest of the world. It also results in fear. We know how much power and information we have but what if somebody else has more? Underdeveloped countries fear we will use our information in negative ways as well. Technology and science are powerful resources that carry signficant responsibility to manage in a way that is universally beneficial to avoid unnecessary fear or worse actions.

Extra Credit

The six billionth person in the world was a baby born in Sarajevo in 1999. Since then, the population is reported to be growing much at a much slower rate than in years past. Obviously, this is all due to new technology and people making smarter decisions. Some interesting figures are found all over the world. In years past, a average Mexican woman gave birth to seven children in her lifetime. In Bangladesh, a woman would would normally have four kids, and that number has been reduced to three.
The reason all these changes are occurring is because women all over the world are making better decisions and getting educated. The use of contraceptives (birth control) is becoming more common. This is also good for children themselves, as women are going to have a much easier time caring for their children within a smaller family.
To help keep the population in check, we need to keep doing what we are doing. If we keep getting women educated and promote the use of contraceptives, it is likely that things will take care of themselves, as more technology is always going to be developing that will allow us to handle larger populations on into the future. I think another measure that makes sense would be possibly placing a limit on how many kids a family has. Two or three kids is enough, and I think we could resort to something like that. There is no need for a family to have six or seven children as some do. I really do not think imposing a two or three-child limit on families would be too harsh.
Continual education and promoting birth control will help stunt population growth. Also, a three-child limit is something I think we could resort to. This way, you don't have ten kids running around in a family and it is also more fair to the children. Parents will be in better situations economically, as smaller families are obviously going to cost a lot less to care for. At the same time, smaller families will have more opportunities to do things together, and the siblings will be much closer. A 1st and 3rd child are going to have much more in common than a 2nd and an 8th. Limiting families to three kids is completely fair in my opinion. Combining education, birth control, and possibly imposing a childbirth limit are good starts to help control the population. Besides these factors, we must take into account that technology is going to get more and more sophisticated on into the future. The human race will be just fine.

blog Q

As has been stated, there is too much info about developing tech to keep up with. Half of the new stuff we read about we will never buy, and the most advancement seems to take place with trivial electronics, that if you are a person who has to have to newest most bad-ass phone, then you care, else if all you want your phone to do is take and make calls, then why bother keeping up with the newest multi-point touch screen phones which will break if you look at them wrong. Another issue is computers. Now you can go out and buy a 3 Ghz processor for your computer, which because it's twice the number of a 1.5 Ghz processor, and only costs three times as much, it must be a whole lot faster right? Wrong! The only difference is pipe size, meaning how much data you put into the processor at one time. For single tasks, the processors will probably perform identically, but if you want to calculate Pi, download massive amounts of music, and play video games at once, the bigger might be better, but marginally so. Most new products are so enveloped in double speak, that it's hard to decipher what is bull and what isn't. You just about need a degree in computer engineering to figure out what products are worth buying and will perform up to their advertised potential.

Chapter 18

This was a very interesting read and I learned a few things I didn't know. I had never heard about the redshift, although at one point I had heard that the fuzz on the TV is the big bang. It was quite interesting to get the specifics and details of how this data is interpreted and how the thought process developed. I was aware of some of the details of astronomy, but it's always eye opening when it's thrown back in your face how massive the universe is and how minuscule our existence is in this vast, and ever growing universe. The point of this article is not about astronomy, but how being short sighted can blind us of our surrounding and how this world really works. He's saying that there is nothing wrong with religion, and many great discoveries can back up these ideas, but using religion as an excuse to be blind to great discoveries is unacceptable.

Serenity

First, as a response to the post below me, it's hard to understand the characters in the movie without having adequate experience with the show. The show is meant to be more a character drama, and the flick does a poor job of introducing you to the situation, so without this prior knowledge, it makes it hard to appreciate the plot. Serenity is of course the name of the ship, of type firefly. The Reavers are the mysterious enemy throughout the series, and until the film, we get no view of them, we only know that they eat people, and have no mercy or morals, and they are to be feared by everyone. This film is about knowledge. It parallels event happening in our world today. The alliance is trying to rule as an empire, while the space cowboys and pirates live under the radar and the rule. Sounds kind of like Star Wars eh? The finale is a commentary on how what we don't know CAN hurt us. Is it fair that a government make decisions about our welfare without our consent? How about going to war for reasons other that claimed? Trying to control an external population?

Read this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

Regardless of your political orientation, there are a few things worded in a such a manner that could allow the establishment of an empire, such as declaring martial law in a catastrophe, defined as an event of mass casualty that occurs anywhere in the world, or instating provisions for acquiring resources, i.e. take your money or land. The movie was done before this obviously, but things haven't changed much in history in how empires rise and fall, and any great piece of literature or media is timeless in comparison and utility.

Serenity

First, I must confess that I wholeheartedly despised the idea of Sci-Fi prior to this course. I found an appreciation for it in alot of the readings and have begun to realize that it plays an important role in helping people understand technologies power and the role of human nature. Having said that, I still did not enjoy watching this movie. I appreciated its point, but the violence was a bit out of my realm of enjoyment (cannibalism? ewww....). I think I was also a bit put out by the opening scence of a peaceful school-like setting and then !wham! River is a government project. The idea of creating a society of sinlessness by destroying the core of human nature was just not enjoyable. As the movie progressed, I began to understand how the point was less about creating a perfect society and more about removing people power to choose. If they are programmed or scared into a certain way of life, then they have lost any rational ability to think for themselves or weigh in on what really is right or wrong. The crew of the Serenity was able to embrace that this was the case and, although in a renegade manner, separate themselves in order to retain their freedom of thought and choice. I think it is most important to note that the Alliance holds no regard for how it uses it technology and manipulation to achieve its goal whereas the crew of the Serenity seems to conduct business, even illegal business, in a way that is least harmful for the others involved. The only scene I recall their aggressiveness being offensive as opposed to defensive was against the Reefers, and even that can be construed as defensive since they were cannibals. Overall, I think the idea of using technology to change the human nature is disturbing so I found the principle of demonstrating this as a failure to be a great theme, but I still don't think I will pursue similar movies...

Dr. Strangelove

The film Dr. Stranglove was an an interesting acocunt of what could happen if proper safeguards were not in place around new technology. The idea that the world could be destroyed as we know it because of the misuse of technology, in this case warfare technology, in one decision by one person is unsettling to say the least. I was amused at the minimal role the title character played throughout the film and couldn't understand why it was titled after him until the end of the movie when it was his idea that was going to allow humanity to survive. The part of the movie that struck me as most unrealistic but also the most detrimental is that the general who went "funny in the head" was the only individual with the correct access code. It seems that in reality, though access would and should be limited, it would be a code that at least two if not a small group of people owuld have access to if only to prevent similar measure (this made the disclaimer at the beginning of the film appreciable). On the same lines, how could one person be able to prompt nuclear warfare with one order. It seems that, as indicated in one of the scenes in the war room, the plan showed great planfulness for the technology to wage war with severe oversight on the security of the implementation of the plan. The greatest strengths (trust in leadership, technology) became the greatest weakness because the power of technology was overlooked or not respected.

Chapter 18

It is always interesting reading about the Big Bang Theory, at least for me. Growing up I was always amazed at the vastness of the universe and how small we are within the grander scheme of things. What sometimes amazes me more is how someone is able to calculate and discover so much about the universe. Reading this article by Darksyde opened my eyes to a lot of things I wasn't aware of, especially concerning the more scientific explanations behind many celestial discoveries. I also really enjoy how Darksyde is able to take a natural phenomenon like rainbows and then break down the complicated topic of optics and microwaves to help us non-scientific people gain a better grasp on the importance and degrees of genius involved. Understanding an ever expanding universe and making such a subject interesting in important in relation to other themes that have been discusses throughout the book "Kosmos." It is the attempt at reaching out to others in a way they can understand and use in their life that I find refreshing and important. This links up directly with our weblog question of why don't we as a society keep up with science and technology more than we do. It is because, for the most part, there is too much many of us to wrap our heads around. Yet, when you are able to break it down to its essentials and present it in a modern way accessible to the many instead of the few, it creates a need to know more. In essence, it is a big bang of knowledge. There has to first be that spark to initiate the longing for expansion.

Weblog Question

I believe that the main reason why we as a society do not keep up with science and technology more is because of the amount of science and technological news to keep up with. Not only is some of it above a lot of our heads with the continual use of science/technology jargon, but it is just too much to attempt to keep up with. It seems like every time I try to get caught up on technology news on the net there are countless amounts of news links to sift through. Trying to keep up with all of the news coming out of the science field is impossible to do alone, which is why I think it is great when there is a mixture of science and technology with other forms of news. I also hate to say that, in today's world of entertainment based news and media, it is hard to get anyone interested in topics of science and technology when competing with the newest Hollywood news. The only technological advancements that people pick up on in that sense is the newest style of cell phone or ipod.

Extra Credit

The world is progressively populating, but it is not a crisis, yet. Diseases and many other deaths occur keeping the population from spinning totally out of control. According to about.com, the world’s population of approximately 6 billion will turn into 12 billion by the year 2054. If this proves true, there are several scenarios I propose we do in the near future.
In order to keep the world from over population, I would propose we use areas of the world that are currently not being used. Places that are protected such as the Grand Canyon, Yellow Stone National Park, etc. could be used. Another option that comes to mind are rain forests. These areas would need to be a last resort for purposes such as oxygen in-take. The world has vast areas that are not at all populated for various reasons. Places that are not populated because our bodies simply could not survive, such as the Antarctic would need to be explored and researched on how we could possibly survive in these places.
My part in this would be to write scientists to encourage them to explore and research uninhabited areas of the world for people to populate and survive. I would also offer to help in this research and be trained to explore the unknown.
People could even build house boats and live on the ocean full time. We could create communities in different regions of the oceans. The world’s population would expand to all areas of the world with no boundaries.

Serenity

I have to go on record by saying that I was (and still am) a big fan of the Firefly series and absolutely loved the film Serenity. Anyway, what was interesting about watching it this time through is some of the issues I picked up on this time around that I missed simply watching the film for entertainment before. Population control is, obviously, a major issue of the film but I never looked too deeply into it outside of the small civilizations being built throughout the many worlds of the film. The film seems to make some interesting commentary on both the pros and cons of what our current civilization on Earth is doing in terms of resources. The film also makes some interesting commentary on the very real and scary aspect of governmental population control. This is seen through the projects taking place on the people to help in controlling aggression and anger. What ultimately happens is the complete collapse of identity and what makes us human, creating the reverse effect of a Utopian society and the creatures that threaten to destroy the human race. In other words, when you attempt to control the uncontrollable aspects of nature, you may inadvertently create the monster that you were originally trying to contain. The ending of the film seems to lend some optimism toward the human spirit and how, no matter the odds, if we band together for the sake of change that we can ultimately prevail over whatever may threaten our existence.

Hawking

I found it interesting moving directly from Swift to Hawking. Not that I found Hawking's proposal unbelievable, just how much the idea of population control (and means of accomplishing population control) have evolved. In Swift's time, there would never have been a second thought of transplanting people to another planet in order to even things out, weed out the upper and lower classes. Yet, with Hawking we are given that possibility. Now, I'm not saying that Hawking is proposing the idea of shipping the weak one place and the powerful to another, but if what Hawking says will happen here on Earth then we are presented with the possibility of controlling and aiding in the preservation of the human population. Now, I for one do not completely agree with Hawking on the time table presented for when this will all take place (like Sumner I found it to be a bit too pessimistic) but I do agree that at some point we will be left with the options of total annihilation or shifting to other worlds. With the rate in which our technology is progressing I find it hard to say that it will never happen. Going back to a Sumner article, I think that it will be at this point when the human race will have to convert back to a hunter-farmer civilization during this initial period of space relocation.

A Modest Proposal

Swift's "A Modest Proposal" does a fantastic job of satirizing the topic of population control. What is scary, though, is how relevant this type of satire is to today. At first glance, Swift's proposal borders on that of psychotic and absolute absurdity until you take a closer look at the issue beneath the satire. Not only is the voice of the orator lofty (obviously poking fun at the lack of common sense present in the higher tiers of politics) it also has complete disregard to the minority being debated about. This is happening in many different forms today whether it be issues with the poor, lower classes here in the US, the attempts at population control in China or (in a more extreme case) the disturbing acts of genocide in Darfur and other regions of Africa. It is a disturbing fact of human nature but, as evolutionary science has shown us, it is in human nature to classify and control. There is always a sense of greed that prevails and that is clearly seen beneath the satirical waters of Swift and time.

Weblog Question on Syllabus

The material I read says the population will increase to 9 billion by the year 2042. I don't really feel like there's a population problem now. If we're over 6 billion currently and doing okay, we can definitely accomodate another 3 billion in the coming years. We are going to continue to find ways to keep going. Buildings will keep going up, jobs will continue to be created, and it will all work out in the end. Earth is going to be fine, and I don't see us ever having to expand into galaxies.

Weblog Question

I think society doesn't really keep up with science and technology issues for a couple of reasons, but I feel like the two main ones are the fact that they don't care or the issues are way over their heads. Many people will buy the newest gadget when it comes out, but they really don't care how it was made, how many gigabytes is has, and other things along those lines. Certain people just don't care about certain issues, such as politics, etc., and I think science and technology fall under that category. I really didn't even think about it much myself before this class. Obviously, part of the reason people don't care is because they can't understand many of the concepts. This brings to mind our older generation that can't use computers. I have gotten through high school and college with the use of one, but my dad doesn't even know how to turn one on. If people don't understand things, they will sometimes give up and just become apathetic. I've tried to teach my dad how to get on the Internet a number of times, but he eventually just got frustrated and gave up. Ultimately, science and technology issues aren't important to many people because they cannot grasp the concepts.

Hawking

I think Hawking's ideas about us having to create space colonies to keep the human race going are very interesting. I think it'd be fun to live in space. However, I don't really agree with his views about something happening to Earth that wipes us all out anytime soon. I think back to the Sumner articles, and I feel like we're going to be able to create technologies to keep the present Earth going for a long time yet. It makes you think about things like hybrid cars and more environmentally-sound things that come out nowadays. Hawking's talk about living in space really makes you think about alot of things, but I don't see it as something that's going to actually happen for a very long time.

A Modest Proposal

Swift's idea for population control was pretty funny. I liked how he really seemed like he researched it and knew what he was talking about, and he even listed all the advantages of this practice. He claimed it would lessen enemies, give poorer people something of value, increase the nation's stock, rid families of having to care for their kids, and become a great custom for bars and taverns as eating the children would become some sort of social event. It was neat to see that he seemed to do his homework and came up with a multitude of ideas for something like the selling and eating of children.

Serenity

Serenity was a pretty interesting movie, even though I don't watch many science fiction-genre films. The most interesting thing was the drug that the Alliance which was supposed to suppress agression, but it ended up eliminating people's desire for doing anything, and they all died of starvation. It was also interesting that the Reavers came out of this drug, as they were the small part of the population that became mentally unstable. This made me think about a genocide or something along those lines that could actually happen in the real world, so I thought it was a very interesting spot in the film.

Chapter 18- The Big Picture

Chapter 18 basically discussed a variety of aspects concerning light waves and space. I really enjoyed reading about the supernova research and how it developed a new system for scientists to see how fast the universe was expanding and slowing down. They discovered that the universe is constantly accelerating, which led to the "dark energy" field of physics. It is said that this discovery will lead to better research on the universe for years to come, and I think that's pretty important.

Weekly Weblog Question

I think that with the rate that our population is growing that it is much more likely that people will search for an answer here on earth before they turn to space. In fact there are already people trying to find solutions to the growing population in America through immigration law reforms. So I think that things like that will continue going on for many years before we turn to spreading into space. I think that the real turn towards living in space will be either completely scientific or completely desperate, depending on how things continue to grow and change. If somehow the population rate growth does slow down, but technology continues to grow that there is a good chance that the government will try to build a community on the moon, just to see if it is possible and as a reference for the future. But if the population growth rate continues to grow at a more and more rapid rate then someone somewhere will realize that something has to be done and figure out a way to expand out into the galaxy, if only as a means to save human kind, like Hawkings mentions in the other article. Either way I do not think that we will have the technology to start a community in space for a very long time.

Serenity

I really enjoyed this movie, mainly because I like a good action/sci-fi, but I also found the premise and the end very interesting. With the takeover of the alliance many people had to flee or decided to stay on the outskirts in order to survive, like the crew of the serenity. Then River and her brother show up and know something that is very bad for the alliance, so the alliance goes after them. I liked this movie because of the characters and the twists that occur. After the crew finds out about the planet on the outskirts called Miranda, where no one has ever been or heard of they decide to go investigate. It is a very hard journey since an army of reavers(the cannibalistic bad guys) stands between them and the planet. Then they finally get to the supposedly deserted planet and find a bunch of abandoned cities. As they enter the city they see dead bodies everywhere, until they finally find a transmition that explains what has happened. How the alliance tried out a drug on the planet to try to relieve aggression, and it worked only too well because the majority of the population lost all aggression, along with their will to live. While a small minority of the people became hyper-aggressive and dangerous-becoming the reavers. So their group found out that not only had their trusted government killed off an entire population, but they had created the reavers, who were horrible monsters who loved to kill. And the government pretended as though it had all never happened. In the movie it was crazy to see that a government had killed off an entire population, but then there are so many examples of it happening here, i.e. WW2 and Rwanda. So while it may seem unlikely to us that the government would test drugs on us that could kill us all, it may not be as unlikely as it seems. And a lot of the time there is no way to tell what has happened or could happen, because it would be so easy to hide it from everyone.

Sustaining Life/Stephen Hawking

According to Stephen Hawkings the only way that the human race is going to be able to survive is if we can find a way to create sustainable life on other planets. According to Hawkings it is becoming more and more likely that a disaster will destroy earth, and that if we can manage to stay alive for one hundred more years then we will be able to create space settlements elsewhere that can survive without earth. While I think that Hawkings ideas about creating colonies in space is very cool, I tend to agree more with the other scientists quoted in the article. I feel like colonizing on other planets is unlikely to happen in my lifetime, and is still pretty far off. I also think that it is more likely that people will look for answers closer to home, like the base under Antarctica, before they start looking to space for the solution.

A Modest Proposal

I have read Swift's A Modest Proposal a few times before and I have always enjoyed his satirical view on population control. I really love reading it just to try to imagine the expressions on the faces of the British population as they read it, between the ones that would be disgusted and the ones who were so pompous that they actually thought about it for a minute. I really like how he seems so serious throughout the article, and in the beginning you think he has actually come up with some sort of decent proposal to help families in Ireland.
Then he simply suggests that they poor children of Ireland should be sold to be eaten, and their skin used for gloves. He speaks of it like it is such a simple matter, and looks at it from every angle, suggested how much meat would come of it, and what the cost should be. If not for the bitterness thrown out through the pamphlet, and the utter ridiculousness, it would be very believable. He talks about some of the other advantages, like getting rid of more Catholics, promoting marriage because their wives would now be like mares to breed, and giving them something valuable and more easily attained then pig or sheep. In the end it becomes clear that he simply just wants to help out his countrymen, to make Ireland a better place for everyone.

Chapter 18

Chapter 18 discusses a lot of the different aspects of outer space, especially most of Hubble's discoveries. The chapter also discusses how the first other galaxies were discovered through the arrangement of different colored lights, or a rainbow spectrum. Using that new technology they were also able to discover that the universe is steadily expanding, that the other galaxies were not just moving away from us. Which led to the conclusion that at some point the universe was much much smaller, which then led to the big bang theory.
In more recent research scientists began to try to listen to space, which worked, and then they decided to look for actual evidence of the big bang-residual noise. Which they eventually did find, along with light evidence. I agree with the authors thoughts that the big bang theory could be a great thing for both scientist and theologists. While it is a great discovery scientifically it could also be a great push in support for God. As the author said, a God who in one shot created a universe that is endlessly growing and changing, a very impressive feat.

Extra Credit

Topic "Devise a way to explain the population situation (problem, crisis, or status) to your classmates (the ones in our class) in such a way that a) they can understand how many people we're talking about adding each year, decade, etc.) and then propose a course of action to address the problem that you could actually contribute to. (You don't have to be able to implement it by yourself, but you do have to be able to make some kind of positive change."

All estimates of the earth's carrying capacity and rate of growth for the population size are merely estimations. We do not know for certain what the population will be in the future or what the earth can and can't handle. It is a fact that the earth's human population has grown immensely over history because of better medical technologies, better nutrition, fertility clinics, and other factors. Some people even claim that human population growth is has been increasing exponentially. On the other hand, some nations like Japan and England are fretting about the rapid decline in their human birth rates. Women are relying more and more on effective birth control methods when they are young or using medical technologies to abort pregnancies that are not desired, delaying marriage and motherhood, or choosing to remain childless altogether. In other nations, war and disease is driving death rates higher than the birth rates. Leading to a declining population size in those regions. For example, in South Africa according the the CIA world fact book website the population size is in decline because of the high HIV rates of mortality according to 2007 estimates.

While sites like www.overpopulation.net warn us of doom and gloom (while also saying that the world population will have a net growth of zero at some point before by 2030) others like this one, calmly refute the panicked concerns with logic and realistic optimism.

Because of all of these factors, it is impossible to know what the future holds for earth and the human growth rate other than the fact that humans, regardless of the number of them, need to manage our natural resources with care.

In the meantime, I propose a few simple changes to make sure that things don't get out of hand. I do not support programs like the VHEMT because, to be honest, I rather like humanity and don't want it to die out and because I think that the least educated people on the planet would never go for it. While some anti-human intellectual-wanna-bes might make themselves voluntarily extinct, the planet (and the rest of us) would be left dealing with masses of idiots that don't seem understand the concept of birth control and not having more kids than you can afford to support.

What I propose is simply this. Educate the masses about birth control and provide effective, user friendly, methods of birth control to everyone. That way, we don't get as many stupid people reproducing and raising their kids up like idiots too. Meanwhile increase environmental awareness and conservation/preservation efforts.

I think that China's one child law is far too extreme and troublesome for world-wide implementation. However, I would ask for all the 35+ women out there just now deciding that they want kids to adopt them rather than going to a fertility clinic and ending up with 7 or more at a time and most of them having health problems because of people forcing a pregnancy after the biological clock has already started saying "no."

Actually, let's increase adoption rates while decreasing use of fertility clinics for all ages of women. There are plenty of adoptable children to go around if people would be more willing to adopt more than just newborns. I think that women who justify using medical technology to have children at ridiculous ages like 60+ and claim that they are just trying to enlighten middle aged women about their fertility options are being reckless and greedy. They're making children like candy or like something to be collected for entertainment. It isn't fair, in my opinion, to the kids who are going to have parents older than dirt and likely ailing, just as they are entering adulthood (in this case, when the children are 18, the mother will be nearly 80). Reducing some of the paper work and red tape surrounding many current adoption agencies might be beneficial to encourage adoptions. Meanwhile, I think that families like the Dugger family in Arkansas (the mother is now expecting her 17th child) are nuts and that they are probably hurting their children in the long run. (So what if she doesn't believe in the pill for religious reasons, she could stopping having sex or get her tubes tied or use condoms or get her husband "snipped"... ) Her kids have very little normal social contact with other people outside their family on a day to day basis when compared to your average family in part to their size, homeschooling, and the fact that they even have church at home. The older children end up acting like additional parents to their many siblings. Shouldn't kids have social contacts outside of the home and have the freedom to be children themselves without being a 24/7 babysitter?

While I don't think that limits should be placed on how many children a woman can legally have, (my parents came from large families that lived in the country, but that was also 50 years ago...) moderation should be encouraged.

Personally, I hope to have about 2. Why? Because I was an only child (which I enjoyed) but I think a sibling would have been good in the long run, whereas my boyfriend is the oldest of 3 and swears that that was too many (the youngest was conceived when his mom was older and has health, emotional and mental disorders as a result). Logically, then, if 1 is too few and 3 is too many then 2 would be practically ideal. I'm not the only one with that logic. My mom is 3rd out of 6 kids, while my dad is 4th out of 5. They both come from loving families and, usually, everyone gets along. But none of my aunts and uncles have had more than 4 children. Most of them only have 1-3. Clearly, they thought that downsizing would be best for their own families.

In review:

Take better care of the planet.
Stop forcing births beyond what is natural.
Promote adoption and birth control.
Encourage moderation.

Oops.

I just realized that I had only done half of the web blog postings for this week even though I read the material earlier. I'm sorry for posting this late. I must have forgotten in my driving, worrying about the paper and my grandpa (I found out that he is in the hospital scheduled for surgery due to a bad case of pnemonia).

So here are the rest of the blog posts if you will still accept them.

SWIFT

I really like this essay. It's funny and gets his point across while really holding the reader's attention, which is part of what can make satire like this so great.

One line that, for me, really characterizes the entire piece is the comment that, "I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children." In that short paragraph, he gets a great "dig" or "stab" at the heart of the problem which is that wealthy Irish landlords have largely caused this problem by taking advantage of the poor under their control, that starving children are the ultimate victims of those greedy actions, and that it is the responsibility of the land lords to do something good about the problem.

HAWKING

As cool as it would be to live in space, I think that we are a lot farther away from having the technology to do that without the help of Earth and a lot farther from needing to live in space than Hawking suggests. He seemed to think that making a colony in space that would be completely self sufficient would be simple, but I don't think that it would be. After all, we can't even get a small attempt to make a totally self sustaining environment to work in a confined space on earth. The Bio-dome experiment failed didn't it? We can't, as of yet, create our our mini Earths with self sustaining ecosystems that's good enough to support human life without outside assistance. If we can't yet do it on a small scale here on Earth, how in the world does he expect us to do it for entire colonies in space?

Jonathan Swift

Jonathan Swift’s proposal is not far fetched from stories that are about “recycling” people. I don’t think his proposal would ever be executed simply because most people have strong morals against killing people, let alone eating them. Even in countries that are way below the U.S poverty line, the people go to great lengths to keep their children clothed and fed. Most people hold a person’s life, especially a child’s life to the highest regard. I would venture to hope people would not consider eating a child to be a luxury like venison.

Weekly Question

As a society, we are very much into convenience and being comfortable. In fact, we are a lazy society. If an idea or product is presented to us that could potentially make our lives easier, we easily accept it without much digging or research to look for any negatives or positives. Also, science requires a lot of research that can take years to uncover answers and not too many people are willing to sacrifice part of or most of their lives to find answers to most questions science poses. This means years before the big “pay-off.” To some people, it just isn’t worth it.
Science and technology are often stigmatized in a negative way for women in particular. It is becoming rare for a woman to major in science and she is just expected to accept scientific aspects of life without questioning it. There isn’t enough of us as a whole to care.

Serenity

Serenity was fun and interesting. People actually moved to space and made different worlds their home. One very interesting part was when one of the worlds did an experiment to try to get rid of aggression. The plan backfired and what they got was most of their population dead and another part more aggressive than ever. They were aggressive enough to turn into extremely scary carnivores. They killed relentlessly. This is an example of why experiments should be tested in small doses in order to keep an entire population from disintegrating.
Another interesting aspect of the movie was once these different worlds were established, they began to fight each other - much like the different countries of our one world do today. This movie in particular makes me ask the question: No matter how far apart two different kinds of people are, if they see each other as different and disagreeing, will there always be fighting between different populations?

Chapter 18

Darksyde brings up all the awesome things we have discovered in space. If the universe is expanding, it seems as though we should have no problem in over-populating if we could only find a way to survive in the vast space of the universe outside the world we live on now. Discoveries in space have led to great things. All of these discoveries have been made from right here on earth. In order to continue these great discoveries, we should keep going into space to find new habitats. It is interesting to know that the universe is expanding. There are no limits to how far we can go.

Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking’s belief that the human race will not survive if we do not spread into space is agreed upon by a few people. However, it has not been thoroughly researched and a lot of people do not believe it is possible in the next 50 years. We have sent many people to space and there have been a few fatalities. I think if our world is in real danger and we end up needing somewhere else to form a habitat, this needs to be researched further. I personally can’t quite believe humans will ever live in space free of help from earth. I am willing to accept the idea, however, if this idea would be studied and experimented with more.

The big picture

Darksyde says that "I can’t for the life of me wrap my head around creationist objections to the Big Bang. If ever there were a nexus of the biblical creation story and science, that would be it. If ever there were a logical place to posit a Prime Mover, there it is." I can wrap my head around it, well, a part of it anyways. A "prime mover" isn't necessarily currently interested in humanity or has ever been interested in humanity, nor does "And god said 'BOOM' and it was good" occur anywhere in the Bible. Those creationists prefer the story that they already have for their own reasons, some of which I rather admire...

He writes that, "I can’t imagine a better place for God to work his will than the long-hidden secrets that Hubble and COBE revealed." But what about will in the lives of individual humans? What makes space inherently a better workplace for God than in the lives of his followers? The big bang is distant and long past, but many people want a god that is close, intimate, and current.

"Nor can I envision a greater testament to the brilliance of any Creator, than the creation of the universe with a single act, which would in turn initiate countless processes, all unfolding over eons, to produce this glorious, star-studded, breathtakingly beautiful universe." Again, I can imagine the testaments of human thought, love and life, to be a greater display of brilliance in a Creator for people who believe that that's how God works. Meanwhile, the stars and universe can be thought of as chance creations of cold-heartless laws of physics.

" I know some of you are religious, so you tell me: is this not inspirational?" It can be. But there are many things that I find inspirational.

"Is this not worthy of your Creator?" If I were highly religious, would I believe that I were worthy enough to determine what is worthy of God?

" Does this grandeur not humble you, make your hairs stand on end, and fill you with immense pride and thankfulness for the genius of your Creator?" I have been stopped dead in my tracks at the beauty of a sunset over the trees surrounding a band practice field, or the perfect white of wet dogwood blossoms surrounded by dark green woods after a storm. And by heartfelt words of love, or a perfect line of unexpected harmony in a bout of spontaneous music with friends.

But I wander, too, what makes us think of things as beautiful?Is beauty useful to us somehow? Does it help us survive? Or does it just lift our moral and entertain us? Help keep our brains active and alert? I doubt that anyone knows for certain. But the fact is that I find a lot of things fill me with pride and thankfulness more than the vast unknown of the universe and the big bang do. But while beauty may be part of why I believe in a creator of some sort (I'm increasely less and less attached to the idea of the trinity and traditional notions of God from Christianity) I believe for a lot of reasons other than just awe over creation...

The big bang is great on paper, but it still leaves readers with so many questions: where did the mass of the universe come from, why did finally explode, how did it come to be so densely compacted, are there any other big bangs in history or far far away, will the universe expand forever or will it fall back on itself and contract for another big bang,... millions of unanswered questions that we'll probably never know the answer to--at least not in this lifetime. Some people find more satisfying answers in religion.

This religious sidetrack that Darksyde takes is distracting, it feels like a random attack on religion in an attempt to prove that his thoughts about the big bang prove that some of these religious people are stupid or something (and some of them very well may be stupid or stubborn) but I don't get the point of it in this chapter...

In fact, I had a REALLY hard time seeing the point in any of chapter 18. It was really confusing and frustrating trying to draw connections to it and within it. The main thing that I got was that the universe is old and that we could see into the past in a way, which is nothing new at all, they taught us that way back in elementary science classes. And then there was something about "dark energy" that would probably make a lot more sense if I were reading about it from somewhere else, a science journal perhaps, some source with less sidetracks and less fussing about Young Earth Creationists.

Why don't we, as a society, make sure we all know more about scientific and technological issues?

Well, "more" is pretty vague. For my grandpa, "more" could be something as simple as learning how to check his voice mail messages or seeing the point in learning himself when his grandkids are more than willing to check them for him if he asks. For others it's out of this world notions of living on other planets or UFOs controlling our brains through cell phones.

While I think that we as a culture should know more about how the science and technology that we use affects us and our world, I also think that there will always be more for us to know. And who is to say that we should spend more time learning more about science and technology issues when there are so many issues that we also need to know more about like religious problems, racism, ... there are a lot of issues that we need to know more about.

I think that often times we don't know more about the science and technology ones because we are too interested in the other issues or because these issues just don't interest some people. Or people don't like them because they don't understand them or see the point in discussing things that see like far-fetched fiction. Some people probably think that these issues will never apply to them, others just don't care. Or the only "more" that there is to know on an issue is speculation and guesswork that people don't feel like messing with. There are a million reasons why we don't know more about issues of science and technology...

Chapter 17 Discussion

This one was much more the tone I would expect from Sumner, although significantly wordier to make a relatively simple point. He uses a lot of long words to basically say that we can pretend to know patterns and to be an intelligent culture, but until we start caring about our resources and environment then we are likely to lead to our own destruction (or a pretty close call). After muddling through the first four pages, I did enjoy reading about the Rapa Nui civilization. Cutting down trees seems like such an innocent thing to do until you read this type of tale. I am an environmentalist and all that but just replant a tree for every tree you tear down. Without the historical support I would have never believed cutting down trees could have been so destructive. I think it says a lot that a portion of the population was able to survive and rejuvenate itself.
Sumner's ale of Ocracoke hit close to home for me in a very literal way. My family vacationed there frequently while I was growing up, mostly for day trips but nonetheless quite often. They stopped going because it was becoming too “touristy.” Its sad to think of the quaint town I remember no longe existing in its charming manner because people didn't respect the limitations that we ourselves placed on it so it could retain the charm that is s lovable about it. I think Ocracoke would fall under Sumner's description of “a cultural collapse that leads to the fall of local traditions” and not one that has a “severe population collapse” because surely we have the technology to bring Ocracoke into the twenty first century but it would be such a great loss to give up the quaint, idealistic location to technology.
Despite his “doomsday” approach, Sumner reassures us that “we can rebuild our society to respect our environment.” A statement that I, like many of us, believe in; however, I cannot help but be a little fearful that we will have gone too far too fast the correct the problems before it is too late.

Chapter 16 Discussion

Ironically, Sumner opened this chapter as if he were reading my mind. He does seem to be a “gloomy gus” in the majority of his writings. Despite the fact that he claimed he would not be in this particular chapter, I would beg to differ. The thought of being outsmarted and overtaken by a computer is not exactly a thought that makes the idea of never dying appealing. I mean seriously, what purpose would living forever serve?
I enjoyed learning the information Sumner relayed from Diamond's books about civilizations that essentially led to their own destruction (or nearly) or developed new technology to avoid such fate because I am a little bit of a history buff (and I strongly believe we “learn from the past”). Kurzweil's theories were a little more unsettling, but I think this was mostly because his included a logarithmic plot to a transitional moment...or more accurately the end of civilization at least as we currently know it to be.
At the end of the chapter, Sumner says “we live to die.” This solidifies my previous point that he is still a “gloomy gus;” however, it also makes a poignant statement about how we, as a culture, are unlikely to change our behaviors because, though we can learn from the past, we are intrinsically motivated to self-destruct so we can start all over again. We live to die because there has to be an end point, a purpose, to everything that we do. If we just lived everyday, what would be the point. It would be utterly exhausting. You live the way you do because you have a finite amount of time to do so. If there were no death, we would probably self destruct as a society anyhow.

Movie: Serenity (based on the Firefly series)

I never saw the first (and apparently only) season of Firefly, but now I wish I had. Maybe I can find them on DVD someplace. The movie is more like a Western in space than a science fiction show, but it still keeps a lot of it's sci-fi-ness. The plot moves really fast, which makes more sense if you know that it only made it through 1 season of television shows, and that the movie is the rest of the unmade tv seasons basically condensed into a single movie. I suggest watching it with someone who has seen the tv show or read wikipedia or a fan site about it if you want to understand all the side stories.

It reminded me a lot of the end of the Time Machine (at least the the movie from 2002) with the Ravers equaling the Morlocks in a way. I think that it's really interesting how many science fiction writers like to turn humans into monsters and other species that devour each other and such. One race or group of humans becomes demonic and animallistic, often while another is emphasized as full of determination and free will (Firefly) or innocence and love (Eloi). They use the realm of science fiction and technology to explore the question of what makes us human or if we are really more like animals than the intelligent, enlightened beings that we like to think of ourselves as.

Hello Doomsday

This is the only piece by Sumner that I have fully agreed with. I believe that over population will be the number one reason that our culture will collapse. We are running out of land, out of fuel, and out of tolerance. The world has become so small that there is no real way to get away from our problems and enemies. There are too many people on this planet right now and something will happen that will fix this, or else we're all gonna die, be it from nuclear fallout or lack of food and water (and maybe air).

last off-ramp

Has anyone seen the Ghost in the Shell movies or series? This very much reminds me of it. In Ghost in the Shell world, in the not so distant future, most people have cyborg bodies or at least parts and their minds or souls (Ghosts) are contained in their machine bodies (Shells). Because of this, many people are directly connected with the net. People use this to hack into others' minds and take control, as far as altering memories, and controlling body functions. In the same sense, the people have become programs that can be moved from one computer to another, or modified, or even shut off. This is an interesting idea because when this happens, we will have to re-define life and existence. Once we become data, what makes us alive? Can a person then be written? or copied and modified?

Dr. Strangelove

As I mentioned in my previous post, Dr. Strangelove does an excellent job of illustrating what can happen as a result of technological differentials. Here we have a rogue commander that sends his bombers to nuke Russia in order to force the US into a preemptive strike, and thus a very quick and devastating war. We find out well into it that the Russians have a "doomsday device" which will release massive amounts of fallout and kill everyone on the surface of the planet. They almost works things out but the Russians can't tamper with the device or else it'll go off and it goes off automatically when a lone plane drops it's payload. The US has greater forces, resources, and technology, so the Russians came up with this thing to use as a deterrent. Unfortunately, as we find out they had yet to tell everyone of this device so in the end it goes off. The technological differential put the Russians in the situation where they were willing to kill everyone on the planet for fear of their own extinction.

differentials

Technology differentials can play a role modifying relations between two groups of people. Those who have will always rule those who have not, by force, or by withholding of information/technology. Even though the US may not directly influence some countries, the fact remains that we have the bombs and the military and the only way that some of these groups can fight us is through small guerrilla type operations. We have the superior technology, so the solution on the other side is find a new way to fight. Dr. Strangelove illustrated this quite well. The only way to win against the better armed guy is to not be afraid of dying in the process.

Chapter 17

The discussion of rotting cultures pending collapse in chapter 17 reminded me of Batman Beyond with its ninjas trying to get Gotham to tear itself apart from the inside out, believing it to be in decline like Rome was once.

I do not know if the Ocracoke comparision is fair because well, Ocracoke residents can leave and return to the island by boat at will. Even if they drained the island, somebody passing by would get them to safety or help the fix it back up. Even if the island is manned by "summer people" that summer income can support many of them through the other seasons. Who'll run the volunteer fire department? Why not the nice men and women that works at T-shirt shop and live on the island all year? Clemson's community doesn't die when school is out, why would Ocracoke kill over when it's part time residents head out? As long as somebody livign there still wants to have a community, then I think that the community will find a way. By contrast, I think what most often makes a community die out is what's happening to my Mom's old home town in rural SW Kansas. The rail road doesn't stop there anymore, the bulk of the population is becoming elderly, and most of the teen and 20-somethings are getting degrees and moving away, but very few move back and raise thier kids there. The town is getting old and shrinking just like my great grandma. And just like her when she sees me, when they see the outside world they marvel at how big it's gotten and they don't like to think that they're just getting smaller.

Sure, you get your civil wars and your catastrophes too, but gradualism has its place too, not just in geology.

Dr. Strangelove

I really enjoyed this movie, and it obviously ties in with the things we've been reading about in Kosmos. This is basically another example of doomsday on Earth, and this movie was filmed way before our time. It pretty much pokes fun at the Cold War. The film is just another example of some of the impending doom situations we have been reading about in the Kosmos. I just really hope we find technologies to prevent things like this from actually happening.

Chapter 16

The idea that we could live forever that is presented in this chapter would drive me nuts. Eventually I think we'd get bored with it. Even if you could stay eternally young during it there are only some many different things that you can experiance. And if nobody died, then you'd have to hope that we either find a way to live in space because we'd run out of room aweful fast. If everyone lived forever and we all continued to have kids, jeeze, we'd be over run with ankle-biters and old geezers in no time.

Eve Forward's first book (Villains by Necessity) was funny and it sort of deal with this. In that book, the good guys have already won, evil has be vanquished, and light reigns supreme. Nobody gets sick, nobody dies, and the earth is facing the worst infestation of butterflies and cute little bunny rabbits in it's history. Which brings us to the very first word of the book, a main character (an anti-hero) screaming "BOOORRING" at the top of his lungs. The book is big spoof on most fantasy books and role playing games like Dungons and Dragons, but the whole time you cheer for the "bad" guys (a thief, a spy, a black knight, an assassin, a sorceress, a druid, etc) as they try to save the world from being "subliminated" into light (ie, if nothing ever dies and everything keeps being born then the world will end in a feel good, fuzzy feeling catastrophe).

Have you ever noticed how most movies where technology seems to make things perfect (you live forever, you're waited on hand and foot by robots, criminals can be arrested before they actually commit a crime, etc) that something about it always goes horrible wrong with the system? I think that's another way of saying that the director/author things that things can never become that perfect without them "sublimiating" in the long run. Or maybe we're just all pessimists at heart.

Chapter 17- Hello Doomsday

This chapter provided yet more and more explanations of the impending doom supposedly coming for mankind in the future. I was very much inspired by the end of the chapter, however. Sumner says that we can limit boundaries to make sure we continue to have enough resources and come up with technologies that won't pollute the earth. I would very much like to believe these claims when I think about the future. In the future, technology can help mankind find ways to forge on.

The Last Ramp Off Before Armageddon

Sadly, I can see some of what Kurzweil's claims mean in this chapter. We are only going to continue to become more and more technologically advanced, so it makes sense that we may one day face another one of the hunter-farmer transitions. It's really scary to think about; the fact that we could one day have robots and computers that could think as well as humans. I also don't agree with the fact that Kurzweil thinks none of us have to die unless we want to. I feel like the human race will eventually kill itself off if computers are doing all of our tasks, just because of the sole fact the we will have nothing to do. I do hope that something like this doesn't happen, but it really seems like a possibility with some of the stuff that comes out today.

Science and Technology Differentials

I don't see dangers between the two, because I have always thought of them as the same thing. Scientific formulas and discoveries are the things that create technological advancements. Everybody who makes a new invention, new type of medicine, or some other type of technology is using some type of scientific method. I was watching something last night on the way weigh stations that truckers have to use are becoming more and more computerized, to the point where the truckers don't even have to stop to have their weight checked; they can just roll right on through the exit. Something like this is definitely using some kind of formula to work properly. I have always thought of science and technology as pretty much the same thing.

Dr. Strangelove

My BF gave me an unintended hint on the ending of the movie. When I asked him if he had Dr. Strangelove, he said, "Oh, you mean 'Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb'?" I spent the entire movie trying to figure out that second title and was so happy when I guessed it right. It's funny, because that means that even a movie like Dr. Strangelove has this imphasis on reproduction like Handmaid did (I promise, I'm not obsessed with that theme or anything, it just keeps coming up) but it's a lot funnier in Strangelove because the guys get that goofy-happy look when they learn that they'll need 10 girls per guy. I was a bit slow picking up on the fact that Dr. Strangelove's arm was a prosthetic. It is sad how many of our great technologies we got by taking in German Nazi scientists... I wonder how long it would have taken us to come up with them without the war. The atomic bombs set to music were pretty in a surreal sort of way because you never saw the damage that they do to the land and to people, just the veiw from the clouds.

Have/Have nots differential

I think that the differential issue stuff shows up a lot in that G-8 summit debate thing. All the countries involved are in agreement with the fact that pollution emmissions need to be cut down for the good of our atmosphere and yet they can't agree on how to do it, mostly because of the technological differentials. Delevoped nations like the US only want to cut back if the still developing nations cut back just as much. And on the other side of the ring you get the developing nations crying that that's not far, after all the US was cutting back when we were booming and growing into powerful HAVEs. It becomes this big fight over who cuts back first, the haves or the have nots that are trying to become haves. And the haves tell the have nots basically "Do as I say, not as I did" while the have nots cry out that that's not far and that they want to be able to trash the environment for the sake of iPods and Nike Sneakers too. It' s big mess; both sides claim to care about the environment, but both sides are still just following the money and trying to keep up good P.R.

QUESTION for TF

Ok, so paper #2 is now dur no later than Sunday, right?
And when are revisions for paper 1 due? Sunday as well?

Weekly Question redo

There is definately a wide gap between the access of technology and science for people in different countries. Especially between industrialized and Third World countries. Third World countries do not have the access to the best medical care that we have developed through science and technology as we do. Some countries such as ourselves (yet we havn't the balls to use ours) have nuclear bombs that can be used in time of war that provides power to these countries. Some Third World countries still struggle to provide theirselves with adequate food, yet if they had some of the technology we have, they would be in good shape. Science and technology often brings some bad with the good, but the good definately outweighs the bad. It is extremely visable to see who has the science and technology and who doesn't.

Clarification on question for this week

Hey everyone-

I was reading the blog tonight, and realized that my phrasing of the question has caused some confusion. The gap I was talking about is the gap between haves/have nots or gaps between what people on one side of a border (between regions, countries, groups) have access to and what those on the other side have. I was trying to include both science and technology in the gaps under consideration, not to ask about gaps between science and technology. Sorry for the confusion.

Class Question

When looking at this question I found it hard to truly differentiate between the two. Ultimately, science and technology are really one in the same. Without the science to formulate the ideas it would have been difficult throughout the years for us to apply the science through technology. One continually has a hand in the other. Now, in saying that, the means of creating a new and possibly devastating form of technology can wind up out of the hands of science completely. Just look at the cuckoos leading some of the countries around the world (including ours). That is where the technology could become more dangerous than the science itself. Sure, the science behind the technology is dangerous, but it is in some sense a natural thing. It is the people that take that science and pervert it in some way, naturalize it in a way that it should not be is when the differences between science and technology become painfully real and dangerous.

Chapter 17

By the time I finished this article I wanted to rename it one of two things: A Tale of Too Many -isms and Geology Made Fun. The first half of the article was a lot more jargon than I am used to concerning Sumner but, as he often does, he finds a way to make it all make sense and enjoyable to read. If it was anyone else writing this article I probably would have bailed on it fairly early. To be completely honest with you, geology is not really my idea of fun reading after work. Still, the way that Sumner plowed through the "-isms" and then built upon those to help bring relevance to the idea of looking to the present to find the past and predict the future. There was a lot of credence to Sumner's argument especially when placed beneath the failing societies microscope. Looking at it in that way really helps bring everything else that Sumner has talked about in his other articles full circle. Sure, you can sit there and talk to no end about how the world will end, but when we can actually look at areas today that are failing and coming to an end because of dwindling resources, it really forces you to stop and think about things. Hopefully, as Sumner suggests, we can as a whole rewire our brains to either start slowing down the damages we are doing now or find a way to start adapting and reverse the effects.

Chapter 16

In this article, Sumner talks about how we as a race of intelligent humans are moving quickly toward a world in which the computers we have created will be smarter than us. In turn, we are also heading toward a future where immortality will be more than fictitious thoughts and, frankly, we will not need to think about much anyway because we will know everything. To be completely honest I thought this article was a bit of a stretch, especially time frame wise. I thought that Sumner was being a bit too optimistic in his evaluations of how much and how soon some of this would happen. Ultimately I do not disagree with him, I have always believed that we are on a one way road to self-sufficient artificial intelligence (or maybe that's just the geek in me). The point point of immortality seems a bit closer to reality than the other points that Sumner brought up. Right now, morally, nations are restricting scientific measures that could aid in lengthening life such as artificial reproduction of organic limbs, organs, etc. and stem cell research. It is in this where I think science will make the most, and quickest, gains.

Weekly Question

The dangers of differences in science and technology could include the way each is put on the market. Science issues are always tested and peer reviewed. Technology is usually created and put on the market for consumers without much testing for competence and safety. Technology is sometimes used in science to help create potentially harmful products. Some things created through technology and science that unleash disagreeableness are things like cloning and stem cell research. These things have the potential to create havoc in our society, especially if not thoroughly tested and explained to our society.

Dr. Strangelove

I actually couldn't get the movie, but I read the entire script.
There is a nuclear bomb that if untriggered will automaically detonate and the world would be bare of plant and animal life within weeks. Dr. Strangelove has an idea that they could use a computer to accept certain characteristics of people. These several hundred thousand people (including military personnel) would live deep enough under ground to be safe for 100 years of the after-effects of the nuclear bomb. It is amazing they would completely rely on a computer to choose their human race legacy. The human race would continue based entirely on the technology of a computer.

Human "stories"

Bryna,

That is a very good question. I meant for us to come back to it in class--that's why I posted it early in the session--but we didn't, so I appreciate you bringing it up.

What I meant for you to address are the stories that are central to our culture, our identity, and our society. As an example, I'm going to use one that doesn't jump out at me as a technology-influenced story (but there may be technology connections I am not aware of): The Boston Tea Party. The BTP is a story that helps us understand and define who we are--how we think of ourselves. If your topic was communication, there would be a wealth of things to say about the significance of different kinds of communication to that story. The initial tax--how it was developed and how it was communicated to the colonists--all communication related. How it was planned and carried out--all communication related. And perhaps most importantly, how the story was framed and told--completely communication related. So if you look at it through a communication "lens" this story is really all about communication.

For this paper, I want you to look through a technology lens. There are many, many of our stories that are really all about technology--either for the good or for the bad. Every modern war, for instance, had key elements decided by technology. 9/11 can be a story about technology. Christopher Reeves, our past two presidential elections and global warming are all examples that come immediately to mind, but I'm sure there are countless others.

I hope that helps. If you want to talk more about this, please post here so everyone can participate in the discussion. Thanks again for getting us started.

T. F.

Paper 3 ?

Could you please clarify what you mean by human stories?

Thanks

Chapter 17

Sumners made a very good point about looking at the past to predict the future. People that have destroyed their ecosystems did it for economic gain and knew they were headed for disaster. Just like the U.S, we want more oil and we want to use more energy for economic gain or actually just to keep up our comfortable lifestyle. We know we are at the end our "trees", yet we keep chopping.

Chapter 16

Mark Sumners throws the idea out that one day computers will be smarter than us and through technology, we will live forever. Man made this technology, so I don't see any computer or technology becoming smarter than the smartest man. I can see how technolgy prolongs life, but it is hard to imagine us being able to live forever because of technology. The closest people have come to living forever is having their thoughts, stories, and beliefs handed down through generations via books. People are now able to post blogs and web pages on the Internet. So, through technology, we are able to carry our name, our thoughts, and feelings on down the line. As far as prolonging our actual life...at one time, people lived hundreds of years, but I don't see how we can get back to that considering how unhealthy we are for the most part.

Anyone have the movie Dr. Strangelove

Hey guys. Does anyone at Clemson have the Dr. Strangelove movie? I checked the library and the two that were listed had statuses missing and lost and paid for. I would appreciate it if anyone could either let me borrow their movie or tell me where I could find one. I'm sure if I ordered it online, I wouldn't have it by Thursday.

Grades are up, Comments are sent

OK, if you sent me a paper, you should have a response with comments to help you revise. Your grades are on the papers and also posted in BlackBoard. And remember, if you don't like the grade you have now, revise, and your revision grade **replaces** your first draft grade.

I'm going to revise the schedule tonight or tomorrow at the latest, with new due dates. I wanted to make sure everyone got their papers back today so you have that guidance to help you as you work on paper #2.

If you did **not** get a comment back about your proposal (and you sent one), consider it approved. (If you didn't send one yet, send it, for approval asap.)

Again, thanks for the understanding. We're *almost* back on track. :-)

--T. F.

Dr. Strangelove

I really enjoyed the movie Dr. Strangelove, I thought that it was funny while it still hit on a number of problems concerning technology during this time period. I thought that It was funny how the movie sort of mimicked real life events with a twist, and how everything in the film was lent a certain sexual, or male driven connotation. How there were so many references to it during the movie, and even the names of the characters. One of my favorite characters was Dr. Strangelove and his arm with his strange German tendencies even as he advises the President.

Chapter 17

This chapter takes the time to talk about the science of geology, which is a much less exact form of science then many of the others. There are many different viewpoints in geology, or at least there have been in the past, especially between the gradualists and the catastrophists. I think the author made a good point that using geology and the uniformitarianism scale it could be possible to predict some of the geographical events that will happen in the future. It was interesting to also read about how societies can cause their own downfalls, and how there are so many different aspects to it. He also talks about how we a following down the same path as many of these other failed nations and while some nations are able to turn themselves around it is very infrequent that nations can do this,and even more unlikely in our case. We neither want or feel the need to try to change our ways. I also like how the author ended this chapter with an upbeat proclamation, because after reading the last few chapters I was feeling very down about the whole end of society thing and I am generally very optimistic about everything.

Chapter 16

I found this chapter very interesting, especially compared to Ch. 15. The idea that instead of everyone dying out because of technology, technology will enable us to live forever. Even though it is an abrupt change from the last article, it is still not a future that I would want to be a part of. A technology so advanced that we lose all individuality, language, and emotion to live on forever as a part of a giant network. Living forever as part of a whole and losing all sense of self and individuality is not a place where I would want to live. I do not like the idea of computers becoming so powerful that they succeed us as the human race, in a blending of genetics and technology, is not a future that I would want to embrace. I think that I would almost rather live in the technology collapsed world of Ch 15 then this world, because then I could at least retain my humanity. I do not really believe that technology could advance so far so quickly that we would able to see such advances in our lifetime, and I know that I would not want to live forever. I have accepted my mortality and the idea of living forever is just too much for me.

Chapter 4

Amongst the various theological discussions brought up in Chapter 4, was the notion of deciphering the moral stance of God. This questioning is a result of dissatisfaction with the current state of our world, yet leads me to think that those that are feable in their theological viewpoints are just those in need of scapegoats. More than to concretely define God as being good or bad, it is more important for each individual to find that place on the continuum described by Paul and beleive firmly in their ideals.

Chapter 15

In Chapter 15, Sumner addresses one subject of wide reaching concern, energy. More specifically, he considers the resulting effects from the cost and availability of energy sources. This an area of great concern because the sources of energy we use today may not be available in years to follow. Not only that, but the fact that new energy sources have to contend with more cumulative enviornmental regulations.

Ender's Game

This book was definately a much easier read, because the idea of international military forces selecting Ender Wiggin to save the world from destruction was definately more interesting. His accounts of relationships with his brothers and peers at school forshadows isolation that he would learn to be comfortable with, making Battle School mentally easier. Finally, as he moves up in the ranks of the military, he begins making friends, for example Alai after the two of them learn to navigate through null gravity. Remarkably, when he was nine years old he was platoon leader in the Phoenix army yet depressed and stuck in the mind game. Throughout the novel, he is an fascinating charecter because he not only leads with tremendous resolve and fiercely disallows anything to get in his way.

Chapter 15 - Playing Chicken with the Apocalypse

We seem to read quite a bit of Mark Sumner, which is just fine since he has a humorous, albeit rough around the edges, style of writing. If nothing else he knows how to hold a readers attention to an otherwise droll topic. His rambling about the PBS show Connections did seem a bit unnecessary to supporting his point though. I found the discussion about how the phrase ""tipping point" has replaced "the straw that broke the camels back" in our vocabulary" interesting because the expressions always seemed so interchangeable; however, "tipping point" does seem to have a more catastrophic tone/impact. Based on gladwells book though it appears that the verdict is still out on whether the "tipping point" constitutes a major event or it can be a series of smaller, significant events. The focus, for the purpose of this chapter, is the limited availability (and continually declining) of cheap energy. Sumner makes very strong statements about the effects of a lack of cheap energy. Sumner states that "People and institutions will not surrender their lives or their comforts willingly, and certainly not peacefully" and these wants are dependent upon the availability of cheap energy and "Cheap energy is going to end." My favorite line in the chapter is to "Live like their is a tommorrow" bvecause I truly believe that so many people live recklessly. Not in the traditional way but in the sense that Sumner refers to of not respecting and preserving resources in a way that protects our society.

Chapter 4 - A Word from Pastor Dan

First, Let me start by saying how awkward I found this chapter to read. I found myself needing to back back and re-read pararaphs to find connections. Once I muddled through that, I found one sentence that seemed to summarize the whole idea of the chapter. "He believed that meaning could arise out of chaos." Pastor Dan focuses his article on Burroughs but really the discussion is centered around the ideas of Kant and the formulation of the scientific method and essentially how we think about and approach life in general.

The most interesting portion of the chapter to me was when the author was describing how Burroughs believed there was "room for surprise" and developed the "celebrated literary technique...called cut-up." Its a bit like the magnets friends five you as a goofy extra birthday gift that have random words on them and you try to piece together sentences that are either intelligent or absurd and therefore funny. What I liked most about this idea (aside frmo having been forced to experiment with it throughout high school) was that "meaning could arise out of chaos" but it did not have to. The acceptance of something so ambiguous for the sake of a process of thinking outside the proverbially box is intriguing.

Explanation

Hey everyone.

I am very sorry about not being as responsive as I usually am. Rather than explain in detail, I'm just going to show you, and ask for your understanding.

I promise that I'm working on getting caught up and that I'll find ways of giving you adequate feedback and opportunities for revision. Unfortunately, this is what I've been dealing with since late Tuesday night (early Wednesday morning.)

Luckily, this wasn't my only computer, and I didn't lose anything that you sent me. It's just taking a while for me to get things together.

As I said in the email, no one was hurt, which was a good thing. The stuff I had in the house did not fare as well, but it is only stuff, and can be replaced.

Chapter 15- Playing Chicken With The Apocalypse

It is interesting to think about how important energy is to us, and the fact that it is cheap make it that much easier to obtain. Sumner talks about how we will be in complete chaos if cheap energy goes away, and this makes alot of sense. We are starting to see this even now, with the rise of gas prices all over the country. It's absolutely ridiculous; I don't know about you guys, but I definitely try to get on the CAT bus as much as I can these days. This article just really makes you aware of some of the things that are going on in the world right now, and we just have to continue to find ways to manufacture things such as cheap energy.

Technology and War

Advances in technology are definitely driving us more toward war. New technologies today are creating more and more weapons of mass destruction. People are always trying to find new ways to get ahead and protect their respective nations. Ender's Game is a great example of technology being used for war. All the games that the kids played, including the simple arcade games as well as the game Ender always played on the computer were all set-up to train the children for battle against the buggers in war. People use technology for training as well as continuing to make weapons. I feel that technology will continue to drive us towards war on into the future.

A Note From Pastor Dan

Kantism was discussed, and he talked about how some people wonder what kind of person God is because of the state our world is in. He asks how we are supposed to know whether God is good or bad, in a sense. The part that I most enjoyed was Paul's quote about the creation and how it goes on a continuum from meaningless to meaningful. I just think he is saying that some things mean more than others, and we should pay attention to the things that matter the most in the world. God definitely didn't mean for the world to be perfect, and it's definitely not. However, we have to make the best of our situations, and always try to focus on things that really matter.

Ender's Game

This was a pretty fascinating book. I've never gotten into science fiction much, but this just might have converted me. I really liked the idea of child geniuses and how Ender and his siblings were so amazingly smart. Colonel Graff made Ender work hard for everything, even something as simple as making friends, from the very beginning. Putting him in complete isolation like that and then seeing him come out and interact with people and become a leader was awesome. He had great command over his soldiers from the time he became a leader, and after he went to Command School and killed off the bugger race, I thought it was awesome how the book ends with him wanting to start a new civilization for them. This kid is truly a genius.

Slashdot.org aka "News for Nerds Stuff That Matters" gives link to article "MIT Wirelessly Powers a Lightbulb"

In playing Chicken with the Apocalypse, Sumner says that our fragile system for transfering power could be a part in the downfall of our high tech world. I wonder, if we went totally wireless, would our infastructure for the transfer of power be stronger and more flexible?

BBC has a good article on it

Ender's Game

Wow, that was a damn good read!

I have mentioned Snow Crash by Neil Stephenson a few times here and there, and if you liked this, you will definably like Snow Crash. It was suggest by T.F. that posts on this novel could be used for extra credit, but after thinking about it further, it really isn't fair to ask that. It's a long book, and to fully appreciate it, one should read it for pleasure rather than a grade or assignment. It is also a sci-fi novel, taking place in the not too distant future. The term "avatar" as used for an internet handle/picture was coined by Stephenson in this novel, long before the world wide web existed. Most of his predictions in this book have come to fruition, such as people living their lives in a virtual environment, preferring computer generated representations of themselves to their real persona. Facebook maybe? Another interesting note are the people that are always "wired", which he refers to as gargoyles, sort of like having a computer strapped to you with a headset, which we aren't far from having with our fancy new cell-phones.

Ok, as for Ender's Game, I have to quote a passage that struck me:
"There was no doubt in Ender's mind. There was no help for him. Whatever he faced, now and forever, no one would save him from it. Peter might be scum, but Peter been right, always right; the power to cause pain is the only power that matters, the power to kill and destroy, because if you can't kill then you are always subject to those who can, and nothing and no one will ever save you." (page 213 second paragraph if you have the same print as me)

This sums up the book in my opinion. The balance between self-preservation and genocide. Ender was raised to eliminate the entire "bugger" species, and at the end realizes what this actually means. He goes as far as setting the political stage for bringing this race back into existence. One could say this has parallels to the Iraq situation; the mentality of the common soldier when sanity sets back in and self-preservation is no longer paramount, but that would be too shallow. This is more like every conflict through human history. "If its me or you I'm gonna shoot first". This commentary on human nature emphasizes our ineptitude as a species to cope with this idea. On one hand, we want to live peacefully, respecting each other's rights to life. On the other other hand, we are infinitely selfish in our perseverance to survival. This book compares and contrasts idea of self worth. The "buggers" think nothing of the soldiers, only that they are tools. Is this not really the case? Do we place too much emphasis on self worth? If we all die, time will continue on without us and not look back. Should we not live our lives as such? Is there anything wrong in sacrificing a 1000 soldiers for 10,000 civilians? For all of our individuality, we are still merely machines.