#1 | Do you think technology (text messages, emails, facebook, etc.) helps or harms our communication skills? Why?
Growing up in the ‘90s, I can’t say there was ever a time in my life where technology wasn’t around and quite alive. “Those were the good ol’ days…”, and cheerfully reminisce on when life was black and white movies, when it was a family event, not to mention very important reason, whenever someone called the household telephone, when email sounded like a foreign food rather an everyday commodity as it is today. More so an infatuation and lifestyle for most these days, the world of technology has become so done up and hyperactive that it simply is not a choice for the majority out there. Communication: it’s just what we do. Between email, texting and popular social networking sites like Facebook, we, either by choice or mere acceptance, let it take over our lives. Our everyday grind was once school, work, eat, sleep, play, etc., and it has recently taken a U-turn (for the better or worse) and it’s revolved around communication via calls, messages, texts, etc. That’s it, ain’t it beautiful?
Food bloggers cannot go out to eat at a restaurant without a camera in hand, people under the age of oh, 60 cannot step foot out of the house without their cell phone glued to their hip, and what once was a private social networking project to keep college students in touch after they graduate and move away from each other, is now the world’s most popular online site with over 15 million users (as of May 2010) from 180 different countries. Too much? Soak it up people, soak it up. The world is either in a battle with technology and it’s about to be ‘game over’, or it’s on a hardcore mission with a technology epidemic being its final destination, and it’s about to win with no intention of ever looking back.
Food bloggers cannot go out to eat at a restaurant without a camera in hand, people under the age of oh, 60 cannot step foot out of the house without their cell phone glued to their hip, and what once was a private social networking project to keep college students in touch after they graduate and move away from each other, is now the world’s most popular online site with over 15 million users (as of May 2010) from 180 different countries. Too much? Soak it up people, soak it up. The world is either in a battle with technology and it’s about to be ‘game over’, or it’s on a hardcore mission with a technology epidemic being its final destination, and it’s about to win with no intention of ever looking back.
We’re wired, we’re restless, we’re always on call, always available, always ready to go or answer or jump or invent or create or do, it’s just like BAM. *Now take deep breath* Are we there yet? The real question is, simply, when it all comes down to it, have we reached the destination of future visions belonging to past generations’ or have we just begun the journey towards a fast-paced, technology-crazed world? You’d think there has to be a limit. Just yesterday, I was sitting down to a TV show (you may call me a The Office junkie, I hold no shame) for the first time all week and I subconsciously noted the stream of four different commercials playing back to back, all advertising products of The New Age: the iPad, 30 Rock on season DVDs (out in stores now!), 32”-60” flat screens on sale at Best Buy (editor’s note: THIS WEEK ONLY), and the new Verizon Droid that just hit the market is only $299.99 (While supplies last. No purchase necessary. [Don’t be fooled, we all know this is a lie] [hint: pay attention to the small print at the bottom, it’ll get ya])… And then a big blue-eyed little girl came on selling Kellogg’s cereal. Back to, uh, the point, in which technology is everywhere, whether we want it to be or not. We have no choice, and we certainly can’t escape it. Is it an obsessive craze to the point of achieving a state of overrated, or as a society, should we simply fake a smile, give up any hopes for a more simple and less developed culture, and look down at our Blackberries to answer that last text we received? If I had the power to make up a slogan of my own and throw my name on it, it would look a little something like so: “Technology denting and equally destroying communication skills in teenagers and adults alike since 1991, respectively. Copyrighted, Courtney Chissus. The very owner of an enV Touch, $1300 Toshiba laptop, and crapload of different computers, iPods and MP3s throughout the house, what? As much as I think the world of the internet, phone and everything that falls in the middle effectively boosts communication between [most] anyone and everyone, everywhere, I also think it impairs our communication skills in the real world, especially referring to face-to-face and in-person situations. It’s widely known that when one stops using a tool or skill so often in the everyday, it is forgotten and sometimes completely disabled. Likewise, when people spend 13 hours out of there day conducting business, and relationships, via email, texting and social networking sites, and only two or three They forget how to hold conversations the ‘right’ way. How to look someone in the eye. How to be polite. Or laugh. Or make jokes. Sometimes they forget they have a personality outside of Facebook/blogging/[insert preferred networking site of choice here] completely, and it shows in their self-confidence. To say the least, technology is taking over the world, one baby step at a time, and it’s resulting in socially awkward victims all around the world. Hide behind that computer screen for much longer, and you’ll forget about the world you’re living in.
Welcome to 2010, where Google is a verb and texting/Facebooking/ is a sport, all equally in league.
Please take a seat and enjoy the show. Oh, and please, silence your cell phones.
[**Editor's note: I found this information useful in writing the above.]
_______________________________
#2 | What impact do social networking sites have on society?
It is arguable enough in this day-in-age to say that technology is, undeniably and uncontrollably, taking over the world, one Cragislist ad by one Facebook wall post. Just as every universal controversy upholds some bad and some good, this one serves as no exception: as damaging, adverse, and overall, socially destructive as social networking sites may have upon society, it still manages to prove itself as beneficial in the eyes of the world. Whether you’re on the outside looking in and watching, or up in all the online action and participating, there’s no question in the fact that you are being affected by the craze. It started with basic email, upgraded to MySpace, and now Facebook and personal blogs are contagiously spreading like a wildfire sans any water or firefighter assistance. On the brightside, they’re to blame for our global community being redefined; it gives us access to log online and talk to anyone and everywhere in the world, anywhere, at anytime. It connects us, and needless to say, social networking sites is giving the term ‘united world’ a run for its money.
Courtesy of Facebook, one is basically able to find anyone walking the earth they so choose, all including but not limited to long lost cousins, ex-boyfriends from years earlier, pen pals, friends’ parents… the list continues. The point? If you take advantage of the benefits social networking sites deliver, results deem positive and relationships are often improved. On the opposite spectrum, there are no words to justify just how lazy they have made our society as a whole in the past few years alone. We have reached the point where even printing out a resume and delivering it to the desired workplace is unnecessary; log onto Craigslist’s ‘Wanted Jobs’ page and you’re golden, or rather, your laziness has won that battle. Likewise, traditional mailbox-delivered event invitations seem too anticipative when you can simply throw together one on Facebook; a phone call deems too eager when an email in its place works just fine and does the same job. Why put effort via out in the real world into a relationship or social event/situation when you can perform the same trick via online from the laptop on your bed?, is our world’s newly established attitude.
Verdict: as much of a self-proclaimed social networking addict I must ashamedly admit I am myself, the old-fashioned, traditional part of me dominates in certain circumstances. Talking online communities vs. face-to-face interaction, for example. I was raised very ladylike and manners were made a priority growing up, and it still shows. Social networking sites completely take away the opportunity to be respectful and polite, not to mention the motivation to actually put forth any effort. It’s a lazy man’s dream world. Besides, can we not all agree it’s so much more exciting to get invited to a party via mailbox and still be expected to RSVP via phone call than it all having to happen behind computer screens? Enough said.
______________________________________________
#3 | After watching Merchants of Cool, do you think that teenagers can have an authentic culture? Why or why not?
It’s a sticky situation. Our generation and the mission we’re on to claim ourselves as original, I mean. Webster defines ‘authentic’ as not false or copied: genuine and original, as opposed to being a fake or reproduction, and yet how can we honestly label ourselves with such a title when, just observantly looking around, a majority of the generation are platinum-bleached, overly-tan-borderlining-a-shade-of-orange, Volkswagen-driving, Lil-Wayne-listening girls and their boyfriend accessories posing as even greater support to the case of unoriginality? Now don’t get me wrong, there’s those select few who faithfully worship Nirvana and the ones who throw together outfits mixed with Nordstrom price tags and thrift store finds. Teenagers today, for the most part however, fail to represent their individual essence/style and bring their own name to the show.
The documentary we watched in class really made the bold statement of the question if it’s even an option for our generation anymore. Teenagers especially are vulnerable and live in the moment very much so, thus we conform to what we see and what we like: it’s really as simple as that. Whether it’s inspiration we’re lacking or enough self-confidence to walk out of our comfort zones, do/wear/be something a little out of the ordinary, and throw our name on it (with pride), we hold back when we just need to be unleashing the potential each one of us was born with. Are we intimidated, uninspired or lazy? By nature, we are drawn to what excite our senses and consequently, follow in tow to achieve the same results. It’s a never ending cycle: a trend is set, everyone conforms to meet the standard requirements; everyone realizes their unoriginality and changes to ‘be original’; another trend is set, and everyone follows it. A vicious cycle at its finest, authenticity in the form of style/fashion/music/media is practically unachievable by this point. It’s 2010 and original doesn’t exist in the 18-year-old-dominant world anymore.
__________________________________________
#4 | How has technology changed the news we receive? Think about conglomerates, online news, news for entertainment…
Correction, how has technology not changed the news we receive? Comfortably set yourself in a scene of a 1980’s household: the only connections one had to the outside world was the awkwardly big cradle phone, television, and the door. Bring yourself back. Today, we hardly have an option of not receiving it. We log onto our computers and it’s aggressively popping up via advertisements, alerts and messages everywhere we look. Competing with the current local weather on our homepage, sponsored by Google on the sidebars, RIGHT THERE when we go and log into our social networking sites. We walk into the grocery store and it’s screaming for our attention on the covers of USWeekly and The Seattle Times. We settle down to a quiet evening of television at night and CNN specials are unavoidable. It’s everywhere, and without a doubt, we can’t seem to escape it. We should be thanking technology for the efficiency it’s brought us when we’re asking for the news ourselves, because it’s fast, (usually) reliable, and there’s innumerable sources to go for it. In bleak contrast, however, sometimes it’s just too much. Truth be told (and I’m speaking for a large and general majority), we don’t want it to consume our lives and we don’t want to hear about continuous deaths over in Iraq (or Brangelina’s sixth family member addition) around the clock. We’re human, sometimes we need a break.
Technology has made it so we can get our news anywhere, about anything, at anytime we so desire, and yet billions upon billions websites and news sources all competing for the same audience’s attention has also made it quite possible to never know what to believe and what not to. With so many scams and fraud on the Internet, who can we trust without doubt at the back of our minds? By twisting and turning and alternating the timing, access availability and quality of what we’re after, technology has ultimately changed the way we receive news for good.
__________________________________________
#5 | Write about your specific position on the euthanasia in America.
Question: what is the standard ethical solution when a patient is on their deathbed, given a tangible number in months or weeks to live, with no self-motivation or reason to keep at it and stay around? Answer: the
__________________________________________
#6 | Is it possible for a country to own and or use weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in an ethically reasonable way?
By raw definition, ‘ethical’ is represented by and depended upon not only its actions and characteristics, but by its objective, motives and intentions. More specifically, if a country is in possession of weapons of mass destruction and yet not maintaining them in active use, does it not serve the same sentence as if they were simple because of the ethics and morality, or lack thereof, behind it? It was either me, or Prime Minister Tony Blair who once said regarding the subject, “But this new world faces a new threat: of disorder and chaos born either of brutal states like Iraq, armed with weapons of mass destruction; or of extreme terrorist groups. Both hate our way of life, our freedom, our democracy. My fear, deeply held, based in part on the intelligence that I see, is that these threats come together and deliver catastrophe to our country and world. These tyrannical states do not care for the sanctity of human life. The terrorists delight in destroying it.”
The presence of WMD’s is a universal controversy that very well may continue on for as long as time exists. It’s messy, it’s brutal, and it’s undeniably a sensitive subject when it comes down to the question if it’s morally ethical or not. It’s also one I uphold confidence in: I believe, without a doubt, that weapons of mass destruction should be thrown out of this world with no hesitation. “Some say [that] if we act, we become a target. The truth is, all nations are targets.” Just as with atomic bombs, war, and ex-boyfriends, you never learn your lesson until what’s done is done. Unfortunately, with something as destructive and catastrophic as WMD’s, we cannot afford as a global society to take our chances, play with fire, and risk the consequences. As in-class debates continued, I learned a little more on the subject and became even more passionate with where I stand. I guess showing up to first period pays off after all, huh? Naturally, the affirmative-ers fought their case in which weapons deemed the use ethical if a nation is using with the correct intentions and goals. In obvious contrast, the opposite team busied themselves in advocating the moral disgust to weapons of mass destruction anywhere, towards any country, at anytime, and for any reason. How can killing be justified in the slightest? Murder is murder in the eyes of millions, and similarly, in the judgment. I see it merely as, since when has it been okay to destroy people much less an entire nation with the driving motive of achieving revenge? Mass destruction is not right - no matter what angle/perspective/facts you try to justify it from or with - and it’s as simple as that.
[**Editor's note: I found this information useful, too.]
[**Editor's note: I found this information useful, too.]
__________________________________________
#7 | Do you feel commercial/factory farming is ethical?
“We are what we eat.” The signature motto to how and what I base my diet upon, as with millions upon millions of other people. A bold yet honest statement at its finest, it speaks for itself. Such a theory should also apply to how the product, and more specifically, animals, are treated in the process of evolving into the food on our dinner plates, should it not? As a self-proclaimed nutritionista* addicted to the world of and journey towards health and well-being, I tend to be passionate about anything remotely along the lines of diet, exercise, and what I feed my body on the day to day. Commercial/factory and the ethics behind it falls under the category of extremely interesting subjects in my book, and naturally, I uphold a very strong opinion on the matter. The affirmative team, during the debate in class, attempted to justifiably validate its morality with the fact that, generally speaking, products tend to be less expensive than organic or more healthy and thus less processed food are. Fact: commercial farming cannot claim an ethical title simply due to prices on the supermarket shelves. Money only goes so far before ethics step in. Serving one of their main “supportive” points back in their court, I figure who would want to eat food that holds the potential to be modified into any color, flavor, shape, form and ultimately, with any outcome of the rainbow? That’s not food; that’s experimenting with science, and risking it with your taste buds and digestion.
Affirmative bystanders fail to have any concern with livestock, and instead, are more concerned with workers and how they’re treated, and the final production of food. It’s time (or much overdue time) to face reality: it’s animal cruelty, guys, that’s what it is. If you’re selfish enough to take a life and allow yourself the enjoyment of nice, juicy meat, the least you can do is grant equal freedom to that same bird or beast so that they would’ve lived a happy life, right? So next time you down that grilled, marinated, juicy steak at Burger King, think about where it came from and what you’re supporting. Penny for your thoughts, you know? Not only is it forcing the product, once real and alive, to live in cruel and disgustingly unfair circumstances before its fated death, but it’s bringing upon damage to our own bodies. With commercial farming comes an innumerable amount of pesticides and hidden chemicals that carry destructive potential to do godknowswhat with our bodies. That just screams asking for some kind of disease, sickness, or in the very least, an unhealthy immune system, if you ask me. Bringing out the real guns, it’s a cold hard fact that overly-processed food can lead to brain cancer, which goes to support my case even more. It may be a few extra cents here and there on your grocery store runs, but what are you saying about yourself when you can’t justify that a little extra cash isn’t worth your health? Money shouldn’t be the main problem; pesticides and cancer risks in what you eat should. Eat it anyway and you just may be your own worst enemy.
*nutritionista (n): someone passionate enough about what they put in their mouths/bodies that they prefer kitchen action just as much as what follows in the dining room; an faithful owner of her own food blog. (Urban Dictionary, call me.)
______________________________________________#8 | Is the research of embryonic stem cells ethical?
As a strong and completely unashamed Christian, I believe an embryo is not viable, but potentially the essence of a living being from the moment it’s conceived. It may not have a heartbeat yet, but I’m throwing science and so-called logic out the window for this one: it’s still a being, and taking away its entitlement to life is equally as unethical to murder in my book. How I see it, is that the research of embryonic stem cells is a more subtle form of murder, but murder nonetheless; it’s taking away the opportunity for one life to provide the opportunity for another. Referring to one strong argument made in class by the negative team that really stuck out to me was when one of the girls spoke her piece, saying, “You should not mess with human life and try to play God, it’s just not right.” That right there, as simple as a statement it is, sums up my stance on the subject in a nutshell. So it has been scientifically presumed that it can possibly cute physical weaknesses such as blindness, Parkinson’s, and inactive limbs and organs… what’s your point again? It also hasn’t been proven. Lead me to a source with solid facts and I’ll hand you the Bible.
It gets even more interesting: adult stem cells have been found to help assist several diseases in curing themselves, all of which include leukemia and heart cancer. *long silence* But fun fact, it is likewise proven that human bodies may reject an insertion of cells completely. The characterization of ‘ethical’ is ultimately defined by any morals, values and the battle between wrong and right, and religion tends to play a large part in it for me. I’m not blind nor am I naïve, and even though I can see where anyone claiming affirmative as their position is coming from, using the fact that it saves existing lives in the long run as their main argument, I still purposefully shy away from siding with it. Last but certainly not least, I present some facts I recently stumbled upon: “Given the proportion between total number of embryos produced and those eventually born, the number of embryos sacrificed is extremely high. Roughly 90 percent (%) of all frozen embryos are discarded or die.“ Feel like rethinking the case you’re fighting for yet, affirmative? Killing a life in the name of saving another one isn’t always the answer; justify that one for me.
______________________________________________
#9 | Would you choose to have a designer baby? Why or why not?
Why can’t we go back to the beginning to the days of Adam and Eve and get back to the basics with not only creation and the art of conceiving, but a universal sense of strong ethics as well? Coming along hand in hand with extreme advances in technology, science and everything else living, breathing or existing in this world of ours, mankind is attempted at being alternated and modified by half of its very own population. Which leads me to the very impressionable and heated controversy making headlines all across the world these days: do designer babies meet the standards of what’s deemed ethical anymore? Just as I argued on the subject of embryonic stem cell research above, my opinion, along with countless others, “stresses repeatedly why an embryo must be treated as a person even before implantation on the uterine wall. It merits ‘unconditional respect’ from the moment of conception, which occurs as soon as an egg is fertilized, thus creating a genetically distinct individual.“ I don’t care if you can’t hear its heart beating or can hardly make out its tiny, intimate fingers on the screen in the doctors’ office, it’s the idea of a soon-to-be person yet to enter the world that will be born and does deserve a shot at life just as anyone does. Modifying genes of a child pre-existence proves no different than rejecting your own product of conception based on physical or mental attributes not up to par, and in vain and in selfishness, choosing certain characteristics to take the place of what was originally in store for the child’s makeup. Continuing on, designer babies will result in a society of the lack of uniqueness and originality; parallel to creating the ‘perfect race’, personalities will not come in stock of variety. The world will end up being flawless in outwards appearance and bland in vivid character. Whether you can’t shake the idea of walking into the doctors’ office and guaranteeing yourself a star athlete, ballerina, future Broadway actress or the world’s next Albert Einstein, you’re unofficially following in Adolf Hitler’s footsteps in doing so, and choosing to design your own child is a mission to achieve perfect-looking offspring. Don’t try to deny it.
As Richard Hayes, the executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society, referring to the flawed and risky system of designer babies, states,” If misapplied, [these technologies] would exacerbate existing inequalities and reinforce existing modes of discrimination… the development and commercial marketing of human genetic modification would likely spark a techno-eugenic rat-race.” In other words, society will slowly, over time, separate itself into two categories of extremes of opposite spectrums: one being the original un-scientifically-modified, flawed yet genuine, and the other, genetically altered and yet perfect via appearance and skills wise. He continues to say, “Even parents opposed to manipulating their children’s genes would feel compelled to participate in this race, lest their offspring be left behind.” And we wouldn’t want that to happen, now would we? From an interesting perspective, selective breeding is a very subtle form of racism, or more specifically, discrimination. Parents who intentionally make the choice to design don’t have the best interests of their children, rather they have their own selfish interests at heart. The class division will slowly start becoming completely obvious the more this happens, and soon enough society will reach the point where we’ll be able to look at a person and judge their class based on physical features alone. Shouldn’t we stop in our tracks while we still have the chance before we allow science to take over?
I digress. Never in a million years would I choose to have a designer baby, no matter what the circumstances may be. And just for the record, if someone were to present the “what if it were predicted to have Downs syndrome?” hypothetical situation to me, I would merely argue that I’m a firm believer in the concept advertising everything happens for a reason. If I was meant to give life to a child with disabilities, as much as I don’t and would never wish something so challenging and difficult for my child, He has a purpose and a will for my life and I plan to follow it obediently. Religion and personal faith will always take precedence over advances in science, and with this I propose my closing statement.
good night, and good luck.
Posts
