Response to Ultimate Therapy: Commercial Eugenics in the 21st Century
I believe Jeremy Rifkin makes several good points regarding the addition of commercial eugenics into the 21st century and their effects on our society. His entire argument and how deleting certain genes could eventually lead in the alienation of imperfect individuals but at the same time could help several people with diseases creates a highly ethical debate. The question of who should decide how many deletions of genes is enough or which genes deserve to be deleted and which ones don’t also arises. Since nothing like these questions has occurred before, no one can definitively know their effects until the decision has been made. One of the most disturbing points Rifkin makes in his article is that these technologies are currently in use around the world and these questions will have to be answered by our generation in the upcoming future. I, however, look at these scientific advancements with hope believing that we can find some sort of balance between this new technology and our humanity.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Response to "Facebook: Why I Hate It"
Response to Facebook: Why I Hate It”
On of the main points Sarah Kliff has in her argument against the use of Facebook is that it wastes numerous hours of people’s time. She also points out how much more productive people would be without the constant distraction of Facebook. I disagree with this opinion. What Sarah forgets is that it is the Facebook users who allow themselves to be distracted and waste their time on the site. Even if Facebook did not exist, people would always find something else to occupy their time such as YouTube or Google. To blame this one website does not address the real problem of people not wanting to do their work or not wanting to do other things. Sarah also brings up that half of her time spent on Facebook is, “obsessing over the dull details of my life.” All the lists of interests and other features of Facebook are completely voluntary. Is she feels these features are a misuse of her time, why does she still participate in them? Again, the user is to blaim and not the website.
On of the main points Sarah Kliff has in her argument against the use of Facebook is that it wastes numerous hours of people’s time. She also points out how much more productive people would be without the constant distraction of Facebook. I disagree with this opinion. What Sarah forgets is that it is the Facebook users who allow themselves to be distracted and waste their time on the site. Even if Facebook did not exist, people would always find something else to occupy their time such as YouTube or Google. To blame this one website does not address the real problem of people not wanting to do their work or not wanting to do other things. Sarah also brings up that half of her time spent on Facebook is, “obsessing over the dull details of my life.” All the lists of interests and other features of Facebook are completely voluntary. Is she feels these features are a misuse of her time, why does she still participate in them? Again, the user is to blaim and not the website.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)