# data[].attributes.body
What other problems/issues might be more “adaptive” than “technical”?

What skills are necessary to address adaptive challenges?

What skills-more generally-do you think are necessary to be a good engineer/scientist?

Many adaptive problems may have multiple technical components, but the problem may exist in a more complex context, so a simple technical solution isn't able to fully address it. All of politics is pretty much a series of adaptive problems, whether the debates are on social services or infrastructure or military involvement. These areas have smaller, technical solutions that address parts of the problem, but as a whole, these issues are adaptive problems.

I think it is necessary to have creative problem solving skills and critical thinking ability to address adaptive challenges. You need to be able to orient yourself in an unfamiliar situation and approach the challenge with a flexible strategy.

I think, for engineers in general, a strong problem solving process is necessary. Whether the problem is adaptive or technical, it is effective to have a set of steps that break down the problem and make progress in smaller areas to build to an overall solution.

# data[].attributes.body
In the “last man” scenario, would you nuke it or no? Why?

Most people say don’t nuke it. What could be their reasons?

Some people say it’s okay to nuke it. What could be their reasons?

I would not nuke it. There is nothing to gain from nuking it. I would maybe find a way to die in another way, but I don't think nuking the rest of the world is necessary. Since I am the last of humanity- whether I nuke everything or just kill myself, the effect on humanity is the same: extinction. With this in mind, it doesn't make sense to obliterate all other life on the planet. By allowing all the other animals to live, another intelligent species will evolve more quickly than if I nuked everything. Nuking provides no benefit. I think the people that say it's okay to nuke it consider the world only through human eyes, and they view having no humans equal to having nothing at all. I think this is really dumb, and not true at all.

# data[].attributes.body
Where do you fit on this scale?

Do you think there are places where humans should never live? (They visit but do not remain)

Look up the charter for the US National Park system. What Value(s) does it demonstrate?

I think nature is primarily intrinsically valuable. I think that humans should use nature as much as possible without damaging it. As the primary intelligent species on the earth, we are capable of greater levels of use of nature. Animals like monkeys, crows, and beavers create tools and structures, and use nature for their own development. However, these animals are generally not capable of using nature enough to cause widespread destruction. As humans, we are capable of this widespread destruction, so I think we should use nature but be very cognizant about the impacts of our use.

I do think there should be places that humans visit but never live. Anywhere in the world has some resource that is useful to humans, so if we don't have places that are 'off limits', every little corner of the earth will be exploited and destroyed.

The US national park system is focused on preservation and generally non-anthropocentric nature values.

# data[].attributes.body
Where do you think “humans fit”? Why?

Even if you do not consider yourself religious, do you think the Judeo-Christian view is correct?

If we are just “one species among many,” does that mean we should change our relationship with the environment?

Humans should use nature, but we should balance our use with preservation, and not causing damage. I think we've been overusing nature, and we should use it less to allow the other aspects and species besides humanity more room to flourish.

I think the Judeo-Christian view has so parts that I agree with, but I don't fully agree with it. We have a responsibility to take care of nature, but I think it is more because nature is its own thing that we don't have the right to destroy.

I think humans are just one species among many, however I think we have the ability to use nature the most out of all species. We should change our relationship with the environment, but I don't think we should go so far as to match the level at which other animals use nature.

# data[].attributes.body
Do you plan on having children?

Do we have obligations other people’s children?

Do people have a right to experience nature?

Are there limits to these obligations and rights?

Yes, I do plan on having children. I think the overall point of society is to improve the conditions of life for those who come after us. Right now, that includes reversing the damage we have done to nature (especially with global warming), so humanity can actually survive for longer than 2 more generations.

Yes, we do have obligations to other peoples children. This is the nature of society, we are obligated to improve the conditions for the generation that comes next. I think, as humans, we are all connected, and I want those unrelated to me to have the same improved conditions as I want my children to have. I think this sort of aligns with karma, as I want others to help my children as well.

Yes, people have a right to experience nature. I think that this is included in improving the conditions of future generations. We have to make sure that access to nature is still available to those who come after us.

I think there are some limits to these obligations and rights. I think there is a level of impairment to our own rights and quality of life that does not make it worth it to provide for those who come after us. It is a balance between living with as much freedom and resources as we can today, while also trying to improve conditions for those after us. We can suffer today so those tomorrow can prosper more, or we can prosper today at the expense of those tomorrow.

In the same way that I have an obligation to not trash my dorm room, for the people that will live here next year, we have an obligation to those in the future, even if they don't relevantly exist yet.

# data[].attributes.body
What are the most dangerous technologies? Why?

Would these technologies also impact non-human nature?

Look up some of the different versions of the precautionary principle and discuss the differences.

The most dangerous technologies are those which have dual use with strong use cases with both positive and negative effects. This is because the large possibility of positive benefits will cause the technology to be developed, but then this highly advanced technology can be used for evil purposes, making it dangerous.

Yes, these technologies would impact non-human nature. Everything we do and create has some impact on nature, and we need to consider this.

The precautionary principle is somewhat controversial because it is hard to quantify levels of risk and possible negative effects of an action or technology. The strong precautionary principle says that extreme sacrifices should be made to keep the highest level of precautions. The weak precautionary principle says that some precautions should be made but it should not sacrifice the original course of action. I agree with the weak precautionary principle, but I think the negative consequences of an action must be properly weighted when taking precautions.

# data[].attributes.body
Revisit your answers about obligations to future generations. In light of population trends, does your thinking about having children change? Why?

No, I still want to have children. I think we should do our best to reverse our negative impact on the earth, but I also think the human race may be doomed within the next few generations no matter what we do. Many of my friends do not want to have children, which was somewhat surprising to me. I think, as a generation, there are more people my age who do not want to have children than in past generations.

# data[].attributes.body
What sorts of issues can a cost-benefit analysis be used to address?

What other issues of “fairness” seem embedded in environmental questions

How are ideas about anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric value in play here?

Cost-benefit analysis can be used to address issues where the frame of reference is narrow enough to properly identify all costs and benefits. Over long periods of time and larger frame of reference, it is harder to properly evaluate cost-benefit, so the tool becomes less useful. Cost benefit is not concerned with fairness.

Environmental questions also have embedded fairness issues in the value of natural use to corporations, versus the effects on people that live in places that are subject to natural use.

The real question is whether humans have the right to do whatever and use nature to any extend, or whether we should hold back. I think we should hold back, because we need to be fair to nature.