# data[].attributes.body
1: I had already hinted at thinking about this in one of my answers in Part 5. I would still stick to having one child or adopting one child. With my thoughts on the moral obligations I have to future people and people around the world that are living currently, I do not want to have too many children. More than 2 children would aid in population growth, which will be an issue to be dealt with in the future. I do not want to increase the use of materials in the United States by having more children to use more materials. By having one child I think that I am helping fight the issues that will be presented to my generation and future generations. I will also not have to choose a favorite.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Issues that could be solved with a cost benefit analysis include the mining of asteroids in order to obtain material to be used on Earth (cost: launching mining craft, benefit: less mining on earth, materials to use on earth). Another example is planning how much time you are going to study for an exam (cost: studying, benefit: doing well).

2. Issues of treating who live differently from each other fairly in environmental issues is very hard and complex. Like the example where people are being forced to move off of their home because of other people's actions that lead to climate change, it is hard to tell who needs to pay for the burdens and who gets to receive the benefits.

3. These values are in play here because we need to decide what values should be prioritized when we make actions that will have affects on the natural world. In order to decide if an action is beneficial, we need to know what people value about nature and how those values affect their opinion on the decision.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The most dangerous technologies are those with a high uncertainty of having good results. These technologies are bad because the outcome is unpredictable so we don't know what is going to happen after we release the technology into society's hands.

2. These technologies do have a chance of impacting non-human nature. Again, it depends on how risky a technology is in terms of the effects on non-human nature.

3. Strong precaution of the precautionary principle states that you do not perform an action with evidence that the action could be harmful, even if the evidence is weak. Weak precaution of the principle states that lack of scientific evidence does not preclude action if damage would otherwise be serious and irreversible. Basically, there is a difference in how cautious you want to be.

# data[].attributes.body
1: I want to have one child. I am open to adopt a child as well. I want to have one child or adopt one as to do my part in reducing the impact of overpopulation on future generations. I also want to prepare for this plan of having a child, by becoming a virtuous person and a good father in order to help raise my child the best way possible. I would say that I have an obligation to someone who doesn't exist based on this.

2: I would say that we have obligations to other people's children because helping other people is kind of a virtue. So, in order to better yourself, you have an obligation to aid others in need.

3: I would argue that people do have a right to have the opportunity to experience nature. By not allowing others to view nature, you are denying them an opportunity experience something valuable.

4. Having thought on this, I realize that there has to be a limit on obligations and rights. It would be impossible to provide an opportunity for people to do everything or experience everything. This makes it very hard to logically accept that there are no limits to obligations and rights. There are however fundamental necessities and obligations that people should follow.

# data[].attributes.body
Question 1: I believe that humans fit somewhere randomly in the mix of life on Earth, so more of a an eco view. However, I also believe that humans are capable of moving around in that mix in order to benefit themselves while respecting the fact that we are not at "the top."

Question 2: I do believe that some aspects of the judeo-christian view are reasonable because I think that humans are obliged to do what is best for themselves (anthropocentric). But there are some things that I do not agree with like that wilderness is bad or evil. I would also say that we cannot exactly do what we please with nature if it ends up hurting ourselves.

Question 3: I do not think that we should change the way we interact with our environment because we are just one species among many. I believe we are obliged to help improve the quality of life for our species in any way that we can without affecting nature so poorly that it ends up hurting us.

# data[].attributes.body
Question 1: I would say that I believe that nature has a lot of instrumental value and a bit of intrinsic value. I would say a good mix would have me at around %75 anthropocentric.

Question 2: I do not think there are places that humans should never live, as in they are denied to live there because of nature's intrinsic value. I believe some places should be protected in order to let other people experience certain places. Basically, if you can live there without hurting the experience of the area for other people, then you should not be denied to live there.

Question 3: Values in the National Parks Charter seem to be that nature has instrumental value in that people should be able to visit and experience some land sites in order to benefit the people that do visit. They also work to preserve some land sites that have intrinsic value to people. I would say that the value is mostly anthropocentric because their goal is to preserve these cites to help inspire and educate future visitors.

# data[].attributes.body
Reflection Question 1: I would not nuke the planet and myself. I find life on Earth as something beautiful which gives nature value from my eyes. If I am the last person on Earth, I would be nuking something that has value to me which I feel would be morally wrong. It can also be said that nature has value for the people that did get to experience it. It is because nature has value to previous people and me that I would say that ending life on Earth as we know it to be morally wrong.

Reflection Question 2: Their reasons could include what I have said above. There is some intrinsic value in nature that humans are attached to and want to protect. People will feel morally obliged to protect what they value. You could also use the animal rights argument to say that we are morally obliged to not harm all animals.

Reflection Question 3: A reason why someone may nuke the planet could be that because there are no humans left on Earth, then they are not morally obliged to do anything that protects anything else. Humans are the extent of our moral values in this case. They could also argue that humans give value to nature in how they use it and experience it. So, in this case with the end of humanity coming soon, nature has no value. This would mean that the person could just nuke everything without destroying anything of value, while ending their suffering.

# data[].attributes.body
Reflection Question 1: Another issue that is heavily adaptive is climate change. This issue has so many different causes and effects, which create a wide variety of variables in trying to combat climate change. This issue affects different people in different ways, and requires abstract thinking to address properly and effectively. The issue also affects different ecosystems and locations in different ways. Decisions regarding this problem will affect the way people live and will have an impact on the way we live. Issues that have similar properties include: development of cities(ones that function well),  the issue of supplying water to places that need it(ex. California), and more.

Reflection Question 2: A skill required to address adaptive problems is abstract thinking. Abstract thinking will allow the decision maker to consider a variety of solutions and also determine the pros and cons of those decisions. Another skill needed is the ability to calculate the the affects of decisions to be potentially made regarding the problem. This all requires a team, so having a skill in teamwork and communication is also valuable.

Reflection Question 3: To be a good engineer, one must be sufficiently good at the technical side of engineering (concepts, calculation, and analyzing the problem). A good engineer is also able to abstractly think about issues and problems. The teamwork portion of engineering is a great asset because any issue requires professionals in a variety of fields and the professionals must work together.