# data[].attributes.body
Part 2:

- What is redlining? How has it impacted environmental justice issues?

“Redlining” was a deliberate and racist practice in the mid twentieth century to place minority peoples into specific neighborhoods. This was done quite often by banks/insurers/investors during those times, but the practice was banned after 1968. However, the effects continue into today, resulting in many mostly minority neighborhoods experiencing unequal amounts of economic, political, and environmental problems

This practice has even impacted issues of environmental justice. As discussed in a previous activity, environmental injustice causes people who experience less of the benefits of environmental decisions to experience more of the suffering. That is exactly what is happening here due to redlining. The people in these redlined neighborhoods are experiencing an increased amount of temperature increase due to climate change compared to more wealthy neighborhoods that can afford to have AC or build parks to cool the area.

Part 3:

- What did you know about Globeville prior to reading these articles?
- Have you ever been to or driven through Globeville before, and are your impressions of it changed by the information you have just learned?
- Did these articles remind you of similar issues from any other area of places you have visited or lived?
- Additionally, are the problems described in these articles engineering problems?

Before reading these articles, I had never heard of Globeville (or Elyria Swansea). I have driven through the area a handful of times over the years, but this was always while on I-25, which does not provide a detailed view of the area. Thus, I cannot say I had any kind of impression of the area before doing this activity.

While I have been lucky to have never lived in a location that experiences environmental justice to the extent of Globeville, I have seen similar issues in places I've been. Before coming to mines, I traveled often for working, moving to a new location every few months. Most of these places were lightly populated and/or poorer areas, since those were the ones that tended to be near my job sites and had cheap and last minute housing available. Seeing towns divided by interstates or a complete lack of public green areas wasn't uncommon.

I would say that these problems are not exclusively engineering problems, but definitely are engineering problems. I say this because improper/bias engineering may not be the main cause of the issue, it was certainly involved, and it can also be part of the solution. Finding other ways to route traffic or expand I-70 without relocating, dividing, and further poisoning the community is something that requires both logical thinking and innovative engineering.

Part 4:

- Do engineers and scientists have a role to play in lessening or fixing the issues of environmental justice and environmental racism?
- If yes, what are some specific ways Mines graduates might play a role in solutions to these problems in the future?

I would say that yes, engineers and scientists do have a role to play in dealing with environmental justice/racism. It is one thing to decide that a problem needs fixing and to put resources to it. It is another to actually figure out how to solve the problem and how to allocate and use the resources, which is where engineering and science comes in. Mines graduates could play these roles in the future. They could run further studies of the air/temperatures/etc. to determine where the biggest problems are or track the progress of certain solutions. Civil engineers could find ways to build adequate infrastructure for transportation without compromising all of the greenery. There are many ways to tackle these problems, but all will require engineers and scientists to make them work.

# data[].attributes.body
Part 1:

Why do you think this Colorado River video was done in the first person, with the river speaking for itself?
Did the first person perspective surprise you (or not), and why?
Did you know that treating rivers like people under the law is a legal strategy being used around the world to protect rivers?
What are some of the ethical implications of ascribing “person hood” to rivers?

The first person perspective was a little bit of a surprise, but it became clear fairly quickly what was happening and why the video was framed that way. I think it was done to essentially humanize the river. To make it so people see the resource as a single endangered entity and not some infinite source of water. Standing by a river, it is hard not to view it as some never ending resource, and it can be difficult to connect that body of water with all the other far away places it touches. On a side note, it was a little strange that they used two switching voices. I think it would have been more effective as just one, to make it feel more human, or having several to really emphasize how many people are effected.
I never knew about the strategy of treating rivers like people. It seems like a clever loophole and I can see environmentalists getting some good use out of the idea. There are, however, some ethical implications to this. For one thing, how many "human" rights are to be applied here? where do we draw that line? Also, if rivers can be ascribed "person hood", what else can this be applied to. There may be other less noble uses for this technique. I worry that this may be opening a can of worms, but then again this may just be baseless "slippery-slope" thinking.

Part 2:

What aspects of your everyday landscape do you take for granted as “natural”? This may be on campus, at home, or somewhere else.
Going further, do you know where your drinking water comes from? If you do know where your water comes from, how did you learn this information? If you don’t know where your water comes from, why don’t you? And would you call that an engineering success, an engineering failure, or something else entirely? What are some of the ramifications of not knowing where your drinking water comes from?

One aspect of my everyday landscape that I definitely take for granted is all of the plant life. Comparing the two pictures of Golden in the presentation, it is clear that a large portion of the plant species here today are not here naturally, and likely can only exist thanks to human intervention and engineering.
I personally, have no idea where my drinking water comes from. Water has always been an available resource for me, so I've never put much thought into where it actually come from. I would definitely make an educated guess of "the Colorado River", since I knew that it fed most cities and towns in the area.
I would see this both an engineering success and failure. It is an success in the sense that planning and engineering has allowed someone like me, who lives in what should be an arid/desert like location, to never question where I will get my water. On the other hand, it has set up a very fragile system that many people don't even know exists, let alone know that it is ion jeopardy. That is one consequence of know understanding where your water comes from. You don't realize how easy that source can be lost, or how many other depend on that same source.

Part 3:

Imagine a geographic scenario where the Colorado River ended in Southern California rather than across the United States border in entirely different country (Mexico). If the community of San Luis Rio Colorado were instead Los Angeles or San Diego, would the condition of the river’s delta be different? Why or why not? Work the concept of “environmental justice” into your answer.

I definitely believe that, had this situation with the Colorado River delta occurred in California instead of Mexico, the issue would have been tackled sooner and pulse flow would have been attempted earlier. One reason for this is the simple fact that it is much easier to work only in one country compared to two. There would be lot less barriers to deal with. Language barriers, international debate/agreements, differing engineering models and standards; none of these would have to be dealt with.
However, there is probably another reason related to environmental justice. Getting people to focus on the environment's needs, especially with something as essential as water, can be difficult. This is even more difficult when the environment in question is seen as "not theirs" like a delta in a different country. For the same reason that people will pick up trash in their yard or community but dump it in unknown places, people put a bigger priority on environments that they themselves are a part of, and are quicker to apply the idea of "justice" to said environments.

# data[].attributes.body
Part 1:

What are some other examples of the concept of dual use?

Another example of dual use is the technology behind GPS. GPS allows us to plan our routes, get turn by turn directions, find businesses nearby, or see who is in the area. There are also tons of indirect effects that we don't see everyday. However, on the other side of the coin, GPS allows for tracking of people and other blatant invasions of privacy. The technology has also been used very often in war in weapons like guided missiles.

Part 2:

What would have been the impact of halting the spread of nuclear weapons immediately after the Trinity test? Or even after Nagasaki?
How do the scientists’ reactions to the dropping of the bombs belie their personal ethics and connect to dual use?

Unfortunately, I don't think much would have changed if the we had halted the development and spread of nuclear weapons after the Trinity test. There is the obvious benefit that Nagasaki and Hiroshima would not have been destroyed, assuming that Japan ended the war after seeing the results. But as time progressed, I think that nuclear weapons would still have emerged somewhere in the world. The technology exists, and the idea that it could be harnessed was known outside of the US. I believe, eventually, a nuclear weapon would be used on some populated area, at least once. Stopping the project after the initial tests would have delayed the results, but not prevented them.
The reactions of the scientists show how mentally separated they were from how the technology they were working on was to be used. Some initially reacted to the news of the drop on Hiroshima as if it was just another test, being relieved that everything worked as it should have. It was only some time after, when the reality of the situation set in, that many became regretful and/or depressed.

Part 4:

What concerns you the most about nuclear technology in the world today?

I think what concerns me most about nuclear technology is the sheer amount of nuclear weapons that exist in the world today. There are more than enough nukes already made to kill every human on the planet. This threshold has turned war into a disaster that can not only end nations, but end humanity as a whole.

# data[].attributes.body
Part 2:

How does this argument about the impact of social media relate to your life and your habits?
How does this trailer emphasize connection and fragmentation mentioned in the intro video?

While I'd argue that I use social media significantly less than an average person (I rarely post anything on the internet and try to brows anonymously if possible), the argument in the trailer does still relate to me, as I do read articles/watch videos/look at pictures on the internet. I do consume media that is targeted toward myself, even if I don't realize it most of the time. This has likely influenced my opinions and biases in some way.
The trailer also emphasizes the idea of connections and fragmentation mentioned in the intro video. It mentions that all this overexposure to online media has led to increased anxiety and depression, and talks about how direct interaction is much less commonplace. I also briefly mentions fake news and people having "their own facts", which have definitely influenced the social and political divisions in this country.

Part 3:

What are the benefits and drawbacks of a system that detects and classifies faces?
What ethical problems do you see with the failure to identify certain faces?
Why can’t an algorithm/a machine be neutral?
What are your thoughts about the costs of giving up your image or your data?
What opportunities exist for creating a more just society using Buolamwini’s research?

There are several benefits of facial recognition technology. It can be used to safely lock electronic devices, prove ones innocence/guilt in a crime, and make many everyday processes more efficient. The most obvious drawback is the lack of privacy. It is likely that people will be repeatedly face ID'd without their consent in the future if this technology grows.
There are some ethical problems related to facial recognition unequal accuracy. For one thing, this means that some (people who's faces are easier to identify), will get a much larger benefit from the technology compared to others. There is also an emotional toll knowing that a supposedly life changing technology is being catered to others, but not you.
It is difficult to make a machine that is completely neutral. Certain design decisions could result in many unforeseen consequences, and algorithms and formulas that work in one situation may not work in another. A machine can only work with data and run calculations, it can't think about what it is doing or whether what it's doing is fair or neutral.
I feel that the cost and risks of giving up ones data or image is usually much larger than one expects. I try to do my best to give out as little data and information as I reasonably can, but going completely dark is impossible in today's world.
Acknowledging and using the research of Buolamwini has the potential to lower the amount of bias (intentional or accidental) in many technologies. Many of these issues arise because the creators are not aware of the problem and don't take the extra steps to correct it, like using more darker skinned faces when teaching the algorithm. By bringing attention to the problem and encouraging more diverse teams/thinking, many of these issues can be removed all together.

Part 4:

What is missing from this list?
Is there an item on the list that doesn’t belong there?
With which items do you strongly agree?

One thing that I would add, although it may be too obvious, is that technology is first and foremost a business. Most important decisions made by tech companies will boil down to what gives them the greatest profit. There could be legitimately useful new technologies (or changes to existing technologies) that will never see the light of day because it would hurt the bottom line. On the other side, I didn't feel that there were any points on the list that didn't belong.
I strongly agree with numbers 3 and 7. A lot of people don't realize that controversial technologies were probably brainstormed by people who focused on the good and wanted to see it through. As the saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Additionally, the idea of a single genius inventor seems to give people the false idea that good ideas along are enough to start a new billion dollar company. This also causes some to glorify those who fit this role, like Jobs or Musk.

Part 5:

How do you react to the examples of bias through research over the course of science history?
How does tech/science play a role in creating injustice?
What can tech/science do to enable a more just society?

At first, I was shocked and appalled at these examples. However, after thinking on it, it makes sense that these biases existed and were not challenged. People, myself included, like to think that science and technology are this true neutral and unbiased force that we can tap into to improve our lives, but really they are just an extension of the people and ideas that are present at the time. In the times of slavery, it was a common belief that slaves were "lesser beings", and thus scientific studies that assumed this fact were seen as normal.
Technology and science certainly play a large role in creating injustice, but for similar reasons as those stated above, I don't think technology will ever play a leading role in creating injustice. Unjust technologies exist because the people to design and make them are themselves unjust, or just ignorant. So while science certainly could reinforce injustices, I don't see it creating many new forms of injustice.
In a similar way, science and tech could also be used to enable a more just society. If designed carefully and deliberately, with plenty of thought put towards conscious and unconscious biases, it could reinforce justice as society sees it. As a specific example, technologies like the ones discussed in the podcast could be used to prove the innocence of people who were wrongly convinced years ago.

# data[].attributes.body
Part 1:

Take a moment to make a list of the benefits that you expect to see from exponential growth in the fields of:
- Genetic Engineering
- Nanotechnology
- Robotics

Genetic Engineering:

- Increased lifespan
- Cures to many/all genetic diseases
- Increased human resilience
- Choosing what traits do or do not get passed to children

Nanotechnology:

- Improvements to normal human fictions such as carrying oxygen, repairing tissue, storing memories, flexing muscles, etc.
- Manually triggering automatic bodily functions, such as adrenaline or sleep.
- Much more accurate and timely diagnoses to problems

Robotics:

- Most physical labor done by machines.
- Accurate replacements of limbs or body parts
- Increased production in most sectors, reduced famine around the world.

Part 2:

Take a moment to make a list of the problems that might be caused by exponential growth in the fields of:
- Genetic Engineering
- Nanotechnology
- Robotics

Genetic Engineering:

- "designer" babies
- Man-made genetic diseases, either unintentional or as a form of attack.
- Tension or racism between those who are genetically modified and those that are natural.

Nanotechnology:

- Infinitely self replicating devices that "tear apart" the earth.
- Malfunctioning medical devices that kill patients.
- Hacking of nano devices inside of people for nefarious purposes.
- People becoming so consumed with what they can experience virtually that humanity stops progressing all together and deteriorates (nanobots in the brain simulating visuals/feelings were mentioned in reading).

Robotics:

- Humans becoming completely dependent of robotics to survive.
- A "robot uprising" if AI advances to the point where they no longer see the need to work for humans.
- A solar or other catastrophic event could result in most electronics being destroyed, and if humanity is too dependent on it this could result in billions of deaths.

Part 3:

Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future? What forms the basis of your conclusions?

I actually find myself pretty optimistic when it comes to the future of these technologies. I feel that the benefits are great enough that humanity will undoubtedly push forward, but the downsides are so potentially dangerous that we will step carefully. Not only that, humans as a whole are pretty resilient, and I believe that if one of the problems mentioned above were to occur, humanity would be able to recover and learn from it.

# data[].attributes.body
Part 1:

What do deontology and consequentialism have in common in terms of how you treat yourself, those you love, and strangers?

In these two schools of thought, every person is treated unbiased and equally. This means that, according to these theories, you should treat yourself and the ones you love the same as you would treat complete strangers. You should weigh everyone's happiness/lives the same regardless of how close they are to you.

Part 2:

When you found out that your father took the sheep on the sly, what would you do? Report him to the authorities, or cover for him? Why?

While I would argue that turning my father in would be the moral thing to do, I don't think I would if I was put in this situation. I would likely try to encourage my father to return the sheep, and not go out of my way to cover for him, but I would not report him to the authorities. I think the reason is simply because he is close to me. I know where he's coming from and have a personal connection, and wouldn't want to see him punished.

Part 6:

How is Confucian ethics different from consequentialism and deontology?

One of the main differences between Confucian ethics and consequentialism/deontology is how it views relationships between people. In consequerntialism and deontology, all people are intended to be treated exactly the same. In Confucian ethics, who you are and the relationships you have matter. Every person has multiple roles to fill, many of which are tied to other people and differ from person to person (for example, the roles of parent, instructor, mentor, business partner, etc).
Additionally, Confucian ethics are less static than consequerntialism and deontology. An important part of Confucian ethics is building up one's morals over time through observation, reflection, and practice. In this sense, a person's morals are always changing and evolving. In deontology and consequerntialism, the goal is to have a perfect and standardized code of ethics that everyone should abide by, with the idea being that if we can define what morality is and have everyone follow it, we will have created an ethical society.

# data[].attributes.body
Part 1:
Land of Cockaigne: This is a fictional place that appeared in tales from the middle ages. It's most defining trait was an unnatural abundance of food. It was seen as a place of peace and paradise.
Biological Old Regime: This term is used to describe the period in history where humanity struggled to find/grow consistent food. Starvation was a constant threat. This time was essentially the opposite of the Land of Cockaign.
Anthropocene: "The age of humans". This is the time period after the Biological Old Regime, where humans have much more control over resources and energy. It is marked by humanity's dominance over nature.

Is human control over the environment likely to be a lasting feature of our existence, or a brief exception?

I think that humanity's control over nature will be a lasting feature. I believe that, even if the future does not go well, humans will likely never go back to an existence where we do not control nature. Also, I'd argue that humanity would fall before we would lose our grasp on nature. Even if much of the population was lost, and society as we know it now dissolved, the knowledge we have accumulated and the infrastructure we have build would keep us in control. Even if not quite to the extent we are in now.

Part 2:
Hetch Hetchy: A valley in California. It was a tourist location due to it's beauty. In 1864, it was protected by the government, almost like a national park, as a method of conserving it. The location was eventually dammed off and flooded to provide a more stable water source.
Conservationism: This is a movement/ideal involved with protecting and conserving rsources with a focus on how it could be used by humans.
Eco-Modernism: This is the idea that humanity can use our control over nature and advanced technology/knowledge to benefit nature.
Forest Death: This describes an incident in Germany where conservationism, when applied to the forests, resulted in favoritism of useful species of trees. This resulted is a much less diverse ecosystem. and eventually the decline of the forest.
Preservationism: This is a school of thought that says that nature should be preserved not because it is useful, but because it has inherent value.
Island Effect: Islands are known to have smaller and more vulnerable organisms making up their ecosystems. Dedicated wilderness areas, due to being so isolated, can start to share this effect and become much more vulnerable.
Half Earth: This is a theoretical extension of preservationism where a large portion of the earth, say one half of it, id put aside for nature. Essentially, half of the planet (but carefully chosen locations like animal migration areas) become protected forests.

Do you favor a conservationist or preservationist approach to human interactions with the environment?

While I am definitely wouldn't consider myself purely conservationist or preservationist, I think I would favor a more conservationist approach. Nature does have an inherent value, but I think that human like is more valuable. That is to say, if we need to make the choice between protecting raw nature or keeping a group of humans safe (like the Hetch Hetchy situation), I would say protect the people. However, I wouldn't support a 100% conservationist approach. For one thing, it could result in unforeseen circumstances if we pick and choose what parts of nature get to stay. Additionally, as I stated before, nature does hold value, even the "useless" parts.

Part 3:
Hide Hunters: These were people to killed millions of bison for the sole purpose of selling the hides. They were actually assisted by the American army at the time. The actions of the hide hunters are a major contributor to the near extinction of the species.
Environmental Justice: The idea that humanity's interactions with nature effects different groups in different ways. This often results in inequalities among the groups.
Slow Violence: This refers to the consequences of uneven environmental relationships. These consequences may take several years to manifest, hence why it is referred to as "slow"
Fortress Conservation: The concept of using barriers to limit human interaction with certain environments.

What are the best means of ensuring environmental justice for all human communities?

Ensuring environmental justice for all humans is incredibly difficult due to the complexity of many of the situations that bring rise to such inequalities. One method would be to make sure that the negative consequences of actions against nature mostly are felt by those who performed the action of who benefited from said action. This would mean stopping places from shipping waste to other locations, and causing the people who generate waste to deal with the waste locally.

# data[].attributes.body
Part 1:

Define justice.

In my opinion, justice is synonymous with fairness and equality. Justice means everyone is on equal footing and is given the same opportunities. It also implies that certain factors, such as a persons race, gender, disabilities, etc., are not considered (unless relevant and necessary) in order to make sure that everyone has the same opportunities.

In your opinion, to what extent is our society just or unjust?

I believe are society is mostly just, but there is still significant inequality that occurs. The nation does have a justice system and a set of laws and rules that are followed and enforced. In general, people are treated justly and held accountable for their actions. This is true on paper, but in reality this is not always the case. Due to things like racism/classism/able-ism, there are many people that are treated unjustly or are considered as less important by some of their peers. While there are those who are not treated fairly and are not given the same opportunities, I can't say that our society is completely just.

In your opinion, what do justice and injustice look like?

In a perfectly just society, there would be very little inequality and suffering. There would be those richer and poorer than others, but poverty would be nonexistent. Everyone would be held up to the same standards, be punished the same ways, and have the same opportunities.
Injustice, on the other hand, looks like unfairness. It looks like people being given unearned and unequal treatment. It looks like people having common access to resources and freedoms that others would never have the chance to get. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it looks like people being treated unequally based on factors completely outside their control.

Part 2:

Recall your experience playing MIT's "The Moral Machine." Do you think bias played a part in your decisions?

When I played the "Moral Machine" game, I actively tried to ignore any bias I may have had before making a decision. I refused to take factors like age, gender, social status, or health into account and instead focused on total numbers or which party was at fault. This seemed like the most fair way to approach the problem. In the end, there may still have been some unconscious bias in my decisions. I think that all people are bias to some extent, even if they try not to be.

What kind of bias is being demonstrated by the engineering and technological failures described by these articles? How could these problems have been avoided?

All three articles given show examples of products designed with a clear bias, unconscious or not. They all show teams that designed their product around what they likely considered a "normal" or "standard" person. In each example, this would be a light skinned male. By focusing only on this kind of person, the engineers are ignoring a significant percentage of the people who will use their product.

There are two very simple ways these problems could have been avoided. The first, and more effective, way is to have a more diverse design team. Simply having darker skinned hands to test a sensor or a woman to address the lack of female designed products would have prevented some of these issues. The second way is for the designers to just realize that not every user is going to be like them, and to build/test the products for peoples not represented on the team.

Part 3:

Which of these iterations of racism are about feelings? Which are about action? What is racism? What defines the philosophy of antiracism?

While it could be argued that all forms of racism are based on feelings (as all forms or racism stem from a persons feelings of superiority or feelings of inferiority of others), individual racism seems to be the most tied to it. Individual racism refers to one's own thought, beliefs, and biases and does not require an external action or a second party to occur. The other three iterations, being interpersonal, institutional, and structural, are about actions. These three require a person to not only have racist feelings and beliefs, but to act on them as well, even just subconsciously.
Racism, at it's core, is a prejudice and bias against those of a different racial group. It often involves discrimination and/or a dislike of those of different ethnicities. The idea of antiracism is to not only not be racist, but to actively work to prevent and discourage racism. It involves putting a stop to racist actions that one witnesses and identifying one's own biases in order to reduce them.

What obligation do you have to your fellow Orediggers to stop racist and biased behavior on campus? Is this a personal issue, an institutional issue, or both? How do these stories demonstrate or reflect the types of biases and racisms described above?

I believe that every student has an obligation to not only treat all peers fairly and respectfully, regardless of their race/gender, but also to stop racism in it's tracks when we witness it. This could mean pointing out unconscious biases or calling out and discouraging racist behavior and speech. This problem at Mines is both a personal and, based on the stories told in the bipoc_at_mines page, institutional issue. There were stories that involved racist remarks from students and faculty, implying personal and interpersonal racism, but also of stories involving institutional biases within the School of Mines.

# data[].attributes.body
Where would you put your tick mark? What informs your decision?

I would place the line about 25% of the way down the line (closer to the "design" end). While some may argue that policy/ethics is more about the implementation, I feel that these are discussions that should be had early in the design process, before any ideas become set in stone and difficult to change. Plus, it is just as much the engineer's responsibility to consider the ethics/political factors in a new technology as the company implementing it.

What happened in regard to political polarization between the years 1994 and 2017? Do you think this trend has continued?

In this time period, the political views of Americans became much more divided. Democrats became much more consistently liberal, and republicans became much more consistently conservative. Additionally, there are significantly less moderates in either party. This trend has certainly continued over the last three years. It may just be my limited views on the subject (I don't follow politics as much as I should as a citizen), but it seems like both parties are attacking and antagonizing each other more than any other time I can remember. A large portion of the population seems to have an "us vs them" mindset, which is only being encouraged by our current leadership and media (including, but definitely not limited to, Trump).

In the above scenario, was anything done that was immoral? Is your decision based on intuition, or reason? Which did you respond with first? Was your reasoning used to justify your intuition, or do you think it was the result of impartial thought?

When I first heard this scenario, my intuition told me that the act of taking the dog's body was immoral. It just "felt" wrong. However, after finishing the video and thinking through the hypothetical a bit longer, I applied reasoning and came to the same conclusion. And even though I ended up with the same result both times, I believe the second was due to impartial thought and not just attempts to justify the my initial intuition. I tried to consider both sides of the argument fairly, and even considered changing my answer briefly. In the end through, I think that since the family took the dog without informing the owner, they caused additional suffering (due to extra time spent looking for it) and denied the owners proper closure. For those reasons, I feel that the act would be immoral.

# data[].attributes.body
Part 1:

What other problems/issues might be more “adaptive” than “technical”?

One example of an adaptive problem is how can we effective transition to renewable energy and lower our dependence on coal/gas. Having a stable and reliable grid is difficult when the sources are less controllable (such as wind/solar/waves/etc.), and there isn't a real consensus of what the best approach would be to tack the issue. Not only that, some would argue that this problem isn't even a problem at all, and resources we would use to fix it would be better used elsewhere.

What skills are necessary to address adaptive challenges?

Some useful skills to tackle adaptive challenges are good communication, a strong knowledge of many related fields, the ability to see things from another person's point of view, creative problem solving skills, and of course the ability to work efficiently in a team.

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

The two most obvious, yet also most important, skills needed to be an engineer are the the ability to work well in a team and the ability to problem solve. Any significant task will be completed in a team, so the ability to work effectively in a group in a must. Additionally, almost anyone can crunch numbers or apply equations. It takes a creative approach to tackling problems to be an exceptional engineer.

Part 2:

In the “last man” scenario, would you nuke it or no? Why?

I would definitely NOT nuke the planet. For one thing, the remaining nature, including the plants and animals, have a right to live too. This is especially true now that there are no longer any humans, who's live I would consider more valuable, to compete with. There is also the possibility that more intelligent life will emerge far into the future. Denying the earth a second chance like that, just so I can go out in a blaze of glory, feels selfish.

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

These people would most likely argue that the remaining life has value, and thus it shouldn't be destroyed. Some would probably argue my second point in the question above, that more intelligent life could happen in the future, as well.

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

Those who would push the button would likely argue that nature holds no intrinsic value and only has value as a tool for intelligent life. Thus, if humans are no longer around, it serves no purpose. Blowing it up or not makes no difference in the grand scheme, so you might as well have some fun and nuke the planet.

Part 3:

Where do you fit on this scale?

I would say I'm near the middle, but maybe a little bit toward non-anthropocentric. I do see an intrinsic value to nature; I certainly wouldn't nuke the planet. But I think part of the reason I'm for preservation of the environment is not just because it has intrinsic value, but also so that future human generations can experience it as well.

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

I believe there should be places where human should never live. Places like natural parks/forests are a great way to preserve and conserve nature, but these only works if there is limited human involvement.

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

The charter really seems the stress of the ethical responsibilities and scientific expertise of the members. The members are unpaid, yet act to advise on matters based around historical landmarks, natural landmarks, national parks, and trails. It is clear that the goup sees intrinsic value in nature based on their steps taken to help manage and preserve what they can.

Part 4:

Where do you think “humans fit”? Why?

I believe that humans are "at the top" in such a way that human lives are more valuable that those of plants/animals. However, I don't think that humans are so high up that we can do with the rest of nature whatever we please. Animal lives, especially those of more conscious and intelligent creatures like elephants and dolphins, have value too.

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

I do not completely agree with the Judeo-Christian view, for reasons similar to those posted just above. Even if we at the peak of nature, so to say, we are still a part of it, and thus we have some responsibility to it. We are also the only part of nature with this much influence, which just increases that responsibility

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

I feel we should change our relationship. Not completely, and not immediately, as doing so would likely result in millions of human deaths. But I do believe that humanities relationship with nature as of now is a bit imbalanced.

Part 5:

Do you plan on having children?

I do plan on having children, though definitely not for a few years.

Do we have obligations to other people’s children?

I believe we have some kind of obligation to other peoples children, simply because those children have a right to certain things (food, water, life/liberty/the pursuit of happiness), and society as a whole is obligated to provide them these rights.

Do people have a right to experience nature?

I would argue that people don't have the right to experience raw nature. It is something that is great the experience, and I hope that everyone who want to gets the chance to, but I wouldn't say it is a right.

Are there limits to these obligations and rights?

There are of course limits to these. I am not obligated to single-handedly fund and raise another person's child, and people don't have a right to live in paradise of even experience nature.

Part 6:

What are the most dangerous technologies? Why?

Generally, the most dangerous technologies are those that we do not realize are dangerous and thus we become comfortable with them or dependent on them. If this occurs, whenever we do realize the danger may be too late, as a substantial amount of damage would already have been done and it may be difficult or time consuming to dial the technology back. A potential example for this could be genetic engineering. This technology could have powerful unforeseen consequences, especially if we do not respect it enough.

Would these technologies also impact non-human nature?

Yes. Many uses of genetic engineering involve or use nature. Genetic engineering of plants and animals for food is a common example of the technology.

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

R.B. Stewart broke down the principle into four versions: non-preclusion, margin of safety, BAT, and prohibitory.  Non-preclusion states that uncertainty does not mean that inaction is acceptable, while prohibitory more bluntly states that technology should be banned until it is proven to not be a threat. The margin of safety version is a bit less extreme and argues that technologies should only be used up to a point where they are known to be safe. The BAT version takes a slightly different approach by stating that new things should be given the best and safest possible technologies to minimize danger until the activity is proven to not be harmful.

Part 7:

What sorts of issues can a cost-benefit analysis be used to address?

Cost benefit analysis is really good at making decisions based on thins that are easily quantifiable. Decisions such as what to spend time and money on, of if a certain project is worth the expenses. A great example used in the video was the decision to go to School of Mines. As someone who already had a degree and semi-stable job, there were definitely several costs and potential benefits to consider!

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

I think another issue that is deeply embedded in these questions is responsibility. A very common question when discussing environmental issues is "who will pay for this?" It often comes down to who (and this "who" could correspond to many different groups of people) is responsible for the issue in the first place.

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

When trying to perform cost-benefit analysis, especially when dealing with environmental ethics, it is common to have to put a number on the value of something in nature.How important these natural phenomena are to a person depends greatly on their view of nature as a whole, and whether it is more

anthropocentric or non-anthropocentric. For example, an anthropocentric person would weigh the lives of a species of birds in a forest much higher than a non-anthropocentric person.

Part 8:

Revisit your answers about obligations to future generations. In light of population trends, does your thinking about having children change? Why?

I think my opinion of having a child doesn't really change. I may have less children (only one or two), but I would still like to have them some day. In fact, Most of my answers remain unchanged in light of the new information, mostly because I was already aware of the population trends (at least in a basic sense) of the world. I would still argue that we have an obligation to other peoples children, though with a limit, and an obligation to future people of the world..

# data[].attributes.headline
Week 4: Introduction to Moral Philosophy

# data[].attributes.subject
Week 4: Introduction to Moral Philosophy

# data[].attributes.body
Part 1:
1. Moral Relativism - The idea that different peoples/cultures will have different morals and ethics that may not agree with other's.
Strengths: Encourages tolerance and humility; No one point of view is above another.
Weaknesses: Implies that there is no right answer to morality; Puts little focus on how ones actions affect others and not just one's self.

2. Utilitarianism - This theory focuses on the consequences of an choice over the action itself, with the goal of maximizing happiness for the largest number of people.
Strengths: Simple to apply, even in modern society or towards non-humans; Compatible with other forms of reasoning like cost-benefit analysis; A common sense solution.
Weaknesses: Feels dehumanizing or heartless in certain situations; It is hard to account for all consequences and benefits; Deals with comparing values that are impossible to measure.

3. Deontology - This theory puts more emphasis on the action and less on the consequences. The idea is that one can judge the morality of an action by looking at the act itself and ignoring the potential consequences or benefits.
Strengths: Very simple and absolute; doesn't have problems with unforeseen results; has clear results.
Weaknesses: Puts logic and reason over emotions; ignores non-humans more than the alternatives; relies on intuitions, which are not universal.

4. Virtue Ethics - Virtue ethics takes a different approach by studying the values and qualities of an ethical or unethical person and figuring out how they got those values.
Strengths: One of the oldest theories in this field; not as mutually exclusive as the others; encourages growth and development; basic and easy to relate to.
Weaknesses: Difficult to apply to situations/debated; assumes that natural = good.

5. Liberalism - Based around freedom and liberty, this theory's goal is in creating a just society for everyone involved.
Strengths: Gives a say to all, and not just the majority; focuses on justice.
Weaknesses: Focuses less on happiness and more on what's just; depends on a fair and unbiased society.

Part 2:

What are some examples that Sandel provides of things that money CAN buy?

Some things that money CAN buy, according to Sandel, are:
- Prison cell upgrades
- Advertising on the London Eye
- Military contractors

What are some examples of things that money CAN’T buy?

Some things that money CAN'T buy, according to Sandel, are:
- Friendship
- An honest apology or wedding toast

What is the difference between “market economies” and “market societies”?

A market economy is a tool for efficient production, trade, and economics in general. A market society is a society in which economic thinking dominates life; where anything and everything is for sale if you have enough money.

Part 3:

Students and Sandel identify (at least) four objections to such a practice. List those objections.

Some objections brought up by the students were:
- People with financial problems may be exploited in this system. They could be forced to give up organs.
- It would cause unequal access to organs, since there would be many who couldn't afford a kidney.
- Corruption may cause companies to "sell" organs that are not compatible or of low quality. This would result in additional health problems.
- This may encourage doctors or hospitals to cut corners to maximize profits.
- Doing so would objectify people. As one student said, "Is nothing sacred?".

Connect these objections to the concepts from Chapter Two. Which concept/s seem to be most in play here?

Most of the objections made by the students were based in the theory of utilitarianism. The first four listed focus on the consequences of allowing the sale of organs, such as an increase in inequality or potential corruption. The last objection I listed takes a different approach and digs into deontology.This objection is based around the idea that the actual act of selling a part of ones body is wrong, regardless of the reasons or benefits involved.

Part 4:

Which definitions of justice resonate with your personal ethics? Why?

While I don't believe any of the definitions of justice are completely correct, "Need-Based Justice" seems to resonate with my personal ethics more so than the other examples of distributive justice. This idea seems to take the most utilitarian approach of maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering. "Merit-Based Justice" also sounds reasonable, at least on paper, but I worry about who/what would define "merit", and whether this implies there are those that would not receive any sort of help.
In terms of crime/punishment, I feel that "Restorative Justice" most closely fits with my ethics. It seems the most practical yet fair solution, but it does get tricky when the crime is one that cannot be undone or fixed, such as murder.

# data[].attributes.body
Part 1:

Did these documents adequately convey the risks involved in the Challenger launch? Why or why not?1) Would you change the report? Why or why not?

I would not change the report. Whether or not I was originally tasked with checking tank 2, it was found, and now that information is known. Refusing to acknowledge this info now would be unethical, as it has the potential to protect people from injury or even death.
There would be a bit of a risk to my future career at that company, but it's just a job. I'm sure someone out there who would respect the decision I made and hire me afterwards, even if the boss badmouthed me to all of his business associates. Environmental health and safety are serious topics in industry/engineering. I don't believe that following these rules (and even going a little beyond) would be a death sentence to one's career.

Part 2:

To what extent are engineers and scientists responsible for the long-term consequences of the technology that they create?

I believe that engineers are somewhat responsible for the long term consequences, but only to a certain extent. When developing a new technology, engineers need to consider the effects of this new tech before releasing it. Will it cause harm? Will it better society? Additionally, the engineers should consider not only how it is intended to be used, but how it could be used. This is not always easy, especially with new technology. Not every scenario can be predicted and accounted for, and unforeseen circumstances will likely arise. I don't believe the engineer would be responsible/unethical if they thoroughly considered the situation and honestly believed the product was "safe". In some instances though, such as in the example given when the company was requested to produce Zyklon-B without the warning agent, unethical use of the product is heavily implied. Here the engineers/company are definitely responsible, and it was unethical to produce such a thing. There is a balance between all the good that could be done and all the evil that could be done that must be considered with any new technology. Almost any inventions could theoretically be used in malicious ways, but that is not always a good reason to not use it at all.

Part 3:

Did these documents adequately convey the risks involved in the Challenger launch? Why or why not?

These documents had different approaches to discussing the O-ring problem, with varied results. The first document by Thompson does en excellent job of conveying the risks. It clearly states multiple times that the o-ring problem could result in catastrophic failure and loss of life. Thompson stresses how important this issue is and what should be done to fix it. Not only that, he does so in very clear, and very blunt, words. Someone who is not an engineer could read this document and understand the serious risks.
The second document does a great job of explaining a proposed short term solution and recommends it's use on the upcoming flights. However, it does not convey the dangers and risks as openly as the first, choosing to only describe the situation as "acute". I don't know the complete context of this message (there may have been past letters that stressed the dangers more), but based on this one message alone the risks involved are not perfectly clear.

Part 4:

What level of risk is acceptable as a means of ensuring the continued progress of science and technology?

Every action, from driving down the street to launching a shuttle, comes with risks, and it is unfeasible to eliminate all of them. Risk is necessary in order for technology to progress, but it is difficult to decide where to draw the line between the two. At first, I though it might work to try to weigh the potential lives lost vs the potential lives saved. However, this brings us all sorts of ethical issues such as the numerical value of a human life. Also, any progress that doesn't go towards saving lives, such as entertainment, would be halted. I do think that trying to weigh the costs and benefits is the way to go, but it is more complicated. One would have to research the potential risks, human or otherwise, and always be looking at ways to reduce said risk. This would then be compared to the potential benefits to society to determine whether the risk is actually worth it. In the end, there may be situations where great risk is required, but it is for greater good.

# data[].attributes.body
Part 1: Introduction to the Moral Sphere

Consider the moral spheres chart. Do you agree with its structure? Do you believe it is an accurate representation of contemporary moral spheres? Would you rearrange it or change it in any way?

While I agree with the general idea and structure of the sphere, I feel that some of the layers should be ordered differently. The diagram, in my opinion, focuses too much on the genetic similarities between the self and the surrounding layers. A close friend, adopted parent, or important figure that would lie in a persons "in group" may be more important to that person that certain family members, especially distant members like a great great great grandparent that they may not have even met. These relations would be very dynamic and varied from person to person. For example, as a fraternal I twin, I would put my brother in a layer between "self" and "Parent/sibling/ect", since growing up in a near identical environment and always being in the same stages in life caused us to be very close; but I also don't believe that being identical, and having more similar DNA, would cause him to jump in an additional layer as the diagram suggests.

Part 2: The Trolley Problem

Do you think that it would be ethical to switch the direction of the trolley so that it hit one person instead of five? Do you think it would be ethical to push one person off a bridge to save five people? Would your answers be different if the one person you sacrificed was a person you knew and the other five people were strangers? How does this relate to the idea of moral spheres?

I believe that would be ethical to pull the lever and kill the one person, and it would also be ethical to push the man off the bridge. The end result is the same, with one person being sacrificed to save 5, and knowing the people involved or changing how the trolley is stopped doesn't really change this. Whether or not I could actually go through with it is a different story. The situation feels morally wrong, especially if I would have to push the person or if I knew the one who would die. This ties back to the idea of the moral sphere, where a person would likely value those closer to themselves (in the inner layers) more than complete strangers.

Part 3:

Reflect on the decisions you made while playing.

The decisions were definitely more difficult that I initially thought they would be. They bring up a lot of challenging questions about the value of a life and how factors like health/age affect it. Here are some observations I made about my decision process while playing:
- While pets and animals are important, I don't think any reasonable number of pet lives is important enough to sacrifice a person instead.
- I tried to consciously avoid making decisions based on a persons gender, health, or economic status. I don't believe any of these factors make a persons life more valuable than anyone else's.
- I noticed that I tended to choose the pedestrians to die if they were jaywalking. I in no means believe that these people "deserved" to perish, but if someone must die due to a mistake by one party, I feel is should usually be the party that put everyone in the unfortunate situation in the first place.