# data[].attributes.headline
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?

# data[].attributes.subject
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?

# data[].attributes.body
I believe the family's actions are immoral. This was based on my intuition which was then backed by my reason. Tying this into the lecture, I bring forth Jonathan Haidt's definition of a Moral system, "Moral systems are interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms, practices, identities, institutions, technologies, & evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate self-interest and make cooperative societies possible," (Haidt,2012).  It's implied that the family is situated in a neighborhood where eating roadkill isn't the established norm, especially roadkill that belonged to another family. It's also implied that the family had a different view of the dog from the neighbor. To the neighbor, the dog is family; a beloved member. To the family, the dog is food. Based on these observations it's obvious that the family has a skewed moral code in comparison to the neighbor/neighborhood/community. Meaning that the family is in an entirely different moral system than everyone else. Therefore in the scope of the community's moral system what the family did was unfair and immoral. They hadn't paid the proper respects to the neighbor, the dog, or the respective title of the dog. On my intuition, I am in the same moral system as the neighbor. I have a dog and would've been beyond crushed learning that he had died and was eaten without my consent. Initially, my first response was based on impartial thought but then I allowed my reason to completely observe the situation to come to the definitive conclusion that the family is immoral. To address further using the image above, it's entirely possible that the family is new to the community and thus its moral system. However, it is the family's duty to learn and adjust to the new expectations set before them to ensure that everyone feels respected and cherished. Its an obligation to the people around them, to ensure the best for the community.

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
My decision to not have children are beyond obligations and population trends. My decision is engraved more so socially, mentally, and physically. However to elaborate on this in connection to the lecture. Having children currently is signing their death warrant due to the conditions of the environment and our leader's disregard for their obligations to future generations. To reiterate, in the lecture Dr. Sandy Woodson implores us to explore our definition of obligation and whether we have any. Defining it literally as the ability to include other groups that are being impacted by situations that haven't impacted you yet. I believe I have an obligation to future generations as I can foresee the events that'll impact their education, health, and overall well-being. I employ my basic sense of empathy to know that they deserve a present that they are completely nourished in and that my decisions now impact that later on. In connection to my personal decision on children, I cannot have them, knowing that there are plenty of others who don't share my views. Or more specifically, others in power who don't have a sense of obligation. Gen Z (my generation) has similar views as I do, however, we won't be able to shift enough of the world to impact future generations in time. We already see enough evidence of detrimental setbacks in humanity happening right before our eyes, all we can do is fix as much as we can. We have a duty to make the earth habitable, enjoyable, and safe for humans and the many species that inhabit it. However, we are in no condition to guarantee the safety of our children or our future children. Thus it wouldn't be just or right to force others to experience a lifetime of potential suffering. Until we fix this mess and make it safe for EVERYONE to some degree, children aren't an option for me.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Elijah McKenzie-Jackson was raised as a vegetarian on animal-welfare grounds. But at 10, he began to do more research and discovered the climate impact and greenhouse gas emissions associated with rearing livestock and making animal products. "At 14, I transitioned to veganism, which helped me understand why it can't just be personal change when fighting the climate crisis," he says.

He knew cutting out meat and animal products wasn't enough on its own, so at 15, McKenzie-Jackson amped up his activism efforts. He joined XR Youth, the UK-based independent wing of Extinction Rebellion, and since 2019, has been organising and participating in climate strikes with the UK Student Climate Network and the international movement Fridays for the Future. Now 18, McKenzie-Jackson has taken a one-year sabbatical from his schooling, after which he'll move to New York City to study sociology and fine art.

McKenzie-Jackson's experience of starting a life in activism at a young age - and going all in - is an increasingly common story among Gen Zers. Born between 1995 and 2010, this generation have already found themselves up against immense challenges as they make their way into adulthood: climate change, inequality and social unrest, political division, economic distress and more. It's already mobilised many of these young people into action. And although they are far from the first generation who've spoken up about injustice and other societal ills, technology has meant Gen Z's activism looks different than the movements of the past - which means their influence may be, too.
'I'm powered by the fact I have no other choice'
Activism has long been synonymous with youth culture. From the May 1968 protests in France, and demonstrations against the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement in the US, to the global Occupy movement and the Arab Spring of the late noughties, young people have a record of pushing forward social change. Gen Z is the latest chapter in the decades-long encyclopaedia of young activists, however this cohort appear to communicate, mobilise and rally support in a way that sets them apart from the generations before them.

Raised against the backdrop of the Great Recession of 2008, Gen Z has experienced a unique set of hurdles. Along with unprecedented societal unrest and division, their path to adulthood has been complicated by the pandemic, during which they've seen the rising impact of global inequality. Climate change is front and centre, threatening the future of the planet they will live on. And as the world economy enters a period of looming instability, Gen Z are increasingly bearing the brunt.

"The sense of crisis right now is amplified," says Jessica Taft, an associate professor of Latin American and Latino Studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz whose work focuses on the political lives of children and youth across the Americas. "The extent of the climate crisis, the profound inequalities, the global creep of fascism - they are all existential threats." Of course, there have been countless perils in the past, however the potency and global nature of these historical moments is shaping young people's world views, and the role activism plays in their lives, she says.

Elijah McKenzie-Jackson began his activist journey at age 10 (Credit: Pamela Elizarraras Acitores)

Fuelling Gen Z's anxiety is the fact that they are exposed to news in a different way to their parents or grandparents at the same age; young people are consuming content around social issues and events almost constantly. With just a smartphone, people can access a 24/7 buffet of reporting through social media sites, search engines, news sites and TV. Social media is fast overtaking traditional news channels among young people. Instagram, TikTok and YouTube are now the top three most used sources for news for British teens, according to the broadcasting regulatory authority Ofcom, while older generations, who grew up consuming news through print, radio and TV still favour these traditional modes.

With tech-enabled devices providing constant access to news and user-generated content, escaping is no mean feat. Young people can't turn away from the discourse, so it's no wonder that many digital native Gen Zers are spurred to act on their societal grievances. They are mobilising out of fear and necessity. As 22-year-old American gun control activist and Parkland, Florida mass-shooting survivor David Hogg tweeted: "I'm not powered by hope. I'm powered by the fact I have no other choice."
More activists, starting younger
Constant exposure to grim realities has primed Gen Zers to deal with hardship proactively.

Global data from public-relations and research firm Edelman shows 70% of Gen Zers are involved in a social or political cause. And although not all the 10,000 people surveyed said they would call themselves fully fledged activists, they're still highly socially involved, advocating for causes they believe in through how they spend and earn. They're the most likely generation to boycott a product, company, country or state because of a political, social or environmental stance, which extends to how they pick employers, too. Just one in five would work for a company that fails to share their values.

Much of their activism is driven by frustration - some research shows they're generally more disillusioned with government and other forms of political participation than their elders were. The University of Cambridge has been gathering global data since 1973, and has found young people's faith in democratic politics is now lower than any other age group. Among 18-to-34-year-olds (a mix of Gen Z and millennials), satisfaction with democracy is declining at its steepest rate. For young people in developed democracies, economic exclusion is the biggest contributor to their waning faith in institutions. Struggling with higher debt burdens, lower odds of owning a home and greater challenges in starting a family, Gen Z's discontent only grows.

The pandemic certainly hasn't helped. According to research by the London School of Economics and Political Science, individuals who experience an epidemic, such as Covid-19, the Zika virus, Ebola or Sars, between the ages of 18 and 25 are likely to harbour negative attitudes toward the government and elections for a long time after the epidemic is over.

"While young individuals withdraw from formal politics - which is not that surprising, given their lack of trust - they also tend to increase their participation in the democratic process via alternative and more direct means," explains Orkun Saka, co-author of the paper, visiting fellow at LSE and assistant professor of economics at City, University of London. This includes activities such as attending demonstrations, protests, boycotts and signing petitions. Saka believes the silver lining of the post-epidemic decline in trust may lead young people to feel they would like to take matters in their own hands. "They may become more critical towards their political leaders and governments, which is not a bad consequence in and of itself," says Saka.

Particularly notable is the age at which Gen Z's activism begins - in general, earlier than the generations that have come before them. Greta Thunberg launched her first protest outside the Swedish parliament at 15, which Subir Sinha, a lecturer in the theory and politics of development at SOAS University of London, believes set off a domino effect, whereby young people had a role model who was angry, and with good reason. "She ... did not appear packaged," he says. "It is post-celebrity activism, whereby her ordinariness and lack of glamour is part of her appeal."

Many young activists have followed in her footsteps, gaining global recognition for speaking on climate change issues as young as eight, like Licypriya Kangujam from Manipur in India. At 10, she has just successfully campaigned to have all plastic pollution cleared from the area surrounding the Taj Mahal.

"The idea that there may not be a future, or if there is one, it could be heavily diminished, plays heavy on their minds," says Sinha. "Climate-change activism used to deal with abstract scientific concepts, but with annual forest fires, floods, drought and record heat, plus the news and social-media coverage of all this, we can feel climate accelerating and that adds to a sense of impending apocalypse."

This is why many young people, who see climate change as an existential threat in their lifetime, are participating so vocally in movements and demanding a seat at the table in global negotiations.
An audience at their fingertips
Gen Z activists and their older peers are united in their concern over the same issues - climate destruction, gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights - but their voices appear louder and more urgent because they have more ways to source inspiration, disseminate information and mobilise. While older generations set the precedent for grassroots activism and in-person demonstrations, Gen Zers have brought this activity into where they are most comfortable: digital spaces.

19-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg is one of the most high-profile Gen Z voices, whom experts believe has inspired other young people to take action (Credit: Alamy)

At their most basic function, digital spaces enable Gen Zers to develop their civic identities and express political stances in creative ways, from noting their sexual orientation in their Instagram bio, to joining groups aligning with their interests on the chat-room platform Discord. The online world offers somewhere for them to claim the agency they may not get in traditional civic spaces like their schools, universities or workplaces. A 2020 study from the UK Safer Internet Centre showed 34% of 8-to-17-year-olds say the internet has inspired them to take action about a cause and 43% say it makes them feel their voices matter.

The nature of this relationship makes it easier to then exercise one's civic identity and participate, both offline and online, in social change movements. From the comfort of a bedroom, someone can broadcast a message from a social media account, or build a new platform, without having to wait for a journalist to catch wind of it, or for a TV show to offer a primetime slot. While leafleting, telephone campaigns, word of mouth and canvassing might have been the catalysts for broadcasting a movement in decades before, now Gen Z can harness all this - and more. TikTok videos, hashtag movements like #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter, podcasts and ' hacktivism ' have expanded the mediums through which young people can speak out and be heard.

"There are newer mechanisms through which they are mobilising collectively and because of the pandemic, more emphasis has gone on organising remotely, which may not require people to get together physically in large numbers," says Sinha. He believes that what differentiates Gen Z from older generations is the proliferation of technology in young people's social and political activity, and how intuitively they use it. One minute they're reposting cat memes, the next they're flooding Starbucks with fake job applications in a stand against the company's decision to fire workers attempting to unionise.

"They understand certain mediums so much better, and know how to make things go viral in a way, unlike those of us who weren't born into computer and mobile phone culture," says Sinha. In contrast, he recalls working with fish workers in the 90s, who were rallying against the corporate trawling sector and its mechanic fisheries. Local communications had to be written as a letter, typed out and then faxed to all the movement's international branches.

Today, a movement like this would look dramatically different, he argues - both bigger and faster, since the internet and smartphones have now democratised - and sped up - the path to power and access to a voice as an activist. Jackson-McKenzie believes social media grants individuals access to their very own press tool. "This allows us to narrate our own stories, which is why I think Gen Z has succeeded in so many activism efforts," he says. "We are wholly interlinked to connect across the world."

With social media throwing the window wide on all forms of activism, Gen Z has the capacity to raise awareness about the issues disturbing them, even if the path to concrete change is still long. Still rooted in local struggles and realities, contemporary social movements are increasingly " glocal ", operating both globally and locally, with offline and online networks overlapping. Many of the recent youth-led street protests have been organised online, with Twitter, TikTok and Instagram serving as hubs for information and networking.

From the Arab Spring to Black Lives Matter, youth-led movements are gathering momentum through digital means and result in large-scale transnational protests. One notable example saw children from primary level upwards walk out of school to demand action against climate change in March 2019. The 1.4 million-strong School Strike for Climate - the largest of its kind in history - captured global attention through documenting local protests on Twitter, with this 'glocal' posting expanding its reach and encouraging others to organise their own versions. The strikes clearly had an effect, as concern about the climate crisis peaked in the same month the strikes took place.

In Lebanon, Nadine Khaouli usesTwitter, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn to document and amplify her activist work (Credit: Courtesy of Nadine Khaouli)

Activism as identity

With technology collapsing Gen Z's personal identities into their activism, this sense of self may well follow them through their lives, having multiple impacts, and showing up in all kinds of spheres.

Social media has blended Gen Z's personal and professional lives, offering no delineation between who they are and how they advocate. Nadine Khaouli has been active in the volunteering and social action space since she was 13, and now runs a humanitarian non-profit Kafe Be Kafak (meaning 'hand in hand' in Arabic) alongside her full-time job as a youth delegate with the UN Development Program. On her personal social media accounts - Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn - she documents and amplifies her own views and progress as well as posts volunteering and job opportunities.

"I like to show my followers how we're facing the day-to-day hustle in Lebanon - it's about using my personal journey and my story to inspire the work I do," says Khaouli. "I don't feel the pressure of blurred personal and professional lives because my activism is so aligned with my mission to end poverty in Lebanon."

These indistinct boundaries feel natural for McKenzie-Jackson too, as he doesn't see his activism as a profession. "It's more of a community and family, versus a workplace, which is probably why so many of us are involved in movements," he says. "It's about getting impactful work done in a way that makes us feel fulfilled."

He believes finding friends and partners through activist networks, and inextricably linking their identities with their beliefs, means that those who are already invested are unlikely to end their involvement anytime soon. It will simply transfer into the new spheres they encounter, whether it be the workplace or more activist circles. Being involved in several movements, Jackson-McKenzie can't see himself stepping away. "Once you're involved, you can't stop because you learn and understand more, and it becomes much more serious and scary," he says.

Forced to grow up fast due to a string of societal crises, there's always the potential Gen Z could outgrow their activist tendencies as they take on more responsibilities in their lives. However, research on the 60s generation shows that commitment to the same kind of political beliefs stays consistent over time. "The narrative that one becomes more conservative as they age isn't held up by evidence," says Taft. "People who were activists - organising and involving themselves in these collective spaces - continue to be committed to making social change happen in various ways, while those whose involvement drops off tend not to be especially engaged. I don't see why this wouldn't apply to Gen Z."

Invested in activism for the long term, and organising their lives around their commitments to various movements, rather than the other way around, this generation stands to make headway with their demands - provided older generations are ready to listen. "There's always been a problem of ageing people seeing youth movements as too idealistic," says Sinha. "Any radical or progressive movement with ambitions to survive needs to make space for young people and their ideas about what should change and how that should be done."

That said, activism living on the same platforms that older generations use for work and play could be narrowing the ideological divide between them. Equally, research shows that Gen Z's passion for change is revitalising the generations above them too, with the trickle-up effect hard to ignore. Globally, 52% of people of all generations believe teenagers and college-aged people influence how we create change. It's impacting older generations too: 35% of 56+-year-olds agree this cohort influences how they support the causes they care about, jumping to 50% among 42-to-55 year-olds.

The summer of 2022 has already spotlighted a multitude of new and timeworn issues that will remain highly contentious going forwards. And while today's young activists face many of the same hurdles as those before them, they have a wholly different set of tools at their fingertips that grant them the loudest voices of any generation in history. With a fresher take on all the ways we're getting life wrong, they're angry and unafraid to speak up.

"After the pandemic, the challenge is remobilising people and empowering them to take actions - a lot of the time people are feeling depressed about what's going on," says McKenzie-Jackson. "Activism isn't just actions or social media, it always starts with a passion, and people need to be in touch with that first - everyone has a voice that can turn society on its head, it's just about feeling empowered enough to use it."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gen Z: How young people are changing activism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Technology has given young people a louder voice than ever before. Gen Z are angry - and unafraid to speak up.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What other problems/issues might be more “adaptive” than “technical”?
I'd argue that leadership is more adaptive than technical because of the different topics in which one could maintain leadership. For example, a person could lead the organization while also allowing another member to take the floor on the specifics of aerodynamics. Someone may specialize in a specific role that another doesn't have much say in, then in that case that person should lead in that discussion as they have expertise.

2. What skills are necessary to address adaptive challenges?
You'd have to be ready to relinquish control of certain aspects of the project, be prepared to mediate conversations in the beginning (talk-stick, 'wait your turn', 'what do you think?', etc.), relinquishing the floor, giving praise where praise is due, ask questions, include others in discussions, etc.

3. What skills -more generally- do you think are necessary to be a good engineer/scientist?
You'd have to master the art of asking the right questions, mediation, including and inspiring the creativity of your team, and having an OPEN MIND to EVERYTHING.

# data[].attributes.headline
Which definitions of justice resonate with your personal ethics? Why?

# data[].attributes.subject
Which definitions of justice resonate with your personal ethics? Why?

# data[].attributes.body
From what I understand from the lecture, Justice as Merit best fits my ethics. The lecture defines "Justice as Merit" as justice that takes into account a person's ability, effort, achievement, or social status. In my personal beliefs, I believe it's impossible to achieve true equality in a society where everyone is at different levels/stances/abilities in life from the get-go. You cannot have true equality when one side is completely burdened while the other is seemingly unimpacted. Every single person's individual stance should be considered when making a decision that impacts a multi-faceted realm of justice. Doing so allows for a well-rounded perspective and solution where everyone is considered and/or happy. See the image above. Our society as we experience it is far too complex to simplify our issues into one perspective/solution that we perceive as 'fair'. One box may help one person, but it ignores an entirely other group impacted by the same issue.

# data[].attributes.headline
Part 1: Please a) define the concept in one sentence, and b) list strengths and weakness of the concept.

# data[].attributes.subject
Part 1: Please a) define the concept in one sentence, and b) list strengths and weakness of the concept.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Moral Relativism
; the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint
+STRENGTHS
+Easy to understand
+Easy to implement
+Popular
-WEAKNESS
-Too black & white
-Doesn't fully portray the complexity of morality

2. Utilitarianism

; the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.
+STRENGTHS
+Emphasis on Neutrality
+Pragmatic and focuses on consequences
-WEAKNESS
-Cannot predict consequences of actions
-Cannot assign a value to an amount of pleasure
3. Deontology

; the study of the nature of duty and obligation
+STRENGTHS
+Considers what we are obligated to do
+Justice is absolute
-WEAKNESS
-Cold & Impersonal
-Conflict between specific duties & individual rights
4. Virtue Ethics

; a moral theory that focuses on the development of virtuous character
+STRENGTHS
+Universally implemented and admired
+Rewards universally admired traits
-WEAKNESS
-Incomplete, no definitive answer to what should be done in moral dilemmas
-Avoids the development of virtuous character/rules and aspirations
5. Liberalism
; a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law
+STRENGTHS
+ Focus on maintaining the rights of the governed
+ Works in a completely democratic government
-WEAKNESS
- Doesn't work in undemocratic governments
- Easy to manipulate and abuse to fit a certain agenda

# data[].attributes.headline
What level of risk is acceptable as a means of ensuring the continued progress of science and technology?

# data[].attributes.subject
What level of risk is acceptable as a means of ensuring the continued progress of science and technology?

# data[].attributes.body
As scientists and engineers, we pursue technology to improve our society and world. We look to improve the quality of life for all while also satisfying our need for discovery and knowledge. In that realm, I believe we should always maintain the betterment of humanity and our world first before anything else. If the well-being of any living thing is at risk we'd have to reconsider the cost-benefit of whatever discovery we could be pursuing. We should be asking, "Does this hurt the environment we live in?", "Is the damage long-term?", "Who does this hurt?", etc. This is referenced in the lecture directly. For example, Document 1 R.M Boisjoly said "...O-ring cannot respond to the clevis opening rate and may not be capable of pressurization. The result would be a catastrophe of the highest order-loss of human life,". To reiterate, in this example the failure of a second O-ring would result in massive human death. Showing that for the O-ring to be pursued, more effort should be put into protecting the human life surrounding it. To add a different realm, I bring forth Hisashi Ouchi, the man who was kept alive while he died of radiation poisoning against his will. To avoid gruesome details, he was only kept alive to document the aftermath of radiation poisoning for science. This disgusting act of science goes against the very core of humanity and could've been pursued in a different way. There are plenty of examples of disturbing acts of humanity and each display could've been pursued entirely differently, avoiding a catastrophe or a massacre.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Trigger warning. The following article includes images of a man who underwent heavy exposure to radioactive compounds. Some may find the images used to tell this story upsetting. Reader's discretion is advised.

adiation has always been a subject of great interest for many scientists. Since its discovery and weaponization, many have looked into its impact on living organisms, especially humans. As a result, many living beings suffered at the hands of those who sought to find the real impact of radiation on living beings. Throughout the years, this experimentation was mainly focused on animals as it would be unethical to test such a thing on humans.

Outside of major nuclear events such as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the meltdowns of nuclear facilities such as nuclear power plants, the effect of radiation on humans could not be tested. As such, after the 1999 Tokaimura nuclear accident, many scientists jumped at the opportunity to study the victims of such a high amount of explosion to radiation. Out of all the victims of the disaster, the case of Hisashi Ouchi stands out.

Tokaimura nuclear plant

Hisashi Ouchi was one of three employees of the Tokaimura nuclear plant to be heavily impacted by the accident on 30 September 1999. Leading up to the 30th of the month, the staff at the Tokaimura nuclear plant were in charge of looking after the process of dissolving and mixing enriched uranium oxide with nitric acid to produce uranyl nitrate, a product that the bosses of the nuclear plant wanted to have ready by the 28th.

Due to the tight time constraints, the uranyl nitrate wasn't prepared properly by the staff, with many shortcuts being used to achieve the tight deadline. One of these shortcuts was to handle the highly radioactive produce by hand. During their handling of the radioactive produce, while trying to convert it into nuclear fuel (uranyl nitrate is used as nuclear fuel) for transportation, the inexperienced three-man crew handling the operation made a mistake.

Tokaimura nuclear plant. Source: Wikimedia Commons

During the mixing process, a specific compound had to be added to the mixture, the inexperienced technicians added seven times the recommended amount of the compound to the mixture leading to an uncontrollable chain reaction being started in the solution. As soon as the Gamma radiation alarms sounded, the three technicians knew they made a mistake. All three were exposed to deadly levels of radiation; more specifically, Ouchi received 17 Sv of radiation due to his proximity to the reaction, Shinohara 10 Sv, and Yokokawa 3 Sv due to his placement at a desk several meters away from the accidents. When being exposed to radiation, it is said that anything over 10 Sv is deadly; this would prove to be true in this instance.

The fallout of radiation

Shinohara, the least affected out of the two who received a deadly dose of radiation, lasted 7 months in hospital until 27 April 2000. The technician died of lung and liver failure after a long battle against the effects of the radiation he endured. During his, 7-month stay at the University of Tokyo Hospital, several skin grafts, blood transfusions, and cancer treatments were performed on him with minimal success. Shinohara's time at the University of Tokyo Hospital would be much less painful than Ouchi's.

On Ouchi's arrival at the University of Tokyo Hospital, he had radiation burns across his whole body, a near-zero white blood cell count, and severe damage to his internal organs. He was all but dead without the intervention of the staff at the hospital. He was under intensive care for his first week at the hospital, receiving revolutionary cancer treatment meant to boost his white blood cell count as well as many skin grafts and blood transfusions. After a week of treatment, he told the doctors, "I can't take it anymore[...]. I am not a guinea pig."

Hisashi Ouchi at the University of Tokyo Hospital. Source: Wikimedia Commons

Even so, his treatment went on and on. On the 59th day of his admission, the now nearly lifeless body of Ouchi suffered three heart attacks in under an hour. The doctors of the hospital resuscitated him after every heart failure, prolonging his pain. Only on the 83rd day after his admission would the technician die of multiple organ failure.

The moral implications of keeping what could best be described as a husk of a man alive for 83 days do not need to be stated. By keeping Ouchi alive for 83 days, the doctors of the University of Tokyo Hospital did the opposite of what they are trained to do, limit human suffering. As a result, Ouchi's case goes down in the history books as a show of cruelty for the sole reason of research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Man Kept Alive Against His Will: Hisashi Ouchi

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Trigger warning. The following article includes images of a man who underwent heavy exposure to radioactive compounds. Some may find the images used to tell this story upsetting. Reader's discretion is advised . adiation has always been a subject of great interest for many scientists.

# data[].attributes.body
If I was in a situation where I'd have to sacrifice 1 stranger for the sake of 5, I would find it ethical to proceed. However, if I had to push a stranger off or if I knew the person, the situation would be more precarious. Moral Spheres relate to this situation as -shown in the lecture, reference picture above- strangers fall away from people you know. Meaning, that you are more likely to sacrifice others if you don't know them in comparison to people you know. In the realm of pushing the stranger off to save others, the issue comes within the action itself. With that push, you are assigning yourself the guilt of killing that person. Given that you are now physically responsible for the death of this person, you may feel a sense of apprehension in your sense of morality. Hence why some people wouldn't answer the same given their first option/situation. The same can be applied to social media, specifically the lack of interpersonal interface within it. People find it easier to bully/make fun of/threaten/etc. others due to the lack of face-to-face or in-person interaction. This can be shown in the moral spheres, thanks to that interface this places many interactions past "members of our ingroup" into "our species".

# data[].attributes.body
Jenny Price notates that despite the hostile environment of LA, nature can still thrive and adapt to its surroundings. This bunny adapted to the chaos of everyday college life. Despite the chaos of thundering feet, thick crowds, and man-made structures, this bunny feeds, lives, and continues as Jenny Price mentions.

# data[].attributes.headline
Week 1: Intro to NHV & Ways of Looking at Nature

# data[].attributes.subject
Week 1: Intro to NHV & Ways of Looking at Nature

# data[].attributes.body
In the "Thirteen ways of Seeing Nature in LA" article, Price references the consumption of natural resources as human nature. An example is the rose lemonade I was drinking and the jewelry that adorned my body. The rose and lemons that made that drink came from real roses and lemons that traveled possibly across the ocean or in an airplane, all the way here. Its sole purpose being human consumption, as the same for the jewelry.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
4TH WAY; "As Different to Different People"

# data[].attributes.headline
Week 1: Intro to NHV & Ways of Looking at Nature

# data[].attributes.subject
Week 1: Intro to NHV & Ways of Looking at Nature

# data[].attributes.body
One thing that had me reflect was Price's notion of the reality we live in; privilege and culture shock. Despite us all being humans we can live shockingly different lives. In this example, I grew up never being able to see the stars. I'd know it was night cause it was dark, the only remarkable thing was the moon. But, on that fateful day, I was able to observe the universe from the surface of the earth. I, unfortunately, couldn't capture its full grace, however, there were many stars bright enough to shine through on my phone camera. Many see this every day, able to witness the universe in action, I never got to till now.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
5TH WAY; "As Landscape and Ecology We Build and Manage"

# data[].attributes.headline
Week 1: Intro to NHV & Ways of Looking at Nature

# data[].attributes.subject
Week 1: Intro to NHV & Ways of Looking at Nature

# data[].attributes.body
The river is a beautiful natural power that we keep clean and safe to swim/raft in. We built the city of Golden around and to this day keep safe. It is a prime example of the forces of nature and the forces of humanity colliding for good.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
6TH WAY; "As a Premiere Source of Human Meaning"

# data[].attributes.headline
Week 1: Intro to NHV & Ways of Looking at Nature

# data[].attributes.subject
Week 1: Intro to NHV & Ways of Looking at Nature

# data[].attributes.body
As we take care of the river, we also use the river. Here we are representing Jenny Price's definition of human nature, which is to use everything around us.