# data[].attributes.body
I think that engineers have a crucial role in not just solving environmental racisms now, but also solving and preventing it in the future. This means playing an active role in combating all racism past, present, and future, and making sure that everyone has an equal opportunity for success. Mines students play a role in this because we all are going to be in the working world soon, and that is were all of this plays out. If we take action there we will be able to make a noticeable change, and we will be able to work to stop all forms of racism and discrimination.

# data[].attributes.body
I knew nothing about Globeville before and after reading all of the information,  and I see both of the sides of the argument. I think that the big problem is that there is a long history of discrimination that is effecting and has effected all decisions made about the area, and while I understand that I also know that traffic is a major problem, that will only get worse over time. This will only lead to future confrontation, and I don't see a clear solution, however, I suspect that the government will buy up all of the required houses and then expand the highway. Just further highlighting the severity of this problem.

# data[].attributes.body
Red lining was the practice of denying bank loans to historically black neighborhoods. This then leads to multiple neighborhoods being run down, this then leads to the neighborhood being run down, with no money to fix it up. This then leads to other people not investing in the area leading to less green areas, and other areas to cool off. This then leads to the redlined areas having a higher temperature than the non-redlined area.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the idea of natural vs the idea of man made and the corresponding environmental concepts that come from them is an interesting concept, and while both problems are technically man made the damage in the natural case has already been done. I think that while it would be wonderful if we could return the delta to its natural state, I think that our first priority should be for the animals and people who now rely on the water. I think that the argument about this being the new natural is very logical and is the way we should proceed.

# data[].attributes.body
If I had to speculate I would say that if the Colorado River had originally run through LA then it would be in a different state. This is because in the case that it was going through there I think that the people of California would force the usage of the river to change, as they are in a situation where they constantly need water. I personally hate this and think that as time goes on people should make choices that are consistent with treating all people equal especially with large amounts of public resources. I would hope that we would be equally willing to hurt California as we are to hurt the people in Mexico.

# data[].attributes.body
My water while both in New Mexico and here in Colorado primarily come from the aquifer underneath us. While for many I would say that this water then contributes to the "natural" surroundings like parks and the trees along the street, I don't consider those things natural. What I consider natural is the plants that are able to grow without any outside assistance, and while it is nice to have the luxury of green parks and schools I don't think it is right to consider that natural.

# data[].attributes.body
The reason why people prescribe a personality to inanimate objects like a river, is to try to get others to connect with it on a personal level. This is seen all the time when people refer to boats and cars as "she" or "baby", and by doing this are able to describe the connection that they feel. If there is one thing that I have learned through this course it is that people are easily manipulated and I see the personification of the Colorado river as a natural extension of this. To say that this comes without negatives is foolish, for trying to give a human and emotional value to something that is not human, can be very dangerous, as treating something that is not a person as a person can make life very difficult for other real people.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the existence of nuclear weapons are truly a neutral thing, and that existence of them today is something that exists, similar to the fact that the earth is round, or is primarily covered in water. Debating the morality of such weapons is irrelevant, because now they are a staple in day to day life. Talking about the morality of these weapons is like talking about electricity, they exist and there is nothing that can be done about that unless an even more devastating weapon is created. Through the idea of MAD, the world has almost reached world peace, or at least the world superpowers aren't constantly fighting with human live. Also through the discovery of Nuclear Weapons we discovered Nuclear Energy, which might be a solution to climate change. Long story short Nuclear technology has been a positive and a negative on the human race, but I don't think it is going anywhere so it is pointless to think about it.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that there would have been significant impact to stopping the testing after trinity. The goal of the Manhattan Project was to create a Weapon of Mass Destruction, and while there are many people who don't condone this, stopping a project because it was successful doesn't make any sense. However, the feeling of dread that overcame the scientists is a very human reaction, and I think it shows that their hearts are in the right place, and I suspect that a lot of soldiers feel a similar thing to that after taking their first life.

# data[].attributes.body
I think another example of double use could be batteries. They are necessary for almost every portable electronic device however the chemicals in it are extremely hazardous to the environment. This is interesting because if the US wants to to entirely green then we will have to rely on batteries, but in doing so we may end up harming the environment more.

# data[].attributes.body
I never realized the amount that technology has the potential to effect the world and the people living in it. I really enjoyed this section because it really opened my eyes as to why people believe that technology and items can affect the way that society views individual. It is because people have different goals in mind when they create a product, and those goals influence the end product. For example, if someone wanted to create a gun, it can be created with two different purposes, one to protect, and the other to kill. This seeming conflicted ideals results in different outcomes, for example if a gun is easy to handle it is most likely for self defense or protection, but a gun designed for killing will be more difficult to learn, but deal more damage per shot, and fire faster.

# data[].attributes.headline
12 Things Everything should know about tech

# data[].attributes.subject
12 Things Everything should know about tech

# data[].attributes.body
I noticed that number 11 was missing from this list, but other than that I really agree with the idea that we don't have enough information about technology history. One of the things that they also talked about is that technology is constantly progressing, but it is not always for the best. However, I think that because technology is progressing so fast we aren't able to accurately record all of the failures.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't see any downside to a system the accurately and consistently is able to detect faces. The problem of being able to more accurately identify one type of gender or races face isn't quite an ethical one so much as it is a testing problem. As stated this is most likely due to not enough testing of the software being completed on minorities faces, and while that is a problem. I wouldn't say that it is a major ethical concern, it just means that better testing needs to be done. I actually disagree, a think that a machine and a code can be neutral. This is because like everything, technology is a tool, and as such it can be molded to be used in any way possible. Also with regards to this I don't see how creating a system that more accurately determines the race and gender of an individual will lead to a more ethical and just society.

# data[].attributes.body
I am in a bit of a special situation because of my parents. Due to them I wasn't involved in social media for the longest time, and as such I don't see this really effecting me as much as it does others. However, this just further goes to show the connection and fragmentation that was mentioned in the first video. These sites are designed to have us connect with distant friends and family, but at the same time by allowing us to make these new connections it can isolate us inside of our own little bubble, making feel more alone in the world.

# data[].attributes.body
I am optimistic about the future, and the reason is that each time that society has taken a step back, we learn from our mistakes and we keep going forward. Each time the world has fallen apart, we've pulled ourselves together and done even better the next time. So even if our society ends up falling I don't think that it is going to happen anytime soon.

# data[].attributes.body
Genetic Engineering-
More deadly diseases designed to spread and kill humans could wipe us out
As the line between human and machine blur, the remote destruction due to hackers
Nanotechnology-
More efficient and compact weapons
Robotics-
Remote killing machines
AI deciding when to take life

# data[].attributes.body
Genetic Engineering-
Eradication of Disease
Further integration between humans and machines
Nanotechnology-
Eradication of Disease
Smaller Technology for everyday use
Robotics-
Replacement of Manual Labor
Further integration between humans and machines

# data[].attributes.body
The main difference between Confucian Ethics and the other two ethics philosophies that we have learned this semester is that, Confucian Ethics states that context and relationships matter. This makes sense from a logical perspective because you don't treat a stranger with the same courtesy that you would treat your family. While I understand the perspective that this is morally reprehensible, I think that Confucian Ethics offers an alternative to the higher standard of ethics that the western philosophies have. This means that Confucian Ethics is more obtainable and therefore reasonable, and I think makes the moral system more moral. I say this because if there is someone that you really want to succeed and be a better person, you set little goals for them, to help them improve. When you set unreasonable goals, you just end up discouraging people from trying, and if that is the case, then I would say that that is immoral.

# data[].attributes.body
When given only these two options, I would not report my father to the authorities. This is because even though my father has done something wrong I would still love him, and not want him to suffer. I would be disappointed in him, but that doesn't mean that I think this singular bad act should be enough to make him suffer.

# data[].attributes.headline
The similarities between Consequentialism and Dentology

# data[].attributes.subject
The similarities between Consequentialism and Dentology

# data[].attributes.body
The main similarity between these two different philosophies is that they are both universal in one sense or the other. What I mean by this is that Consequentialism believes that you treat all individuals with the same level of moral decency, and that is the only way that moral actions can arise. Dentology is similar in that this philosophy believes that for any action to be considered moral, it must be a universal decision that anyone in your same situation should make.

# data[].attributes.body
When looking at environmental justice, I am struck with conflicting opinions. On one hand I don't want to displace people from their homes, but on the other I would like to keep some of these parts of nature conserved. I think that the best way to view solve this is to keep a truly conservationist perspective. If we are able to save the environment without hurting people then we should, but if we have to choose between saving the environment and saving people then we need to save people.

# data[].attributes.body
I have a conversationalist point of view when it comes to the environment. I agree that when given the opportunity we need to protect nature, however, this is only when given the opportunity. I do not think that we should place the beauty and spender of nature above that of human survival, and while looking back it would have been wonderful to see the landscapes that are now lost, I think that ultimately they made the right decision.

# data[].attributes.body
I feel the best way to describe my thoughts about humans and their control over the environment is cautiously optimistic. I hope that we will continue to have power over nature, and I see no reason that we would lose control over nature as time goes on. However, I have this nagging feeling in the back of my head that us controlling nature is only temporary and eventually nature will take back everything that we have taken from it.

# data[].attributes.body
The topic of racism is one that it a very uncomfortable topic, as it is something that is difficult to come to terms with every existing. However, despite this it is something that we must face head on. Anti-racism is the conscious act of stopping all facets of racism in our day to day life. If you aren't against racism, then you are inherently helping it.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Bias did not play a decision in my decisions, because I didn't look at the roles of the people in society when making my decisions.
2. Some of these articles are claiming that there is an implicit bias, against POC and women. This is because throughout these articles, they never explicitly stated that a singular person was the cause of these problems, but it was the way that society has been shaped. Unfortunately, this problem can't be easily solved, this is particularly difficult with regards to the technological side. Most of these problems are like a learning curve and technology will learn from its mistakes and grow over time. Like one of the articles said, its like a young child pointing at a POC and calling them a gorilla, while it is wrong to do this, you can't necessarily blame them because they didn't know any better. So the solution for AI technology, it to let these growing pains leave the system. However, for some of the other problems the can be immediately addressed now. The one story about temperatures in work settings I found particularly stirring, and it is something that should be easily changed.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Justice- treating everyone based off of a moral code
2. In my opinion, our society is a just one. Everyone has a different believe about life, but we live in a society that allows for the combination of all of those different opinions. This means that even though there are a lot of different opinions about how everything should be run we can still live together. Even though there are unjust elements in our society, I still think we are a just society.
3. I believe that all men are created equal, and as such I believe that we are all equally capable of greatness. It is because of this that I believe that justice is an equal chance for everyone, and injustice is the active act against this.

# data[].attributes.body
I would say that the cooking and eating of the neighbor's dog was immoral for two reasons. First, and foremost in this day and age, many people consider dogs to be a part of the family, and as such many would feel as thought the had lost a family member through the loss of this dog. The second reason why is because if the neighbor's didn't consider the dog their family, they almost certainly considered it their property, and as such the eating of the dog without alerting their owner would be equivalent to stealing the cow of a farmer. This is the logical train of thought that follows the morality of this decision, however, a large part of morality is the gut reaction and so to say that there was not any intuition in this decision would be leaving out part of the equation.

# data[].attributes.body
One of the cornerstones of both debating and policy making, is understanding how people arrive at the decisions and beliefs that they have. The first reason why it is important to have this skillset is because without it, it is every easy to attribute malice to others opinions and as such you can dismiss their ideas. However, if you are able to understand where they are coming from, you are able to attribute the difference in opinions due to ignorance rather than malice, which is a much healthier solution. The second reason why it is important to understand where peoples ideas originate from, is because you can't reach a common agreement unless you both arrive at a conclusion that you find acceptable, and the easiest way to do this is to start at the base ideas and then build from there.

# data[].attributes.body
The political polarization has increased throughout the past 23 years according to the graph, with the Republican's median data being more mobile than the Democrat's, but the Democrat's have more consistently moved towards the left radical end of the spectrum.

# data[].attributes.body
I placed my tick over completely on the design side of the spectrum, this is because the farther you go towards implementation, it becomes more and more difficult to stop the design process.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Cost-benefit analysis can be used to address any type of problem, and I tend to believe that people who say otherwise disagree with some of the different decisions that the system has made. I believe that cost benefit analysis is the best and most fair method of determining how funding and support gets allocated.
2. The idea of fairness being embedded in environmental claims, and that the Cost-benefit analysis is unfair towards said claims, like I said I believe that it is because people are unhappy with the results of the analysis.
3. I still believe that the main idea that holds true in this case is the anthropocentric view because if objects and actions only have the value that people give them, then people allocating money to 'vote' is the best way to solve the solution. I think that the non-anthropocentric view starts to come into effect, when someone values something more than other people do, and as such it makes someone upset.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I would say that for the fast majority of technologies that are dangerous, they exist because we haven't found a better way to solve that problem. I would say that chainsaws, mills, and steel forges are all technologies that are extremely dangerous because they have a high risk of death while using them.
2. These technologies definitely impact non-human nature, and that is part of the reason that they are dangerous. We don't entirely know how a chainsaw will cut down a tree, or how it will change the landscape around it, and that is part of what makes it dangerous.
3. The main difference that I have found with the precautionary principle online is that the online version states that all risk should be avoided, while the precautionary principle in the video talks more about taking calculated risks.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I currently plan on having children, I have very much so enjoyed living my life and I would love to give that gift to someone else.
2. I wouldn't say that we have obligations to other people's children, but I would say that we should help them. I tend to believe that every choice that you make has actions and consequences, so saying that there is an inherent obligation to children just doesn't feel right to me.
3. I don't believe that people have a right to experience nature,  I would definitely classify experiencing nature as a privilege. This is even true now, people can't just go and see nature whenever, they have lives that they have to plan around.
4. Yes? Like I stated above I don't believe in the obligations and rights to future generations, I believe that it is a moral thing to support the future generations, but I don't believe that it is a right.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think
2. I believe that we do have a Judeo-Christian world, and I tend to follow with that logic as well. This is because there must be something special about humanity, because if there isn't then why can't other animals do what we do? This train of thought specifically with regards to nature is quite straight forward, try going out into the middle of nature, with nothing, not even the clothes on your back. If you stay out there by yourself for over a year, with no technology what so ever, including fire, and then I would be willing to hear about how we don't have to rule nature or be ruled by it. That doesn't mean that we don't respect nature, but to say that it won't kill us the moment it gets the chance is a big stretch.
3. I don't disagree with the statement that we are one species among many, but I don't believe that we should change how we act about it.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I tend to lead towards an anthropocentric point because everything only has the value that it has because of the meaning we give it. Everything in the world is only an object, neither inherently good or bad, it only has the meanings that we give it, to best serve our interests. The only reason why Climate Change is such a major threat is because it seems possible for it to completely alter our way of life, if this wasn't the case then people wouldn't care about it.
2. I think that people should be allowed to live wherever they like as long as it is following the masses. What I mean by this is that we have to respect others wishes, so we can't live in areas like wilderness zones, or live on the streets.
3. It demonstrates a very anthropocentric point of view, because it specifically says it preserves land for "enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations." Which wouldn't exist without this and future generations.

# data[].attributes.body
1. If my only way of dying is to nuke it, and I start to feel suicidal, then yes I would. However, if I could just end my life without destroying the entire planet, then I would take that path. I feel an obligation to conscious beings, not life itself.
2. There is no reason to destroy the planet just to satisfy your will.
3. If you really are the last one left, then you become the ultimate moral standpoint so if you want to end all life on earth there no reason not to.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Almost all of the big questions that are "big" question are "adaptive", for example, the question of how to end world hunger, or how to save endangered species.
2. You have to have an open mindset in order to solve adaptive problems, because if you can't even get people to agree on what the root of the problem you must have an open mind to try solutions that you would normally never consider.
3. In order to be a good engineer, you have to be hard-working, and have a healthy mindset. I think that engineering is like most other careers, and you can be successful at it as long as you are always trying to put your best foot forward.

# data[].attributes.body
1. a. People might be forced into a position where they have to sell a kidney
b. People who can buy a kidney are at an advantage
c. Third Parties might cut corners to make a profit
d. There in an inherent unquantifiable value to the human body
2. It seems like the idea of Utilitarianism is the primary critique when arguing against a market society that is the most similar to our world. I say this because most people were concerned about the unequal situations that arose from income inequality, saying is it fair to value the rich person's life over the poor person's life. However, once they removed almost all financial incentive, it started to progress into a Virtue Ethics argument, because people were arguing that there is something sacred about the human body that shouldn't be messed with.

# data[].attributes.body
1. You can buy prison cell upgrades, the color of the London Eye, and wars[paid contractors].
2. You can't buy friendship, or things that are expected to come from the self.
3. Market Economies- the belief that Free Markets are a valuable tool to be used in day to day interactions
Market Societies- the belief that Free Markets should govern every interaction that we have

# data[].attributes.body
Moral Relativism- The belief that there are no inherently good and bad morals, our society just raises us with the belief that some morals are better than other.
Benefits- Allows for in depth evaluation of different morals
Determents- Denies that one set of morals is better than another, and that the only reason why it is "bad" is because society says so

Utilitarianism- Defining morality based off of the results of your actions
Benefits- a universal system that is easy to apply to any situation
Determents-  Can tend to lead to majority rule and the end justifying the means

Deontology- Defining the morality of an action based off of the action instead of the outcome
Benefits- Allows you to justify bad outcomes if just actions were taken
Determents- Allows you to justify bad outcomes is just actions were taken

Virtue Ethics- Defining morality as the actions to try and become a better person instead of actions that are good.
Benefits- People can always try to improve. As such even if you acted "immorally" if it was a mistake, as long as you are trying to better yourself then you are moral
Determents- You have to assume someone's intentions behind their actions to determine if they are moral or not, and it is near impossible to determine someone's intentions behind their actions

Liberalism- the willingness/openness to accept/try new ideas
Benefits- All current ideas were once new ideas
Determents-  The majority of new ideas are bad

# data[].attributes.body
I personally think that all risk is acceptable in science and technology, but it is the responsibility of the engineers and marketers to make the knowledge of the risk to be widespread. This allows people to make their own decisions when considering buying a product and as such will naturally allow for society to account for this natural risk. Any number or percentage that is fixed is always up to scrutiny and as such I think that we should leave it up to the general public, and the free market to decide.

# data[].attributes.body
The first writing does a better job of highlighting the severity of the risk, however both writings don't meet my requirements for highlighting the risk. In order for me to make a necessary evaluation of the risk involved I would like to see a percentage for the mean and median failure rate, along with the standard deviation. If they are engineers, then they should present the data so that way people can make their own informed decisions about what they need to do. However, I liked the information included in the second report, and I like how the first report highlighted the danger, but I would say a nice mixture of the two with some statistical data would be for the best.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the engineers that create things should not be held accountable for the long term usage of said items. Almost ever creation in human history is a doubled edged sword, and anything created can be used to achieved the near opposite of said tools intended purpose. Fire is a perfect example, it allows us to cook our food making it easier to digest and lets us live longer lives, but it can also be used to kill in one of the most horrific ways possible.

# data[].attributes.body
I am not entirely sure about what this is asking. Based off of all available information, I don't know why an extension of this report was filled in the first place. I would remove the additional vat from the first report, and then ask if my boss if he would like for me to file a report on the second vat. If he states no, then that is his decision to make not mine. It wouldn't make sense to not have this reported, because there are things that are significantly more likely to harm or kill individuals that already occur in malls, and if the government finds out that the company knew about this but didn't record it then its a big deal. However, like I said that isn't my decision to make.

# data[].attributes.body
I have had to think a lot about this problem, and the implications that it has, and the more that I think about it I realize that I don't have enough information to make a rational decision about which path I should take. I can't rationalize making a decision here, even though I have a gut feeling, but I don't know if that is just due to the previous encounters that I have had with this problem. Just to give one example, if I had to kill the conductor of the train to save the five people I wouldn't be able to do it, but if I had to kill one person who was in a vegetative state to save five I might be able to do it.

# data[].attributes.body
I completely disagree that ethical considerations are similar to the train of thought that engineers and scientists must follow. They are fundamentally different in principle. The scientific process of continual trial and error, while a beneficial train of thought, has run completely against moral and ethical beliefs we now hold dear. Despite constantly trying to achieve perfection using the scientific method, there were multiple times throughout history that people used science against what is morally correct. Simply putting yourself in another's shoes is not nearly enough to be considered the scientific method. The scientific method cares about pure effectiveness, if something isn't useful or efficient a process is built to try and fix it. You can't do that with people, and I would say that it is morally detestable to do so.