# data[].attributes.body
This picture has a view of the mountains and the river I choose it because it’s so different then the views in Minnesota.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Innovative
2. Smart
3. Resilient
4. Honest
5. Open minded
6. Fair
7. kind
8. Creative
9. Communicative 
10. Articulate 

# data[].attributes.body
1. I don't agree with the structure of the moral sphere. I think different people become closer or further from the center of our moral spheres as time goes on.
2. I thought that it was interesting how he talked about our relations in the outer rings of the spheres are a way that we are different then other species we have more connections outside of our family groups. I also liked when he talked about in the more recent years we have started to take more ethical/moral considerations. With humans adopting a more sedentary life style we have been able to create institutions to prevent violence against people animals and the environment.
3.

# data[].attributes.body
Title your response with the title of the lecture. And then each time that you respond to a lecture on your own Padlet, be sure to include the following:

1. At least two sentences responding to one or more of the prompts given in the lecture materials. You may write more if you wish, but aim for at least 30 words of thoughtful, critical response to the prompts.

2. Two facts (or definitions) from the Lecture restated in your own words. If you are quoting something directly, indicate this with quotation marks AND THEN rephrase it in your own words.

3. A link to clearly related outside media, with an explanation of what in the linked-to material relates to the lecture (and how it relates). You should include a comment that introduces and summarizes the thing being linked before you explain your thoughts on how it connects to the lecture. (If you prefer, you can create a separate tile for this part).

# data[].attributes.body
1.I found this first lecture interesting. As Jenny pointed out many different ways to look at nature and the world.
2. I thought it was interesting when she pointed out that people say the air in LA is polluted but it is worse in some areas than others. Price says 'When you use and change a landscape, then the place will respond.' No matter how you change an environment it will have an effect. 
3.https://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/climbing/mt-everest-tourism.htm I choose this link cause it shows how something beautiful has become corporate and fake.

# data[].attributes.body
Virtue ethics resonated with me the most. It seemed to be a good middle ground between some of the other philosophies. It focused on being good but reasonable. I liked the example the author gave of being generous but only to those who need it. I also liked the idea of being successful was different for every person and they would be considered successful by fostering their own talents. I liked the idea that every person is different and has different talents but can be successful in their own way.

# data[].attributes.headline
Lecture 3 Science and engineering ethics

# data[].attributes.subject
Lecture 3 Science and engineering ethics

# data[].attributes.body
Would you change the report? Why or why not? No because its ethically wrong people make the argument  that if you don't someone else will. That only happens if thats the standard if nobody changes the report it sets a prescient for higher ethical standards. 
To what extent are engineers and scientists responsible for the long-term consequences of the technology that they create. They are responsible for making sure there initial creation is safe and ethical but long term it is the responsibility of the party using there creation to use it ethically.
The documents adequately convey the risk they say it could result in the loss of human and it offered some possible solutions to the problem.
What level of risk is acceptable as a means of ensuring the continued progress of science and technology? I think a moderate or even high level of risk is acceptable in the pursuit of science. As long as the party or person taking the risk understands what the risk is and its implications. 

# data[].attributes.body
During the week I wake up at 9AM Monday through Wednesday  and 7AM Thursday and Friday. I go to my classes and am usually finished by 5 each day. I try to do some homework in between classes during the day but most I do after I'm done with classes in the evening. I also try to do some physical activity or some outdoor activity almost every day. I try to go rock climbing 2-3 times a week and days I don't climb I will go for some type of hike. I go camping almost every weekend leaving Saturday morning and  get back by noon Sunday and start to do the homework I have for the weekend. My values that I see in myself based of this assessment are: I appreciate spending time outdoors and doing exercise and school.

# data[].attributes.body
This column is for posting responses to prompts or exercises given during recitation. No homework assignments should be posted here; time will be given in recitation to add responses to this column.

# data[].attributes.body
This column is for documenting the writing and critical thinking process over the semester.

There are two types of posts to make here:

1. Required workshop reflections: after every small group workshop, report and reflect on the workshop process. Describe what happened – activities done, skills practiced, and results of the workshop. Also reflect on how the workshop session went: successes or satisfactions, challenges or frustrations, things learned & questions raised. This should be done in the last few minutes of the workshop time or right after the workshop ends.

2. Connection posts: Use this column as a kind of "writer's notebook," a the place to collect ideas, thoughts, and materials for possible use in later writing assignments, especially for the research paper and the final portfolio. At least once a week ( after one or both recitation sessions), a post should be added that reflects on and attempts to connect the course materials and activities to other ideas and resources.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Moral Relativism
The difference in philosophical positions and moral judgments across cultures.

2. Utilitarianism
Maximize human happiness

3. Deontology
Act on weather the action is good or bad not on its consequences

4. Virtue Ethics
Focused on moral character and virtues

5. Liberalism
The

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

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

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

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
Is human control over our environment likely to be a lasting feature of our existence? I think that for as long as we exist we will continue to have control over our environment but I think over controlling our environment may lead to the end of our existence.
Do you favor a conservationist or preservationist approach? I favor a conservationist approach I think it is best to let nature run its course as it naturally would.
What are the best means of ensuring environmental justice for all human communities? The best way to ensure environmental justice for all human communities is to first set global regulations for how resources are used to make sure that they are used in a sustainable way. Beyond that different populations can decide how the available resources are used.
Eco-Modernism says humans should first protect nature and second try and improve human life
Anthropocene- Is the age of human control over the environment and world.

Related link:
I choose this article as a related source because it provides an example where humans think they are doing something to protect the environment but it is actually better for us to let nature run its course.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our relationship with fire has always been a complicated, love-hate affair.

Fire brings warmth, safety, clean drinking water and cooked food, and may have fast-tracked the expansion of humans out of Africa. But fire is also an unruly beast, bringing with it the threat of devastation and death.

Wildfires can be hugely destructive, and threaten the safety and property of people living in fire-prone regions. It seems obvious to most people that wildfires need to be prevented and extinguished, at all costs.

And they are: today, 98% of all fires in the US are successfully extinguished. But the more money we invest into stopping wildfires, the worse they seem to get. Year after year, the number of forest fires is increasing globally, along with their size and intensity.

In fact, the six worst fire seasons in the last 50 years have all occurred since 2000. This raises a tricky question: are our successful efforts to control wildfires partly responsible for this broader trend in wildfire size and intensity? And if so, how?

Any environment with relatively wet winters and long summer droughts is likely to be fire-prone. All that winter water fuels plant growth in the spring, leaving lots of plant vegetation that has the potential to dry out and become highly flammable during drought.

The most flammable ecosystems tend to be grasslands and shrublands

This means that fire has been a problem probably ever since plants first move onto the land hundreds of millions of years ago. Indeed, the impact of fire is evident in plant genomes dating back as early as 125 million years ago.

But, perhaps surprisingly, evolution has adapted the plants and animals in particularly fire-prone ecosystems to cope with the threat - and to rebound vibrantly afterwards.

The most flammable ecosystems tend to be grasslands and shrublands, because the plant stems are thinner and quicker to catch light.

In grassland habitats, such as the savannahs of southern Africa, fires are frequent. But they move through the grasses quickly, hardly heating the soil below. This allows plant root systems to survive the fire, and so the grasses re-sprout rapidly in burned areas.

The more money we invest into stopping wildfires, the worse they seem to get

Animals, from insects to birds and mammals, are usually able to survive wildfires too, by running, flying or burrowing out of danger.

What's more, as soon as the vegetation returns, so does the wildlife. The soft, young grass stems attract grazing herbivores from surrounding areas and allow the grassland ecosystem to rapidly regenerate.

In fact, without fires these grasslands would slowly turn into forest through a process known as succession. Trees can ultimately outcompete grasses when conditions are stable, but frequent fires create an environment in which grasses have the upper hand: slow-growing tree saplings are destroyed before they can really establish themselves.

This might suggest that fires pose a threat to the very existence of forest ecosystems. But this is not the case: some forests are fire-adapted, too.

Pine trees in the Ponderosa forests found across the western United States and Canada have thick, heat-resistant bark to protect the living tissues inside from rising temperatures. They also naturally drop their lower branches to prevent fire catching into the canopy.

Every five to 25 years, natural fires pass through these forests. It is vital for the forests that they do, because the flames burn leaf litter and understory plants, preventing a build-up of forest-floor vegetation.

When fires do now occur in these forests, they are high-intensity and their flames reach into the canopy

Because that vegetation is burned while it is still in relatively small quantities, the forest fires are themselves smaller. Their relatively cool, short flames leave the crowns of the larger trees intact and the forest survives.

This is an example of a fire regime: the frequency and type of fire that an environment commonly experiences.

But human intervention in the last century has disrupted the natural fire regime of the Ponderosa pine forests. By grazing livestock, logging the trees for timber and systematically fighting fires before they can run their course, humans have changed the structure of the ecosystem and encouraged a build-up of forest-floor vegetation.

As a consequence, when fires do now occur in these forests, they are high-intensity and their flames reach into the canopy.

"Livestock grazing, commercial logging, and systematic fire suppression has converted some frequent, low-severity fire regimes, such as the ponderosa pines in the interior west, into infrequent, high-severity fire regimes," explains Timothy Ingalsbee, co-director of the Association for Fire Ecology in the US.

Some forest ecosystems are actually adapted to these extreme fires

High-intensity fires in these crowded forests are devastating, killing at least 70% of trees in their path. "The plants and animals that inhabit this ecosystem are generally not well-adapted to this change in fire regime," says Ingalsbee. As a result they are unable to rebound after intense crown-fires.

The exposed, bare soil that remains is extremely prone to erosion, washing away nutrients and clogging nearby streams and rivers.

While high-intensity crown fires are devastating in many woodlands, some forest ecosystems are actually adapted to these extreme fires.

Lodgepole pine forests and the redwood forests of the Californian coast are two such examples. Every 80 to 200 years, wildfires with extremely hot, high flames whip through these forests, and very few trees survive.

Wood ash is a great fertiliser, giving seeds a rich environment in which to grow

But the trees in these forests produce resin-sealed pinecones, which can survive the extreme temperatures - and which will open after the fire has died down.

"Plants have evolved different strategies to cope with fire," says Çağatay Tavşanoğlu, a fire ecologist at Hacettepe University in Turkey. "One strategy is to survive fire as a seed, not as an individual plant."

Indeed, a surprisingly large number of plants use serotiny - germination triggered by fire - to survive in fire-prone environments. In lodgepole pines, "seeds are protected in closed cones in the canopy during a fire, and then dispersed to the burned soil," he explains. Wood ash is a great fertiliser, giving seeds a rich environment in which to grow, and allowing pine trees to resprout rapidly after a fire and regenerate the forest in a matter of decades.

The Australian bush is also adapted to high-intensity fires. Here, Eucalyptus trees thrive because of their pyrophylic traits.

Eucalyptus trees actually produce flammable oils in their leaves, encouraging fire when they drop to the floor. As soon as a fire catches, the trees' bark peels away in long streamers, providing more fuel for the flames.

Some plants are able to survive using underground buds that remain protected under the soil surface

The fires burn hotter and reach the canopy, killing almost all the trees, but leaving the environment open for new saplings. Seeds of the Eucalyptus tree are only released from their seed capsules by burning, and they quickly germinate and thrive in the fire-fertilised soils.

Because Eucalyptus trees actively encourage high-intensity fires, few other species can tolerate living near them, giving the trees very little competition in an extremely nutrient-rich environment.

The Mediterranean maquis shrubland is adapted to a similar fire regime, experiencing intense fires about once every 20 years. Here, plants such as the strawberry tree use protective underground buds to keep their seeds safe from scorching soils.

"Some plants are able to survive using underground buds that remain protected under the soil surface, and then re-sprout quickly after a fire," says Tavşanoğlu.

These examples show that intense fire, while obviously destructive, is vital for maintaining biodiversity in some regions.

"Certain ecosystems such as lodgepole pine are still functioning within their natural fire regimes of infrequent, high-severity fire," explains Ingalsbee. "The problem is that many people think high-severity fires are scary and 'unnatural', so land managers try to prevent them."

Intense fire, while obviously destructive, is vital for maintaining biodiversity in some regions

We might think that by controlling intense wildfires in these regions we are protecting ecosystems. But paradoxically we are actually increasing the vulnerability of species like the redwood trees of the western US. By removing the rare but intense fires these species have adapted to exploit, human activity is allowing other species to muscle in and outcompete these iconic giants.

What's more, as species adapted to a low-severity fire regime move into these formerly high-severity fire regime forests, it leaves the ecosystem more vulnerable if and when firefighters fail to prevent one of those high-severity fires sweeping through the forest.

Unfortunately, firefighters might increasingly find themselves on the losing side.

Part of the problem here is climate change. Global warming will increase air temperatures and make droughts more frequent, creating more opportunities for wildfires to ignite.

"An increase in temperature and decrease in rainfall in the Mediterranean Basin may result in larger fires in the next few decades," says Tavşanoğlu.

In the US, federal wildfire suppression and protection costs have trebled since the 1990s

A recent study found that fire seasons globally lasted 18% longer in 2013 than in 1979, exposing twice as much fire-prone land to the conditions needed for fire.

On top of this, fire suppression efforts over the last century mean that forests have become unnaturally overgrown, and that they contain plenty of kindling just waiting for an excuse to ignite. An increase in the frequency of forest fires has been reported in California and Nevada, where the area burned each year now exceeds that before fire suppression efforts began.

This leaves authorities with a difficult problem. After decades of successful wildfire suppression, we can now expect fires to be far worse when they finally happen.

This is already becoming evident: as wildfires increase in frequency, the cost of keeping them at bay is soaring. In the US, federal wildfire suppression and protection costs have trebled since the 1990s, and now account for nearly half of the Forest Service's annual budget.

Something has to change.

If we are to reduce the risk of devastating high-severity fires in ecosystems that are not adapted to that sort of regime, we must change our management strategies.

The key to restoring fire-prone habitats seems to be introducing variety

There are three main options on the table. The first is the least controversial: use machines to clear out understory vegetation, dead trees and non-native plants to prevent a build-up of potential kindling.

The other two options are more contentious: either use regular controlled burning - or, even more controversially, manage natural fires and allow them to run their course.

Mechanical thinning may be the least dangerous and most politically acceptable strategy, but it can also be very costly. Although the timber removed from some forests can be used commercially, offsetting the costs of removal, in other forests it is just not valuable enough. Mechanical thinning also requires huge time investments. Many ecologists feel it is simply not worth it as a sole strategy.

"The way forward is of course to utilise all of the tools available," says Ingalsbee. In certain situations mechanical thinning might make sense. But more generally, for really effective forest management, "there is no substitute for fire".

New schemes incorporating natural fire, controlled burning and mechanical thinning are beginning to take hold in the US and Australia, but changing opinion has been a slow process.

"Some survey research indicates a big shift in public attitudes favouring acceptance of prescribed burning," says Ingalsbee.

Fire suppression policies have tended to destroy spotted owl territory

However, while the public have become more accepting of controlled burning schemes, they remain sceptical of allowing natural wildfires to burn. "Unfortunately, it is only a few politicians who understand contemporary fire ecology science," he adds.

Whichever strategy you choose, the key to restoring fire-prone habitats seems to be introducing variety. Forests should be thinned and managed so that they contain a mosaic of individual trees, clusters of trees, and openings. These patches can be arranged to match natural features of the landscape - for example, cooler slopes facing north-east naturally support more trees than warmer, south-westerly slopes, and are less prone to fire.

By matching the management of an environment with its geographical features, we can even create vital habitat for rare wildlife and plants.

The spotted owl is native to redwood and other hardwood forests in the western US. Their natural habitat of dense forest with a high canopy can be extremely fire-prone, meaning that fire suppression policies have tended to destroy spotted owl territory. However, creating dense patches of hardwood forest on wetter, cooler slopes provides habitat for this endangered bird, without causing a serious fire risk.

The western world may have championed a no-tolerance policy on forest fires over the last few centuries, but people have not always been so keen to extinguish fires.

Aboriginal Australians used traditional fire management techniques, such as 'early dry season burning', to reduce the intensity of natural forest fires. However, these practises were discouraged and then largely forgotten with the arrival of European settlers in the late 1700s.

Similar traditional fire management practises have been used to control wildfire in South Africa and South America for thousands of years. They continue to be effective to this day, leading several researchers to advocate their use more widely.

We have become detached from the importance of fire in the landscape

In the US, wildfire prevention became popular after the Great Idaho fires in 1910, which burned 3 million acres and killed 87 people. In Europe and North America, they have "tried to exclude wildfires from the landscape, and this has had a detrimental impact on ecosystems that evolved with recurring wildfires," says Ingalsbee.

What's more, our evolutionary history has been shaped by fire.

A study published in April 2016 suggests that changes in the vegetation in Africa, from grasslands to woodier, shrub-like vegetation around 3 million years ago caused an increase in natural wildfires. These wildfires may have sparked our ancestors' imaginations, first using natural wildfires to their advantage when hunting, and eventually harnessing fire around 1.8 million years ago - about the same time early humans first left Africa.

It is really only within the last few centuries that we have become detached from the importance of fire in the landscape, and lost sight of the value it has for the proper functioning of nature. If researchers like Ingalsbee are persuasive enough, we may learn once more to live with fire rather than to always fight it.
Join over five million BBC Earth fans by liking us on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter and Instagram. If you liked this story, sign up for the weekly bbc.com features newsletter called "If You Only Read 6 Things This Week". A handpicked selection of stories from BBC Future, Earth, Culture, Capital, Travel and Autos, delivered to your inbox every Friday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our relationship with fire has always been a complicated, love-hate affair. Fire brings warmth, safety, clean drinking water and cooked food, and may have fast-tracked the expansion of humans out of Africa. But fire is also an unruly beast, bringing with it the threat of devastation and death.

# data[].attributes.body
What do deontology and consequentialism have in common? They both aim to be good to people and to be fair to people.
Would you report your father? No, I Would cover for him as long as him taking the sheep wasn't hurting other people. I would cover for him because family is important to me.
How is Confucian Ethics different from deontology and consequentialism? Confucian Ethics puts much more value on personal relationships while deontology and consequentialism treat all people equally.

# data[].attributes.body
Positives:
Genetic engineering- Elimination of Genetic diseases, increased humans natural abilities.
Nanotechnology- Improved healthcare
Robotics- Increased automation, better prosthetic limbs.
Negatives:
Genetic engineering- We perfect Genetic engineering creating a 'perfect' human and all future children are born exactly the same.
Nanotechnology- Risk of self replicating nanotechnology destroying the world
Robotics- Robotics takes over almost all jobs leaving most of the world unemployed.
Related link: I choose this link because it talks about both sides of many of the topics discussed in the lecture.

# data[].attributes.body
How does this argument about the impact of social media relate to your life and your habits? Social media affects what we do from when we wake up to when we go to sleep. It dictates how we spend our time and what we believe.
Why can’t an algorithm/a machine be neutral? In the case of facial recognition a neural network cannot be neutral because it will be better at detecting faces more similar to the faces from the dataset that the neural network was trained from.
Facial recognition: AI is used to recognize faces and things like age race and gender.
Racial bias in algorithms: Artificial intelligence shows bias against certain groups because the data used to train those AI was created by a racist system.
There was a controversy where google mistakenly identified a man as a monkey. I think this is a perfect connection when talking about facial recognition.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Google became one of the most powerful companies on Earth because it has developed some of the best algorithms in the world for organizing information. But a gaffe this week shows the shortcomings of technology, particularly when it doesn't work just quite right.

Jacky Alcine, a Web developer who is black, took to Twitter to say Google's Photo app, released in May, labeled a picture of him and a friend as "gorillas.' The label showed up in a feature that automatically categorizes photos, like cars or beaches, so they are more easily searchable.

"My friend's not a gorilla," Alcine tweeted. He didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

The incident points to the problem tech companies face as computers get smarter and are expected to take on more more tasks a human normally would do. Those areas of computer science -- such as artificial intelligence or machine learning -- are some of the biggest engineering focuses in Silicon Valley. But with that focus comes another task that computers have not traditionally tackled: grappling with the challenge of sensitivity.

This isn't the first time algorithms have messed up in ways people have found offensive. When Yahoo overhauled its Flickr photo storage app in May, the company added similar features that automatically add tags to photos. The algorithm tagged a photo of a black man as an ape, and concentration camp photos got tags like "jungle gym" and "sport."

After Google learned of the incident with Alcine's photo, the company apologized immediately tried to fix it.

"Lots of work being done, and lots still to be done," Yonatan Zunger, chief architect of social at Google, tweeted. "We're very much on it."

In the mean time, Google apologized.

"We're appalled and genuinely sorry that this happened," a Google spokeswoman said "There is still clearly a lot of work to do with automatic image labeling, and we're looking at how we can prevent these types of mistakes from happening in the future."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Google apologizes for algorithm mistakenly calling black people 'gorillas'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Google became one of the most powerful companies on Earth because it has developed some of the best algorithms in the world for organizing information. But a gaffe this week shows the shortcomings of technology, particularly when it doesn't work just quite right.

# data[].attributes.body
What are some other examples of the concept of dual use?
Machine learning can be used for both things like protein folding and things like predicting peoples actions.
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?
If after the Trinity test or Nagasaki development of nuclear weapons by the U.S. had been halted I think that the technology would  have still been developed but not mass produced. If the US had set a standard against Nuclear weapons I think much of the world would have followed. The scientists show regret in having developed the weapon and what it led to. Many say that they had wished for a demonstration of force not against people but this did not happen. This  is an example of dual use the scientists wanted the weapon to be used as a tool to end the war without killing people but it was used to kill people and became another weapon.
What concerns you the most about nuclear technology in the world today? That at any moment someone could make a decision and almost everyone in the world would be dead within a few hours.

# data[].attributes.body
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 “personhood” to rivers?

This video was done in first person to make the water empathize more and feel more of a connection to the river. It surprises me that treating rivers as people is being used as a legal strategy. It seems hard to argue because they have no will of there own. The implications of treating rivers as people include possible restrictions on the use of the river.

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?

I take for granted the shape of the of the valley and hills in Golden I've assumed they are natural but don't know for sure. I don't know where my water comes from because I've never bothered to look. I would call me not knowing where it comes from a engineering successes it mean I do not need to worry about how I am getting my water. The ramification of not knowing meaning I do not know how my water supply could potentially be affected.

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.

If the river ended somewhere in the united states the river delta would likely be in better condition because it is affecting our country more.

# data[].attributes.body
What is Redlining?
Redlining is the systematic denial of government services based off of where somebody lives, usually poorer neighborhoods.