# data[].attributes.body
What is Redlining?
-Redlining is the banned practice of refusing home loans and mortgages based on the area a house was in. If the house was in area of people of color the loan was refused. This was done due to a housing shortage in the 30s and the US government wanted to give homes to white middle class people rather than lower class minorities.

Globeville
- Before reading the material I had never heard of Globeville. While it doesn't remind me of issues in places i've lived I find it very interesting how the thing that built the town and brought people there is one of the main reasons its become an issue of environmental justice. Also the fact the community has stayed so close throughout the hardships is very impressive.

New York Times Article
----I was not able to read the article due to a pay wall, but I will still try and answer the discussion question.----
- I think that like all humans, scientist and engineers have a role to play in reversing the affects of environmental injustice and racism. Scientist and engineers should try to make the world the best possible place it can be, and part of this would be helping to end environmental racism. Mines graduates can definitely play a role in this fight. So many graduates go into the energy industry where the root of this injustice has taken place. Using their knowledge they can help to find solutions for the issues that have taken over.

Facts:
1. It took nearly half a billon to build i70
2. The Eisenhower Tunnel took $108 million to make.
3. The entire construction process of i70 took nearly 50 years to be completed.

Outside Source:
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/07/984784455/a-brief-history-of-how-racism-shaped-interstate-highways

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In his $2 trillion plan to improve America's infrastructure, President Biden is promising to address the racism ingrained in historical transportation and urban planning.

Biden's plan includes $20 billion for a program that would "reconnect neighborhoods cut off by historic investments," according to the White House. It also looks to target "40 percent of the benefits of climate and clean infrastructure investments to disadvantaged communities."

Planners of the interstate highway system, which began to take shape after the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, routed some highways directly, and sometimes purposefully, through Black and brown communities. In some instances, the government took homes by eminent domain.

It left a deep psychological scar on neighborhoods who lost homes, churches and schools, says Deborah Archer, a professor at the New York University School of Law and national board president of the American Civil Liberties Union. Archer recently wrote for the Iowa Law Review about how transportation policy affected the development of Black communities.

She says the president will face major challenges in trying to rectify historical inequities.

"What is not clear is whether and how that money will be distributed in a way that will address the racial inequalities that are built into our transportation system and our infrastructure," she tells NPR's Morning Edition.

" I think it's also important for us to think about how we will shift culture within the relevant agencies so that white middle-class and affluent neighborhoods will not continue to be favored at the expense of communities of color, producing lopsided and skewed patterns of infrastructure development."

Here are highlights from Archer's interview with NPR:
Why would officials have targeted thriving vibrant communities? Was it just because the people who lived there were Black and or brown?
Some of the time, yes, that was actually the case. The highways were being built just as courts around the country were striking down traditional tools of racial segregation. So for example, courts were striking down the use of racial zoning to keep Black people in certain communities and white people in other communities. And so the highway development popped up at a time when the idea, the possibility of integration in housing was on the horizon. And so very intentionally, highways were sometimes built right on the formal boundary lines that we saw used during racial zoning. Sometimes community members asked the highway builders to create a barrier between their community and encroaching Black communities.
As I read your paper, I was astonished to realize how many places this happened. Was there any successful resistance? If this initiative works, in what ways do you see the country being different in five or 10 years?
There was certainly successful resistance. We can see good examples in Greenwich Village in New York. There were examples from Washington, D.C., which is where the phrase, "no white men's roads through Black men's homes" came from. That was the rallying cry for folks in D.C. who resisted it. And there was also a successful effort in New Orleans.

But I think it's important to point out the most successful efforts to stop the highways were not those that focused on racial justice or those that were put in place to protect Black communities. The people who were most successful were the ones that focused on environmental justice and protecting parks and their communities in that way.

I think that right now, we can see that race frequently explains which communities receive the benefits of our transportation system and infrastructure, and which communities were forced to host the burdens.
Marc Rivers and Simone Popperl produced and edited the audio interview. Farah Eltohamy produced for the Web.
Our transportation systems have really led to racial disparities and discrimination which are reinforced daily from highways, roads, bridges to sidewalks and public transit. We make it harder for Black people and other people of color to access and take advantage of opportunities.

So I would hope that at the end of this project - at the end of this plan - as you say in five years, that race would not be a way to explain who gets the benefits and who gets the burdens. It would not be a way to explain who has access and who doesn't.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Brief History Of How Racism Shaped Interstate Highways

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In his $2 trillion plan to improve America's infrastructure, President Biden is promising to address the racism ingrained in historical transportation and urban planning. Biden's plan includes $20 billion for a program that would "reconnect neighborhoods cut off by historic investments," according to the White House.

# data[].attributes.body
Part 1:
I think that the first person narration of the video makes it much more powerful. It gives the river a personable trait when its so easy to just see it as a resource. Giving it that personal feel makes you question using it as we had because you wouldn't use a person like you would a resource.

Part 2:
I think the biggest thing I take for granted on campus is just the green grass and shrubs. While they could be green from rain they are typically green from sprinklers and the hydro projects that fuel them. I don't know where my water comes from on campus and I think that is an engineering success, because it simply works. The water comes out when I want it to and is clean and clear, if this wasn't the case id be asking where its coming from.

Part 3:
I think the question is tough to answer, while yes for tourism the delta may be beneficial I just think that it would be take up too much space and would quickly become trashed and dirty. I don't even think this because of environmental justice reason I just think it would be the fact of a large delta system being in a major city like

Facts:
-In many states in the West all rivers are owned by the state and available for public use. In Colorado landowners can own the rocks under the river, this is due to Colorado's history in mining versus other states history in logging.

-97% of the worlds water is salty and undrinkable, showing just how valuable fresh water is.

-68% of water is still in glaciers.

Outside source:
https://www.americanrivers.org/rivers/films/through-line/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Everything we do revolves around it. The river is the community. It makes us whole. It completes us."

-Doug Messick, 4th generation San Luis Valley farmer

In southcentral Colorado, the Rio Grande River ties together generations of people and communities across the San Luis Valley. Brought together by shared ethics of caring for land and water, everyone in the San Luis Valley depends deeply on the Rio Grande - for their livelihoods, the rich diversity of wildlife and activities they enjoy, and their connection to the rich history of people who have come before them. But it is the threats to the river that brings them together in our latest film, Through Line, in which a new generation of water managers meets challenges like climate change, growing pressure to the water supply, and renewed water export threats head on.

"If our little community doesn't work together to protect our land and water, everything's lost" says Ronda Lobato in Through Line- a story of women, the Rio Grande river, and working together for water across a vast agricultural region of southern Colorado.

Let's Stay In Touch

We're hard at work for your rivers and clean water. Sign up to get the most important news affecting water and rivers delivered right to your inbox. You'll also receive monthly news and action alerts for rivers around the country.

Through Line celebrates both the history and future of water management in the Valley through the voices of modern managers-specifically a growing number of women managers in a historically male-dominated profession-who are working together to ensure that the needs of communities are met alongside the needs of the river itself, and underscoring that while the challenges may be many, "the future health of the Rio Grande is in good hands."

By building on a deep history of innovations and water sharing, these leaders are working to shepherd the culture and communities of the Valley into a sustainable relationship with the Rio Grande that weaves them together with the past, connects them in the present, and secures their collective future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Everything we do revolves around it. The river is the community. It makes us whole. It completes us." -Doug Messick, 4th generation San Luis Valley farmer In southcentral Colorado, the Rio Grande River ties together generations of people and communities across the San Luis Valley. Brought together by shared ethics of caring for land and...

# data[].attributes.body
Video 1:
Another example of dual use would be facial recognition technology. Right now it is just being used to make life easier, ie letting unlocking your phone without a password etc. But as we say in the assigned video "slaughterbots" it could be used in horrifying ways not even thought about when creating the technology.
Video 2:
I do not think that stopping the development of nuclear bombs right after the test or Nagasaki would have changed anything. Once we realized that we could do it meant we would do it. Even if the US did not make the first one, someone else would have. I found the scientists responses to the bomb being dropped very interesting. It didn't appear they were ashamed of this themselves because they knew what they were doing, but rather they were sick with themselves that they did create it.

Facts:
There are nearly 14,000 nuclear warheads on the earth, majority of them much bigger than the ones dropped on Japan.

Nuclear weapons remain usable for at least 82 years.

It is estimated that we could blow up the entire world and still have 1500 warheads left.

Outside Source
https://www.labroots.com/trending/space/12897/here-s-what-d-happen-detonated-nuclear-bomb-space

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Have you ever wondered what would happen if humankind detonated its most powerful nuclear bomb in space? If so, then this is a video you'll want to watch.

Detonating nukes in space isn't a new concept; in fact, the United States government performed such a test in 1962 after launching a 1.4 megaton nuclear bomb into space almost 400 kilometers above Earth's surface; that's nearly the same altitude occupied by the International Space Station today. The results? Interesting, to say the least.

The bomb detonated above the Pacific Ocean, right over Hawaii. The corresponding explosion produced a bright flash and a powerful electromagnetic pulse (EMP). The EMP was so strong that it darkened street lights in Hawaii, made navigation systems go haywire, and even tampered with nearby satellite systems.

But this 1.4-megaton bomb was insignificant compared to the largest nuke ever detonated, the 50-megaton Tsar Bomba.

Performing the same test with the bigger brother of the two bombs would result in a fireball four times larger than the experiment conducted in 1962, and the EMP would be tremendously more powerful. This EMP would fry hundreds of nearby satellites, put International Space Station astronauts at risk of radiation poisoning, and disrupt substantially more of Earth's power grid.

Fortunately, you needn't worry about a nuclear bomb of this caliber being detonated in space. Researchers learned a lot from the tests conducted in 1962, and one of the lessons learned was that detonating nukes in space isn't a good idea. That said, it'll probably never happen again.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here's What'd Happen if We Detonated a Nuclear Bomb in Space | Space

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Have you ever wondered what would happen if humankind detonated its most powerful nuclear bomb in space? If so, then this is a video you'll want to watch.

# data[].attributes.body
- I totally agree that social media can have an extremely negative effect on people and it would make sense that it is the reason that people are as divided as they are today. When you become so accustomed to only seeing what you want to see than its seems a lot worse when someone disagrees with you. This negative is all hidden in the idea that these social networks are making us more connected than even when in reality we care more about what is on our feed than what is in front of us.

- The benefits of a system that detects faces is a computer can store more data than a human brain and therefore can remember more faces than a human can. The drawbacks of this system is how it could be used. As we say in the fictional slaughter-bots video face ID could easily be used to cause mass panic and destruction. An algorithm/machine can be neutral but it can only be as neutral as the people that create it.

- I think number 12 on the list is both the most interesting and important point on the list. At first I didn't really agree with it but after thinking about the tech industry it really the wildwest. People may try to impose regulations on it but there is always a way around it. Just the simple fact that you can really be anyone and say anything and people would have no idea it was you really speaks to the freedom in technology.

- In the podcast it was extremely interesting the idea of how technology was always seen as progressive, so no one even thought it could be racist. Technology allowed racism to hide behind it, while it may not have been directly racist, there was still discrimination behind it.  I think that technology can play a big role in justice. If created correctly it can be a perfect unbiased thing that can allow us to not make the mistakes that humans make.

Facts
- Facial identification technology misidentifies black and brown folks 100x more than other skin colors.
- The average age for a kid to get social mead is 11.4 years old.
-Algorithmic racism is being baked into young kids as they continue to get social media accounts earlier and earlier.

Outside source:
https://youtu.be/aOhx6fGBLso
Good section of a podcast with host Joe Rogan talking with journalism professor and mental health writer Michael Easter about the pull of social media and the effects it has on relationships.

# data[].attributes.body
Part 1:
Benefits of exponential growth of:
Genetic Engineering - Growth in genetic engineering could allow us to select the perfect genes for babies and create a perfect generation of humans.
Nanotechnology - Nanotechnology could revolutionize the world we live in and could give people superhuman abilities.
Robotics - Simple jobs could be taken over by robots and allow them to be done more effectively. Self driving cars could also reduce traffic and number of accidents.

Part 2:
Negatives of exponential growth of:
Genetic Engineering - This push for perfection could cause us to loose appreciation for human life and would therefore cause life to loose meaning.
Nanotechnology - If there was implants of nanotechnology in our brains to make us smarter they could also be hacked or fail and cause damage.
Robotics - If all manual jobs were given to robots the economy would fall apart and what if the robots were smart enough and turned against us like every movie.

Part 3:
I am optimistic about the future. I think that being optimistic really is the only attitude that you can have about the future because if you are pessimistic chances are that is what is going to happen since you already accepted it. But if you are optimistic you will work so the bad does not happen.
Facts:
1. He have been using nanotech for a long time, the colors in medieval stained glass result from manipulating nanocrystals.
2. The first genetically modified animal was created in 1973.
3. Many in the mid 1900s thought we would have self driving cars by now, while this is true somewhat, most predictions about the future are fairly premature.

Outside source:
This outside source shows predictions for what 2020 would look like years ago. This goes to show that it is hard to predict when future technologies will be available.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/12/22/2020-predictions-decades-ago-self-driving-cars-mars-voting/2594825001/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jetpacks, disintegrator rays, nuclear energy, Mars.

Decades ago, academics, futurists and government agencies cast their predictions of what would happen by the year 2020. Would submarines reach historic depths? Who would lead nations, and which ones would be global superpowers? Would Planet Earth even exist as we knew it?

"I shall not be surprised if on my 92nd birthday I am able to go for a ride in an antigravity car," mathematician and scientist D.G. Brennan wrote in 1968.

Some, like Brennan, were overly optimistic. Others were spot-on. Here's what happened, what didn't and what was just plain crazy.

1. Life expectancy will rise past 100

Futurist Ray Kurzweil predicted in 1999 that human life expectancy would rise to "over one hundred" by 2019.

"Computerized health monitors built into watches, jewelry, and clothing which diagnose both acute and chronic health conditions are widely used. In addition to diagnosis, these monitors provide a range of remedial recommendations and interventions," he wrote in "The Age of Spiritual Machines."

Nope: While Kurzweil may have accurately predicted health-related gadgets (such as fitness watches, BioScarves and EKG apps for your smartphone), he jumped the gun on life expectancy.

In 2019, the average life expectancy of the global population was 72.6 years, according to the United Nations. That average is slightly higher in the USA, at 78.6 years in 2017, according to a report in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Though life expectancy in many industrialized nations continues to inch up, it has been going in the opposite direction in America. The United Nation predicts the average global life expectancy to rise to 77.1 years by 2050.
Life expectancy: What countries have the longest?
2. Computers will be invisible

Kurzweil had several other prophecies for the year 2019, including invisible computers.

"Computers are now largely invisible. They are embedded everywhere - in walls, tables, chairs, desks, clothing jewelry and bodies. People routinely use three-dimensional displays built into their glasses or contact lenses. ... This display technology projects images directly into the human retina."

Keyboards and cables would become rare, he said.

It's true: Computers are embedded everywhere these days. We have smart homes, smart tables, smart chairs, smart desks and more. Though we may not project images directly into our retinas, Google Glass comes pretty close.

(Per Kurzweil's prediction, scientists are developing smart contact lenses capable of monitoring the physiological information of the eye and tear fluid that could provide "real-time, noninvasive medical diagnostics." Several groups are testing smart lenses that would measure glucose levels in the tears of people with diabetes.)

3. Books will be dead

"Paper books and documents are rarely used or accessed. Most twentieth-century paper documents of interest have been scanned and are available through the wireless network," Kurzweil predicted.

4. Your every move will be tracked

Kurzweil predicted that privacy would be a huge political and social issue and that "each individual's practically every move (will be) stored in a database somewhere."

True, most say: Your TV watches you. Your smartphone follows you. Your web browser traces your digital trail. In an era when some populations worldwide live under 24/7 high-tech surveillance, most U.S. adults say they do not think it is possible to go through daily life without having data collected about them by companies or the government, according to a survey of U.S. adults by Pew Research Center.

More than 80% say the potential risks they face because of data collection by companies outweigh the benefits.

5. World's population will reach 8 billion

In 1994, the International Food Policy Research Institute projected the world population would increase by 2.5 billion to reach 8 billion by 2020. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the continent of Africa would add 1.5 billion people, the institute predicted.

6. China will be the world's largest economy

Speaking of China... in a 1997 article titled "The Long Boom," futurists Peter Schwartz and Peter Leyden said China would be on top.

"By 2020, the Chinese economy has grown to be the largest in the world. Though the U.S. economy is more technologically sophisticated, and its population more affluent, China and the United States are basically on a par," they said.

7. We'll have self-driving cars

"Self driving cars are being experimented with in the late 1990s, with implementation on majors highways feasible during the first decade of the twenty-first century," Kurzweil wrote.
Self-driving shuttle: Why a Rhode Island police officer pulled it over
Widespread use of a truly autonomous vehicle is not yet here: Experts say it might still be decades before we see a car that can drive anywhere it pleases.

In April, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said the company would have fully self-driving cars ready by the end of the year and a "robotaxi" version - one that could ferry passengers without anyone behind the wheel - ready for the streets next year. Tesla owners can "summon" their cars, which can drive themselves from parking spots to the curb, where the owner is standing.

What about flying cars? Porsche and Boeing partnered to create "premium urban air mobility vehicles," and Uber plans to launch a flying taxi service in 2023.

(Planes are landing themselves.)

8. It will be normal to retire at 70

In his 1994 book "The World in 2020," British commentator and editor Hamish McRae foresaw retirement ages reaching 67 to 70.

"The main motive for this in Europe is cost to the state. Governments feel that if retirement ages are not raised, the burden of paying pensions will be so high that working people will not be prepared to pay the tax levels necessary to fund them," McRae wrote.

Some European countries set 67 as retirement age, the earliest age when citizens can start withdrawing pensions, and several plan to raise the age in the next few years, according to the Finnish Center for Pensions. For many Europeans, the topic is a matter of fierce debate.

9. Americans will vote electronically from home

As the millennial generation comes of age, they'll be able to vote electronically from home, Schwartz and Leyden predicted - possibly as soon as the presidential election of 2008.

Startups are developing solutions for online voting, such as the Voatz mobile voting platform, which has used biometric/facial recognition in at least four public election pilots in the USA. Last year, West Virginia began using Voatz for absentee voting for military personnel stationed overseas. In one Utah county, citizens with a disability were able to vote electronically on their smartphones in a 2019 municipal general election.

10. China will be on a path to democracy

Schwartz and Leyden predicted that, despite taking "draconian measures" to avoid an internal crisis in the first decade of the new century, China "is generally acknowledged to be on a path toward more democratic politics - though not in the image of the West."

Not really: China faces scrutiny over human rights abuses against pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong and against nearly 1 million Uighurs, a predominantly Muslim population, members of which have been arbitrarily detained and imprisoned in "reeducation" camps in China's Xinjiang region.

11. We'll have 'personal companions'

In his 1999 book, "Business @ the Speed of Thought," Bill Gates predicted personal devices that "connect and sync all your devices in a smart way, whether they are at home or in the office, and allow them to exchange data."

"The device will check your email or notifications, and present the information that you need. When you go to the store, you can tell it what recipes you want to prepare, and it will generate a list of ingredients that you need to pick up. It will inform all the devices that you use of your purchases and schedule, allowing them to automatically adjust to what you're doing," Gates wrote.

Hey, Alexa: Add milk to my shopping list.

Though Alexa isn't sorting through your emails (that we know of) and your smart thermostat isn't tracking your purchases, Gates isn't far off. Siri, Google Assistant, Amazon Alexa and an array of smart tech in the Internet of Things readily exchange data with your other devices and respond to commands.

12. Cars will be able to go months without refueling
What's the future of the auto industry? Hydrogen cars appear to give way to electric
Schwartz and Leyden predicted that by 2010, "hydrogen would be processed in refinery-like plants and loaded onto cars that can go thousands of miles - and many months - before refueling."

By 2020, they said, almost all new cars would be hybrid vehicles, mostly using hydrogen power.

In other green transportation news: Last year, European railway manufacturer Alstom launched the world's first hydrogen fuel cell train, and next year, London is likely to roll out double-decker hydrogen-powered buses.

13. Heart disease, depression will be world's top diseases

In 1996, the Harvard School of Public Health and the World Health Organization predicted that by 2020, the world's top two causes of the global burden of disease - a measurement of the number of healthy life years lost because of sickness, disability or early death - would be ischemic (coronary) heart disease and unipolar major (clinical) depression.
(Climate predictions tend to have a longer range, but here's a snapshot of where 2020 stands.)
At the time, the leading causes were lower respiratory infections (such as pneumonia) and diarrheal diseases, the study said.

Close: In 2017, the most recent year that the data set was published, the five leading causes of the global burden of disease were neonatal disorders, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, lower respiratory infections and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

14. Global surface temperature will increase
More: Were the predictions we made about climate change 20 years ago accurate? Here's a look
A report in 1995 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that the average global surface temperature could increase by about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

The report predicted that sea level could increase by about 20 inches by the same year.

On track: With 80 years to go, both predictions appear possible. The global average temperature has risen a tad more than 1 degree Fahrenheit since the mid-90s, according to NOAA. Since 1992, the global sea level has risen a total of more than 3 inches, according to NOAA.

15. Humans will set foot on Mars

A report in 1996 by the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council said NASA would launch "possible human exploratory missions to the moon and Mars within the next quarter century," predicting that humans would land on Mars by 2018.

Schwartz and Leyden envisioned a similar scenario: "In 2020, humans arrive on Mars. ... The four astronauts touch down and beam their images back to the 11 billion people sharing in the moment. The expedition is a joint effort supported by virtually all nations on the planet, the culmination of a decade and a half of intense focus on a common goal."

Not quite: Though we haven't set foot on Mars, we've landed eight unmanned spacecraft on the planet's surface.

16. Boris Johnson would lead Brexit

In 1997, British news organization The Independent forecast that in 2020, Boris Johnson would become a member of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom, a decision-making body composed of the prime minister and a team of handpicked members of Parliament.

At the time, Johnson, 32, was an outspoken editor and columnist but had not held public office. "Not shy in clashing with party lines, Boris would 'renegotiate EU membership so Britain stands to Europe as Canada, not Texas, stands to the USA,' " the journalists wrote.

17. Antigravity belts will revolutionize warfare

Imagine a world where battles are fought a few feet above the ground, as soldiers hover in midair. In 1968, mathematician and scientist D.G. Brennan predicted that antigravity belts would "revolutionize the tactics of land warfare," writing that "even if the antigravity mechanism did not itself provide horizontal propulsion, relatively modest sources of thrust could easily be provided."

He suspected that by 2018, humans would have antigravity cars and jetpacks capable of operating for 30 minutes.

No: (Unless you're Luke Skywalker or Buzz Lightyear.)

18. Nuclear will replace natural gas

In 1968, Stanford University professor Charles Scarlott predicted that nuclear breeder reactors would make up the majority of U.S. energy production by 2018 as natural gas faded.

"Energy from water power, solar radiation, the wind, tides, or earth heat will not figure large in the totals. Power from nuclear power plants should be available in large amounts at low cost," Scarlott wrote.

Wrong: In 2018, fossil fuels - petroleum, natural gas and coal - accounted for about 79% of total U.S. primary energy production in 2018, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. About 12% was from renewable energy sources, and about 9% was from nuclear electric power.

For the electrical power sector, in particular, nuclear creates 19% of energy.

19. Americans will work 26 hours a week

In 1968, physicist Herman Kahn and futurist Anthony J. Weiner said that by 2020, Americans would work 1,370 hours a year (or 26 hours a week), instead of the 1,940 hours (37 hours a week) that was average at the time.

20. Nationalism will wane

In 1968, Ithiel de Sola Pool, a political science professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, predicted that better communication, easier translation and greater understanding of the nature of human motivations would make it easier for people to connect across ethnic and national lines.

"By the year 2018 nationalism should be a waning force in the world," he wrote.

"Everywhere one looks, in fact, one sees nationalism at work in today's world," Stephen Walt, a professor of international relations at Harvard University, wrote in Foreign Policy Magazine.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
20 predictions for 2020: Here's what people said would happen by this year

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Decades ago, academics, futurists and government agencies predicted what would happen by the year 2020. Here's what happened.

# data[].attributes.body
Part 1:
Both deontology and consequentialism try to do what is best for the majority of people. The main difference between the two is that deontology focuses more on if the act itself is right or wrong, and consequentialism focuses more on the results of the act, not the act itself. Ultimately I think that deontology ethics treat yourself and your loved ones better, where consequentialism treat strangers better, but both want people treated equally.

Part 2:
I would cover for my father. To me it just seems wrong to report my own father to the authorities. Even though stealing the sheep was wrong, its really not that bad.

Part 3:
-Confucian ethics would want you to talk with your father about why he stole the sheep, and if its for a bad reason convince him to return it to the owner.
-Context and relationships matter when it comes to Confucian ethics.

Part 4:
-The ethical decisions that you make depend on what role (relationship) you have in the situation.
-A good example of this is you cannot be an ethical father if you do not have children.

Part 5:
-The ultimate goal for Confucian ethics is to become a morally superior person, known as a Junzi. This requires a lifelong dedication.

Part 6:
Confucian ethics is more situational than deontology or consequentialism. Deontology and consequentialism both want you to be ethic person but don't really specify more minor details. Confucian ethics want you to be an ethical morally superiors person through your relationships. A good example of the differences of the three is the sheep steeling question used earlier in the lecture. Confucian ethics does not necessarily say its the right thing to do, but it makes one ask the questions as to why it was done, and then decide if its right or wrong. While deontology would consider the act morally wrong and consequentialism ethics would think that by stealing the sheep you are helping yourself but not the greater good, therefore it is wrong.

Facts:
The golden rule of Confucianism is "Do not do unto others what you would not want others to do unto you"

Confucius was a strong supporter of education and believed it was key to having a virtuous character.

The religion of Confucianism is still very prominent in many parts of the world, particularly Asia.

Outside source:
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/19/1045999366/women-equality-south-korea-confucian-ceremony-confucianism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
JEONGEUP COUNTY, South Korea - A pig's head sits on an offering table. Men in light-green robes and black hats pour liquor and light incense.

They are venerating a ninth century scholar and poet, Choe Chi-won, at a Confucian academy established in his honor over 300 years ago.

The academy, Museong Seowon, in this southwestern county of South Korea, incorporates traditional wooden architecture and sits in a picturesque setting, emphasizing humanity's harmony with nature. Academies like this across the country - known in Korean as seowon - have long served as rural education centers for the teachings of the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius and other illustrious men.

But now a woman is breaking a new path. Historian Lee Bae-yong was the first woman to preside over a spring ceremony at the Museong Seowon in April, after having previously presided over a fall ceremony at another academy. Only in recent years have these institutes even allowed women in at all.

"This represents the recognition that there's no difference between men and women,"Leetells NPR after leading the ceremony, dressed in traditional garb, "and that women, too, can serve in the ceremony, if they're qualified."

Today, South Korea is a modern economic and cultural powerhouse. Yet it lags behind some other advanced nations when it comes to women's equality in areas like work, salaries and politics. For centuries, the male-dominated Korean society confined women to the home, denying them of education and employment - and intellectuals in Asia have long said Confucian ideology largely set the foundation for this. Now, some South Koreans are trying to fix gender inequality at the country's cultural roots.

Confucianism has an enduring influence

Confucianism started in China and was imported to Korea and Japan around 2,000 years ago. It has its own temples and rituals, but it is more a philosophy than a religion.

While there are few visible signs of it the street, Confucianism is widely seen as having enduring influence in South Korean values, including in areas of family and education.

During the academies' heyday, Confucianism was Korea's official ideology, and only prominent men presided over the highly symbolic ceremonies.

That has begun to change. The woman presiding over the recent ceremonies, Lee, is a former president of Ewha Womans University in Seoul. She has championed the listing of the seowons as UNESCO World Heritage sites and has written about the place of women in traditional Korean society.

Feminists and Confucian scholars are hopeful that Lee's role at the ceremony is more than just a gesture.

"I want to believe that it will have an impact on gender-related awareness in modern Korean society," says Kim Seseoria, a researcher at Sungkyunkwan University's Institute of Confucian Philosophy and Culture in Seoul. "Even if it isn't intended, it can also create a momentum for resistance to, or escape from, traditions," she adds.

Hwa Yeong Wang, a postdoctoral fellow at Georgetown University who specializes in philosophy and women's studies, agrees. "Confucianism must be reconciled with feminism," she says. "That is really a desperate thing we need for Korean women."

Neither Kim nor Wang are proposing totally rejecting Confucianism, as that would sever cultural roots.

"I also identify myself as a Confucian," says Wang. "There is a great deal that Confucianism can still teach us to become a better human."

Wang says that Confucianism stresses cultivating morality and spreading it to the family, the nation and the world.

Hopes for a new reading of Confucius

Instead, Kim and Wang suggest reinterpreting Confucius and the work that recounts his words and thoughts, called the Analects.

"We can try tweaking the way we read the Analects, for example, and not strictly following the traditional way," Kim says.

That includes reinterpreting some basic beliefs of Chinese and Korean philosophy, such as the division of natural forces into yin, representing female, negative and dark, and yang, representing male, positive and light.

Traditionally, yang was seen as the superior and dominant force. But some scholars have argued that the concept of yin and yang was at one time more complementary than hierarchical.

"When we search for the sources of gender equality, we do have sources," Wang says. "We can go back."

Kim says, "We can also pay attention to how female historical scholars understood and referenced Confucian texts."

Take the 18th century Confucian scholar Im Yunjidang. According to Wang, she argued that women, too, could seek to cultivate morality and become sages, just like men. "She declared that, though I am a woman, still, the nature I originally received contains no distinction between male and female," Wang says.

Now, as Confucian academies are revived in South Korea to teach young students about traditional culture and etiquette, these scholars hope the seowons will help reinterpret Confucianism to promote gender equality.

The Museong Seowon is one academy that's beginning to give women a say in how this traditionally male-only institution is run.

Lee Bae-yong supports these efforts, though she does not identify herself primarily as a feminist.

"I always stress humanism over feminism," she explains. "I value the leadership of mothers that embraces and coexists, as both men and women come from a mother."

She certainly wants higher status for Korean women. But she also describes a broader vision of a humanist renaissance in an age of materialism - and hope in a time of pandemic.
NPR's Se Eun Gong contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A woman takes a lead role in Confucian ceremonies, breaking a new path in South Korea

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
JEONGEUP COUNTY, South Korea - A pig's head sits on an offering table. Men in light-green robes and black hats pour liquor and light incense. They are venerating a ninth century scholar and poet, Choe Chi-won, at a Confucian academy established in his honor over 300 years ago.

# data[].attributes.body
Part 1:
Land Of Cockaigne - legendary location that frequently appeared in middle age stories. Had an abundance of food, no one had to work, everyone was equal, no violence.
Biological Old Regime - Term used to describe the vast majority of human existence. Opposite of Land of Cockaigne, little food, and lots of struggle.
Anthropocene - Modern human exitance. We have taken control of the environment around use. We use and control nature for out benefit.

Reflect Q:
I think that at this point human control over the environment will be a lasting feature of our existence. We are so far down the rabbit hole of controlling the environment that it would be nearly impossible to go back on our actions.

Part 2:
Hetch Hetchy - A place in northern California where in the mid 1800s it became famous for its natural beauty. First place in the US that was protected by the Government for its natural beauty. Later Flooded in order to support the population of San Francisco's water demands.
Conservationism - Protection of nature but with human interest as the highest priority.
Eco-Modernism - The idea that humans can use science and engineering to take control over the environment for our benefit.
Forest Death - Death of forests in Germany. Cause by the reduction of trees that cannot be used by humans and replaced by only trees that benefited humans.
Preservationism - Keeping nature free of human systems.
Island Effect - Biological phenom where islands have much more delicate ecosystems because they are so small. Wilderness areas could become the same thing by being surrounded by roads and cities.
Half Earth - The call to protect half the land and sea in order to manage sufficient habitat to reverse the species extinction crisis.

Reflect Q:
I think I tend to favor more of the conservationist approach but not entirely. I favor it when it comes to humans being apart of nature, ie fishing and hunting. But not necessarily in the case of Hetch Hetchy where an entire valley is flooded to support a city.

Part 3:
Hide Hunters - Group of hunters that were a driving force behind the devastation of the American Bison population. Only took the hide of the animal and would leave everything else to rot. Even supported by the US Army because the US Army realized that if they could reduce the Bison Population the Natives would starve.
Environmental Justice - Recognizes that our interactions with nature affects different types of people in their own unique ways.
Slow Violence - Negative consequences of unequal environmental relations.
Fortress Conservation - Nature is protected by force, first seen when a fortress was made outside of Yellowstone National Park to prevent the poaching of animals within the park.

Reflect Q:
The best means of ensuring environmental justice for all human communities is to leave nature as untouched as possible. No flooding of valleys to provide water for cities. Only simple regulations of game management so species are not over hunted.

Facts:
Yellowstone National Park is the only place in the US where bison have continuously lived since prehistoric times.

Over 6 million hectares of old growth forest are lost each year around the world.

There are currently 111 million acres of Wilderness zones in the US.

https://news.mongabay.com/2021/10/pristine-wilderness-without-human-presence-is-a-flawed-construct-study-says/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
‘Pristine wilderness’ without human presence is a flawed construct, study says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The idea of a “pristine wilderness” in conservation efforts — a natural zone free of people — is an erroneous construct that doesn’t reflect the reality of how many high-value biodiverse landscapes have operated for millennia, a new study says. In fact, enforcing this concept can cause environmental…

# data[].attributes.body
Part 1:
Justice is fairness, equal punishment for bad things and equal rewards for good things. If it is increasing bad or good than the punishments/rewards should be linear to it.

I think that our society in the United States is fairly just. In comparison to the rest of the world we are far better off than many other countries and while that can be seen as unjust it is difficult for me to say that because there is no way for everyone to be equal due to all the different factors around the world. But for just the United States I would say we are just because everyone has the same opportunities to succeed.

I think that in a just place everyone has the same agility to do the same thing, and in an unjust society certain people have more opportunity for no particular reason.

Part 2:
In all of these articles the engineers that created the technologies demonstrated a cultural bias. They didn't even think about the kinds of people out there when designing their products. While I don't think this was done deliberately the fact that it wasn't even considered raises flags. If the engineers had simply tested the products on all kinds of people it could have been avoided.

Part 3:
Feelings - Individual and interpersonal racism are about feelings towards another person.
Action - Interpersonal and institutional racism involve actions against another in a racist way. Institutional may not be a reflection of someone's feeling toward another but rather a result of a racist system.
What is Racism?
- Racism is the act of excluding, or treating someone differently than another solely because of their race.

What defines the philosophy of antiracism?
- The philosophy of antiracism is the idea that one cannot just be "not racist" but must be actively trying to combat racism and ethnic discrimination.

Facts:
- A study in 1983 found that in eight southeastern states, 75% of hazardous waste landfill sites were in low income communities of color.
- A 2014 study found that black people are 75% more likely to live near fenceline zones
- 68% of black people live within 30 miles of a coal fired power plant.

https://whyy.org/articles/public-pressure-mounts-against-chester-incinerator-as-environmental-racism-claims-pile-up/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The incinerator has been in Chester since 1992 and residents have criticized its presence since its inception.

In addition to the DEP permitting process, opponents see an opportunity to reduce pollution at the plant by pressuring county officials to reject Covanta's attempt to renew a contract that ends on April 30.

The county's Solid Waste Authority - with some members appointed by former Republican-held county governments - will decide the fate of the contract renewal.

The next public hearing on solid waste management in the county is planned for 6 p.m. on Sept. 30, when a representative from Covanta will be among the panelists.

'Not fair to this community'

At Wednesday's virtual permit hearing before DEP, public commenters did not pull punches criticizing Covanta.

Nearly two dozen people registered as speakers for the two hour hearing that was accessible via phone and the internet. Various townships, boroughs, and municipalities across Delaware County were well represented.

Speakers were given three minutes to state their opinion with the DEP.

Mike Ewall, founder and executive director of the Energy Justice Network, believes the company is not being properly regulated for harsh pollutants. Smokestacks are monitored daily for four specific pollutants, but others are not checked by regulators nearly as often.

"That is not appropriate way to monitor what's really coming out of the stack of these facilities, and the technology exists to continuously monitor over 50 different pollutants including many different metals, particulate matter, other acid gases dioxins and furans, and more," said Ewall, who has been sparring with Covanta since 1994.

He likened the existing regulation to allowing people to drive all year on the road with no speedometer or rules except on one day.

Ewall wants DEP to require Covanta to continuously monitor its output of particulate matter pollution and other emissions.

WHYY News reached out to Covanta for a response and Nicolle Robles, a spokesperson for the company attributed the near unanimous criticism that it received to artificial uproar and scare tactics.

"Covanta is a strong advocate of public discourse and believes it is important residents be part of any dialogue concerning their community. It's unfortunate that a special interest group has commandeered many of these public hearings with a script that serves only to fear monger," Robles said.

Erica Berman, of Media, who works in Chester at the Delaware County Historical Society, doesn't accept that.

"Studying the history of Chester, I've learned the depth of corruption and systemic racism that allowed for the waterfront to be transformed into a hub of industry pollution and waste." She says it was not an accident that the nation's biggest incinerator landed in the middle of a low-income Black and brown community.

She believes that allowing the incinerator to continue to operate perpetuates a cycle of racism. She and others on the call cited Chester's high rate of asthma among residents as evidence of the lifelong harm being done.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Chester incinerator faces environmental racism claims at permit hearing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The incinerator has been in Chester since 1992 and residents have criticized its presence since its inception. In addition to the DEP permitting process, opponents see an opportunity to reduce pollution at the plant by pressuring county officials to reject Covanta's attempt to renew a contract that ends on April 30.

# data[].attributes.body
Design vs Implementation
I think that the mark should be closer to the implementation side of things. My reasoning for this is that if you restrict the design process too much it will discourage innovation. While it may be harder to control things once they are made, it is the only way to prevent the human race from becoming stagnant.

Pew Research Center Graph
The graph shows the differing of political beliefs of the past three decades. In the years 94-04 political views were fairly aligned, with both democrat's and republican's holding mixed views. But in the years 04-17 this changed completely with much more of a divide in beliefs.

Eating the dog question:

I think that the scenario is immoral. Dogs can be meaningful to family and can be seen the same as a family member. Because of this the family that ate the dog has a duty to tell the other family what was done. I made this decision based on intuition, but even after logically thinking about it I still feel the same way.

Facts:

The founding fathers feared that political parties would tear the nation apart and their reasoning can be seen now. People are more aligned to their political parties beliefs than actually deciding what is right or wrong based on their own moral values.

Historically, restrictions on design were not very productive. There were many opponents of the creation of the nuclear bomb, including Albert Einstein, but were all ignored. Now there are stricter rules around nuclear bombs, which is an example of implementation control.

The idea of moral Sentiments was introduced in 1759, with the book The Theory of Moral Sentiments written by Adam Smith.

Outside Source:
https://behavioralscientist.org/the-divide-between-political-parties-feels-big-fortunately-its-smaller-than-we-think/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Divide Between Political Parties Feels Big. Fortunately, It’s Smaller Than We Think. - By Michael Pasek & Samantha Moore-Berg - Behavioral Scientist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Misperceptions held by Democrats and Republicans about how the other side views them have troubling consequences for our democracy. Correcting them can help.

# data[].attributes.body
Part 1:
- Any problem that affects a lot of people tends to be more adaptive than technical. For example, even though repairing a bridge is a technical problem with a straightforward solution, the closing of the bridge and disrupting peoples commutes makes it an adaptive one as well.
- To solve adaptive challenges, one must consider all sides of an issue and also be mindful of all those sides when making a decision.
- I think that a good engineer/scientist needs to be proficient in both adaptive and technical problem solving to be successful.

Part 2:
- I would not nuke the planet. There is still so much life that you would be ending just because you are sad. I think that people would say nuke it because there is no consequences to your actions, so you cannot be held accountable.

Part 3:
-I think I align more with the idea that humans are a part of nature, while we can use it, it is not solely ours to use. We must respect it and do our best to care for it.
- There needs to be places that humans do not live. This is due to the need to protect lands for the future generations to see and enjoy as we do now. We are only borrowing these lands from the next generation, they are not ours.
- The US National Parks system is to protect the lands for future generations to enjoy.

Part 4:
I think that humans do not "own" anything in the world. Just like other animals we are just species living on the planet. While we may be more advanced, we are not so morally above other creatures that they are ours to do what we please with.

Part 5:
I myself do one day hope to have children. I don't think that we have an obligation to others children anymore than we have an obligation to another human If someone is in need of help and you are in a position to help them, you should. But you are not obligated to.
I think everyone should have the ability to experience nature but they have no right too. Nature is not something that anyone should have a right over.

Part 6:
It is hard to determine what is the most dangerous types of technologies. Many technologies are made with good intentions but turn bad. I think the worst technologies are things that are addicting to humans.
These could impact non-human nature, through trash and pollution.
The main differences in precautionary principles is the assessment of risk and what it is worth.

Part 7:
Cost benefit analysis can be used for almost any modern day problem. Anything is going to cost money and it is a big part in every decision.
The main fairness issue with climate change is that we are not just affecting humans. We are affecting every single thing on this planet that is living.
I think we can see some anthropocentric ideas here not just in the fact that humans are superior but that some classes of people are more important than others. The example of sending trash to poor countries to pick through is a great example of this idea.

Part 8:
I still hope to have children. While I can see that overpopulation is a major issue, I just cannot reasonably tell someone else not to have kids because of it, so I couldn't do it myself either.

Facts:
1. Countries essentially buy trash from other countries by agreeing to take it and pick out the valuable materials.
2. Majority of modern problems are adaptive, because one way or another some group is affected.
3. Every American born will need 17,343lbs  of phosphate rock

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/8/20/20802413/overpopulation-demographic-transition-population-explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This story is part of a group of stories called

Finding the best ways to do good.

For nearly all of human history, there haven't been that many of us. Around the year zero, Earth's population is estimated to have been 190 million. A thousand years later, it was probably around 250 million.

Then the Industrial Revolution happened, and human population went into overdrive. It took hundreds of thousands of years for humans to hit the 1 billion mark, in 1800. We added the next billion by 1928. In 1960, we hit 3 billion. In 1975, 4 billion.

That sounds like the route to an overpopulationapocalypse, right? To many midcentury demographers, futurists, and science fiction writers, it certainly predicted one. Extending the timeline, they saw a nightmarish future ahead for humanity: human civilizations constantly on the brink of starvation, desperately crowded under horrendous conditions, draconian population control laws imposed worldwide.

Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich wrote in his best-selling 1968 book The Population Bomb, "In the 1970's, hundreds of millions of people will starve to death" because of overpopulation. (Later editions modified the sentence to read "In the 1980's.")

None of that ever came to pass.

The world we live in now, despite approaching a population of nearly 8 billion, looks almost nothing like the one doomsayerswere anticipating. Starting in the 19th century in Britain and reaching most of the world by the end of the 20th century, birthratesplummeted - mostly because of women's education and access to contraception, not draconian population laws.

In wealthy societies where women have opportunities outside the home, the average family size is small; in fact, it's below replacement level (that is, on average, each set of two parents has fewer than two children, so the population shrinks over time). Called the demographic transition, itis one of the most important phenomena for understanding trends in global development.

There's still significant debate among population researchers about the extent of the sea change in population trends. Researchers disagree on whether global populations are currently on track to start declining by midcentury. There's also disagreement on what the ideal global population figure would be, or whether it's morally acceptable to aim for such a figure.

While academic research seeks to nail down these questions, it's important to be clear what is consensus among researchers. All around the world, birthrates are declining rapidly. Global population growth has been slowing since the 1960s, and global population will almost certainly start to decline. The world is absolutely not, as is sometimes claimed, on track to have 14 billion people by 2100.

Our projections around population are used to make global health and development policy. They're critical for planning, especially about climate change. Fears of overpopulation sometimes turn into hostility to immigrants, those who choose to have large families, and countries in an earlier stage of their population transition. Having an informed conversation about population is crucial if we are to get humanity's future right.

How we figure out population trends

There are about 7.7 billion people alive today. But that number's not as certain as you might think.

To understandwhy, you just have to think about the US census. The federal government is mandated by the Constitution to conduct a count of its population every 10 years. It is a big, industrialized country with modern technology and lots of resources. In 2010, it is estimated that our count of our nation of300 million-plus was off by only about 36,000 people - or only 0.01 percent. That's pretty good (if researchers' estimate of the errors is reliable)! But that decent overall count masks some bigger errors: The same analysis estimates the black population was undercounted by 2 percent.

In manyparts of the world, population data is much less reliable. Countries can have incentives both to overcount (in regions vying to demonstrate increased need for aid, say) and undercount their populations(perhaps to disfavor a disliked minority group). Even without any efforts to manipulate the numbers, it's expensive and challenging to accurately estimate populations.

If estimating populations is hard, estimating population trends is much harder. The demographers who estimated a ruinous, extremely fast growth trajectory were wrong, but how could they have known that the trend they were observing wasabout to reverse?

Today, it's still challenging to confidently estimate population sizes. But some organizations and institutions have done surprisingly well.

The United Nations publishes an estimate annually of the most likely population trend and then "high" and "low" fertility scenarios. These reports have turned out to besurprisingly accurate.

Since the UN has been making population projections since 1950, and since it publishes revisions and corrections to those projections over time, we can compare its initial estimates to the revisions and corrections. Researcher Nico Keilman did that, and found that the UN has an impressively accurate track record at population predictions. Their estimates of world population by 1990, published in 1950, were off by about 12 percent.

They quickly got better: By 1960, those estimates were off by only about 2 percent. Since then, the UN has pegged global population growth rates pretty precisely. Here's a graph of real population growth over time, compared to population growth as the UN projected it:

So up to the present day, the UN has been highly reliable in predicting global population trends. Its prediction now is that the world population will continue to increase until 2100, when it will peak at 11.2 billion and then start declining.

Some experts don't buy the UN's estimates

Nonetheless, they have their critics. Other analysts have argued that fertility will in fact fall more dramatically than the UN estimates even in its "low-fertility scenarios." One such critic is Norwegian academic Jorgan Randers, who studies climate strategy. "The world population will never reach nine billion people," he has claimed. "It will peak at 8 billion in 2040, and then decline."

Demographers at Vienna's International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis agree: They've estimated the population will stabilize by midcentury and then decline. These models expect fertility in low-income countries to fall faster than the UN projects it will.

Some of the differences are simply methodological. How the fastest-growing countries in the world are modeled has a huge impact on how global population models come out overall, so small differences in expectations in those countries can significantly shift overall results.

But much of the difference in projections may berooted in disagreement over another question: how many people the world can handle. Adherents to lower-population models often call the UN projections " apocalyptic" - fearing that they'd make climate change impossible to manage. Demographer Wolfram Lutz has characterized the UN's model as the "population explosion" model (even though it projects a leveling off and declining population). Many of them have turned away from what they perceive as excessively "pessimistic" models toward ones that project a much faster-declining human population.

The challenges the pessimists anticipate aren't imaginary. With ourcurrent technology, of course, we don't know how to provide 11 billion people a good standard of living sustainably. But technology - including green and sustainable technology - has been rapidly improving for a long time. The year2100 is more than 80 years from now, and almost all the technology that we have today to make civilization sustainable sounded like wild science fiction 80 years ago.

A global population peaking at 11 billion neednot be an apocalypse or cause for pessimism, but it does pose challenges thatwe'll need to rise to.

While the UN deserves a lot of credit for how accurate they've been so far, past performance is obviously no guarantee of future accuracy. There's room for their estimates to be importantly wrong in the future - in either direction.

It's fairly straightforward to accurately predict the population in 20 years just by assuming that existing trends will continue. It's much harder to predict sea changes in habits around the world. If, for example, climate change drives currently developed countries back into poverty and drives their birthrates back up, the estimates are poorly equipped to account for that. On the other hand, if more reliable contraceptives are developed and virtually end unintended pregnancies the world over, birthrates could fall much faster than predicted.

Nonetheless, this disagreement obscures a lot of agreement. Randers might call the UN estimates "apocalyptic," but they're incredibly optimistic compared to estimates at midcentury. Everyone now agrees that without any totalitarian or coercive measures, populations will start declining; the big disagreement is simply when.

It was not at all obvious that the world would turn out this way, and it's tremendously significant that it has.It implies both good things - that coercive population controls will never be necessary - and concerning ones, like that societies will age and have a shrinking workforce. But on the whole, we are much better positioned for sustainable growth than it looked in 1950, and the fall in rich-country birthrates is why.

Demographic transition, explained

The big thing we know now about population that was unclear in the mid-20th century is somethingcalled the "demographic transition." In its simplest form, it's the principle that when societies get wealthy and child mortality falls, people tend to start having less children.

The connection between societies growing wealthier and people desiringsmaller familiesis pretty straightforward. In richer societies, people do not need their kids to do labor and support the family, and they typically invest money and other resources in their kids, to give them the best shot possible at a decent life.

The connection between drops in child mortality and smaller desired family sizes is less obvious. Indeed, at first, when child mortality falls, the population shoots up, as people are still having lots of kids, but more of them survive to adulthood.

That produces a rapid increase in population. That was the state of the world in the 1960s, and some parts of the world are still in that state now. But then, overall growth rates started to fall.

Let's pull back here and get into the weeds a bit. Demographers think of this process as occurring in five stages. First, birthrates are high but so are death rates, and the population is low but stable (when child mortality is high, people have lots of children to reduce uncertainty). Then, in the second stage, technology helps more kids survive to adulthood. Birthrates remain high, and the population grows rapidly: for one or two generations.

In the third stage, birthrates start to decline, driven by increased certainty about children's survival, women's rights, the dynamics of rich economies (where children are no longer an economic asset), and other factors. In the fourth stage, birthrates fall and the population stabilizes. It's a little unclear where we'll go from there (in the fifth stage): Populations might shrink due to below-replacement reproduction, or stabilize, or slowly grow.

What does this demographic transition look like in action?In the US in 1900, the average woman had 3.85 children, and 0.89 children died before age 5 (the child mortality rate was 20 percent), leavingthree surviving children on average. Today, the average woman has 1.9 children, with an 0.7 percent child mortality rate.

People used to think that ending child mortality would lead to a dramatic swell in global populations, and it does, in Stage 2 of the above chart, where death rates fall and birthrates remain high. But then in every country yet studied, birthrates eventually end up falling too.

Some of the best research into the demographic transition was published in 1989 by British researchers Anthony Wrigley and Roger Schofield. As the first country to have the Industrial Revolution, Britain was the first to have the demographic transition. Thanks to the state church, Britain also had unusually good birth and death records.

Here's how the demographic transition looked in Britain:

Today, most developed countries have joined Britain on the right end of that graph, with low birthrates and low death rates. Other countries, like Niger and Mali, are still in the middle stage, where death rates are falling but birthrates haven't yet followed suit.

That adds up to an overall global trend of a population that is still increasing, but it is increasing more slowly than ever.

It's a reality that hasn't quite penetrated public consciousness yet.Public conversations are often still consumed by fear that the population is spiraling beyond what the world can support.

The popular 2013 environmentalist book Ten Billion reports still-growing population numbers without discussing the underlying trends towards leveling off and then falling, and concludes, "Every which way you look at it, a planet of 10 billion looks like a nightmare." Widely published excerpts don't mention that the population is expected to start falling again either before or shortly after that "nightmare" milestone is reached.

Articles about population growth sometimes mention when we're expected to hit 9 billion or 10 billion, and then ask, "So is it time for all countries to turn to drastic population control in order to sustain life on Earth, or is it a violation of human rights, no matter what?" without mentioning that populations are expected to decline on their own, no coercion required.

It's a fear that sometimes has racial and xenophobic components: European white nationalists spread panic over declining white birthrates, while others express fears that poor populations, still growing, will crowd out rich ones. But birthrates are declining in poor countries, too, and look likely to continue to do so as they rapidly get richer. The trend that reached Europe first has since swept the rest of the world and shows no signs of stopping.

Calls to have few or no children to fight climate change are common, with prominent figures such as Miley Cyrus and Prince Harry endorsing them. The underlying assumption is often that we're on a runaway path to an exploding population. This misses a couple of key facts about population trends: First, the population will decline even if everyone who wants children has them.

Second, opposing children is not a good way to fight climate change. As Lyman Stone wrote for Vox, big changes in how the developed world produces power are what's needed, and they matter dramatically more than population does. "Lowering US carbon intensity by about a third, to around the level of manufacturing-superpower Germany today, has a bigger effect than preventing 100 million Americans from existing," Stone argued.

In other words, if we don't transition to better energy sources, we're doomed no matter how much we shrink our numbers, and if we do, we could actually sustain a significantly increased population.

What we think we know about population growth in the upcoming century

There's a lot of agreement between the UN and its critics when it comes to population forecasts.Both sidesagree that fertility rates fall as countries get richer, and that even the poorest countries in the world are rapidly getting richer. Both agree that population will peak, and then start to decline.

Both agree that we're not yet at the peak, but that the Earth's population will never again double, barring some dramatic technological or cultural shift that fundamentally changes how humans live. Under a wide range of estimates, birthrates will remain below replacement in rich countries, and poor countries will continue to get wealthier and to have fertility patterns that are more similar to those in wealthy countries.

As for their disagreements, they'll be resolved by the real-world data soon enough. For the UN's mainline estimate of how these trends will continue into the future, it assumes that these trends will continue at approximately the pace they've kept through the past several decades.

Here is the 2019 UN population forecast:

The red lines reflect the UN's predicted trajectories; the UN is 95 percent confident that population will fall between the two dotted red lines. The lower side of 95 percent confidence interval has global population peaking in 2070 and falling slowly from there; the upper side has population approaching 13 billion and still increasing in 2100.

The blue lines reflect the UN's projection of how population numbers would shake out if birthrates were 0.5 children higher or lower. The total global birthrate is 2.4 births per woman today. The lower blue line is closest to the trajectory argued for by the European researchers who consider the UN pessimistic; it shows population peaking around 2050 and falling from there.

Under the mainline UN estimates, global population will grow for the rest of this century, but slowly, and this will be the last century with a growing population. The UN has an impressive track record in this area, but some European analysis groups think that the UN is estimating fertility that's higher than realistic, and that population numbers will fall much sooner. It should be clear by 2030 who is correct.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter. Twice a week, you'll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and - to put it simply - getting better at doing good.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
We've worried about overpopulation for centuries. And we've always been wrong.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Finding the best ways to do good. For nearly all of human history, there haven't been that many of us. Around the year zero, Earth's population is estimated to have been 190 million. A thousand years later, it was probably around 250 million. Then the Industrial Revolution happened, and human population went into overdrive.

# data[].attributes.body
Part 1:

1. Moral Relativism - The idea that everyone has different moral values and what is right for one might not be right for another, it is all relative to experiences.
2. Utilitarianism - Greatest good for the greatest amount of people.
3. Deontology - morality of an action should be based more on the right or wrongness of the action, not the consequences.
4. Virtue Ethics - Idea that one becomes a virtuous and ethical person through experiences, deals with things like honesty and morality.
5. Liberalism - philosophy of being committed to liberty and freedom.

Part 2:

1. Money can buy almost everything, even a better prison cell.
2. Money cant buy friends or relationships.
3. Market economies vs market societies. A Market economies is a productive tool, while a market society is a society where everything can be bought. It seeps into our culture and daily actives with family and friends.

Part 3:

1. The four objections are:
-It could be used to exploit poor people
-It would become very expensive, access to better health would be pending on money.
-Profit motivations could push people to cut corners with safety
-Even in a fair economic society people could still be exploited for other reasons.
2. I think that most of the issues that were raised connect mostly to deontology. For example, if more people can get kidneys that help them survive it should be seen as good, but if the means to get those kidneys involved exploitation then it is not ethical.

Part 4:
The definition of justice that resonates the most with me is the idea need-based justice. If you are not in need then don't become greedy, if you are in need you will get what you need. This idea sounds good but I can see why it doesn't work in the real world extremely well.

Facts:
1. Since the first civilizations we have been debating on what justice should be.
2. The facts surrounding something may be just like another, but for a reason that can be difficult to pinpoint one is considered ethical while another isn't.

Outside Source:
https://www.aapl.org/docs/newsletter/N242hist_justice.htm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
April 1999 · Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 12-14

Isaac Ray Corner
A history of justice: origins of law and psychiatry

Walter A. Bordenn, MD

"Revenge is a kind of wild justice, which the more man's nature runs to, the more ought law to weed out; for the first wrong, it doth offend the law, but the revenge of that wrong, putteth the law out of office."
--- Francis Bacon

Our western legal system evolved from the need to tame wild justice that was tearing apart early civilization. Justice as we know it dates back to sixth century B.C. Athens with the genius of Solon. Poet, philosopher, soldier, merchant, practical economist as well as social critic he came to power in revolutionary times with a mission to put an end to the cycles of retaliatory violence that had plagued Greece for centuries. Athens wanted peace and order, and turned to the man who had communicated his vision of social order and the need for justice through his poetry.

Solon laid the foundation for a democratic system of justice through the first of a series of constitutions that gave birth to democracy. He instituted changes and established a legal code thate brokered a non-violent social revolution and transformed the passion for vengeance into a justice system. This system was based on rule of and equality before the law, a redistribution of power through law, and resolution of conflict through a public court system with juries of peers in an adversarial process before the presiding judge. Religion was separated from the administration of justice for the first time in human history. Solon converted private revenge into public justice. He harnessed wild justice and made it a central part of democracy.

These developments occurred in the context of the birth of science that recognized emotional human nature as a part of nature, to be understood by natural means. Psychological concepts were incorporated into the law. Understanding what was in the mind of the accused became a priority. Manslaughter and intentional homicide had been differentiated even earlier under Draco, but intent and motive became more important issues under Solon - long presaging and laying the foundation of the mens rea concept. Instead of absolute liability the law looked to specific underlying differentiating factors and punishment was proportional. Preventing violence and maintaining public order were stated purposes of law. This was 6 th century B.C. Athens.

The influence of Athenian democratic justice can be seen today in every courtroom in our land. However, we would not have that influence but for the genius of another man coming some 100 years after Solon. Aeschylus was also poet, philosopher, soldier, and like Solon, a fighter for justice, but his genius lay in drama. As Solon was creator of democracy, Aeschylus was creator of tragic drama and he used his art form as a weapon for democracy, law, and the peaceful resolution of conflict. During his time political upheaval threatened to sweep away democratic justice.

Amidst that first crisis in 458 B.C., Aeschylus produced the Oresteia, the greatest tragic drama in human history. It is a window into the evolution of Athenian justice, the principles underlying its law, and the threats to justice inherent in human passions. The play is a transcendental plea. for democratic justice. The third part of the trilogyIts final act portraysis a courtroom trial in which the mental state of the defendant is central with all the elements of what today we call legal insanity. The Oresteia, immortalized and carried the message of justice through millennia. Thise powerful drama kept alive the idea of humanistic justice, through the eclipse of the Roman Empire and submersion in the Dark Ages, through the Renaissance when the classics resurfaced, to the British Isles, and to our courtrooms. The Oresteia became the vital voice of Solon's justice that enabled it to survive.

The Athenian legal system served as a frame of reference for the first codification of Roman law. Greek drama, and the sociological, scientific and, psychological principles underlying ancient law played a role in the evolution of a great and complex Roman jurisprudence. Then as Rome declined and fell, civilization sank into the darkness of "the worst of times" and justice seemed to be extinguished by societies ruled by greed, cruel power, and raw vengeance. The Furies retook Justice. Primitive magical thinking and belief in the supernatural buried the scientific attitude. Then dDemonology and witchcraft metamorphosed into a malignant scapegoating preoccupation that became twin to the Plague and renderinged human understanding comatose.

But Justice and Science lay dormant, hibernating in those literary treasuries of classical Greece and Rome, stored away in Islamic libraries and Eecclesiastical archives. It has been a slow and fitful reawakening.

Classical heritage passed to England

Threatened by the Moslem infidel, the Eastern Church transferred to the safety of Rome the original manuscripts of the Greek cultural masterpieces that had been presumed lost for a thousand years. Classical heritage passed from east to west, Italy to Ireland, Scotland, the British Isles and the Continent, laying the foundation for momentous changes resulting in the founding of English common law between 1160 and 1270.

As English society developed in a more representative direction, the adversary system, verdict power of the jury, and the concept of equality before the law emerged. With the growth of the adversary system in England the legal profession gained strength and gradually replaced the ecclesiastical jurists. The last great ecclesiastical jurist, also a classical scholarscholar was Henry de Bracton known for his recognition of psychological factors in legal issues and for contributions to the then embryonic insanity defense. Author of the treatise On the Law of England, he is a link between justice as developed in Greece and Rome and the evolving jurisprudence in England.

After Bracton, intent again entered considerations of justice. There was more recognition of "unsound mind" vis a vis witchcraftvis witchcraft,, and by the 14 th century complete madness was a defense. By the 16 th century the concept of non compos mentis, legal insanity, was complex with the recognition there could be lucid intervals, - an observation sometimes lost in our courts. Humanistic ideals were reborn and with justice at the center.them a more humane civilization and at the center the beginning of more humane justice. Universities were founded, feeding social institutions with a rediscovered appreciation for scientific curiosity. There was a return to seeking rational explanations for , that natural phenomena. have rational explanations, that nature includes humankind.

This was the beginning of the struggle against demonology and its more modern derivative, "evil". In that struggle the ancient Greek ideal of a rational approach to the understanding of nature, humankind, and society has been opposed by residua of our medieval legacy. The battleground of that struggle has oftentimes been our courts where, since Aeschylus' time, the nature of humankind is debated.

The warriors and their battlegrounds, cases resound through modern history as well as ancient. Johan Weyer confronted the law in 1572 maintaining confessions of witches were the result of severe mental illness. His views were dismissed as merely those of a physician. Mental illness was demonized, driving a wedge between psychiatry and the law that has not been completely bridged to this day. Yet Coke, Hale, and Francis Bacon were responsive to psychological developments, which they attempted to integrate with law.

Although English law continued to trail scientific growth, during the 18 th and 19 th centuries advances in psychiatric knowledge began to infiltrate. Scotland produced two great minds, one legal and the other psychiatric. Thomas Erskine had defended Thomas Paine and was considered England's leading trial lawyer. Alexander Cricghton authored An Inquiry into the Nature and Origins of Mental Derangement. His work focused on the influence of emotions on thinking processes and he had an influence on the contributed to the development of modern psychiatry. When in 1800 James Hadfield attempted to assassinate George III, Erskine was called to defend him, and he callinged Cricghton as his expert. Law and psychiatry were joined. They took the law into the complexities of mental illness focusing on the relevance of delusions in legal insanity.

Forensic psychiatry was germinating, nurtured by a spectrum of developments in the psychological and neurosciences. William Cullen, a pathologist, published his study of insanity and his influence was extended by his studentsstudents extended his influence, to America by Benjamin Rush in American and to France by Pinel in France. Pinel, Pritchard, Esquirol and Isaac Ray were raising issues of the forensic implications of the impact of emotions on the ability to control behavior. that were first heard in the Oresteia. But the English courts were still grappling with the issues of mental illness, reluctant to give up old notions of global cognitive dysfunction as the legal definition of mental illness in criminal cases. The cases of Arnold and Ferrers are examples.

The last 150 years

In 1838 Isaac Ray in A Treatise on the Medical Jurisprudence of Insanity sifted and synthesized the developing psychiatry and applied it to an understanding of criminal behavior. Ray took psychiatry into more complex and less readily knowable areas of the mind than the Hadfield case considered. His work led to the conceptualization of what he called "irresistible impulse", of how distorted, diseased emotions can overwhelm rational thinking, sometimes in sudden explosive acts, but also over time with a gradual losing struggle to keep from doing what the rational mind abhors. He emphasized that "the affective as well as the intellectual faculties intellectual faculties are subject to derangement." He also considered the complex problems of lucid intervals, simulated insanity, concealed insanity, suicide, and the difficulty for juries in remaining objective about heinous crimes. He laid this out for all to read.

It reverberated in 1843 at the trial of Daniel McNaughton. The acquittal struck a raw nerve in society, the law, and psychiatry, fuelling fear and threatening the sense of social order. It set in motion waves of opposition to the insanity defense and psychiatry, interspersed with attempts to reconcile justice with psychiatry, to find ways of bringing scientific understanding of the mind into legal deliberations. The last 150 years has seen a turbulent struggle to solve this very old and complex problem of revenge in society.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1881 in The Common Law 46 wrote: "It may be said, not only that the law does, but that it ought to, make the gratification of revenge an object. ...The first requirement of a sound body of law is,is that it should correspond with the actual feelings and demands of the community, whether right or wrong. If people would gratify the passion of revenge outside of the law, if the law did not help them, the law has no choice but to satisfy the craving itself, and thus avoid the greater evil of private retribution." The circle completes, from Athens to Rome to London to Washington. But this leaves us approaching the year 2000, a somemere 5400 years from Johan Weyer, and 150 from Isaac Raystill, still emerging from the Dark Ages, technologically enlightened, but with justice just partially tamed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A History of Justice: Origins of Law and Psychiatry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
April 1999 · Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 12-14 Walter A. Bordenn, MD "Revenge is a kind of wild justice, which the more man's nature runs to, the more ought law to weed out; for the first wrong, it doth offend the law, but the revenge of that wrong, putteth the law out of office."

# data[].attributes.body
Q1: I would change the report because there are more negatives by not changing it than there is by changing it. The extremely low chance would likely not happen and in the video it stated that someone MAY get hurt or killed, so even death isn't a guarantee.

Q2: I think that scientist and engineers need to assume some responsibility for the long term consequences of the technology that they create, but only if they knew that there technology could be used in a harmful way. If they knew this and still released it then that is different than not knowing it could be used for evil. Also I believe that if scientist would be held responsible then innovation would slow out of fear. Ultimately the hands doing the killing are more responsible than the one who created the weapon.

Q3: I think that these documents conveyed the risks involved in the challenger launch well. In the first one it even mentions that a loss of human life could happen and I think that even the scientist themselves thought it was unlikely.

Q4: I think that risk must always be leveled when making decisions, and it should be considered too much risk whenever a persons life is at risk. Anything below that must be balanced with the potential good that the product could do. For example if one person may be injured or killed but 1000 cancer patients will be cured the risk should be taken. But if 1000 people have to be injured or killed to cure one cancer patient then the risk is too much.

Facts:
Throughout history innovation has been achieved through risks.

Many in Nasa knew that the challenger shuttle could blow up, but still didn't prevent the launch.

Outside source:
https://www.sites.ext.vt.edu/newsletter-archive/cses/2000-02/risks.html

An example of a modern day risk reward problem. Genetic Engineering could change the course of human history but could also introduce many new issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You've reached the Virginia Cooperative Extension Newsletter Archive. These files cover more than ten years of newsletters posted on our old website (through April/May 2009), and are provided for historical purposes only. As such, they may contain out-of-date references and broken links.

To see our latest newsletters and current information, visit our website at http://www.ext.vt.edu/news/.

Newsletter Archive index: http://sites.ext.vt.edu/newsletter-archive/

Scientific Basis of Risks Associated with Transgenic Crops

Crop and Soil Environmental News, February 2000

Charles Hagedorn
Professor and Biotechnology Specialist

With the European Union considering bans on all agricultural and food items from the U.S. that contain products from transgenic crops, this article provides an overview of the issues that have raised concerns in the scientific community.

Many previous technologies have proved to have adverse effects unexpected by their developers. DDT, for example, turned out to accumulate in fish and thin the shells of fish-eating birds like eagles and ospreys. And chlorofluorocarbons turned out to float into the upper atmosphere and destroy ozone, a chemical that shields the earth from dangerous radiation. What harmful effects might turn out to be associated with the use or release of genetically engineered organisms?

This is not an easy question. Being able to answer it depends on understanding complex biological and ecological systems. So far, scientists know of no generic harms associated with genetically engineered organisms. For example, it is not true that all genetically engineered foods are toxic or that all released engineered organisms are likely to proliferate in the environment. But specific engineered organisms may be harmful by virtue of the novel gene combinations they possess. This means that the risks of genetically engineered organisms must be assessed case by case and that these risks can differ greatly from one gene-organism combination to another.

So far, scientists have identified a number of ways in which genetically engineered organisms could potentially adversely impact both human health and the environment. Once the potential harms are identified, the question becomes how likely are they to occur. The answer to this question falls into the arena of risk assessment.

In addition to posing risks of harm that we can envision and attempt to assess, genetic engineering may also pose risks that we simply do not know enough to identify. The recognition of this possibility does not by itself justify stopping the technology, but does put a substantial burden on those who wish to go forward to demonstrate benefits.

Potential Harms to Human Health
Here are the some examples of the potential adverse effects of genetically engineered organisms may have on human health. Most of these examples are associated with the growth and consumption of genetically engineered crops. Different risks would be associated with genetically engineered animals and, like the risks associated with plants, would depend largely on the new traits introduced into the organism.

New Allergens in the Food Supply

Transgenic crops could bring new allergens into foods that sensitive individuals would not know to avoid. An example is transferring the gene for one of the many allergenic proteins found in milk into vegetables like carrots. Mothers who know to avoid giving their sensitive children milk would not know to avoid giving them transgenic carrots containing milk proteins. The problem is unique to genetic engineering because it alone can transfer proteins across species boundaries into completely unrelated organisms.

Genetic engineering routinely moves proteins into the food supply from organisms that have never been consumed as foods. Some of those proteins could be food allergens, since virtually all known food allergens are proteins. Recent research substantiates concerns about genetic engineering rendering previously safe foods allergenic. A study by scientists at the University of Nebraska showed that soybeans genetically engineered to contain Brazil-nut proteins cause reactions in individuals allergic to Brazil nuts.

Scientists have limited ability to predict whether a particular protein will be a food allergen if consumed by humans. The only sure way to determine whether protein will be an allergen is through experience. Thus importing proteins, particularly from nonfood sources, is a gamble with respect to their allergenicity.

Antibiotic Resistance

Genetic engineering often uses genes for antibiotic resistance as "selectable markers." Early in the engineering process, these markers help select cells that have taken up foreign genes. Although they have no further use, the genes continue to be expressed in plant tissues. Most genetically engineered plant foods carry fully functioning antibiotic-resistance genes.

The presence of antibiotic-resistance genes in foods could have two harmful effects. First, eating these foods could reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics to fight disease when these antibiotics are taken with meals. Antibiotic-resistance genes produce enzymes that can degrade antibiotics. If a raw tomato with an antibiotic-resistance gene is eaten at the same time as an antibiotic, it could potentially destroy the antibiotic in the stomach.

Second, the resistance genes could be transferred to human or animal pathogens, making them impervious to antibiotics. If transfer were to occur, it could aggravate the already serious health problem of antibiotic-resistant disease organisms. Although unmediated transfers of genetic material from plants to bacteria are highly unlikely, any possibility that they may occur requires careful scrutiny in light of the seriousness of antibiotic resistance.

In addition, the widespread presence of antibiotic-resistance genes in engineered food suggests that as the number of genetically engineered products grows, the effects of antibiotic resistance should be analyzed cumulatively across the food supply.

Production of New Toxins

Many organisms have the ability to produce toxic substances. For plants, such substances help to defend stationary organisms from the many predators in their environment. In some cases, plants contain inactive pathways leading to toxic substances. Addition of new genetic material through genetic engineering could reactivate these inactive pathways or otherwise increase the levels of toxic substances within the plants. This could happen, for example, if the on/off signals associated with the introduced gene were located on the genome in places where they could turn on the previously inactive genes.

Concentration of Toxic Metals

Some of the new genes being added to crops can remove heavy metals like mercury from the soil and concentrate them in the plant tissue. The purpose of creating such crops is to make possible the use of municipal sludge as fertilizer. Sludge contains useful plant nutrients, but often cannot be used as fertilizer because it is contaminated with toxic heavy metals. The idea is to engineer plants to remove and sequester those metals in inedible parts of plants. In a tomato, for example, the metals would be sequestered in the roots; in potatoes in the leaves. Turning on the genes in only some parts of the plants requires the use of genetic on/off switches that turn on only in specific tissues, like leaves.< p> Such products pose risks of contaminating foods with high levels of toxic metals if the on/off switches are not completely turned off in edible tissues. There are also environmental risks associated with the handling and disposal of the metal-contaminated parts of plants after harvesting.

Enhancement of the Environment for Toxic Fungi

Although for the most part health risks are the result of the genetic material newly added to organisms, it is also possible for the removal of genes and gene products to cause problems. For example, genetic engineering might be used to produce decaffeinated coffee beans by deleting or turning off genes associated with caffeine production. But caffeine helps protect coffee beans against fungi. Beans that are unable to produce caffeine might be coated with fungi, which can produce toxins. Fungal toxins, such as aflatoxin, are potent human toxins that can remain active through processes of food preparation.

Unknown Harms

As with any new technology, the full set of risks associated with genetic engineering have almost certainly not been identified. The ability to imagine what might go wrong with a technology is limited by the currently incomplete understanding of physiology, genetics, and nutrition.

Potential Environmental Harms
Increased Weediness
One way of thinking generally about the environmental harm that genetically engineered plants might do is to consider that they might become weeds. Here, weeds means all plants in places where humans do not want them. The term covers everything from Johnson grass choking crops in fields to kudzu blanketing trees to melaleuca trees invading the Everglades. In each case, the plants are growing unaided by humans in places where they are having unwanted effects. In agriculture, weeds can severely inhibit crop yield. In unmanaged environments, like the Everglades, invading trees can displace natural flora and upset whole ecosystems.

Some weeds result from the accidental introduction of alien plants, but many were the result of purposeful introductions for agricultural and horticultural purposes. Some of the plants intentionally introduced into the United States that have become serious weeds are Johnson grass, multiflora rose, and kudzu. A new combination of traits produced as a result of genetic engineering might enable crops to thrive unaided in the environment in circumstances where they would then be considered new or worse weeds. One example would be a rice plant engineered to be salt-tolerant that escaped cultivation and invaded nearby marine estuaries.

Gene Transfer to Wild or Weedy Relatives

Novel genes placed in crops will not necessarily stay in agricultural fields. If relatives of the altered crops are growing near the field, the new gene can easily move via pollen into those plants. The new traits might confer on wild or weedy relatives of crop plants the ability to thrive in unwanted places, making them weeds as defined above. For example, a gene changing the oil composition of a crop might move into nearby weedy relatives in which the new oil composition would enable the seeds to survive the winter. Overwintering might allow the plant to become a weed or might intensify weedy properties it already possesses.

Change in Herbicide Use Patterns

Crops genetically engineered to be resistant to chemical herbicides are tightly linked to the use of particular chemical pesticides. Adoption of these crops could therefore lead to changes in the mix of chemical herbicides used across the country. To the extent that chemical herbicides differ in their environmental toxicity, these changing patterns could result in greater levels of environmental harm overall. In addition, widespread use of herbicide-tolerant crops could lead to the rapid evolution of resistance to herbicides in weeds, either as a result of increased exposure to the herbicide or as a result of the transfer of the herbicide trait to weedy relatives of crops. Again, since herbicides differ in their environmental harm, loss of some herbicides may be detrimental to the environment overall.

Squandering of Valuable Pest Susceptibility Genes < p> Many insects contain genes that render them susceptible to pesticides. Often these susceptibility genes predominate in natural populations of insects. These genes are a valuable natural resource because they allow pesticides to remain as effective pest-control tools. The more benign the pesticide, the more valuable the genes that make pests susceptible to it.

Certain genetically engineered crops threaten the continued susceptibility of pests to one of nature's most valuable pesticides: the Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt toxin. These "Bt crops" are genetically engineered to contain a gene for the Bt toxin. Because the crops produce the toxin in most plant tissues throughout the life cycle of the plant, pests are constantly exposed to it. This continuous exposure selects for the rare resistance genes in the pest population and in time will render the Bt pesticide useless, unless specific measures are instituted to avoid the development of such resistance.

Poisoned Wildlife

Addition of foreign genes to plants could also have serious consequences for wildlife in a number of circumstances. For example, engineering crop plants, such as tobacco or rice, to produce plastics or pharmaceuticals could endanger mice or deer who consume the crops or crop debris left in the fields after harvesting. Fish that have been engineered to contain metal-sequestering proteins (such fish have been suggested as living pollution clean-up devices) could be harmful if consumed by other fish or fish-eating birds and mammals.

Creation of New or Worse Viruses

One of the most common applications of genetic engineering is the production of virus-tolerant crops. Such crops are produced by engineering components of viruses into the plant genomes. For reasons not well understood, plants producing viral components on their own are resistant to subsequent infection by those viruses. Such plants, however, pose other risks of creating new or worse viruses through two mechanisms: recombination and transcapsidation.

Recombination can occur between the plant-produced viral genes and closely related genes of incoming viruses. Such recombination may produce viruses that can infect a wider range of hosts or that may be more virulent than the parent viruses.

Transcapsidation involves the encapsulation of the genetic material of one virus by the plant-produced viral proteins. Such hybrid viruses could transfer viral genetic material to a new host plant that it could not otherwise infect. Except in rare circumstances, this would be a one-time-only effect, because the viral genetic material carries no genes for the foreign proteins within which it was encapsulated and would not be able to produce a second generation of hybrid viruses.

Unknown Harms

As with human health risks, it is unlikely that all potential harms to the environment have been identified. Each of the potential harms above is an answer to the question, "Well, what might go wrong?" The answer to that question depends on how well scientists understand the organism and the environment into which it is released. At this point, biology and ecology are too poorly understood to be certain that question has been answered comprehensively.

Risk Assessment
Having identified a list of possible harms that might occur as a result of using or releasing genetically engineered organisms, the next question is how likely are any of these to occur? Like the original "brainstorming" of potential harms, the answer to this question depends greatly on how well the organisms and their interaction in the environment are understood. Risks must be assessed case by case as new applications of genetic engineering are introduced. In some circumstances, it is possible to assess risks with great confidence. For example, it is vanishingly unlikely that genetically engineered palm trees will thrive in the Arctic regardless of what genes have been added. But for many potential harms, the answers are far less certain.
Risk assessments can be complicated. Because even rigorous assessments involve numerous assumptions and judgment calls, they are often controversial when they are used to support particular government decisions. For example, the approval of the first genetically engineered squash by the United States Department of Agriculture involved a controversial risk assessment.

Under the current U.S. regulatory framework for biotechnology, some sort of risk assessment is routinely produced before decisions to allow commercialization of products under the Federal Plant Pest Act; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In the case of the Plant Pest Act, risk assessments are done according to the procedure specified by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under NEPA, risk assessments could lead to full-blown environmental impact statements, but so far all evaluations of engineered agricultural organisms have led to the legal conclusion that no environmental impact statement is needed.

For the most part, risk assessments are done by scientists and policymakers in the relevant agencies (USDA or EPA) with information provided by the companies seeking the approvals. The public often has a brief opportunity to review and comment on the risk assessments.

There is no standard set of questions that risk assessments must answer because of the great range of potential impacts of biotechnology products. A risk assessment for a microbial pesticide, for example, would be substantially different from a risk assessment for genetically engineered salmon. Like all efforts at risk evaluation, risk assessments done for regulation depend on the base of scientific knowledge for generation of list of possible harms to be assessed.

Parts of this article were taken from a factsheet posted in the Biotechnology section at the Union of Concerned Scientists website.

Visit Virginia Cooperative Extension

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You've reached the Virginia Cooperative Extension Newsletter Archive. These files cover more than ten years of newsletters posted on our old website (through April/May 2009), and are provided for historical purposes only. As such, they may contain out-of-date references and broken links. To see our latest newsletters and current information, visit our website at http://www.ext.vt.edu/news/.

# data[].attributes.body
1.       The author of the essay, Jenny Price, communicates how even in a concrete jungle like LA, there are still many examples of nature. For example, the dolphins off the coast, or how the mango skin cream that is worn by many has its roots in a jungle in central America. I noticed many examples of people in golden, groups tubing down the creek or eating ice cream in the streets that was once just milk in a cow. By noticing this it’s clear how people can both be a part of nature and be able to bond over it.

2.       Facts:

a.       The idea that as humans we use nature without necessarily realizing it. The way we use it to experience life and explain our lives.

b.       Another interest fact in the lecture was how LA, like every other major city in the world was once just a simple settlement where the people were truly a part of nature. This is an extreme contrast to what it is now.

3.       https://theconversation.com/have-humans-evolved-beyond-nature-and-do-we-even-need-it-128790

a.       Interesting outside source that conflicts Price’s argument in some ways. Puts fourth the idea that humans are now beyond nature because we are now destroying it, while Price takes the idea that even though we are destroying nature, when we make something new its bases are still rooted in nature.

# data[].attributes.body
Part 1:

1.       I think that the moral spheres chart is for the most part an accurate representation of the contemporary moral spheres. For example, most of the time a human would do something that benefits another human rather than something that benefits another species and harms a human. However, there are many times where this is not the case. Now we see many organizations working against other humans to protect animal species from pollution and climate change. Another aspect of the moral sphere that is not an accurate representation of contemporary moral spheres was how far friends were listed from yourself. I think that back when it was made your family obviously came first but now to many people their friends are like family and would be treated very similarly on a contemporary moral sphere.

Part 2:

1.       I think it is the most ethical decision for to kill the one instead of the five. Even if you must push the man off you are still saving five over one. Another way to look at it is if you don’t do anything are you responsible for the death of five people? Because knowing you could have saved them you would be partly guilty. It gets more difficult if the person you had to kill to save the five was a family member or friend. I think naturally humans are wired to protect their kin and loved ones therefore It would be very difficult to kill a family member instead of a total stranger.

Part 3:

1.       My thinking during the exercise was typically pick which ever option caused least amount of loss of life. When both options where equal I tended to go with the car protecting its passengers, but this situation is really a coin toss. When the car had no passengers and would kill the same amount of people, but some were homeless while the others weren’t I killed the homeless people. My thinking here was that no matter what the same amount of life would be lost so you have to look at what society is losing. A homeless person doesn’t contribute to society or has the opportunities in their current situation to change the world like a doctor or an executive has. While this may be cruel, it is ultimately the best solution.

Facts:
1. Humans will typically do what is best for other humans instead of animals.
2. As science and engineering become more advanced, humans should also become more ethical.

https://ethisphere.com/ethisphere-announces-the-2020-worlds-most-ethical-companies/

This article is an example of the idea that as we advance with technology, science, and engineering, we will become more ethical. This article shows many great companies being ethical and it should be noted how important it is to those companies to actually be ethical for a better world, not just for good press.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Ethisphere® Institute | Good. Smart. Business. Profit.®

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
132 Companies Recognized for Setting the Global Standards of
Business Integrity and Corporate Citizenship
New York, NY - February 25, 2020 - Ethisphere, a global leader in defining and advancing the standards of ethical business practices, today announced the 132 honorees representing 21 countries and 50 industries that have earned the coveted designation of World's Most Ethical Companies® in 2020. This is the 14 th annual recognition of those who prioritize ethical behavior as a means to improve the world, while enhancing business performance.

In 2020, 14 companies appear on the prestigious list for the first time, while seven have been named every year since 2007.

"This is truly a time to celebrate incredible achievements. When we initiated the World's Most Ethical Companies recognition in 2007, the concept of companies proactively aligning profits and purpose seemed unlikely. However, leading CEOs and organizations continue to prove our long-held hypothesis that conducting ethical business is the key to maximizing profits," explained Ethisphere CEO, Timothy Erblich. "In addition to congratulating all 2020 honorees, we commend their commitment to continuous improvement and raising the collective bar for all companies."

"Being a company with the highest integrity and commitment to our core values has always been at the heart of who we are as a company and is fundamental to building trust with all of our stakeholders-including our people, our clients and our communities," said Accenture's CEO, Julie Sweet. "Our fundamental belief is that businesses not only have an opportunity, but an obligation, to be a force for good in the world. This commitment is more important than ever. We are honored to be recognized again as one of the World's Most Ethical Companies."

"It's easier to live your values when things are going well, but it's more difficult when the going gets tough," said General Motors Chairman and CEO, Mary Barra. "At General Motors, we are determined to lead the automotive industry in creating a world with zero crashes, zero emissions and zero congestion, and to doing it with integrity. This recognition as one of the World's Most Ethical Companies is a testament to the men and women of General Motors who are committed to doing the right thing, even when it's hard."

Ethisphere's research supports the conclusion that ethics and financial performance go hand-in-hand. Our annual practice of tracking how the stock prices of publicly traded honorees compare to the Large Cap Index found that listed 2020 World's Most Ethical Companies outperformed the large cap sector over five years by 13.5 percent. This "Ethics Premium" forms the basis upon which companies can correlate responsible behavior with shareholder value.

"Operating with ethics and integrity is at the heart of Fresnillo plc purpose: 'To contribute to the wellbeing of people through the sustainable mining of silver and gold,' which is why we are proud to be named for the first time as one of the 2020 World's Most Ethical Companies," said Fresnillo CEO, Octavio Alvídrez.

Ethisphere will hold a celebratory gala dinner on March 31, 2020 at Cipriani 42 nd Street ® in New York City where Make-A-Wish CEO, Richard K. Davis, will deliver the keynote address. In 2019, Ethisphere partnered with Make-A-Wish, an organization dedicated to granting life-changing wishes to children diagnosed with critical illnesses, to support the inspirational work that they do.

Methodology & Outcomes
Grounded in Ethisphere's proprietary Ethics Quotient ®, the World's Most Ethical Companies assessment process includes more than 200 data points on culture, environmental and social practices, ethics and compliance activities, governance, diversity and initiatives to support a strong value chain. The process serves as an operating framework to capture and codify the leading practices of organizations across industries and around the globe. Best practices and insights from the 2020 honorees will be released in a report and webcast in March and April of this year.All companies that participate in the assessment process receive an Analytical Scorecard providing them a holistic assessment of where their programs stand against the demanding standards of leading companies.

The full list of the 2020 World's Most Ethical Companies can be found at https://worldsmostethicalcompanies.com/honorees/.

Follow the conversation on Twitter under 2020 #WorldsMostEthicalCompanies.

About the Ethisphere Institute
The Ethisphere® Institute is the global leader in defining and advancing the standards of ethical business practices that fuel corporate character, marketplace trust, and business success. Ethisphere has deep expertise in measuring and defining core ethics standards using data-driven insights that help companies enhance corporate character and measure and improve culture. Ethisphere honors superior achievement through its World's Most Ethical Companies recognition program and provides a community of industry experts with the Business Ethics Leadership Alliance (BELA). More information about Ethisphere can be found at https://ethisphere.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
- Ethisphere® Institute | Good. Smart. Business. Profit.®

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
132 Companies Recognized for Setting the Global Standards of Business Integrity and Corporate Citizenship New York, NY - February 25, 2020 - Ethisphere, a global leader in defining and advancing the standards of ethical business practices, today announced the 132 honorees representing 21 countries and 50 industries that have earned the coveted designation of World's Most Ethical Companies® in 2020 .