# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The fourth way: "As Different to Different People": Price discusses how modifications to the environment around us affect specific groups of people differently.

# data[].attributes.headline
Week One | Introduction to Nature & Human Values

# data[].attributes.subject
Week One | Introduction to Nature & Human Values

# data[].attributes.body
Critical Response: This is construction of the new business building for Colorado School of Mines, which is being built in order to expand the business department. The construction of this new college building may be beneficial to mines students, but detrimental to other Golden residents.

Information:
- "First, it is a house of nature: Spelling built it, has maintained it, and stocks it with fantastic quantities of oil, stone, metals, dirt, water, and wood (a likely forest’s worth of wrapping paper, to begin with). And second, there are very few maples on Mapleton Drive."

People enjoy the idea of nature without it actually being present (E.G. the statue of the Buffalo in downtown Golden).

- "The coastal and mountain areas, which tend to be the wealthiest, enjoy the cleanest air on average. On the inland flats, the poorest, least white, and most industrial neighborhoods in L.A. suffer the worst air, along with alarming asthma rates."

People face the consequences of destroying the environment differently, like how the rich tend to face less consequences of said destruction than the poor.

Connection: Rewilding our cities: beauty, biodiversity and the biophilic cities movement

This article is about how putting more nature in our cities can provide us with benefits that we need to combat issues like climate change.

This article relates to the LA article because it discusses one of the other benefits to rewilding our cities, which is that it allows us to celebrate the connection we have with nature. The author states that maintaining this connection is essential to our wellbeing, which would be something the author of the LA article would agree with. Both authors found the beauty and importance of having nature in cities.

Link: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/apr/05/re-wilding-our-cities-beauty-biodiversity-and-the-biophilic-cities-movement

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
An Extra photo because you wanted to see extra photos

# data[].attributes.headline
Week One | Introduction to Nature & Human  (Bonus)

# data[].attributes.subject
Week One | Introduction to Nature & Human  (Bonus)

# data[].attributes.body
1) Consider the moral spheres chart. Do you agree with its structure? Do you believe it is an accurate representation of contemporary moral spheres? Would you rearrange it or change it in any way?

I agree with its structure, as to our core we are selfish and have the urge to take care of those closest to us. I think it is an accurate representation of the contemporary moral spheres. The model captures all of the important categories that humans interact with, which is the reason why I would not change this sphere chart.

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

I would switch the direction of the trolley to hit the one person and I would push the person off the train to save the other five. I think it would be ethical, as you can stop the other five from being killed by making a difficult decision. However, if the one person was someone I knew, it would be a lot harder to do so, but my answer would still be the same. I think this relates to the idea of moral spheres, as it shows who and what we care about the most when it comes to making tough ethical decisions.

Reflect on the decisions you made while playing on your Padlet board.

The things that mattered to me were upholding the law and  saving more lives, but all of the other categories were towards the middle of the spectrum. I found it interesting that I did not have any strong opinions about any of the situations or groups of people, just as long as more lives were being saved.

Fact 1: The moral machine is a test created by MIT in order to assess what would would do when confronted with ethical dilemmas.

Fact 2: The moral spheres chart has our own life as the most important (central sphere), and it gradually extends out to family/loved ones and nature.

Media connection: I find that this lecture connected with Breaking Bad. Walter White in this TV show prioritizes himself by making and selling drugs in order to afford his cancer treatments. He also prioritizes his family, as he did not want his family members to get jobs just to support him. In this show, there are also major ethical dilemmas that the characters are forced to have an answer to, which further the plot of the show.

# data[].attributes.headline
Week Three | Science and Engineering Ethics

# data[].attributes.subject
Week Three | Science and Engineering Ethics

# data[].attributes.body
Would you change the report? Why or why not?

I would not change the report, as the second tank has a low chance of killing someone. I would also get more important assignments if I move up in the corporate ranks and make more money, which would make me a more successful engineer.

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

As long as the technology exists and still has effects on current society, engineers and scientists are responsible for the consequences of their inventions. The engineers that created the horrifying gas chambers in Auschwitz are still held accountable, as their effects continue to affect millions of lives to this day.

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

The first document does, the second does not. The second merely gives suggestions on how to reduce flight risk without changing the date of the launch, but the first warns whoever reads it that this problem needs to be fixed immediately instead of only slightly reducing flight risk.

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

I feel as if a specific aspect of the technology has a risk of injuring people who use it, the technology should be viewed as unacceptable to continue progress on unless they make it safer. If it is mostly safe, continued progress is acceptable.

Two facts:

1. Zyklon-B was the substance that killed a large amount of people in the gas chambers (with the warning agent removed).

2. The challenger failed due to weather related issues. The temperature being too low affected the efficiency of the O-rings on the challenger.

A connection to outside media:

The novel "Blitzed: Drugs in the Third Reich" by Norman Ohler also discusses the lack of ethics amongst STEM professionals and their creations. When Hitler and those in STEM fields that worked with him discovered that micro dosing methamphetamine helped get work done, they name the drug the "people's drug". They did not bother to look into the withdrawal symptoms or how this drug would affect people in the long run, as they did not want a reason to decrease the production rate of goods and productiveness of the people in Germany. They overlooked ethics in order to gain an advantage in the world of business, as well as the world war.

# data[].attributes.headline
Week Four | Introduction to Moral Philosophy

# data[].attributes.subject
Week Four | Introduction to Moral Philosophy

# data[].attributes.body
1. What are some examples that Sandel provides of things that money CAN buy?

Prison cell upgrade and London eye (color).

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

Friendship and love.

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

A market economy is a tool for organizing productive activity, but a market society is a society where everything is up for sale. Marketing invades every aspect of life.

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

- People could be exploited for their organs.

- The people who need organs might not be able to get them because they could become too expensive.

- It might encourage people to retrieve poor organs so people can make extra money.

- People could get organs taken away via blackmail or other means.

- People should not sell their own parts, as it could put themselves in danger.

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

Utilitarianism played the biggest roles here, as those who support the societies that allow a free market for prostitutions and organ donations believe that it is ok, as it benefits the majority.

Fact 1: What should be considered marketable is up for debate and a current hot topic in America (did not know it was a hot topic or this big of an issue).

Fact 2: The way justice has been perceived by people has changed over time (I thought it stayed the same).

Different media connection: This lecture is similar to the movie WALL-E. Here, this movie constantly exploits the health of humans and controls every aspect of their life. Everything that is done here is for the purpose of one business, so this business has become a monopoly that is capitalizing off of obese citizens (they are also obese because of this business). This is a prime example of a marketing society, which was mentioned in this lecture.

# data[].attributes.body
What other problems/issues might be more “adaptive” than “technical”?'

Maybe something like adding a new payment option to a website for people who make online orders, or a fight in the workplace.

What skills are necessary to address adaptive challenges?

Resilience, bravery, amicability, problem-solving skills, and creativity.

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

Creativity, computer skills, communication, leadership, attention to detail, and critical thinking

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

I would not nuke it, as I would not want to destroy life just because I was feeling lonely.

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

They do not want to destroy life just because they were feeling lonely or they think the situation will improve.

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

Maybe the loneliness gets to be too much to handle and their mental health becomes worse or they are being hunted by the other animals that exist around them.

Fact 1: There are two major approaches to the value of nature, those being anthropocentric (value it has to humans) and non-anthropocentric (what is its value independent of humans).

Fact 2: Americans will need 3.03 million pounds of minerals, metals, and fuels in their lifetime.

Connection: In the movie the Lorax, many people in the movie have an anthropocentric value of nature, as they are unconcerned with the fact they have no real trees are a free source of oxygen. They do not care about nature itself, but the actual value it has for humans. However, the main character of the movie has a non-anthropocentric value of nature, as he believes that nature has a value independent of humans.

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

I would put my tick mark all the way by the design end of the  spectrum. Ethics are incredibly important when it comes to developing new technology, so it should be considered during the design process instead of during the implementation period.

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

Many major political events happened during this time period, as well as the release of the internet, so both of these have significantly affected the political polarization in our country today. I think this trend has continued since 2017, as people continue to have political opinions that keep getting stronger/more extreme as time progresses.

Fact 1: The line between science and policy needs to be a bright and explicit one. In order to do this, we must be somewhere in the middle of pure science ideal and pure activist ideal.

Fact 2: Physicists are prime examples of those who lie in between the two previously mentioned ideals, so they make for good examples of sentinels. These people have to think about ethics when considering the weapons they create, so they constantly have to control the threat these weapons have on society if used wrong. Examples of some physicists include Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard.

Media connection: An example of someone who was not a moral sentinel in STEM is the scientist Felix Hoenikker in the novel Cat's Cradle. In this book, he created ice nine without thinking of the morals or ethics behind this deadly invention. In fact, the majority of the inventions this man created lacked the consideration of ethics before being created. Because of this, it caused almost everyone in the book to be killed by this invention, which shows why considering ethics before inventing something is very important.

# data[].attributes.body
Define justice.

Justice is the fairness in which people are treated by a person or system.

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

Our society is 50/50 unjust and just. There are specific instances where this opinion changes, but on an average day, this is how I feel. I  believe the laws that are currently being passed in society show that society is becoming more just, except for the laws on abortion in the southern states.

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

I believe justice looks like everyone getting what they deserve, and injustice is some people getting what they deserve. What makes this unjust is some people aren't getting what they deserve in terms of reward or punishment.

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

Yes, I believe that bias played a major part in my decisions. I decided to try and save the most amount of lives possible, so that was what my bias was towards. However, regarding specific groups, one of which I sacrificed the most was old people. They have already lived the majority of their lives, so that was why I chose to sacrifice them. I also would allow robbers and people who did bad things to be sacrificed, as they have not contributed good things to society.

Fact 1: Black women die three times as more often giving birth than white women

Fact 2: Only four Fortune 500 CEOs are black.

Media Connection: One TV show that this lecture reminded me of is Orange Is the New Black. The reason that it reminded me of justice/injustice is because of the ending of the fourth season, when Poussey (an African American woman) was murdered by a correctional officer. All of the inmates rioted for an entire season after this death in order to get justice for Poussey. It showed me the things people will and should do in order to bring justice upon those who have wronged someone, or those who were wronged.

# data[].attributes.body
Is human control over the environment likely to be a lasting feature of our existence, or a brief exception?

I do not think so because of our lack of care towards the environment. If this care is not increased or improved, humanity will see a different world where we struggle to find fresh water, space for good living, and access to food. Our current control over the environment, in my opinion, is a brief exception.

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

I prefer the preservationist approach for human interactions with the environment. Although it still does harm, the cons that come with this approach are preferable to me over the cons that come with the conservationist approach.

Fact 1: The Anthropocene is an era described as one where humanity has dominant influence on both the climate and environment.

Fact 2: Both the conservationist and preservationist approaches have negative impacts on the environment, usually those being the result of human infrastructure.

Outside media connection:

A piece of media that reminds me of this lecture is the documentary "Seaspiracy". Although some of the things said in this documentary are somewhat inaccurate, the one thing that stuck out to me was the sheer amount of marine animals being hunted to extinction. People today are living in the Anthropocene, so they no longer have to worry about utilizing every animal for all of the resources they reproduce. This leads to a massive waste of resources and extinction, as many animals are being killed for one specific part.

# data[].attributes.body
What do deontology and consequentialism have in common in terms of how you treat yourself, those you love, and strangers?

Deontology: the alignment of action and universalizable ethics principles (treating others as ends)

Consequentialism: the greatest happiness of the greatest number, the interests of all beings considered equally.

Both of these makes you consider others around you when making decisions, thus making you less selfish overall.

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

I would report him, as stealing sheep is wrong and there is no good reason for him to have a sheep in the first place.

Fact 1: Analects it the major text in Confucian ethics (how the bible is to Christianity).

Fact 2: Confucian ethics state that our responsibilities are social (which are prescribed by the roles we assume in different communal contexts).

Connection to outside media: Hotel Rwanda is a excellent example of deontology displayed in a movie. Throughout the movie, the characters have a strong obligation to save their families and escape from the Rwandan genocide. It shows the nature of duty and obligation throughout the plot, as well as through the development of its characters.

# data[].attributes.body
Reflect: Take a moment to make a list of the benefits that you expect to see from exponential growth in the fields of:

Genetic Engineering: Diseases/illnesses may be less commonplace or non-existent and medicine may become cheaper.

Nanotechnology: We will be able to make more advanced technology on a smaller scale, which may help make more devices for specific needs. We will also be able to have a further understanding of materials, which can help advance our understanding of architecture.

Robotics: We will be able to provide humanity better jobs by allowing robots to do the grunt work/monotonous jobs. It will also increase productivity all across the world.

Reflect: Take a moment to make a list of the problems that might be caused by exponential growth in the fields of:

Genetic Engineering: If the technology were to advance in a way where the engineers behind it weren't morally upright, we could have issues with eugenics in the future.

Nanotechnology: The materials nanotechnology uses may be harmful to humans and other life around us.

Robotics: AI might be intelligent enough to have a collective uprising against humanity.

Fact 1: The singularity (the rapture for nerds) where the growth of technology reaches a point where it is irreversible and where we have transcended our biological bodies and brains. There will be no distinction between humans and machines, but whether or not this will benefit humanity is argued within scientific communities.

Fact 2: The fall of the Roman empire could have been attributed to more than 200 events/causes, as it is unknown what truly caused its fall.

Connection to media: A specific episode from the TV show Black Mirror reminds me of this lecture. The episode is called "Nosedive", and in this episode, people's quality of life is judged by their ranking. The technology is so advanced that it allows people to telepathically rate others based on the interactions they have just one time. This drastically affects their life opportunities, especially if they have a poor ranking. This shows how the advancement of technologies can impacts society in a negative way, specifically when reaching the singularity.

# data[].attributes.body
What is missing from this list? Is there an item on the list that doesn’t belong there? With which items do you strongly agree?

I honestly do not see much missing or wrong with this list, all of the points on this list are ones that I strongly agree with. The point that I agree with the most is actually the last one (No institution has the power to rein in tech’s abuses), as it is very difficult for the consequences to be reversed from faulty technologies.

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

After hearing some of these examples, it had made me angry about these examples throughout science history (specifically the examples about facial recognition software). They also really show how technology plays throughout society, as there are many injustices created because of this faulty bias. I think that if innovators in tech/science think more about personal prejudices when inventing technology, the world would be a lot better off than it currently is.

Fact 1: There are many technologies today that have personal prejudices embedded into their code (not on purpose, just because there are not enough minorities working on these tech/science projects).

Fact 2: The difference between connection and fragmentation is that connection is being in an environment with people and feeling united, while fragmentation is people feeling divided, even if the intended purpose of the environment was to connect others.

Connection to media: Behind the curve is a documentary on Netflix that reminded me of this lesson. Although it doesn't have to do with racial bias, it does have to do with a division of groups based on opinions. This documentary highlights the fragmentation of society caused by misinformation on the internet, as the people who believe in a flat earth are just as frustrated about the flat earth theory as those who do not believe in it. Bias has led us to believe that people who believe in the flat earth theory are stupid and those who do not are intelligent, and although that might have some truth to it, the fact that these people are immediately written off as "stupid" is proof of the division. This documentary reminds us that there are reasons as to why both sides believe in their opinion in the first place, and that we should try to use technology to have a friendly debate instead of aggressively argue with one another.

# data[].attributes.body
What are some other examples of the concept of dual use?

- Using drugs for medicinal purposes Vs. Using drugs recreationally (use of drugs).

- Using a gun to protect yourself Vs. Using a good to shoot innocent people (use of guns).

- Using a knife to butter toast Vs. Using a knife to stab others (use of kitchenware/knives).

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

- Weapons can become so dangerous the world can be destroyed.

- The loss of biodiversity due to testing.

- Increased likely hood of being exposed to radiation.

- A gateway to more destructive wars.

Fact 1: The Manhattan project was the largest scientific endeavor in history. It cost 2.2 billion dollars then, which would be 22 billion dollars today.

Fact 2: Bikini Atoll is an A-bomb and H-bomb site and has been exiled for 73 years. This specific testing site shows the importance of using technology responsibly, as well as exactly how not to use technology responsibly.

Connection to media: The movie WarGames reminds me a lot of this lecture. In the movie, a teen hacks into a military super computer, but thinks he is playing a game instead of launching legitimate orders for the nuclear weapons that the super computer is in charge of. It shows the dangers of nuclear technology, as well as show the importance of being careful with it. It also shows that this technology, if put into the wrong hands, can cause catastrophes (or in the case of this movie, almost cause catastrophes).

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

The first person perspective did not surprise me, as this video is about the river needing assistance. I think the river was speaking in the first person in order to evoke more empathy for it. I did know that treating rivers like people is a legal strategy being used all around the world, as I have watched other videos very similar to this one. When ascribing "personhood" to rivers, people that do not already understand the situation have a higher chance of understanding it more. Some of the ethical implications of this is that people are hurting another "being" or "life", as well as being apathetic about it.

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

In regards to my everyday landscape, the aspects of it that I take for granted are the tiny streams around certain parts of campus, specifically my dorm (Spruce). I can honestly say that I do not take much of it for granted, as I moved here from Illinois, so I already appreciate almost all of Colorado for what it is. I knew where my drinking water came from in Illinois (great lakes, my family informed me), but I do not know where it is coming from here. I do not know because I have not been here for very long, but I can definitely consider this an engineering failure, as I should know where my drinking water comes from. The ramifications of not knowing where my drinking comes from can be getting sick due to not knowing if the water is treated or not as well as not getting enough water if your water source is running low, and you did not know that.

Fact 1: When going westward of the 100th meridian, the amount of precipitation decreases by over half in that region.

Fact 2: Reconciliation Ecology is the science and practice of promoting ecosystem health and human well-being, at the same time and in the same places.

Connection to outside media: A book that reminds me of this lecture is Dry by Jarod Shusterman and Neal Shusterman. This is a fictional novel about the droughts in California becoming so bad, that the main character is forced to make important decisions regarding her and her family. This book goes into where people are getting their water from, as well as why the "Tap-Out" (drought) is happening in their area as a minor subplot. Knowing this is a key factor in the main character determining what to do when making important decisions in the novel. Even though it is fictional, it shows the importance of knowing this kind of information in case civilization ever faces a drought this bad.

# data[].attributes.body
What is redlining? How has it impacted environmental justice issues?

Redlining is the mid-20th-century practice by banks and insurers to concentrate black and other minority homeowners within certain neighborhoods. This is impacted environmental justice issues, as where these issues are most prominent, these minority groups are harmed the most. Regarding issues like air pollution, this is especially true and has made these issues more important as they not only impacted animals, but other humans as well.

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

I believe that they do, as more cultural perspectives are added to technology, different uses for the technology will be thought of. Issues like faulty skin censor technology could be permanently fixed, and more people will feel included into society.

Fact 1: Redlining has become an increasingly concerning problem that needs to be fixed by society, as more than 100 cities are affected by this issues.

Fact 2: The widening of I-70 has become a controversial idea and could result in more negative consequences than positive ones.

Connection to media: "Unbreathable" is a documentary where the issues of pollution affect more ethnic groups than other. This is due to the economic disparity between different races, so the racial groups more affected by this have to live in worse environmental conditions. These are some of the issues discussed in this very lecture, so this piece of media would be best to connect it to.