Second way: I see “wild nature” by hiking up each of the trails and seeing animals; or seeing a pack of bunnies run across the trail path to their burrow and home, as well as seeing other creatures on the streets in packs. 

Third way: in Colorado specifically, the water from the Rocky Mountains and the environment around it provides the people with clean and fresh water which society uses for daily life. 

Fourth way: Walking around Golden as someone who isn’t from here, it’s fascinating to see the cleanliness as well as the emphasis on nature that is here, The restaurants with names that relate to nature as well as the logos of these places is completely different than places I would see back home where it’s desert and dry and bleak. 

Fifth Way: the way I see how nature adapts to new buildings and such in an environment, I’ve experienced it with cockroaches coming out of the sink, or little insects that make their way in from the outside, especially when it’s raining; their home was taken away, so therefore they try and create a new home in the new buildings that destroyed theirs.

Sixth Way: The town of Golden retains the fact that its roots come from nature, such as the popularity of Clear Creek, the up keeping of the parks, and also at Mines, the large variety of outdoor experiences provided for its students. 

Going around campus and downtown Golden, I see squirrels climbing any structure they can find, bugs swarming my face and making me aggravated, leaves flowing with the wind, towering trees creating shady areas. I see the grand mountains in the distance standing around the city almost as a protector. I see plants and bushes surrounding houses and buildings to fill space and add décor. 

I was eating my yogurt while exploring Golden, and I couldn’t stop thinking about how the dairy from the yogurt and the blueberries come from animals and plants, but they are simply collected, produced, and distributed. This doesn’t change the fact that food we see everyday and take for granted is a part of nature. 

I saw houses high up in the mountains, apartment complexes, houses under construction, and beautiful, suburbs rich with vegetation. Some people’s ways of life are changed by mountains or bodies of water, whereas others’ lives are changed by the density of people in the area or support systems. A freshman living on Mines campus lives in small quarters but has people all around to support them, whereas someone in the mountains may have a larger house but with no neighbors. 

Walking past one of the churches, I saw a structure of water flowing downward into a little pond. This made me question how natural resources respond to human construction. Whether naturally occurring or man-made, water flows downhill regardless. This idea can be applied to how humans adapt to a landscape when building houses – houses on flat ground are built differently than those on inclines/hills. Also, animals either relocate or rebuild when human construction occupies their homes. 

Humans pursue many goals and have different priorities. The Mines campus has altered the environment to educate students and set people on high-paying career paths. The local churches also change the environment to gather people together with common beliefs and develop fellowship. Businesses have opened in Golden to attract tourists and generate revenue. Everyone chases purpose, similar to how an animal pursues survival and contentment. Everything around us is because of humans following their gut and what they feel they are meant to do with the world. 

 While walking downtown, I couldn't spot more than an ant on the street or a fly buzzing through the crowds. Wandering through the crowds and past sidewalks, I was about to give up hope until I noticed a bird whiz past onto the roof of a building. I looked up to see what I assumed was a bird's nest on top of the roof of a restaurant. The bird had used the building as a place to find refuge from the bustling downtown area. That's when I knew I just found my second way, wild nature was persisting in this building despite all the human traffic below it. 

 I noticed many Jewelry shops when walking in Golden. I walked past window displays of necklaces that encased gems or rings made of silver. That's when I realized that those objects wouldn't exist if not for nature. In order to get the gems, the necklaces displayed proudly, nature would have compressed the gem under mountains of dirt until someone dug it out and placed it in a necklace. 

 Golden was odd at first because I come from a place where I live right across from a shopping mall, and it's normal not to know everyone in your neighborhood. It was a big adjustment coming to a smaller, more compact place like Golden, where my nearest Target or Walmart isn't within walking distance. At first, the lack of buildings and large shopping malls jarred me, but I came to love it. I now notice all the big and little things I couldn't see before I moved here. A big thing is how stunning views of the mountains surround us, and a minor thing is how nature thrives alongside Golden. 

Seeing all these sights makes me wish I never lived in the big mall-centric area I came from and instead this small nature-focused mountain town. 

 I couldn't take my eyes off the main feature of Golden, Clear Creek River. We've adapted our buildings around the River and not in spite of it. We put a bridge over the River for easy transportation, a park alongside it to encourage the growth of nature, and we maintain it, so it's clean. 

Not only have I seen nature being an inspiration for the people of downtown Golden but I've noticed how the Mines campus itself has incorporated nature into its very meaning. Our campus is right in the foothills of Mount Zion and is surrounded by trees, a river, and wildlife. Each of these features helps inspire me to thrive as they do even in the harshest environments. 

Nestled in the foothills of the Colorado Rockies, Golden has no shortage of natural wonders, from South and North Table to the east, to the creek running through the middle of town. While the downtown is full of asphalt and buildings you don’t have to look far to see untamed natural landscapes.

 A Third Way: As The Resources We Use
 
Like Jenny Price’s mango body whip story from the article I found a product whose history I could trace back easily to Golden. The Coors Light in the cooler in the back of Safeway is a great example of a product made from natural resources. Just like Price, I can follow the creation of that beverage directly back to the Coors plant, and the river provides the water for the beer, as well as the other ingredients.

 A Fourth Way: As Different to Different People

A great example that jumped out to me was Mount Zion. There are people who live in houses on the side of the mountain that get to enjoy the rocky terrain as their back yards or there are people in town who the mountain is a scenic backdrop for their outdoor dinner, or even yet, the mens soccer team, who uses the mountain as a fitness test to begin the season. Just like the people in the article with regards to air in LA, all of the people mentioned have a different feeling when they see the mountain.
A Fifth Way: As Landscape Ecology We Build In and Manage

The landscape in Golden is quite unique and has influenced many things in the town. From the bridges and boardwalks on the river to hiking trails carved into South Table there isn’t much left that hasn’t been touched in someway by man. However, like the poor Chihuahua not every trace of wilderness has been eradicated from the area. There is still a raging river, wild animals, and unpredictable weather for the people of Golden. 

 A Sixth Way: As a Premier Source of Human Meaning

To take from Jenny Price, “to use nature is to be human” and that’s exactly what’s happening everywhere and all the time in Golden. From people hanging hammocks in the trees to inner tubing down the river, people and nature are interacting all the time. Although the way people have changed the way they use the environment here since the days of the gold rush there is no escaping the everyday interaction with nature. 

Throughout my reading and analysis of "Thirteen ways of Seeing Nature in LA", I couldn't help but wildly disagree with Adams' romanticism of concreate and body butters. However, his simplistic way of thinking did make this assignment easy- using Adams' thought process- anything can be enjoyed no matter how ugly, smelly, and unnatural it is because after all... there's rocks in there somewhere. 

The second way of seeing nature that Adams' describes is one that mocks true nature - birds, dolphins, sunsets, and rather than furthering the topic of how wonderful these are, he instead mentions how there's more nature (about 90% in fact) that is overlooked. Did he mention the other 90%? No, but instead eluded to mango body whips. Looking in Golden, it is easy to ignore the dogs walking past, the birds bouncing on the concrete, and any bugs that zoom by. In fact, it seems as if Adam's never truly made a point in this section, so neither shall I.

Continuing on to the third way of seeing nature, Adams explains his previous mention of mango body butters. This section particularly was unpleasant to read as he retells the story of a women giving him the secret recipe to a body butter and Adam's retracing the steps on how the butter is made- and thus the butter is nature. As iconic and special as the Coors factory is in Golden, I could never sit and stare at the thing that has ruined my morning runs with its stench and clouded the view of the valley with its smoke stacks. But its oh so splendid concrete, which was originally made from pounded clay with coatings of limestone back in the day, thus makes it beautiful in its own way. While Adams relished in the process of Mexican mangos making their way into body butters in LA, if I ever saw a can of mango body butter in the forest I would curse the tourist who left it and toss it in with the rest of the trash to then make its way to the landfill. If a mango, however, was found in the forest, I would let it be as it will become one with the earth again - since its actually apart of nature. The rocks and sand used to make the concrete that line the streets of Golden and hold up our buildings are no longer growing moss on them, serving as shelter for the wild, or a part of beautiful sand dunes, and will never be properly returned to their former glory. 

This concept is surprisingly supported by Adams in his 4th way of finding nature in LA as he mentions his love for hiking, yet he wonders what materials are used for his hiking boots. I would say it's an interesting irony that nature is used up and depleted so that we may mindlessly hike through it. He does not see it this way, but he in fact marvels at the idea, and comments no further- indicating no deeper thought into how materials are made. He continues on to speak on discrepancies in air quality for people in LA. Unfortunately it is true globally that the poor live in the worst conditions while money can often buy you a healthier future. It is a shame that Adams doesn't understand nature, maybe he would know that aloe vera is considered to be better than 9 different air purifiers and helps improve air quality but a jelly aloe vera face mask has no such powers. Going off his theme of Different to Different People, I understand my view may be considered narrow but as a native Colordian who spends majority of the year in Granby Colorado, I see the nature offered in the backcountry as the true nature, not the wrappers of my granola bar.  In response to Way 4, I say - to each their own. 

The most agreeable section is the 5th one where the article mentions the history of animal vs human and who really owns the land. During my field training exercises every Friday morning with ROTC, I travel the side of the mountain stomping on cactus, scouring the dirt for snakes, and freezing at the breathtaking sound of elk. But do I argue with the elk telling him "excuse me sir, my program has reserved this space could you graze somewhere else?" , no because he was here first, and will be long after I am gone. We humans rely heavily on animals for survival, but the day the last human stands on this earth, the animal kingdom will rejoice.

The 6th and final Way is truly an abominable piece. Its one where Adams asks "How do we make nature meaningful" - it doesn't need a justification. The nature that wiped out the dinosaurs doesn't need justification. The nature that grows life and takes it as it pleases, need no justification. The nature that tears homes apart, crumbles cities to dirt and ash, drowns the biggest of boats and tallest of buildings, doesn't need our justification. Adams' grasps at straws saying that a house that used precious and finite materials to build is nature. It is not. This section attempts to renounce the typical definition of nature and say its overused and too narrowminded. Adams would rather I fawn over CoorsTek and its marvelous modern architecture and claim it to be nature, more so than a moose in the trees. Nature is something that occurs naturally- did Brown Building build itself? Did it carve its halls and add the 3D printers over centuries of evolution? Did the mango body butter ooze from the crevices of the far mountainous regions of Mexico? In short, no, no it did not.

Golden is known for all of its outdoor recreational activities, from tubing to hiking to biking to fishing. There is so much wild nature in Golden. A fairly obvious one being Clear Creek running right through the town. I find the creek especially captivating as an example of the nature in Golden as it comes from the mountains and brings with it all sorts of specimen along with it. The unpredictability of the river is what makes it especially wild. 

The third way: "As the Resources We Use" (this is the mango body whip example)

One cool thing about Golden is the love of using and reusing. Throughout town there are a multitude of cute little shops that all have cute little trinkets and souvenirs made from stuff like bottle caps or old spoons. All of these little gifts come from the wood and metals of the town or other places that shipped them here to be transformed into "We're home!"-memorabilia. And all of these overpriced decors are taken home to different towns, different states, and different countries. 

The fourth way: "As Different to Different People" (this is where Price talks about how environmental burdens and benefits are distributed unevenly)

There is definitely an unequal distribution of nature in Golden. Granted I wouldn't consider Golden to be a big city, it is a very popular spot for tourists to stop and enjoy their vacation in Colorado. The nature aspect of the town is the one thing that stands out against other travel spots. That being said, places out side of downtown Golden are pretty much considered after thoughts, which significantly less natural areas. This is clearly due to the fact that tourists bring in a ton of money for the economy in Golden. Others are not as fortunate to enjoy all of the fruits the town has to offer as everything costs money and everything is expensive. Fortunately the mountains can be seen from far outside of Golden and everyone can share a glance at Lookout Mountain. 

The fifth way: "As Landscape and Ecology We Build and Manage"

The layout of Golden is pretty remarkable. My favorite feature being the slide right by the creek that starts atop the bridge and ends at the bottom near the river. With the river being so close and accessible, it was only fit that a rental shop for tubes would be placed right at the end of the river run. This makes it extremely simple to rent and use tubes for utilizing the river. Overtime, Golden has adapted in the ways of nature in order to bring in the most tourists and essentially make the most money possible.

The sixth way: "As a Premiere Source of Human Meaning"

There is a spot on lookout mountain that most people call their smoke spot. Sometimes when I drive up there I see the pull over parking packed and everyone is up there playing music and having a good time. I find this place extremely relaxing and helps me feel close with nature, as I am sure the rest of the people that stop. Golden is a fast paced town, but every stature, every bush, every Coors bottle, the view form the track are all things that I find myself contemplating over nature and other wild things.

I do agree with the structure of Michael Shemer's moral sphere. I think the representation of how a person gains their morals is accurately depicted through this diagram. As you move out from the inner circle, the categories begin to stray away from blood relatives. This pattern does not come at random. If one were to observe the relationships a human develops in their life, they would see that the earliest and most important relationships are those of family members. They tend to mean more because they come at an earlier point in life than other relationships. We tend to build moral relationships with communities like church and school later in our lives. I would not change the structure of Michael Shemer's moral sphere.

The Trolley Problem)

The question of five lives versus one is a challenging one even though many would quickly choose to save the five people. Life is one of few things that can be considered priceless. No matter what decision is made in this situation, there will be results that affect different people in different ways. With that said, I do think it would be ethical to switch the direction of the train to save five people. However, I do not think it should be looked at as a math problem where five is greater than one. I would not push a person off the bridge to save the ones on the tracks. This man would be safe even if a person did not see the situation and could not change the outcome. I do not think it would be right to bring him into the situation. If the person on the track was a person close to me, I would have to say I would save that one person. This is where the moral spheres come into frame and why the closest circles to us are family. Most of us are taught at a young age that family is everything. I now realize that this class is trying to make us look at all situations ethically. In the case that the one person on the track is someone in your life, the overall situation is still five lives versus one. 

Reflection of Moral Machine)

This exercise had a variety of questions that challenged our morals. It was challenging to make decisions when people’s lives are in question. I had similar decisions with the other people who have taken it before, but the largest difference I had was the choice of protecting the passenger. I believe a self-driving car should protect the passengers in most cases because they are the ones who have invested in the car. The passengers are putting their lives at risk when buying the car, so the car should try to protect them. If Tesla told me that their car may risk my life to save others, I would question buying a car. I do not think it is the passengers fault that they are in that situation. It would be the car’s fault.

 

I personally hate the Trolley problem for a variety of reasons, and the main one is that I feel that the possible decisions made with the Trolley problem is more random than actual thoughtful ethical considerations. Like a pick-your-poison Indiana Jones type of problem. In response to the questions… 

1)      Use of lever: I do not think either choice is ethical for their own reasons. If I make the conscious choice to switch the direction of the Trolley, I willingly choose to kill a person for the sole reason of sparing a greater number of people, a weak utilitarian argument. If I choose not to make any effort to switch the direction and let the Trolley kill the 5 people, my complacency and fear to make the incorrect decision led to several deaths which are my responsibility as a bystander. In this scenario, I know nothing about any of the workers, so I know nothing about the consequences/aftermath of the situation; therefore, there’s no way I can gage which choice has the most favorable outcome since more people spared may not always yield the best results – maybe the one person on the second track has the cure to cancer or something. There’s no way to assess the situation with a consequentialism philosophy, and Kantianism cannot be used either since my intents are either to kill 1 or allow 5 to be killed, both of which are not valid intentions. Maybe I’m just indecisive or weak-willed. 

2)      Pushing person off bridge: again, neither choice is ethical. I know I would not make the conscious effort to kill someone to save more. But my personal choice has nothing to do with the ethical implications of the problem. I think this instance is very interesting though because the acts of pushing someone versus switching a lever are very different yet have similar results. I’m sure most people find switching a lever favorable to pushing someone because the lever scenario is indirectly killing someone whereas the push is directly and a harsher way of achieving the same goal. 

3)      I knew the 1 person: the scenario would be completely different if I knew the person on the second track. My sense of loyalty, friendship, and trust would be tested when making the decision. The choice would move from rational to abstract and emotional reasoning to justify my decision. Sacrificing my friend to save 5 is honorable yet disloyal and kind of heartless, while saving my friend and letting 5 die would be loyal yet immorally biased. 

4)      This idea relates to moral spheres in that those close to us are (usually) held to a higher priority than strangers when evaluating ethical implications. People closer to our inner circle are more likely to be favored over people or things that aren’t directly associated with us. Should it be this way? I don’t know, but it happens. 

The Moral Machine reflection: 

Towards the beginning of the activity, I took my choices very seriously and I took a while to decide. Towards the end, I kind of gave up and chose with instincts, because given this specific scenario, that’s what is realistic: that I would have to rely on my instincts instead of ethics. In the end, I feel like exercises like this undermine the meaning of ethics – that there is truly no black and white, right or wrong answer – by trying to get you to pick a choice and justify it. I feel like there was no valid justification for any of the decisions I or anyone else made. I feel like there are no right answers, but there are certainly wrong answers. That’s what I learned from this depressing exercise. 

Part 2: I believe it is ethical to switch the lever on the trolley so that fewer people die. Inaction is the same as action in that inaction is also a choice. If you are passive, more people die, whereas if you flip that switch, only one person dies. Pushing a person is the same as switching a lever, just more personal. If you knew the people involved, this decision would be more difficult. The more personal the decisions, and the more emotions get involved, the closer the people get to your moral sphere, and the more difficult and complicated the decision becomes.

Part 3: The moral machine generated a lot of tough choices. I found myself saving bystanders and letting passengers die. I did this thinking that the passengers consented to the use of the self driving car and presumably knew what the risks of that activity were, whereas pedestrians did not. I also chose to save more people when possible, chose to save younger people instead of older people, and humans instead of dogs. These are all examples of assumptions and values I have influencing the way I make moral decisions.

Part 2: In both situations (switching the lever AND pushing the person off the bridge), I think that it would be ethical. From the point of view of deontological ethics, both are unethical. Your action is killing someone, and it does not matter if anyone is saved because the decision is immoral in itself. However, I believe that as the Trolley Problem demonstrates, this is a flawed system of going about making moral decisions, since you should also consider the consequences. If you flip the switch or push the man off the bridge, only 1 person dies instead of 5, which improves the total amount of human happiness by 5 times. If the person sacrificed was someone I knew, I probably would not choose to save the 5 people, which may seem inconsistent. However, my hesitancy can be explained within the context of moral spheres: strangers are in the “outer” rings while friends and family are in the “inner” rings. But even more importantly, my own happiness would be on the line because I wouldn’t want someone I know to die, and I value this above all else because I am at the center of my own moral sphere.

Part 3: During this activity, whenever there was a situation which involved killing all the passengers OR all the pedestrians, I always chose all the passengers. This is because the passengers have consented to being in a self-driving vehicle, which is inherently dangerous, while the pedestrians are not necessarily supportive of the use of self-driving vehicles on the road. This relates to how morality is not considered a “personal preference,” since your morals will always affect other people besides yourself. If you are willing to accept the inherent risk of being in a self-driving vehicle, you should also be willing to accept the consequences if you need to. I also ignored whether I was changing the self-driving car’s trajectory or not, because as I mentioned in Part 2, I personally side with consequentialist morality. Some other factors I ignored were gender, fitness, and social value, since the quantity and quality of human happiness does not necessarily depend on any of these.

Click the button below to visit the website for MIT's project "The Moral Machine." Hit the button for "start judging" to make difficult decisions about machine intelligence.

The Moral Machine

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

No matter the path I chose for the car to follow, there was a consequence. Someone was going to die. I am a firm believer of laws and if you're going to make dumb decisions then you'll face consequences. What I mean by that is, if someone is going to cross the road when it clearly says 'STOP', then they are at fault for their death. The autonomous vehicle should be connected to the traffic lights and be able to make its own decisions. My results showed that I cared more about the elderly, but I would partially disagree. I don't think that it put the traffic crossing indicators into consideration. In the end, these types of problems make you think and reconsider your moral opinions.

2) I believe this can be different for each type of engineering. For example, civil engineers are responsible for what they design and build. Civil engineers can build various infrastructure like buildings, roads, and bridges, but these structures will not stand forever. This is why I believe the responsibility of long term consequences varies throughout engineering. Civil engineers should be responsible for the time frame they give for their structure. For example, some engineers give their design a life span of 75 years, so I believe the engineer should be responsible for the 75 years. If something were to go wrong during the 76th year, they should not be punished. However, this mindset could be different for engineers that design a new invention that could be around for centuries. I believe that as long as the engineer had Cicero’s Creed in mind, they should not be punished for an invention. For example, Zyklon-B was not made for German warfare. The engineers should not be looked at as bad because they created this chemical. They even included a warning agent to protect people who might have come in contact with the chemical. The Nazi engineers that altered the chemical to be used against humans and designed ovens should be punished. 

3)The first document presented was able to convey an urgent problem that could result in human life. It stated the problem and presented outcomes if no action was taken. This document stated key words such as immediate action and jeopardy to guide the reader. On the other hand, the second document did not clearly express an urgent problem. This document actually contradicted their message by mentioning continuing flights. It made it seem like the problem at hand was not a problem to flight. This document did a good job of explaining numbers and even referenced a table.

4) There is risk with everything we do, like driving our vehicles at high speeds. Not many question this as we drive to school and work everyday. Some do not see any risk with this action until something bad happens. Risk will happen in many engineering designs, but I do believe there is a point where there can be too much risk. I believe this varies between each activity or design. For example, driving comes with a lot of risk, but there are many drivers on the road. When it comes to space travel, only a few travel to space, so a small amount of risk can go a long way. 

Based on the ethical scenario laid before me I wouldn’t change the report. Personally, I believe if you can’t uphold an engineer’s main commitment to society, which is to better it through the sciences, you shouldn’t be working as an engineer. Additionally, as engineers, we need to be constantly thinking about the future. In my mind tank two will eventually start to leak, so in order to prevent the poisoning of millions, I’d keep from changing my report. The decision to refuse to cover up my report may even help me in the future showing other companies that I want to make an actual change, especially when faced with tough ethical dilemmas. 

In my opinion engineers are to be held accountable for their creations to a certain extent. Taking the zyklon b example into consideration, I think that yes the engineers that created the substance should be held accountable for their invention when it’s applied the way the engineers intended it to. I don’t think it’s right to blame the engineers of zyklon b for its application in Auschwitz as they never intended the substance to be used for mass murder. However I think it is fair to blame the engineers if inocencents died while zyklon b was being used for the fumigation of cities. 

After watching the video and reading documents outlining the engineering disaster of challenger I think they properly conveyed the risks involved with the launch. Each document goes in depth to highlight the risks of launching as it describes how the O-rings have been malfunctioning. The documents are able to deliver this information in a clear and concise manner, the fault of challenger lies on the officials that ignored these documents. 

When assessing the risks involved in the scientific and engineering process I think it’s important to push limits but not to the point where others are harmed. Again here we can look at the zyklon b innovation, how pushing the risks involved with chemical development can help solve an epidemic. However when zyklon b was used to harm others, that’s when you draw the line and stop the scientific and engineering process. 

4. When considering risk, both the likelihood of an accident and the potential harm from an accident need to be considered. Everything we do involves some inherent amount of risk. However, in the case where both the the probability and risk are high, and the task is necessary, everyone involved should be aware of the risk, and all necessary and reasonable precautions should be taken to prevent an accident.

2. I would argue that engineers are only responsible for the short-term consequences and not the long-term consequences of the technologies they create. To understand why, we can use the example described in the lecture. When Bruno Tesch invented Zyklon B, he did everything in accordance with Cicero’s Creed; it was originally intended as a pesticide, which would make agriculture in Germany more productive, advancing society as a whole. However, because of Dual Use, Zyklon B ended up being used as a weapon for mass murder, which Tesch had absolutely no control over. This is why engineers are only responsible for short-term and not long-term consequences; basically any technology can be used for harm if it falls into the hands of someone with bad intentions. But as long as the original creator had good intentions, it was ethical for them to invent the technology.

3. Document #1 (written by R.M. Boisjoly) clearly states the risks of the Challenger launch. The memo says explicitly that if the O-Rings are not fixed, there is a considerable chance that there will be a “loss of human life.” However, Document #2 (written by A.R. Thompson) does not attempt to communicate these risks at all. Instead of stating how critical it is that the O-Rings are fixed (like in Boisjoly’s memo), Thompson instead calls it a “recommendation,” which does not invoke a sense of urgency at all. Additionally, the vocabulary that Thompson uses to describe the problems with the O-Rings is so technical that it is nearly impossible to decipher what he is talking about, preventing the audience from adequately understanding the risks.

4. It is my point of view that technology can only have risk when the person using that technology (a) is aware of the risk, and (b) consents to being subject to that risk. This ties back to the self-driving car example from the last lecture. In that activity, every time I had to choose between saving the pedestrians OR the passengers, I always saved the pedestrians. This is because the passengers were (a) aware of the inherent risks of self-driving cars and (b) consented to those risks when they got in the vehicle, while neither of these criteria is necessarily true for the pedestrians. I believe that this line of reasoning can be taken one step further and applied to all of the technologies which we use today. Technologies can only ethically have risks when (a) the user is aware of those risks and (b) the user consents to those risks.

1. Moral Relativism- A view in which morality is just a personal preference, different cultures will have different morals and values. No one can say one preference is right or wrong  

Strengths: there is room for multiple views on life and the world, every culture is free to have their own morals

Weakness: hard to know if someone is acting morally correct because every culture is unique, could cause tension between different cultures who have different views and morals

2. Utilitarianism- A concept where consequences are judged, not actions. This means every person is of equal value, but decisions that one makes can change that value.

Strengths: judgments can be made solely off consequences of a decision, compatible with individualism and economic reasoning (once again, can easily judge consequences of decision) 

Weakness: there could be unintended consequences that could not be seen before the decision was made, strays away from democracy (individualists)

3. Deontology- A concept where actions and decision are the central focus not the consequences that follow

Strengths: Can easily place clear boundaries (can say if an action is right or wrong), used in common practices like human environmental rights 

Weakness: Sometimes the consequences are unpredictable, difficult to judge some actions as right or wrong, reason at the expense of emotion  

4. Virtue Ethics- A concept where humans and nature should coexist in a world that bests suits both parties

Strengths: Humans can reflect on the reasoning for life, a bridge between nature and humans is built, intended to bring the best life to everyone

Weakness: Difficult to follow through and apply to everyday life (can be bad if you are too courageous and bad if you are too little courageous), difficult to apply to public decision making

5. Liberalism- A concept where liberty for all is the main focus, equality gives everyone the right to happiness

Strengths: Includes everyone and does favor any beliefs, supposed to involve everyone from all backgrounds and beliefs, supports equality more than the others 

Weakness: Hard to have people with different views come together as one, one disagreement can alter everything 

Part 2:

Michael Sandel explained that there are few things that money cannot buy. He mentioned that many things in today’s world have price tags. He jokingly mentioned the London Eye being bought by Coca-Cola, which changed the sky from blue to red. He also stated that not everyone views money in the same way. Sandel expressed that money cannot change a jail sentence, but money could make that jail sentence easier to deal with. Money cannot buy friendship no matter how hard one tries. These types of things do not have a price tag. The video showed that a market economy is a tool for organizing productive activities, but a market society brings a price tag to pretty much everything. Market value invades every part of life including family, education, and many other attributes of life that should not have a price tag.

Part 3:

The objections that students and Sandel bring up are the exploitation of people who are struggling to make ends meet, which means that the free choice may no longer be a free choice. Another objection would be the inflation of the price that would come with the price of a kidney. This would make the process of getting a kidney easier for the rich and harder for the poor. There could also be a push to make a profit where corners are cut in the medical field causing medical issues. Another objection would be the threat of violence to make the choice no longer a free choice. Liberalism has been the philosophy that has been keeping this a closed market. This concept keeps this market fair for all. Deontology ethics would be a philosophy that would favor a free market in this situation. The action of bringing more kidneys into the market would be good for a deontology mindset. Utilitarianism would look at the consequences of making this decision, such as the inflation of kidneys and the loss of free choice. 

Part 4:

The definition of justice that resonates with my personal ethics would be John Rawl’s idea that justice is fairness. I believe that everyone should have the same opportunities no matter what background they are from, but I understand why some people feel like the playing field should not always be even. I understand this claim and agree with some of it, but I feel like everyone should have the same opportunity to be the next great basketball player as the video explained. Not everyone will become the best basketball player, which is where the playing field should not be even. If someone worked hard for their rewards in life, they should get to enjoy their rewards, but everyone should have an equal opportunity to receive the same awards they received.

Utilitarianism: A guiding principle that states actions are right if they are beneficial to the majority. The main problem with utilitarianism is that it often overlooks the minority that will suffer long-term consequences as a result of a change to the majority. 

Deontology: An ethical theory that uses rules to distinguish right from wrong, often taking into account what would happen in the future. The issue of Deontology is whether the demands of one action will contradict the previous actions made in order to solve a problem. For example, if you’re working to solve hunger and follow a strict set of rules until one of your rules starts to contradict the other.  

Virtue Ethics: This philosophy places the idea of virtue at the heart of morality. Defining good actions based on similarly good virtues like courage or nobility. The issue that arises with Virtue ethics is that an individual could be noble but also greedy and still be considered virtuous. Thus often overlooking the other virtues that compose a person. 

Liberalism: A social philosophy that promotes individual rights under one governing authority. The problem with this system is that it can fall apart extremely easily, if the individuals elect many governing officials that actually turn out to be corrupt then the system breaks. 

1) Sandel explains money can buy something as wild as a prison cell upgrade, the branding rights to an architectural icon like the London Eye, and military private contractors. These examples show how our society has become something called a market society, in which everything is up for sale this, in turn, invades every aspect of our lives.  

2) Sandel explains money can’t buy true friends and family that are devoted to you, social expressions like an apology, or a genuine expression like a wedding speech. 

3) A market economy is an economic system in which supply and demand drive economic decisions. This differs from a market society where political and social lives become dominated by the idea of economic decision, in other words, everything has a price. 

4) Sandel and his students' objections to buying and selling kidneys include people who might be exploited especially if they are desperately poor, the access to a kidney is locked behind a large paywall, and it’s simply not ethical to give people the decision to sell body parts. 

5) The concept most in line with Sandel and his student's objections to selling a kidney would be virtue ethics. My reasoning for this is that a lot of the student’s arguments on the topic seem to be guided by an idea of a sense of nobility in a person's actions. For example, one student said it wasn’t ethically acceptable to give people the decision to sell their body parts. So in other words the student argues that selling a body part isn’t something a person of virtue would do. 

6) The definition of justice that aligns with my own personal ethics would be the most contemporary one “A just society is one in which everyone fulfills their roles so that society runs smoothly”. I chose this definition as I lean more towards a utalirinism approach to ethics. The definition aligns with the fact I believe most in society should work for the greater good if they want to prosper.  

Pt 2 

Money can buy any friendship but it cannot buy a quality friendship. Sandel also mentioned how money can buy a more comfortable jail sentence but it cannot buy you out of going to jail. Market economy is a tool used for organizing productive activity while market societies relates to human endeavor, these relate directly to what money can and cannot buy respectively.

Pt 3

Some objections to the idea of a free market for kidneys are that it can be turned corrupt for money resulting in poor operations this directly relates to moral relativism because people who are trying to simply make money for themselves are not looking at the consequences that will take place if they sell an unsuitable kidney for another person. People can also be blackmailed to sell kidneys which encompasses a little bit of deontology because yes donating a kidney would be great for someone, however it is not always something that everyone wants to do. Another objection to the free market for kidneys is that people who struggle financially will want to sell their healthy kidneys not because they want to but because they have to to make ends meet. Utilitarianism can be seen a little in this objection because the lower class individuals are not as represented as the higher class whom do not need to sell their kidneys for money.  The last objection is that the accessibility for kidneys would be solely for those who can afford it rather than everyone being able to access them. Virtue ethics can be highlighted here as only certain people would be able to afford a kidney transplant while the rich continue to grow and take advantage of the opportunity in front of them. 

I believe that Need-Based Justice is the definition of justice that best aligns with my personal ethics. Need-based justice gives every person an equal opportunity to succeed, regardless of the circumstances they were born into which were out of their control. “Justice as equality” does not accomplish this because it ignores the fact that people with different income levels, races, genders, geographical locations, or disabilities will need different things to have equal chances at success. “Justice as merit” does not accomplish this either because it disregards that people who are born into different conditions will have different goals for their lives, so it is unfair to compare people based on what they do and do not “deserve.”

1.       Moral Relativism

a.       Is best defined as a personal preference which cannot be debated since it varies person to person. 

b.       Strength: respectful of different cultures and ways of life. Weakness: there’s no way to tell what is “right” and “wrong” if everyone has a different view. 

2.       Utilitarianism

a.       Is the greatest good for the greatest number of people and is interchangeable with consequentialism. 

b.       Strength: majority of people are happy. Weakness: systemic oppression and discrimination of minorities. 

3.       Deontology

a.       Is the idea that ethical value lies within an action and intent of the action itself rather than the consequences of the action. 

b.       Strength: very clear sense of right and wrong and places appropriate boundaries to human behavior. Weakness: lacks democratic decision making by relying on intuition. 

4.       Virtue Ethics

a.       Encompasses the thought that human nature is the fundamental good and that good actions are defined as ones that display virtuous character. 

b.       Strength: connects reason/logic and emotion. Weakness: difficult to employ on large scale since virtuous behavior looks different in every person. 

5.       Liberalism

a.       Is a commitment to liberty. 

b.       Strength: asserts equal opportunity for all, regardless of upbringing. Weakness: opportunity doesn’t guarantee success. 

Part 2

1.       Things you CAN buy are accommodations (an upgrade) for a jail cell in Santa Barbara. Also, Coca Cola has bought the rights to the London-Eye. 

2.       Money CAN’T buy friendship or intimate emotional relationships. Money also cannot buy abstract concepts like self-fulfillment. 

3.       Market economy is a tool for organizing productive activity whereas a market society is where everything is up for sale and market values infiltrate family life and personal relations. 

Part 3

1.       Objections to practices: poor people may be exploited by selling organs if they feel that it is their only way of generating income; accessibility to organs would be dependent on ability to pay for them; doctors (sellers of organs) would possibly cut corners or sell a non-compatible organ for the sake of making money; exploitation through blackmail and violence; selling one’s body is objectifying/instrumentalizing a body and its sexuality. 

2.       These objections are the epitome of utilitarianism and consequentialism. Although allowing the selling of organs would positively impact people of wealth since more people would donate organs and the wealthy would have the means to purchase them, many poor people would be exploited and not have the same access to healthcare as the wealthy. The idea of selling organs seems like it would positively impact most people, but it would have catastrophic consequences for marginalized communities and people living in poverty, hence a negative consequence. 

Part 4

I thinks needs-based justice resonates with me the most because I believe that people are unable to follow their personal goals and aspirations until their basic needs are met. I think everyone regardless of upbringing or physical/emotional/mental capabilities, everyone should have their needs met so they at least have the opportunity to succeed. 

A few examples that Sandel gives us of things that money can buy are: better jail cells in Santa Barbara, California. It even can buy control over the London Eye. Coca-Cola painted the ferris wheel in red colored lights for marketing. Lastly, he states that there were more paid soldiers in Afghanistan/Iraq than there were U.S. soldiers.

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

He states money CANNOT buy friends. If you want more friends, you can't BUY them. I hired friend cannot become a REAL friend. Also, you can't buy intimacy and emotional relationships. In the end, money can't buy happiness.

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

Market economy is a tool for organizing productive activity, but market societies are a place where almost everything is up for sale. It is where market thinking and market values increasingly infiltrate or come to invade every aspect of life (family life, personal relations, health, politics, law, etc.).

PART 3

-People of low income sell their organs just to make money to live off of. I feel as if it is fully immoral to do so but they may not have a choice. Only rich people can afford their organs. This means that they have a better chance of survival while the low income may not be able to afford the necessary organs to live.

- The first two objections focus on utilitarian ideologies and how inequalities are a reflection of them. the students did not consider the act of selling human body parts, rather the consequences that went along with doing so. The third objection reflect a deontological view of thinking. The students said that selling human body parts was immoral and wrong from the start, no matter the consequences.

PART 4

I believe that no matter one's social status, race, nationality, etc.,  that they should have an equal opportunity to live life in the most normal way possible. Just because someone has more money, doesn't mean they deserve to live more than one without it.

**CADEN YOREK** 

(Moral Relativism conveys the idea that there is no single morality follow, thus attempting to establish a single morality which everyone has to follow is wrong. The weaknesses of moral relativism are that it does't allow progress and can be seen as one step away from subjectivism. Whereas, the strengths are that it enables greater understanding of other cultures and flexible enough to allow other ethical theories to develop.)
2. Utilitarianism

(Utilitarianism is an idea that states that consequences are more important than the action itself, thus the favor of majority establishes the moral standard. The weakness of utilitarianism are that it can be inhuman in certain situations and tends to reduce ethics to interest preferences and democratic choices. On the other hand, the strengths are that it is easy to apply and highly compatible with individualism and economic reasoning.)
3. Deontology

(Deontology is an ethic's idea that places more emphases on the action itself rather than the consequences. The weakness of deontology are that it does not promote democratic decision making and difficult to include animals as morally considerable. Whereas, the strengths are that it places boundaries on human behavior and rejects cost benefit calculation and avoids the problem of unintended consequences.)
4. Virtue Ethics

(Virtue ethics is an idea that looks at the moral character of a person more closely rather than the action itself. The weaknesses of virtue ethics is that it is difficult to employ in public decision making and bias can be replaced by individuals, while the strengths are it begins at a basic level of reflection and builds a bridge between reason and emotions.
5. Liberalism
(Liberalism promotes the idea of freedom and acceptance of other perspectives of morals. The weakness of liberalism is that it is too broad. On the other hand, the strength is that it promotes equality among the society.)

Part 2
1. What are some examples that Sandel provides of things that money CAN buy?

(In our current society, majority of the things which surrounds us can be bought using money. For instance, prison cell upgrade can be made with the use of money and even large companies can purchase popular spots like Coca-Cola purchasing the London eye for marketing)
2. What are some examples of things that money CAN’T buy?

(Nonetheless, there are things that can't be bought with money such as friends. The reason is that as we utilize money on these things, their values decrease rather than increase.)

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

A market economy is a tool utilized for production of goods, whereas a market society is a way of life in which market values are deeply integrated into our human behaviors.

Part 3
1. Students and Sandel identify (at least) four objections to such a practice. List those objections.

( Example 1: Poor might be exploited to sell their kidney due to desperation of poverty.
Example 2: Access to kidney is based on the ability to pay.
Example 3: The incentive of profit might cause devastating health problems such as transferring a kidney that is not compatible with the patient.
Example 4: Even in an equal society, people would still be exploited through blackmail and threat.)

2. Connect these objections to the concepts from Chapter Two. Which concept/s seem to be most in play here?
(The concept of Deontology seems to have the most play in the examples above because most objections voice against the immoral act of exploiting people to sell their kidneys during a desperate times.)

Part 4
Which definitions of justice resonate with your personal ethics? Why?
I agree with the Need-Based Justice the most because in certain circumstances, people who are in a worse condition than me should take priority over me as it aligns with my values and is a moral decision from my perspective.

Adaptive problems are the challenges that are more challenging than the technical issues. These come about as progress is made, which can cause unforeseen challenges. Adaptive issues can even come about after a solution is put in place. For example, if a huge stadium was built for a professional sports team, the traffic in that area will exponentially increase. The people that live in this area would not want to deal with this every time there is an event. This would be an adaptive challenge. Another adaptive challenge would be the traffic caused by the new Mines rover. This might not have been anticipated in the design and must have a solution to make everyone happy. Teamwork is an emphasis in solving adaptive challenges, especially in the professional world. Many engineers go on to work as teams and need to know how to work with others. This could be listening to new ideas or directing a new project. These skills make a good engineer or scientist because they are easy to work with. People who are easy to work with tend to be the ones who move up in the hierarchy.  

Part 2:

I would personally not nuke the last of life remaining on Earth. I realize that in this situation I do not want to stay alone on Earth, but I cannot end all possibility of life for my selfish thinking. For people who say don’t nuke it, I would say they are thinking about the possibility of other living things getting destroyed like plants. They do not think it is right to take something away to make yourself happy in this situation. For the people who say nuke it, they could be thinking that they are the last person around, so they do not have to think about anyone’s opinion. This makes the choice easier when you only have to think about your morals and opinions. I think it would be that idea of being the only human being around to make someone do it. They are only affecting themselves in this situation. 

Part 3:

I learned that I valued nature even when humans are not receiving anything from nature. I believe humans cannot be one sided when it comes to nature because we would not be able to live without trees and other objects in nature. We rely heavily on nature, so humans should not be making decisions that wipe away nature. I fall more on the non anthropocentric mindset. I do believe that there are some places that humans should not live. Humans have had the reputation to ruin nature and run it to the ground at the point of no return. There should be some places where humans are not allowed to do this. I do not think there should be a large amount of these places, but they should exist. The charter for the US National Park system has the will to conserve nature that is not changed by humans. The charter for the US National Park system is mainly non anthropocentric, which makes sense because they support putting nature before human desires. 

Part 4:

I believe most humans will say they are more non anthropocentric, but they are actually anthropocentric. I would even put myself under this category, I described myself as non anthropocentric. I would like to be this way, but I still depend so much on nature, which I get from companies who use nature poorly. This goes into the Judeo-Christian view, which means that humans are above nature and can use nature as we please. I do not think this is one hundred percent correct because we should not use nature to the point where we have none left. There should be a point at which too much is too much. I do believe we can use nature to help our everyday lives, but to a certain extent. We should coexist with nature and other species. We should not abuse our relationship with nature. 

Part 5:

I plan on starting a family, which includes children and many generations. I do believe we have a responsibility to sustain nature for our future generations even when we are not directly related. We were all given the opportunity to view nature, so who is it to say we are not obligated to give the future generations the same opportunities. I think the view of not worrying about our future generations is selfish and not capable of sustaining life on Earth for the future. I think we should worry about a few generations down the line, or the most  we can worry about. We should worry about this by putting our needs and benefits aside to think about the future. Humans tend to be selfish to sustain their best life. I think we could put this mindset aside to better our lives and the lives of the future generations. 

Part 6:

In a sense all technology can be dangerous even the ones we use in our everyday lives. Computers and phones bring risk that may be low, but it still exists. Cars bring a lot of risks ranging from environmental risks to safety risks. I think this could be one of the most dangerous technologies that we use today. We are changing the environment rapidly and are still producing more and more cars. I think we have created a bad habit which is hard to break. We are trying to change too late. The precautionary principle explains that humans and nature should adapt when hazards are high. This is where I believe we are trying to adapt too late.

Part 7:

A cost-benefit analysis is a form of utilitarianism mindset, which means consequences are at question not the choices. A cost and benefit analysis can be used for  a vast variety of problems. It can be used for making a choice to go to college, which means we are looking at the benefits of going to college and the cost of going to college. Environmental issues are a bit more challenging to use the cost-benefit analysis. There is no fairness embedded in the decision making process of the cost-benefit analysis. Benefits may not always be in the favor of a non-anthropocentric value. This makes using the cost-benefit process difficult for environmental problems. 

Part 8:

I do not think this changes my view of having children, but it does change my mindset of how urgent this problem is. I do not think it would be just to say they cannot start families to save the environment, but I do think it is just to change our habits to cut down on the resources we use. I still believe change can come, but I think it has to come from everyone, not just a selective few.

Problems like animals in the road are adaptive issues because it is impossible to solve this issue as animals exist everywhere and cannot be controlled to such an extent. Some necessary skills would be to think about how to improve instead of always thinking about how to solve. Every factor should be included when thinking about addressing adaptive challenges. In order to be a good STEM worker, it is crucial that a person must be good at identifying problems and doing what they can to improve upon the situation.

Pt 2

While this scenario is a hard one to put myself into, I feel that even if I am the only person alive and don’t want to live anymore it doesn’t make it okay for me to kill off every other species of life with me. I feel like this relates to when, say, I have a bad day. I try not to go out of my way to make anyone else’s day bad. Same kind of concept applies here. Just because I, a human, cannot go one without human interaction, doesn’t mean I should kill myself and everyone along with me. I can understand, however, why some people say to just nuke it. It’s convenient and maybe it’s like a dream of theirs where they've always wanted to nuke something. Not everyone feels the same way about nature and if you're dead immediately then there’s no suffering, no thought, no guilt, it’s just over. Those are some reasons why people may just say nuke it. I feel that more people say to nuke it just because there are other living things on the planet, even if they aren’t humans and they should have a chance to live as well. 

Pt3

I feel that I am towards the non-anthropocentric side of the scale but still existing in the middle-ish area. While I believe that everything has value and is important, I still find myself thinking about how some things are more important to me because they provide me a service or direct help. People have a way with areas and once they are introduced to an area, it is ultimately destroyed unless extremely regulated, and even then forest fires still happen because of humans, littering, vandalism. Humans are destructive, it is in their nature. I feel that there are a lot of places where humans would never live. These include very secluded areas in sahara, the north and the south poles, and on some secluded islands. In the National Park system charter for the US, they have a lot of values pointed towards having members on the board be experienced and have special expertise in related fields to the environment. While this is the case, they also make it clear that they mean the best and do not want anyone questioning their decisions as a board. I feel there are a lot of contrasting ideas in the charter and it is unclear whether they are more for the non-anthropocentric side of the scale or vice versa. 

Pt4

I feel that humans should fit more in the ECO idea of the circle of life, but I know that most people do not think about it like that. The hard part is that humans can pretty much do whatever they want when they want, yes these actions have consequences, but they can still do the damage regardless. Poachers for example, yes, it is illegal, however people still do it. At the end of the day humans do take control of our environment, whether it’s right or wrong they do what they want with what they want. From a personal perspective I feel that we should exist without this difference in power as people often take advantage of the technology we have today. I grew up in a Judeo-Christian household and I feel that I have had a little on the way I thought about life and nature. Thankfully my parents were extremely into the outdoors and really appreciated nature for what it is. I think that some aspects of that view are understandable and some are not. I think that nature is a sacred thing whether it is made by God or not and it should be treated with respect. I do think we should change our relationship with the environment because like I said before, humans tend to take advantage of the privileges they have and use them with evil intentions. I think that humans and other species can coexist together without intentionally harming one another in the process with no reason behind. 

Pt 5

Personally I do not plan on having children, I have never felt the desire and I cannot see myself having them at any point in the future. That being said, I still feel like we have a duty to protect other people’s children. Something about the little humans with absolutely no knowledge but the potential for anything they want makes people put every child before themselves (most people). It is important for us to set up the children in the world for success, not only to help them live fulfilled lives, but also to keep our planet preserved for the future generations. I do think that people have a right to experience unspoiled nature. Our planet has so many amazing places and sights that give a lot of people purpose. I think that it is only fair that we leave what doesn’t need to be touched alone. Obviously these obligations and rights have limits due to the ever growing population of the world and the growth of infrastructure all over the word. It comes down to the point of whether we give these future generations a place to live, or a place to see. While this is not something that is ideal to think about, depending on how far into the future, it is very likely that that question will have to be answered. 

Pt 6

Some very dangerous technologies are often ones that provide the most benefit to us as humans. Like the windmill example, solar panels also do harm to the environment, taking up space in the desert and attracting birds and such. Straws are some of the most convenient things to use, however, when thrown away, they often harm the environment and all the living things involved. Another example is pesticides that are used to get bugs off of our veggies and fruits. These pesticides are harmful to us and animals alike. Without knowledge of the chemicals, either party could be affected. One version of the precautionary principle states that if something is not understood it should not be encouraged, while another says that only if there is insufficient information and data that says something might not be great should something be discouraged. The difference is that one is simple if you don’t understand, while another is that some evidence is needed to prove that something is not good. 

Pt 7 

Cost-benefit analysis can be used to address issues like the implementation of renewable energy resources. In this example, the cost of this is quite high, but the benefit is a more sustainable resource that is cleaner for the environment. The fairness of the decisions is not always taken into consideration due to the sole focus of how much and how it will affect us. In the environment, following the example provided, it is not fair for human’s to place things like wind turbines and solar panels in the homes of many animals in nature, but that doesn’t stop people from doing it. This directly relates to anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric because humans are not worried about how the decision impacts anything, but how it will be used to benefit themselves, or even something that would indirectly benefit them as well. The cost-benefit analysis of a problem thrives off of the anthropocentric value; as something is associated with a greater outcome, the cost is not as important to the decision, etc. 

Pt 8

The thought process for having children does not change much, but it almost solidifies my reasoning to not. While I have many personal reasons why I don’t want to, I do find the rapidly growing population a bit terrifying because with a growing population comes many complications with space, resources, and a monumental amount of waste. It is hard to want to put another human out into the world if I’m not sure that the world would be ready for them. 

·       What other problems/issues might be more “adaptive” than “technical”?

Adaptive problems require lifestyle or social changes such as pollution. To solve the issue, we need new regulations, environmentally friendly laws, and most of all: buy in from people. Everyone needs to do their part in reducing waste, which is a very difficult thing to achieve. This can also be said about the water crisis or the pandemic. Although a vaccine is a technical solution, it doesn’t work unless everyone utilizes it to prevent further spread of the virus. 

·       What skills are necessary to address adaptive challenges?

Some important skills are communication, delegation, and persuasiveness. Adaptive challenges require team efforts, and this can only be achieved if the team gets along and is willing to work together for the greater good. 

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

Skills that make a good engineer/scientist are critical thinking, problem-solving, and time-management. 

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

Hell no. If I want to kill myself THAT BADLY that I’m contemplating destroying the whole world, then I bet I’m determined enough to be able to succeed in killing myself in non-nuke related ways. My mental issues are no one’s problem but myself, so why would I make others pay for my misery? That’s such a selfish way to think. 

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

People value life and don’t believe 1 person’s misery warrants the end to other lives. One person’s burdens shouldn’t negatively impact others. 

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

I legit have no idea. Maybe because the death is quick and painless? But pain or suffering doesn’t change the ethical implications of the scenario. Killing someone painlessly isn’t much better than stabbing someone to death. 

·       Where do you fit on this scale?

I found that I am very non anthropocentric and find value in nature just because of its existence. I think that something can have value even if it doesn’t directly benefit humans. I hate the superiority complex that something isn’t valuable unless we can use it. Well, other species might be able to use it. I think that it’s useless to judge the value of something from a biased perspective. We only know what it’s like to be in the shoes of humans, so we don’t know the true value that a place/ecosystem/species may hold. 

·       Do you think there are places where humans should never live? (They visit but do not remain)

Yes. I think there should be a lot of places that humans should never live. We have already pretty much conquered the Earth, so we need to preserve whatever we can to preserve the beauty of nature and its intrinsic value. 

·       Look up the charter for the US National Park system. What Value(s) does it demonstrate?

The US National Park system values preservation of nature, which is a very non anthropocentric ideal. They strive to protect nature not for human benefit, but because it’s the ethical thing to do. 

·       Where do you think “humans fit”? Why?

I feel like humans belong with each other. We need each other to survive and flourish, and although we also need resources from our environment, we can interact with nature in a way that doesn’t negatively impact other living creatures – which sadly is very difficult. I think we belong WITH nature instead of on top of it or against it. 

·       Even if you do not consider yourself religious, do you think the Judeo-Christian view is correct?

No. The world was not created for us. We evolved to be able to inhabit the world. We are suited to withstand Earth’s conditions, so if anything, we should be contributing to the well-being of nature so that we can allow other species the opportunity of life like we were gifted. But instead, we are so incessant on controlling nature and people that we destroy everything in the path. 

·       If we are just “one species among many,” does that mean we should change our relationship with the environment?

Yes! Although humans should stick together and form close bonds with one another, we just still interact with nature and be WITH it instead of ALONGSIDE it. 

·       Do you plan on having children?

I plan on adopting children and potentially donating sperm to allow a single mom to have a child. 

·       Do we have obligations other people’s children?

We are obligated to look out for and advocating for the overall safety and well-being of other children, but since we have not made the commitment to care for them, we are not responsible for providing for them and meeting their needs. 

·       Do people have a right to experience nature?

We are a part of nature, so we are entitled to experience it. 

·       Are there limits to these obligations and rights?

Yes. Asking people to feel some sort of obligation to other children puts a lot of pressure on parents and may overwhelm them. It’s also impossible to protect someone’s right to see nature when that might infringe on someone’s right to live there or build something there. There’s a large grey area. 

·       What are the most dangerous technologies? Why?

The most dangerous technologies are ones that exploit people’s trust and loyalty. These technologies may cause consumers to blindly follow without question. 

·       Would these technologies also impact non-human nature?

Yes. If people blindly follow technologies, they may make decisions that ultimately affect the environment. Look at cigarettes. People got addicted and held trust in the companies that the smoke began to negatively impact the environment through pollution and by lung disease among people. 

·       Look up some of the different versions of the precautionary principle and discuss the differences.

Precautionary principle urges people to deny a risk if it seems too high with too little benefit. This can be used in a philosophical, economic, and engineering standpoint. Regardless of the scenario, the precautionary principle encompasses the idea of being safe instead of sorry. 

·       What sorts of issues can a cost-benefit analysis be used to address?

Cost-benefit analysis is rooted in the assumption that consumers will make the correct/ethical choice when that is not the case. People are stupid and won’t always do the right thing. This can lead companies to continuing malpractices without government regulation. 

·       What other issues of “fairness” seem embedded in environmental questions?

If people collectively want to ruin the environment, then they will use their money to pay for things that accomplish this. This isn’t right, and it isn’t fair, but it’s what the market decided. This is very dangerous in that big decisions are chosen on uneducated people. 

·       How are ideas about anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric value in play here?

Business decisions are guided by influence of public. Without regulation, it’s likely that people with wealth will use money to bribe companies to continuing processes that directly benefit them. This is anthropocentric in that the viewpoint is centered around nature’s resources being utilized solely to benefit humans. With government regulation, consumers have less say and don’t directly influence companies, and the environment is likely better protected, which is non anthropocentric. 

·       Revisit your answers about obligations to future generations. In light of population trends, does your thinking about having children change? Why?

No. I don’t want to bring new kids into this screwed up world. I would rather save someone from this terrible world. I know this is a controversial opinion, but I think it’s very unethical to have children for the sake of it, religious reasons or not. I think people should be very selective with having children. Over population and distribution of resources is already a huge issue and having more kids than necessary is just making things worse. 

Part 2)

Part 3)

Part 4)

Part 5)

Part 6)

Part 7)

Part 8)

(Other adaptive challenges would AI, artificial intelligence, because AI is more efficient than human, it fails to apply ethics in their actions.)

(I believe that critical thinking would be an important skill to address adaptive challenges because these issues forces us to look at the problems from multiple perspectives.)

(In order to be a good engineer, an individual first must be proficient in their technical skills. Furthermore, an engineer must be able to think critically and to work in a collaborative environment to solve the adaptive challenges.)

(I would not nuke it because although I am last person alive, there was still living organisms such as trees and animals.)

(I believe that the most common reasoning would be that the living organism that are currently alive would be able to experience evolution and become humans in the future.)

(I believe that for these specific people, their value is human-centered, thus they believe that it is ok to nuke since no human is alive.)

(I would say I am weak version of non-anthropocentric because although I believe that nature itself has its unique value, I tend to look everyday objects such as my phone and water bottle through an anthropocentric perspective.)

(Yes, I believe that unique natural sights should be preserved as it is.)

(The carter for the US National Park system places great emphasis on protecting and preserving the nature rather than its uses for sightseeing and tourism.)

(I would say humans fit between masters and stewards of nature because people have different view of nature, thus a clear classification can't be made.)

(I agree that we as humans control the nature to a certain extent, however I strongly disagree with the view that we are the masters of nature.)

(Not entirely because although we hurt the nature through our usage, we are still using nature to live just like other living organisms.)

(I do.)

(We do have an obligation to other people's children to a certain extent because we are obligated to preserve the nature for the future generation.)

(We have a right to experience nature because everyone has the right to enjoy life.)

(It depends on personal beliefs and viewpoints because some people might not worry about the future circumstances of their actions as much compared to other people.)

(The most dangerous technologies are our phones and computers because in our current society we became addicted to it and controlled by them to a certain extent.)

(Yes because as technologies get replaced by new versions, the old versions of technologies will become trash.)

(The difference is that some state to avoid risks at all cost while others state that a universally accepted rules and requirements need to be applied regardless of the risk.)

Part 7

(Cost-benefit analysis can only address issues related to supply and demand efficiently.)

( The environmental questions revolves around the idea of fairness as it always involves groups which could either benefit from its solution gets harmed by the solution.)

(The libertarian approach uses cost-benefit analysis when it comes to constructing a solution for environmental questions. Thus, the aspects of anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric value gets lost along the way.)

Part 8

(It does not change because with how much our current population uses resources, it is important to preserve the nature for the future generation to utilize.)

The graph that Dr. Hudson presented documented political polarization over the last few years in an interesting way. The first date started in 1994, which showed the country mixed between consistently liberal and republican. This meant the nation was not as divided as it is now. As the years went on, the graph showed the nation splitting apart. For about ten years, the nation shifted towards being more consistently liberal, but around 2004, the nation began to fully divide into consistently liberal and republican. As the years got closer to the present day, less people were a mix of the two parties and more remained strictly to one side. The trend has and will continue. There are more influences on people's decisions now. A huge influence is the media one takes in. I believe this is the reason why the nation has been more divided in recent years.

I do believe this makes presenting complex issues like climate control or COVID 19 challenging. Each side will have their own ideas about each topic, which contradict each other in most cases. As Dr. Hudson presented, it is scientists and engineers duty to successfully present these ideas to the public. In many cases there will be debate on the issues which may include some insults, but it is important to present a non biased claim even if you have a positintion in which you stand. The end goal is to get a solution that is the best choice for everyone, but it should also be agreed upon by most. As Dr. Hudson expressed, expertise is needed even when the general public does not agree. Decisions should be made from facts not opinions. The public should engage with the facts to decide their position.Engineers and scientists need to speak up about their knowledge before it is too late. The public needs to be on board with the engineers and scientists. 

I initially thought that it was immoral to take meat from the dog and eat it. I initially thought that it is wrong to eat a dead dog on the side of the road. If there is a collar on the dog, this is immoral because that is someone’s pet dog. My initial thoughts were based on intuition and no reasoning, which was clear once I started to think more about the situation. As I thought more about this problem, I began to feel like a hypocrite. I eat meat all the time, ranging from various animals. I have even tried some meat that would be considered exotic. I do not have the right to say this family was immoral for doing this. If it were to be a cow, many people would have to agree with their decision because many Americans eat beef. There is also the fact that no one knows this family’s background. They could be less fortunate and desperately need a meal, this would change the situation greatly. My initial judgment was mostly intuition with little reason. As I thought more about the situation (about a minute) , my judgment became more reason. I quickly began developing an impartial thought. However, if there was a collar on the dog and the family absolutely knew that this dog belonged to someone, then it is still immoral. This dog belongs to someone, which should be respected. 

I would put my tick mark closer to design because when designing or thinking about a design, the implementation is just as important and should be considered right away. Questions like: “How will this affect a certain area?”, or “How can we make this least destructive to the environment?”, are all important to answer before actually making the design. This is also important because if someone just makes a design right away it could get into the wrong hands and end up being used without even getting to the thinking of the implementation process. 

Pt 2

In 1994 most individuals found themselves to see both sides of the political spectrum, with the majority of people being in the middle. As the years go on, people begin to separate themselves from either side and less and less people are in the medium. This trend most definitely has continued as the media spews out fake news left and right to coerce Americans to choose a side. There is no option to be in the middle anymore as both sides make it seem like a ride or die situation. 

Pt 3

My first decision was that this was immoral. Reasons being that the family would be looking for the dog and if they never found the dog or knew what happened they would never have any closer. This is assuming the family had a very traditional American relationship with the dog where they thought of the dog more of a family member than an animal. Because it was the first thing that popped into my head, I do think that it was an impartial thought. I think that if it was my dog I would be very upset if my dog just vanished without a trace, and I would never want anyone to feel like that, but at the same time I don’t know the details of the situation and it could have been that families only source of food that day. 

As years progress, the political parties continue to become more and more divisive. I believe that this trend is continuing, now especially because of all the political tension due to COVID, social activism, and racial inequality issues. I think the division began mostly around 2007 with Facebook and other social networks rising. The “algorithms” that they use provide users personalized content based on their interaction with posts and search history. This algorithm may be convenient for users, but it only shows them one side to a story. I believe that this is the reason politics are becoming more and more divided. 

The act is immoral because the dog was not theirs to take, and their reasoning for taking the dog and eating it (because they heard that dog meat is delicious) isn’t enough to justify the action. I think my reason is rooted in intuition as well as reason. I intuitively know that eating dogs is not socially acceptable since they are viewed as lovable pets that are a part of a family, and I know reasonably that stealing isn’t ethical, so collectively, the act is immoral. 

2) In regard to political polarization, I think that this is happening because people are now seeing the Democratic and Republican parties as two separate “teams.” Instead of choosing their political party based on their values, people are choosing their values based on their political party. We can see an example of this happening in media with CNN and Fox News, the 2 most popular news channels; CNN is seen as “the Democratic” channel and Fox News is seen as “The Republican” channel. This trend has continued into 2021, as shown by the hostility between Democrats and Republicans in the recent 2020 presidential election.

3) Both intuitively and logically, I think that it is morally wrong for them to eat the dog. This is because the neighbors who owned the dog would technically still have ownership of the dog after it dies, so it is theft for the family to eat it. If the neighbors wanted to eat their own dog after it died, that would be ethical, but it is not ethical to eat someone else’s dog.

Justice is a concept where actions receive a fair judgment to which they deserve. In my opinion, the most important phrase in the definition above is fair judgment. Justice can come in many ways, which is different to the understanding of the vast public. This means that justice does not always involve a court case and trial. I believe justice goes further than this. As Dr. Woodson explained, justice can be seen throughout daily life. Justice can be getting a good grade on an exam because you studied. This is a fair result to this action; however, it does not always play out like this. Some actions do not receive the result that they deserve. For example, if you were to fail an exam that you studied hard for, the result is not just, but it is still a possibility.

Our society has an underlying base which tries to be just, but the people in our society go against this making our society unjust. There are many instances where people’s actions receive an unfair result because not everyone believes in the same definition of justice. Some people have a Nozick mindset, which means treating people exactly the same. This ignores all previous circumstances and is ignorant in my opinion. Many Americans strongly believe people growing up in America are given the same opportunities. This is simply incorrect and unjust. It would be unjust to live life thinking everyone in America has the same opportunities. This makes our society divided and unjust. I do believe there have been efforts to change this, but there is a long way to go.

As stated above, injustice would be when actions do not receive a fair judgment or result. Someone should not be punished through injustice, even though this happens all the time in America. This can happen in many different ways- injustice can happen through education, race, and countless others. Justice would be making sure everyone has the same opportunities and everyone is treated fairly and equal. 

Part 2)

I do believe bias played a factor in this simulation, but I think bias will almost always be a factor in a situation like this. Bias in this situation could be as innocent as cats versus dogs. Bias would influence someone to pick a dog before a cat, or vice versa. Bias can also have a larger impact on a situation; for example, racial equality has been a recent problem where biasness played an important factor. 

In the case studies we examined, biased thought made engineering designs fail. The first case presented failed to dispense soap to different people. The reason this happened was because the dispenser would not detect darker skin. There could have been bias to the engineer designing this design. This bias could be due to the fact that the engineer could have lighter skin and did not think about other people’s situation. This bias was more than likely innocent, but it was still looked over. The biases that occurred in the second example are due to the details overlooked by engineers. There should have been someone in the design process of this function that reminded everyone that people look different in many ways. The bias could have branched from engineers not taking a second to think about other situations. The first two engineering and design failures could have been prevented if the designers looked at different people’s situations. The last situation listed a few examples of designs that were “made for everyone”, but in reality, they were only suitable for men. From injuries in a car crash to police gear, some designs make life for women harder instead of easier. This bias is similar to the two articles above. Not everyone was thought about in the design process which resulted in a product that did not suit everyone. This could have been prevented if different types of people were accounted for in the planning process of design. 

Part 3)

Which of these iterations of racism are about feelings? Which are about action? What is racism? What defines the philosophy of antiracism?

I unknowingly briefly mentioned this in the discussion about just and unjust actions. There are many iterations of racism, which may not be well known in America. Many people believe that you are either racist or not racist. This is not totally true, because one can claim they are not racists, but unknowingly take part in structural racism. I would classify structural and institutional racism as action based racism. This happens as a result of the actions people choose to carry out. This affects education and other different things that have to do with race. This would leave individual and interpersonal racism as feeling based racism. This is the category that I believe divides this nation. Feelings are taught at a young age and will carry on for generations unless stopped. Racism is the idea of supporting the inequality of human life because of race. Racism is supporting laws and policies that separate people of different backgrounds and race from the rest of the public. An antiracist would be supporting the idea of abolishing these normalizations. It is not good enough to not be racist. People must be anti racist for this problem to be solved. They must believe in the process of being antiracist. 

Concluding Part)

I come from a family of diverse race and ethnicity. I have grown up through many different cultures and have been able to see the beauty behind diversity. I know there is diversity at Mines, which requires an open mind from all and the willingness to learn about new backgrounds. This is both a person and an institution issue. One person cannot do it themselves. There will be bias and racism just like what is mentioned above, but people must stick together under the same belief to overcome those select few. It is important for students to know that they are not alone and have classmates that will back them through difficult times. All students need to have the mindset of wanting to collaborate with different people and beliefs. This is relevant to the years after Mines. Companies will hire different people that are best suited for the job. The same mindset of learning from others is needed to be a successful engineer. 

 

 

Part 3 

Part 4 

I see justice as a way of fixing immoral actions. This can be done through legal or social action. 

It’s difficult to imagine the truly just aspects of society. Everything is subjective. Most people have free will, but their choices are influenced by predetermined factors like socioeconomic status or societal pressures. There’s systemic oppression, racism, classism, elitism. If innocent people are suffering, we cannot live in a just society. 

Justice encompasses people participating in moral actions while those who do not act morally face restorative consequences that make amends to the wrong. Injustice encompasses ethical people facing wrongful suffering while the immoral can push negativity into the world without being checked. 

Any bias that I had was likely due to moral self-preservation. I didn’t feel right picking the wrong option, and I didn’t view any option as “moral,” so I chose without thinking, mostly at random, to ease my conscience. 

The biases demonstrated in the articles all boil down to lack of user empathy while conducting research of technical designs. These technologies are unable to accurately recognize black people or women because these groups of people had little to no representation during the testing stages. This indicates that the engineers didn’t do a good job at reaching out to the community to see who would be affected by the design. These issues can be avoided by engineers taking more time to conduct surveys, hold interviews, and bring in guests during the design process to better understand stakeholder needs. 

Individual and interpersonal racism are smaller scale and are rooted in emotion. Institutional and structural racism are larger scale and rooted in action. Racism is prejudice towards people based on their race or skin color which can have positive or negative assumptions. Anti-racism is defined by action against racism by making choice to mitigate the spread of hateful thinking. Being “not racist” is different than being anti-racist in that “not racist” is a neutral stance that takes on a tone of complacence and lack of willingness to spark change. 

To stop racist and biased behavior here on campus, we must hold each other accountable for inappropriate behavior and word choice. At the same time, we must be open to new thinking and be receptive to opposing points of view. We should at least hear people out before we respond. Listening should be a priority over response. This open-minded behavior can mitigate racist behavior and make Mines a more inclusive place. I would say this is more of an individual issue, but one could argue that it is an institutional issue in that students shouldn’t be expected to have these civil discourse skills automatically and need practice and guidance to develop them. These stories shared about racism on campus demonstrate the continuity of institutional racism due to lack of activism and accountability. 

Justice is the implementation of the rights of a group of people. Our society is just in the ways of what we want. People want our country to be just and the intention is there. The unjustness in our society is the fact that not everyone has the same opportunities even though that is the idea of the american dream. I think that justice is the unbiased judgment of the violation of a human’s right. The idea of unbiased judgment is the basis of all great justice, while injustice follows the idea of bias and prejudice.

Pt 2

Bias absolutely played a part in my decisions for the moral machine and it was the only way that I could make a decision that had some back to it. Otherwise, without bias I would have just been letting some people live and some people die without any reason. Bias lets people make hard decisions without as much guilt. 

A lot of bias is that the only people that will be using the products made are white men. The testing portion of the engineering process has only accounted for one type of human, instead of making the product inclusive. This makes engineers seem lazy and not inclusive. These problems could simply be avoided by running more tests that include a wide variety of possible users. There should be no reason why an individual with darker skin is not able to get soap from a soap dispenser. 

Pt 3

Individual racism is about how a person perceives individuals who are different than they are and they feel that they are better or superior because of this. Structural racism and interpersonal racism puts action to a person’s opinion with one actively giving advantages to those who are white in a system or institution and the other actively degrading another person through words and slang. Racism is the unequal treatment of a person based on their appearance, nationality, or other information that sets them apart from a white individual. Antiracism is the idea that those who are antiracist are actively against and unsupportive of those who are indeed racist. Antiracism and a person being not racist are not the same thing at all as someone who is not racist is often identified as being a racist. The act of simply not being racist is not something that is a viable option in the severity of the subject. 

pt4

In an institution that does not have great diversity, I feel that I have an obligation to stand up for my fellow orediggers and support them in any way possible using the privilege that I have to my advantage as well as theirs. I think that there are a lot of issues institutionally clearly by just looking at the rosters of our athletic teams. This is also a personal issue as I have talked to people that have experienced racism right on campus. Therefore this is both a personal issue as well as an institutional issue. I feel that if the institution gets better at creating a safe space of equal opportunity for all, it will encourage those who have bias to think differently and act differently. The stories described create a realization that racism is found everywhere and most people just choose not to acknowledge that it exists.

1) There are two ways to define justice: (a) Rawls’ definition, which states that everyone should have equal opportunities to succeed, and (b) Nozik’s definition, which states that everyone should be treated exactly the same regardless of their situation.

2) I think that currently, our society is moving away from Nozik’s definition of justice and towards Rawls’ definition of justice. Especially with the recent Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 and the “tax the rich” movement, people are noticing the inequalities of opportunity in our society and trying to fix them.

3) I do agree with Rawls’ definition; I think that justice looks like everyone having a fair chance to succeed. In order to do this, we need to look at the factors which can involve inequalities (socioeconomic class, race, gender, sexual orientation, disabilities, etc.) and vote for policies that put everyone on the same playing field.

Part 2:

1) Yes, bias probably played some role in my decisions even though I wanted to avoid it. For example, if there was nothing else to judge off of, I usually favored the younger people over the older people for no particular reason. This is biased on my part because if I was older instead of younger, I might have made decisions the other way around. 

2) The first two articles involve implicit bias. The side effects of these technologies were not intended, but rather a result of inadequate testing. The soap dispenser could have been tested on a broader range of skin tones, and the image recognition software could have been given a more appropriate set of training data. However, the third article seems to be more explicit than implicit bias to me, since especially in the workplace there has historically been lots of discrimination against women. 

Part 3) 

1) Internalized racism is based on the feelings of individuals, while interpersonal, institutional, and structural racism all arise from racist actions between individuals. “Racism” as a philosophy means to believe that race is a legitimate criteria on which to treat people differently. To be antiracist, you need to be more than simply “not racist”; you must actively seek out cases of racism (small-scale or large-scale) and work to address them.

2) In the Instagram account we can see both small-scale and large-scale racism. In terms of small-scale, there are several posts documenting people saying racial slurs, and in terms of large-scale, a couple of the posts called out the curriculum of some Mines courses for not being inclusive enough. As students, we have a responsibility to combat both these types of racism. For small-scale, we can call out racist behavior when we see it on the personal level, and for large-scale, we can join organizations or movements aimed at making bigger changes.

This is not a good thing for the surrounding environment. As the population grows exponentially, the effects from humans on the environment is clearer than what it was in the past. Humans are using the environment at a rate that is faster than what it takes for the environment to replenish. Human use of the environment needs to be altered to ensure that nature will still be around in the next decades. At this point, human control over the environment is inevitable, but there needs to be change to how much control humans can have over the environment. Wildfires and droughts are ways of communication from the environment. Humans are going too fast and too far, which creates a situation where the environment cannot keep up with the demands from human life. If human control over the environment does not change, the environment will respond in ways that will hurt human life through famines, droughts, and nature disasters. 

Part 2) I favor more of a preservation approach for interaction between humans and the environment. This is opposite of what I had originally thought I was before going through this lecture. Most civil engineers tend to think more like a conservationist, which is what Dr. Horan explained in his lecture. A conservationist would be in favor of building dams and water control to flood an area in order to maintain water supply for the public. A preservationist would use the surrounding environment to better both human life and the environment. A dam may not always be the best choice for the environment. However, I have learned from most of my civil engineering classes that people who are against dams do not always think about the pros of having a dam. This is true, but it is also true that civil engineers do not always think about the cons of having a dam in this type of setting. I believe we should do everything in our power to live with the environment and not depend on the environment to live healthy lives. This might go against what a civil engineer should think like, but the past is a good representation of how a mindset like that will affect the environment. The environment around us is diminishing relatively quickly, which means change is bound to happen if humans want to keep living on the same resources.

Part 3) There are different ways in which different communities use the surrounding environment differently; therefore, setting some laws and regulations may cause some communities to flourish while other communities struggle. This is why it is important to balance the positive and negative interactions between humans and the environment. This is a big challenge because many communities see the environment in different ways. As stated above, some humans want to preserve nature, but some see the resources from nature as free to use by humans. This causes the distribution of nature to be uneven throughout each community. An example of this would be the armed forces being called into Yellowstone National park to prevent the poaching of animals in the area. This ended up protecting some species, but it also hurt the native people in the area causing some communities to praise the action of the government and leaving some to argue. This is a prime example of why balancing the positive and negative interactions between humans and the environment is so important. This will take a lot of communication and compromise to create a solution that benefits everyone. For example, this may involve giving up some land to ensure the surrounding environment is protected for future generations. I do not think the actions of kicking people out of an area was the correct way of handling this situation. It was not a balanced way of looking at interactions between humans and the environment. One community benefited more than the others. A balance must occur to ensure justice for the environment. 

Land of Cockaigne: mythical land of equality with endless supply of food that causes residents to be lazy, spending all day indulging themselves. 

Biological Old Regime: inverse of Land of Cockaigne; extreme inequality with very few people able to escape poverty while the majority don’t have necessities met and struggle to find food, likely committing crimes to get their basic survival needs met. 

Anthropocene: a new era of human development where humans are in control of Earth’s resources to improve quality of life but changing Earth’s climate. 

Reflect: Is human control over the environment likely to be a lasting feature of our existence, or a brief exception? 

I think it’s human nature to want to control our environment, whether that be our physical, social, or emotional environment. I think human control over the environment is a lasting feature of our existence and things will only get worse as we uncover new discoveries that “warrant” further use of our natural resources. 

Hetch Hetchy: a natural place of beauty in California taken control by the federal government to protect for public use and recreation 

Conservationism: protecting an area to maintain its natural beauty, but this concept holds human interest at top priority

Eco-Modernism: scientists and engineers can use their influence to make a positive impact 

Forest Death: people worked to carefully protect a forest in Germany but favored specific trees that benefited humans, so this decreased biodiversity and resulted in the decline of the forest. 

Preservationism: acknowledges intrinsic value of nature; humans are visitors to nature that do not remain nor interfere. 

Island Effect: ecosystems with smaller, more vulnerable organisms suffer when surrounded by manmade structures 

Half Earth: ecosystems are to be set aside away from human intervention to assure it isn’t harmed 

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

I favor a preservationist approach because conservationism is self-centered and isn’t beneficial to the environment if it’s only being conserved to support human development. Preservationism acknowledges that humans will prioritize their own safety and comfort over the prosperity of nature, so humans would benefit nature by dissociating from it. 

Hide Hunters: killed bison and held profit to a priority over sustainability

Environmental Justice: addresses how people’s interactions with the environment impacts other groups of people. 

Slow Violence: consequences of unequal interactions with environment between groups of people; happens slowly over time

Fortress Conservation: using military force to prevent hunting/poaching in a sanctioned area

Reflect: What are the best means of ensuring environmental justice for all human communities?

We need more advocates for people living in marginalized communities and people to hold careless corporations accountable. We need to get rid of loopholes that allow businesses to get away with excessive emissions and store waste in areas that harm impoverished areas with people whose safety and wellness is already at risk. Lastly, we need to raise awareness about environmental issues and speak for those that can’t speak for themselves. 

Part 3 

A valley and reservoir in California which was overtaken by the government in 1913. Once a beautiful valley, it became dammed up and now filled with water.

The idea of protecting an area due to its natural resources and beauty. One who believes in conserving things that come from nature(resources, etc.)

Humans should protect nature at all costs and improve human wellness by developing technology.

Forests suddenly dying off and the diversity of the trees declined due to natural occurrences.

One who believes in preserving an area due to its beauty, resources, and thinks visitors should not be allowed to visit. The idea that it should stay untouched.

Members of an ecosystem become smaller or bigger depending on what surrounds it.

Idea of preserving nature by keeping certain areas of the world safe from humans. This will allow nature to do its thing without humans in the picture.

Part 3

People hunting bison to capture their hides for money. They would sell them in markets. This created a rapid decline in the bison population.

The fair treatment of all people regardless of race, gender, etc. with the respect to environmental issues and topics.

Slowing growing over time, this is the consequences of unequal interaction in the environment between groups of people.

Banning hunting and carrying out the ban by using force to prevent any type of animal killing.

***CADEN YOREK***

I believe that in the grand scheme of things our control over nature is brief because we will either fail and our society will disappear or we will learn and give up control and live in a more balanced state. It will be a balance between our need to fight for all of our resources like in the Biological Old Regime and our desire to reach such resources similar to that of the Land of Cockaigne. We want to reach this level of utopia but even after we have captured much of earth’s power in the Anthropocene we have discovered that it is unsustainable.

Pt2.

I favor preservationism because I believe that nature has more value than just what we are able to use it for. As opposed to Conservationism which can be good but still have negative outside effects on the environment. The primary difference between these two is how they are valued, in preservationism nature itself is valued but in conservationism, it is nature’s use to humankind that is valued. As such it can be justified to destroy the most beautiful places such as Hetch Hetchy and Glen Canyon. Some people see this as a travesty and some others see this as a good approach to eco-modernism because we are artificially modifying to deceased the effects of natural disasters. This creates a more controlled and safer environment for humans to live in. But how can natural elements thrive in a world like this, there are at least two ways to think about this which are preservationism and conservationism. If we use conservationism we only need to look back as far as the old German forests to see the consequences. Because this mindset values human use on nature we could end up destroying the environment. Because we are favoring certain species that humans can use over the ones the humans can’t which results in a Forest Death scenario. Inversely if we use preservationist ideas it would create an island effect which is creating a micro world for animals to live in. This obviously is not ideal because most animals depend on large migration routes which if we were to evade these area’s creates the Half-Earth idea. Where we can use half of the earth to set aside just for animals to live unaffected.

Pt3.

I believe that the best way to achieve environmental justice is to minimize our impacts as much as possible and only take what we need to be happy no more no less. This belief is at extreme odds with the hide hunters who were people that harvested as many buffalo hides as possible to generate income. This contrast between beliefs shows the concept of slow violence that shows the consequences of vastly different values of the environment. These consequences, however, are not always initially evident and take time to show up or have a noticeable effect. These are particularly devastating for the lower side of these effects. This can be limited by fortress conservation which would put up walls around dangerous areas. This could also create an island effect for example when the U.S. Calvary guarded Yellowstone they also blocked the native population from entering Yellowstone creating population imbalances.

-Land of Cockaigne: Mythical world that was created in the middle ages and used over and over, century after century: had easily accessible foods, no work, everyone was equal and lazy, no conflict, perpetual peace

- Biological Old Regime: The opposite of the conditions of the land of cockaigne, how the vast majority of people live, food hard to find, people separated and classed, hard to survive through famine, constant back breaking labor in order to live

Anthropocene: New term for the biological old regime, how humans have captured new forms of basic resources, taken control of nature for personal benefit, domesticated animals and plants to give humans control, a recent development in relation to the old regime

I feel that human control over the environment will be a brief exception. One of two things are bound to happen, the resources of earth will be used up and there will be no more environment to manipulate, or other animals will begin to take over. For example: The Planet of the Apes. The way we live now as humans may be fine for now and for hundreds of years after us, but eventually our resources will run dry and we will overpopulate the earth. 

Pt2

-Hetch Hetchy: A valley in northern california, was a beautiful tourist destination, area was then held for public use, recreational use, and other touristy things, conservation act, valley provided water to burnt down city for human interest

-Conservationism: The preservation of an area for human recreational use to prohibit other harmful activities or “destruction”, human interest is the highest priority

-Eco-Modernism: Science and engineering can help to create positives for the environment, the Anthropocene produces an unnatural world

-Forest Death: Forests were conserved but only the species that humans could use, conservation failed to protect the forests, large scale intervention produces consequences

-Preservationism: An area where the earth is not destructed by humans, humans may visit but cannot stay

-Island Effect- Island ecosystems have smaller organisms and areas, the natural areas left in the main chunk of the us are small, just like on islands

-Half Earth- logic of preservationist, significant portion of the planet needs to be set aside to preserve nature, eliminating human impact in key areas of the natural world, only way to protect ecosystems , half of the planet could be saved

I favor preservation as opposed to conservation due to the fact that we have already used up an enormous amount of the resources on earth and have altered some amazing natural scenery. To preserve rather than conserve is to avoid leaving the land to human benefit. Hetch Hetchy Valley should still be a site to see today. 

Pt3

-Hide Hunters: Group that obtained bison hides to sell to the markets and aided in the near extinction of bison in the 1800s. Military encouraged hide hunters to degrade and destroy Native American way of life.

-Environmental Justice: Interactions with nature impacts different groups in different ways depending on how they are distributing the resources

-Slow Violence: The negative consequences of unequal environmental relationships, devastating to communities over time

-Fortress Conservation: The creation of barriers that limit human interactions with at risk environments

Humans have had a very negative impact on the environment, not only affecting the animals and plants, but other humans that use the environment differently. The best means of ensuring environmental justice is to think before you act and realize what you do with the environment will impact hundreds of different species. The preservation of land is a great starting point, but keeping it all equal for everyone is hard. I think the best way to prevent this from happening is to take out the greed in individual companies who take more than they need. And by doing this they take from others. 

Part 2:
I prefer a conservationist approach over a preservationist approach. I think that as humans develop more technologies, it is simply inevitable that we will gain more and more control over the environment. However, I do not agree with the way that conservatism was applied in the Hetch Hetchy case. I think we need to recognize that sometimes, to solve problems that involve the environment we actually need to focus on humans instead; specifically, the unsustainable expansion of our communities. We need to scale back on our expansion if we want to build a sustainable relationship with nature. Otherwise, it will be impossible.

Part 3:
I think that when we look at problems involving environmental justice, they are usually caused by large-scale movements or initiatives being applied to places with small-scale natural processes. So I think that we should regulate environmental policies on the small-scale rather than the large-scale. That way, local communities can continue to use nature in the ways that are best for them, and if they use nature in a self-contained way, they will not be harming other local communities. This approach is unique I think, because it is not strictly conservationism or preservationism; it is something new altogether.

(I prefer the preservationist approach more because conservationist approach tends to place human enjoyment above the protection of natural resources, thus it does not completely protect the nature from being used up by humans. Also, as nature require diversity to continue to exist, preservationist approach is the best choice because it attempts to leave the environment as it is without any changes. Nonetheless, we still faces the issue of nature extinction, but I believe that we can find a solution if we try to look for one in the future.)

Part 3:
What are the best means of ensuring environmental justice for all human communities?
(I believe that in order to ensure environmental justice for all human communities, it is important to look at how different group of people uses natural resources without exhausting it before making it exclusive. It is because sometimes the act of making a natural resource exclusive can be harmful as these resources will become unaccessible for the indigenous groups who have been using it for centuries.)

Part 2) Realistically, I would definitely cover for him. If I reported him to the authorities, that would damage my own life in ways I would want to avoid; our family might be fined, and my relationship with my father would be hurt. Under Deontology and Utilitarianism, I don’t think this would be justifiable, but under Confucianism, it would be.

Part 6) Confucianism is different from Deontology/Utilitarianism in that it justifies treating people differently based on their relation to you. It asks you to value those who are close to you (family, friends) above strangers. It is also different in that it treats morality as a process of learning. Whereas Deontology and Utilitarianism imply that you can start making moral decisions immediately, Confucianism understands that it will take a lengthy process of observation, reflection, and practice to become a “junzi.”

Part 2) I would cover for my father after finding out he had taken the sheep because I have been taught to listen and not go against my parents. My family and people in my community have this same view on this situation because we have all learned from church that one shall not disobey their parents; however, in this situation I would quickly try to get a better understanding of the situation. I would ask my father his reasoning for taking the sheep and ask him who he thinks he hurt carrying out the act. He could have a justified reason for taking the sheep. I would not simply cover for him and let life go on as normal. After getting a better understanding of the situation, I would hopefully try to reason with my father to make sure he was making the right decision. I would also make sure to keep the people affected by his decision in mind and not let the family relationship block this. They have the right to justice even if it is my own father.

Part 3) Confucian ethics is different from consequentialism and deontology because of two main pillars that Confucian ethics stands on- context and relationships can justify treating some differently. Confucian ethics promotes the idea of taking care of the ones close to us. For example, the relationships we have with our parents will cause us to treat our parents differently compared to our coworkers. Dr. Zhu presented the idea that people talk to their parents differently than how they would talk to coworkers because people have different responsibilities in different relationships. It was also interesting to hear Dr. Zhu compares his daughter to his students. This created a perfect representation of the differences between Confucian ethics and the idea of treating everyone as equals. Love and care have different distinctions based on relationships. As Dr. Zhu stated, the difference in love and care does not mean strangers do not matter, it means that some matter more than others like family. Context of the situation can also create an instance where people are not treated as equals. The sheep example could be a good representation of this. If my father took the sheep because he witnessed them being mistreated, then my father could be justified in a way. All of this can result in a situation that is not supported by consequentialism and deontology. 

Deontology and Consequentialism both want to benefit the majority. So when treating oneself, both ideologies say you should be treating yourself in a way that helps others as well. To those you love and to strangers, you are treating them in a way that is beneficial to others. Both of these ideologies are not based on who the person is to you, but who the person is to society. Therefore it doesn’t matter if the person is someone you love or simply a stranger. The difference is the way you do this. In deontology, you are treating people with broad principles that benefit society in a semi-prejudice manner, while consequentialism is what exactly makes the greatest number of people benefit with the idea of consequences in mind. 

Pt 2

If this happened to me I would try to cover for my father, no matter what because he is my family and I think that the reason he would be stealing the sheep would be to feed his family or maybe get some wool to make a blanket or something useful. It’s not right that he just took the sheep but I feel like I would simply trust what my dad does and support him. If it was some other person outside of my family and friends, I don’t think I would be so inclined to cover for them.

Pt 6

Confucian ethics follows the guidelines of an individual’s values and beliefs. Making decisions in line with Confucian ethics depends on the person and who they find valuable and how they want to benefit themselves and the people they care about, whereas consequentialism and deontology are more focused on the community or the majority. Confucian ethics depends on each individual person whereas the other 2 ideologies would be constant for each person as long as the majority benefits the same. 

In Trump’s rally, there are a lot of ironic and sarcastic comments made in order to degrade and create an unjust image of his opponent. This supports the argument that Trump thinks that Joe Biden is completely unfit for the position and makes the democratic party look “silly” in front of the audience he’s presenting to. The style for both of these are pretty informal with the Biden rally being more informal than the Trump rally. This is seen with the emphasis on creating a relatable platform for the democratic party to appease the people. 

2. 

The Trump rally is geared towards the middle class, the farmers, the manual laborers, the well off, and overall patriotic people. Trump expresses his concerns with the democratic endeavors and relates it directly to taxes which none of these people want to pay for. He includes direct jabs at Joe Biden, calling him “Sleepy Joe” for humorous effect. The audience enjoys this because they are such hard core Trump fans. This rally includes a lot more background noise and most Trump rallies I’ve seen include the fans in the back with all of their MAGA gear and american flag themed apparel. In the Biden rally, the first part of it entails working women that create relatable or empathizing stories to create a sense or urgency and passion associated with the election of the next president. The speakers convey a solemn and stern message to the crowd of also middle class, but more so everyday working class citizens and the rich. This tone sets the mood to help increase the urgency and create the sense of hatred for Trump and what he stands for. In the rally they straight up say that Trump has ruined our country since he’s been in office. The theme I saw was the most prominent throughout the rally was the idea of unity. The democratic party wants to instill the idea of unity into everyone’s brain because it appeals to the majority. The idea of everyone working together to fight for the greater good makes people feel good about themselves and persuades them to lean more towards Biden.

3.

In the Trump rally, he is trying to elicit excitement for the traditional American beliefs as well as throw in some fear with the word “socialism.” Trump’s rally overall carried a calm, cool, and collected aura that he was trying to instill across the audience while trying to appeal to them. The Biden rally provided an almost sad and eerie vibe that created urgency as well. The words and tone of voice created the feeling of anger and resentment towards the Trump administration. 

Deontology is focused on the action itself, whereas consequentialism is focused on the outcome of the action. These philosophies are similar in that others are treated equally and held to the same degree, loved one or stranger.  Both are valid, and people treat themselves differently due to the different values that each of these philosophies hold. 

I would first consider the reasons why he did it. I would also consider his track record: has he done this before? Next, I would evaluate the people he’s affecting in doing so. Obviously, each situation is different from the next, but without given more information, I would likely cover for him because I trust my dad and would like to think that he did it for a good reason. I would see it as betrayal if I told on him without hearing him out. 

Confucian ethics seems much more flexible than consequentialism and deontology. Yes, there are obviously ethical and unethical actions, but relationships and circumstances are considered when evaluating them. Confucian ethics emphasizes observation and empathy. One must understand how the world works and why people act the way they do before an action is judged properly. 

2.) President Trump’s audience consists more of argumentative Americans. This audience wants to get things done as soon as possible as long as they think America is benefiting. This can be seen at President Trump’s rally though all of the merch that the crowd was wearing. The crowd was more outspoken and cared about being heard through cheers and applause. This rally seemed more like a sporting event instead of a presidential rally. President Trump was well aware of his audience; President Trump would flow with the audience. He started to attack President Biden more as the crowd got more into it. President Biden’s audience consisted of more Americans who were more aware of the ongoing issues in America. Most of his audience had higher education, which can be seen in his style of arguments. President Biden used a more technical and formal argument. With this, President Biden attacked President Trump with logical examples. 

3.) President Trump was more aggressive than President Biden. One could tell that President Trump was trying to provoke President Biden by using terms like “sleepy Joe”. President Trump fed off of his audience’s reaction and kept attacking the Biden party. There was even a promotion video presented at the Trump Rally. This attacked President Biden in many ways. President Biden was trying to argue President Trump with factual evidence. The nation knows that President Trump is known for going against statements backed by research unless it supports his claims. President Biden used this in his argument by stating statistics that occurred during President Trump’s term. President Biden was trying to call out President Trump with statistics. 

·       Patriotic music at beginning to appeal to nationalist population

·       Use of “we” to include audience and make them feel important and valued

·       Parallel structure of sentences with rhythm of short, choppy phrases

·       Statistical fallacy, misrepresentation of COVID trends

·       Stacking the deck

·       Opinion masquerading as fact

·       Circular reasoning, Ad Ignorantiam: “COVID will be eradicated next year as long as I am voted back in.”

·       Slippery slope: 

o   “If Biden is elected, there will be a depression.”

o   “He’s going to quadruple your taxes.”

·       Straw man: “We want to kill the virus; Biden wants to kill the American Dream.”

·       Argumentum ad Baculum: “These terrible things will happen if I’m not voted back in.”

·       Ad Hominem: “Sleepy Joe”

·       Bandwagon: “You can hear how big these crowds are.” “Biggest crowds anyone has ever seen.”

·       Paradigm: “Democrats hate fracking, love to tax, hate coal, etc.”

·       False dichotomy: “Only by voting for me can you save your fracking.”

·       Ad Hominem: “Radical left”

Trump is very aggressive towards opposing viewpoints and makes many assertions about the future that either are not true or cannot be proven to be true. 

·       Ad Hominem: “President Trump divides us and tears us apart.”

·       Ad Populum: (Cancer story to encourage affordable healthcare)

·       Paradigm: “Republicans are repeatedly working to take away access to healthcare.”

·       Slippery slope: “This election is about the future of our country and the future of our democracy.”

·       Argumentum ad Baculum: “There is so much at stake this year for our families and businesses.”

·       Straw man: “All Donald Trump cares about is the stock market and refused to follow science.”

Biden goes on many irrelevant tangents and appeals to the audience’s emotion through stories about his family and his life. 

Their audiences are likely people that already agree with them. Those who show up to the rallies are likely supporters, and people who watch it online either support them, are political moderates, or are watching it to complete an NHV assignment. Their rhetoric is aimed to inspire and excite the audience instead of persuading and informing. 

They are trying to illicit patriotism, hope, fear, and anger. The rallies are meant more to get the people excited about the candidate then angry and turn on the other side. These speeches aren’t meant to persuade people of opposing sides; instead, they are making supporters excited and passionate about the candidate’s work. 

Part 2 

Part 3  

Biden Rally 

 

 

3. They are trying to appeal to emotions of guilt when talking about people who don't have health care. They appeal to hope by talking about how much better America will be once they are in office. They appeal to these emotions to help convince the voters to vote for them. By appealing to emotions voters are more easily persuaded. 
-Hannah Roberts

Genetic Engineering

Social: Can be used to create inulin for diabetics, there is future hopes of finding ways to create new organisms that help the environment (reduce emissions), genetic engineering has been applied to plants to help with the growth rate of certain crops, used in on animals to create therapeutic solutions for other hurt animals, is also used in the fight against Alzheimer's. All around trying to find the next medical advancements through genetic engineering, which will lead to a longer life expectancy.  

Economic: There are many from an agricultural viewpoint, with a faster growth rate more crops means more food, genetic engineered crops help reduce the greenhouse gasses emitted from agriculture, which is a costly problem, new medical advancements can lead to cheaper health care, especially if an effective treatment a disease like Alzheimer's was found through genetic engineering

Cultural: Cultural impacts of genetic engineering has been a hot topic to debate. Some benefits of this would be more food for the rapidly growing population. Food can be considered a scarce commodity for some communities, but this can change that. Another cultural benefit is being able to take care of the people who are sick in our community. Health care is supposed to treat the ones who are sick, which can be done more effectively through genetic engineering.

Nanotechnology

Social: Nanotechnology is improving the fuel consumption of vehicles and power plants, this is leading to less of a dependency on  raw petroleum materials, producing faster technology (faster computers and phones), allowing certain diseases to be diagnosed faster 

Economic: More efficient power sources will lead to less pollution (many are spending a lot of money to fight global warming, nanotechnology can help fight this) medical advances can lead to cheaper health care, faster computers will bring more economic dependence on technology 

Cultural: Advancements in nanotechnology can make healthcare more accessible, especially if there are new treatments to major diseases. Global warming is a big issue at the moment, but there is no set solution yet. A more efficient power source can help this problem 

Robotics

Social: Examples like self driving electric cars could help reduce pollution, which can help slow global warming, more advancements in technology can lead to more discoveries, new technology can also make the life of many way easier, an exponential growth in robotics can lead to better security both individually and nationally 

Economic: An advancement in robotics can increase the productivity of many companies which will be beneficial for both the companies and the public, hopefully with new technology, the use of technology can become cheaper (computers, phones, and self driving cars)

Cultural: An exponential growth in robotics means more people will have access to new technology, this would be beneficial for all. New technology creates more ways to communicate/grows connection between different groups of people

Part 2) List of Problems

Genetic Engineering:

Many farmers do not believe genetic engineered crops are okay to consume, this presents a bigger problem of breaking the normalization of protesting genetic engineered crops in rural America, there may also be a push back on genetically engineering a way to produce insulin because it may go against their religion and beliefs. Some believe it is wrong to go against the “natural way” when it comes to medical procedures, which may result in less people using genetic engineered innovations. 

Nanotechnology:

Similar to genetic engineering most of the problems associated with nanotechnology stem from public trust. Nanotechnology is a fairly new topic, which means the general public is not really educated on this topic. Some may be hesitant to trust nanotechnology. Also, nanotechnology questions people’s morals and ethics. For example, the question the class talked about after the reading on nanotechnology was would you rather be able to diagnose cancer faster or have a slim possibility of finding the cure to cancer. There could also be protests from major companies arguing that even though a more efficient power source can be found through nanotechnology, it may not be the most productive. Meaning this new power source may not be able to produce a good product.

Robotics:

The problem that is talked about all the time is that robots will become too powerful and will turn against humans. There have been studies that show some robots had to be powered down because they were teaching themselves new ideas through their powerful “brains”. In reality the real list of problems includes getting the older generation up to date with new technological advancements, the jobs that robots in factories and warehouses take from the working public, the accessibility to new technology in rural America and developing countries, the question if robots will have the ability to act with morals and ethics, and the materials needed for producing new robots. 

Thinking about the future...
I am more optimistic about the future even after I listed all of the potential problems of future innovations. I believe the world will be able to unite to create the best situation possible; however, change will have to come soon or my optimistic view will change. The path we are on right now will not let new innovations be used correctly. I could see a new robot or form of technology being used in a threat of war. If this can be avoided, I will be optimistic about the future. I believe there are many new innovation coming that could change the world as we know it.

 

Part 2:

Part 3: I am probably more pessimistic about the future, since right now I see problems being introduced into our society faster than we can solve them. For example, we are already dealing with many complex problems today: global warming, socio-economic equality, warfare, etc. As new technologies are developed, there will only be more and more problems we will be facing before we can even address the others.

Genetic Engineering

-Increase good genetics

-Create longer life span

-Less problems in health

-Greater species

Nanotechnology

-Technology in places it’s never been

-More work in the brain to improve functions or surgical procedures

-Greater understanding of the molecular level

-Help to improve the overall function and implementation of drugs

Robotics

-Increase efficiency

-Make certain tasks unnecessary- focus on other important tasks

-Creates a more sophisticated by eliminating unspecialized jobs

-Can increase sustainability 

-Excites the public

Genetic Engineering

-Might harm other species in the process of development

-Longer life span can lead to overpopulation

-Can cause harm to those not genetically modified

-Uplift big businesses and demote local businesses in the food industry

-Genetic modification can cause harm to those around it 

Nanotechnology

-Unpredictable technology with chemicals and such

-So small that it’s hard to regulate 

-Atomic weapons are dangerous

-Can cause harm to humans certain nanotechnology chemicals are inhaled

-Very very expensive

Robotics

-Takes jobs away from humans

-Makes it hard to find a job without education

-If somehow given “free will” and own thought, could turn against humans

-Robots have to be given direction from humans 

-Expensive

-Often break down

-Time consuming to make and design

-Cannot do things they are not designed to do

Part 2
Genetic Engineering
- It may cause genetic defects in a newborn child
- It will limit the genetic diversity of the human population and make them vulnerable
- It could potentially create a pathogen that is more resistance than before
Nanotechnology
- It could cause a human to develop a disease
- It can be weaponized easily
- It is expensive and can be extremely costly to further develop and implement
Robotics
- It can cause a job loss in certain economic sectors
- The robots pose a cybersecurity concern to the public
- The robots can potentially harm humans due to malfunctioning

Part 3
As I think about the future, I am more pessimistic about the future because we are currently facing numerous global problems such as global warming, deforestation, pollution, poverty, and many more. However, the development of technology has been too expensive and there has not been any prominent innovation that have solved at least one of the many global issues we are facing today.

Genetic engineering

·       Eliminate certain diseases

·       Limit invasive species in ecosystems

·       Increase human lifespan and quality of life

·       “Super humans”

Nanotechnology

·       Increased quality of healthcare

·       Better help animals/pets

·       Better treat mental illness

Robotics

·       Help 3^rd world countries overcome biological obstacles

·       Increased workplace efficiency and productivity

Genetic engineering

·       Only wealthy being able to afford expensive technology, classism

·       Bioterrorism, weaponization

Nanotechnology

·       Wealthier people will be healthier, generate new species

·       Rick and Morty episode 0106

Robotics

·       Companies/countries overworking engineers to compete with others

·       Countries trying to work against one another instead of together

·       Militaries weaponizing technologies

I am nervous about our future, and that’s not to say that I am pessimistic. I am optimistic that the next generation of engineers will effectively work together to tackle problems, but I am scared that some problems may be too far along due to careless people in the past. I believe that everything manages to work out, but at what cost? 

Part 3) Some benefits of systems that are able to classify faces include advancements in security, technology, and health care. Some facial recognition programs are able to detect a wanted criminal through security footage and recognize someone who may be on the no fly list. Technology is also depending heavily on new facial recognition programs, while some programs are trying to detect possible characteristics of the face that suggest a possible illness or disease. Some drawbacks to facial recognition is the ability to scan all unique faces. No one looks the same, which means facial recognition is having a hard time recognizing faces from diverse communities. There are problems with detecting female faces and faces that are not white. It seems like the program is almost perfect when a white male’s face is scanned, but as those characteristics start to change, the accuracy starts to decrease. The ethical problem associated with this is darker humans are not being accurately scanned by these programs (especially if they are female). Another ethical problem includes the program only having two possible genders to classify faces by. This limits everyone because genders go beyond male and female. These algorithms cannot be neutral because they have no real emotion. They are limited to what their code forces them to do. For example, most of these codes are written to have the program choose between male and female. A computer cannot look at a face and decide on its own to classify the face as something else. As a consequence of being young and not wanting to read through all legal documents presented from most apps, lots of digital companies probably now have the rights to my face through different pictures. I do not know what they will do with that or if they will ever do anything, but I would suggest to other people to be aware of what you are sharing and agreeing to. The digital society has a lot to learn from Buolamwini’s research. To start, these tech companies need to work on their programs to start including a diverse spectrum of what their innovation can do. The world is not limited to white males, and it never has been. There needs to be a way to open up the options as well as time moves on. This innovation can be life changing, but the engineers need to think about the ethical problems they still face. 

Part 4) I would add to the list by saying tech can be manipulated by powerful leaders or companies. We have seen in the past how someone with power can manipulate a website or app to try to gain control or followers. This is true for many tech companies that have apps. I would also add that tech can be used in a good way, but the direction we are currently going in does not embrace good actions as a possibility. There are many ways that technology can and already has changed the world for the better, but there are also technological advancements that have had a negative impact. I agree with tech not being neutral and inevitable. Technology is used in every aspect of our daily lives, we cannot simply abandon it now. Tech is also not neutral, which is why I think number three and twelve should not belong on the list. Most people in tech can be won over by money, which has happened in the past. Many people working with technology can be bought if the price is right. Also, a journalist is not going to stop someone with money and power if they attempt to abuse technology. This is added into the list and makes it seem like a journalist will be able to stop someone who is abusing technological power. It is not that easy, especially if they have a following.

Part 5) The podcast presented an interesting question on self-driving cars and their ability to detect citizens of various races. If there were to be a fault in the program, some people could be at greater risk just because the program does not see everyone the same. The example of the court house’s risk analysis brings an injustice based on race. This program uses past history to judge people on their risk, which has the reputation of creating biased data. As the podcast mentioned, this historic data is not taking personal aspects into account. This creates a situation where people are being judged simply on the color of their skin. I was not surprised to learn about this injustice in court houses. It is reasons like these why the world is the furthest thing from equality. They claimed to be using history, which should not be an excuse. Look at our history as a nation. There is a history of prejudice and inequality. The risk for a non white male in court cannot be viewed based on a broken history. The future of tech/science needs to think about the ethical problems associated with current technology. Those should be addressed and fixed before the world falls back into a place where people are judged and treated differently.

I have seen the impact of social media in my everyday life through increased anxiety, depression, and a decrease in confidence. My habits tend to revolve around social media and technology. I find that the last thing I do before I go to bed is turn off my phone and the first thing I do when I wake up is turn it on. I find that I spend hours on social media just aimlessly scrolling instead of doing things that I enjoy, and if I’m doing work or homework, the only thing on my mind is to check my phone and see if anyone has snapped me. While you’d think that with increased platforms to communicate and share things with others online, our connections with other people would increase immensely, what has happened is that there is no real communication happening, and people tend to isolate themselves instead by creating these “fake” appearances. This is causing the fragmentation of people and groups.  

 

Pt 3 

Some benefits, if done right, are that it would be useful for security, clubs, police, etc. Some drawbacks are that facial recognition could potentially breach the privacy of individuals, create racial bias, and the lack of regulation on the use of these systems. Some faces are very similar to one another, with similar patterns and bone structures, so it would be easy if not careful to fail to distinguish between 2 people who look very similar or even just have the same skin tone if measures are not taken to fix that issue right away. An algorithm/machine cannot be neutral due to the creation of it. A human must create the algorithm, and the algorithm needs a pattern to work. I think that there are not really any costs of giving up my image or data depending on what it is and who it is going to. The thing about my image is that I am all over the internet anyways and I have been since I was born basically. All of my public information can easily be found via social media. Now other information more sensitive to me such as my debit card information or my passwords, or my social security number are all things that I do not care to share often. The costs of sharing things like that could result in identity fraud and a whole bunch of other things that could happen because of that. If we can create a more just society with research, we can progress and be more inclusive for everyone to enjoy the amazing new technology that is constantly being produced.  

 

Pt4 

I don’t think that no institution has the power to rein in tech’s abuses. There are many things that can be done to help with the affects and help to decrease the distribution of tech abuse. I strongly agree with the idea that tech is often built without taking into the account who the users are going to be and how that affects it. I feel that I hear more and more stories of these great inventions that just aren’t even plausible for the intended users to use. I agree that most people in tech really want to do good and sometimes they just don’t realize what the consequences might be. I think one thing that is missing is the idea that tech is ruthless. Like if you post a tweet online that is rude or inappropriate, the internet doesn’t care about you, and it can never be fully erased from the world.  

 

 

Pt5 

I find it pretty sad that bias exists in research as it is supposed to be reliable and more truthful. Science and tech play a role in creating injustice by not being inclusive of all individuals when the technology is implemented or created. Tech and science can use less biased data in order to accurately create things that are inclusive and don’t discriminate against race or gender or differences in general. The goal of tech should be to bring people together and celebrate everyone’s differences.  

Social media has become so normalized that it’s a part of everyday life that people neglect to perceive its negative impacts on their lives. I know that I often find myself automatically open social media on instinct without even thinking, and I end up scrolling for minutes and sometimes hours without even questioning it. Social media is a part of my daily routine that takes up too much time and causes much more harm than good with regards to its toll on my mental health and the time it wastes. 

The trailer emphasizes connection through the ways people can communicate with others to easily, but it emphasizes fragmentation by showing scenes of angry groups of people wreaking havoc in the streets. These small clips of people protesting shows the divisive nature of social media and how it clumps people into groups and further separates them. 

Part 3

Facial recognition is important for security and accurate verification of identity. The drawbacks to this are that lack of representation of minorities in the design of these technologies can lead to racial and gender exclusion and bias. These technologies can also be a violation of privacy, or they could capture incorrect info such as by misgendering or misidentifying someone with a non-conventional gender identity or uncommon ethnicity. 

Failure to identify certain faces creates a technology that is biased towards white men which would give them an advantage over minorities. An algorithm cannot be neutral because it is designed by ignorant humans that don’t empathize with future stakeholders and consumers. Giving up my data wouldn’t do much since my information has been all over social media and the internet my whole life. Luckily, these technologies still have room for improvement, so engineers are able to create larger samples of diverse test subjects to ensure inclusivity in the functionality of facial recognition. 

Part 4

I agree with all 12. I think something should be included about the influence each of us have on our technological development. We have the power to get companies to change their projects to meet our needs and wants. If we speak up and stand up for what’s right, companies will adjust to our demands. This ties into the failures of facial recognition. People were able to draw attention to the issue and get companies to reevaluate their design processes by speaking up and holding them accountable. I strongly agree with number 11 about how tech is also about fashion. People are stupid and often go with their gut about whether they like the aesthetics of a product rather than the functionality of it. 

Part 5

Examples of bias obviously frustrate me and make me question the “goodness” of humanity, but I also must consider that future generations will likely look back at us and think that we were intolerant and biased as well. All a person can do is put forth maximum effort to make a positive influence in the world. If a person doesn’t consider minorities as a part of their design, then they are biased, but they should then use it as a learning experience for future projects. Tech and science should act as catalysts for solving technical issues in the world, and it should be inclusive of all populations affected. Tech and science can create a more just society by reaching out to communities to better understand needs of people. I think it’s very important to truly understand who you’re working for before you assume they need. 

Part 3) It is important that facial recognition AI is able to detect all faces equally because if it doesn’t, that AI will develop a conscious bias towards gender/bias. And when that AI starts being used by the government or other corporations, that bias will be further reinforced in our society. An algorithm cannot be “neutral” because it is always shaped by the training data we provide it with. This is why the facial recognition AI was less accurate at recognizing darker faces; a majority of the faces in the training data were white.

Part 4) I don’t necessarily agree with #3 (“Most people in tech sincerely want to do good”). I think that this might have been true initially, but as companies have found more and more ways to make money off of their users (advertising, collecting/selling their data), their motives have become mostly profit-driven. All too often, functionality of tech is sacrificed at the expense of higher profits (for example: planned obsolescence). The point I most agree with is #12 (“No institution has the power to reign in tech’s abuses”). I think that this is further exacerbated by the fact that most of the media we consume flows through the hands of these tech companies, so they have the power to change the narrative if they see fit.

Part 5) I was surprised to hear that “risk detection software” is actually being used by the US government today. To me, it seems obvious that the software was bound to develop biases, since AI is still such a new technology and we still know so little about it. I think that the main way that AIs develop biases are not through conscious sexism/racism, but rather, simply re-creating the systematic prejudices that exist in our society subconsciously. However, I think that with the increasing importance of AI systems, there is an opportunity to eliminate some of these biases in our society today. If we consciously program these tools to be unbiased and fair, as their influence broadens, it will contribute to a more equal society for everyone.

As a general rule of thumb, I never touch or use social media unless necessary. By doing this I was under the impression I was protecting myself from intrusive methods such as data mining. However, the trailer to “/The Social Dilemma” just proved to me that just using a simple tool like google can invite these intrusive methods without my awareness. It honestly disturbs me that I might’ve formed some of my thoughts and opinions based on what google custom picked for me and not in an unbiased way. 

Additionally, I observed the trailer pushing an idea of the connection and fragmentation of our society. It emphasizes how connected we are now through the use of tools like Google, Facebook, and other social media. But it also shows us that we are fragmented because of this fact, using images of people enveloped in their like to dislike ratio. 

After watching the “Gender Shades” video I was able to make some general conclusions on my stance on AI facial recognition. While I do believe the video brought up valid points like preventing bias from infecting our facial recognition system I also believe it had some weak points. My biggest thought on this technology was that it hasn’t nearly been tested or worked on for long enough. Something as simple as the car has taken us years to perfect and still we debate how to make roads safer. The same argument can be applied here, with further development of AI facial recognition I’m sure bias can be phased out of its development. It’s just too early to conclude that AI facial recognition is biased against women of color.  

Out of the twelve points listed in the article, I believe that fact number eight doesn’t belong and that something that needed to be addressed instead was how technology can benefit humans. I believe that point eight “Most tech isn’t from startups or starter-ups” should be taken off as it doesn’t contribute to the main point the author is trying to make. I got the feeling the author was listing negatives about technology and the companies behind technology as a warning to the reader. Point eight doesn’t contribute to this narrative because it’s not a negative or bad thing that most technology is produced by professionals instead of un-experienced start-ups. Instead of this point, I believe the author should have stated a reason why technology has the potential to help rather than hurt. Listing some pros to technology rather than all the cons not only makes the author look more creditable but does a better job at informing the reader. 

Honestly, bias in technology can be very frustrating, we go through life under the assumption that our computers shouldn’t judge us based on the color of our skin. So when something like this does happen it feels like I’ve been cheated out of a basic right, I feel insecure about my future as well. In the future, if algorithms decide if I should get a loan or not and I get denied because of the color of my skin is an absurd and haunting thought. Although, I feel like if we engineer our technologies intending to avoid bias we can avoid a nightmare future inhabited by racist and sexist robots. 

Dual use is the idea of different materials/processes having multiple outcomes or multiple  ways of use. Some possible outcomes can be good and some could be harmful; this is all based on how people decide to use these materials/processes. Some examples given in the video were cars and nuclear technology. Cars can be useful because they get people from point A to point B, but they can also be used in a harmful way. Cars can cause serious injuries or death when someone decides to use vehicles in an irresponsible way. Nuclear power is great for powering large cities, but nuclear technology can also cause death if nuclear technology is used as a bomb. Some more examples include laptops, dams, and pesticides for agricultural use. Laptops can be used to help schools and businesses function, but they can also be used to steal personal information in a situation where personal accounts are hacked. Dams are constructed to store water in cases of extreme drought like conditions, but they also harm the surrounding environment. This is also similar to the pesticides used by farmers; pesticides allow crops to grow healthy, but they can also harm the surrounding fields with no crops. 

Reflection 2) 

The scientists and engineers in the documentary were programmed to not stop until they were successful. They had very little choice when it came to deciding whether to stop or keep going. The scientist and engineers would have nothing to show for their endless research and sleepless nights. This put the scientist and engineers in a place where morals and ethics were considered when coming to this conclusion; therefore, the mixed emotions that came after bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is proof that the scientist and engineers had morals, but they did not act upon them. Each scientist expressed that they were aware of their beliefs, but they did not think twice about their decisions. Their work is an example of dual use because the scientists wanted their work to be revolutionary in the world of physics; however, it was also used to kill and injure thousands of people. I do believe the world would be vastly different if the spread of nuclear weapons were halted after the Trinity test. People would not have been used as test subjects. People would not have been put in harm's way just to conduct basic research of a weapon. The decision to continue designing nuclear weapons changed the future of the world. There can be regulations put in place, but these regulations will not always ensure the safety of innocent human beings. As the documentary mentioned, more than 1,200 nuclear weapons have been detonated on Earth’s surface. Continuing to work on nuclear technology has given people unreal ideas of power and knowledge. The intent of nuclear warfare was to put an end to any ongoing threat from other nations, but the effect was completely opposite. 

Optional Reflection) 

The United States had already detonated eight nuclear bombs before other countries even did one. There was a pattern throughout which seemed like each country would wait until another country tested a bomb. After one country tested a bomb, other countries felt like they had to keep up. It seemed more of an ego problem than anything else. The U.S. had to be the country that had the most tests. This could be a possible attempt to prove dominance. It was sad to see America was responsible for more than one thousand of the two thousand bombs that were tested. 

Reflection 3) 

I am concerned that nuclear technology is getting too advanced and too powerful. It is scary to think a powerful leader could be responsible for taking thousands of lives. The only thing stopping some leaders are the moral beliefs they hold onto. This worries me because we have seen how people of power can easily forget about those morals when they are desperate for more power. I believe the world is at somewhat of a standstill when it comes to nuclear warfare, but this could easily change. All it takes is one little action to start a major war using nuclear technology. The amount of countries that have access to nuclear weapons is surprising. There are many different ways these countries can use their nuclear technology, many of the ways are bad. Many things can go wrong if a person of power chooses to act against their moral beliefs.

Dual use is the idea that a material or engineered technology has the capability to function in various ways to both benefit the world as well as cause harm to the world, and this can entail both humans and the environment. 

“Technology: benefit; harm”

Guns: self defense and establishing order; acts of violence

Zyklon B: treating illnesses; the Holocaust

Social media: allowing easy communication between people; political division and bullying

Electricity/energy: power devices and well-used technologies; pollution to environment

That’s difficult to say. Halting the spread of nuclear weapons after the Trinity Test was likely the ethical thing to do because now, we live in an age where they are widespread among countries, and the advancement of them has created the potential for them to severely harm millions upon millions of people. Nuclear weapons are a vast scientific breakthrough, but the cost of lives and risks far outweigh any benefits they may have. Once technologies are discovered, it’s nearly impossible to undiscover it. Halting the spread of a technology doesn’t ensure its extinction. For all we know, stopping the advancement of nuclear technology could simply delay its progression and allow it to be furthered by malicious intent later. The scientists knew exactly the capabilities of the technology, but they continued developing it because they felt that they had an obligation to the pursuit of knowledge. Maybe they wanted credit for the scientific breakthrough, or maybe they wanted the testing under their supervision to ensure that the research didn’t fall into bad hands. Regardless, their desperate craving for achievement costed many lives and contradicted their moral/ethical obligation to protect people and use technology to benefit humanity rather than destroy it. 

We already know the carnage that nuclear technology has the capability to cause. I’m terrified to think about what people will do with it for political reasons. It isn’t fair to threaten a country with nuclear annihilation if the country has done nothing wrong. I want to say I’m worried about bad people using this technology, but I’m nervous about anyone using it. I can’t think of any good reason to use them besides energy and fighting an alien invasion. I hope that this technology becomes heavily monitored to prevent clueless, uneducated, unempathetic politicians from deploying them on humans when there are other alternatives like smaller levels of military force and diplomacy. 

Another technology I think will be subject to dual use is AI (artificial intelligence). There are countless benefits of AI for humans, such as automation, but it could also be used in harmful contexts such as war.

Part 2) If there was action taken to halt the spread of nuclear weapons after Trinity, the world would look much different than it does today. Today, all powerful countries have access to nuclear weapons in one way or another, and there is shared knowledge that we could all “wipe each other out” if we really wanted to. If things were done differently, nuclear weapons could have been stopped from falling into everyone’s hands and giving us all the sheer amount of power we hold with these weapons.

I think that the scientists’ reaction to Hiroshima ties back to how we can subconsciously separate our “technical self” and our “moral self.” When they were developing the bombs, the scientists simply saw themselves as creators of technology, partially because it was impossible for them to detect all of the harm it might cause. However, when the bomb dropped their moral senses finally caught up with their technical senses, and they realized it would have been better off if they never created the bombs to begin with.

Part 4) My biggest concern about nuclear technology is that if a global conflict breaks out, it is basically inevitable that a nuclear war will occur. If one country decides to use a nuclear bomb on another country, that country will most certainly retaliate, leading to a chain reaction of explosions which will surely cause catastrophic destruction. Civilians should be the most concerned about this, because the people choosing to deploy the bombs on us will be politicians in more power than us who do not necessarily care about us.

Halting the spread of nuclear weapons after the Trinity test would have saved many lives from the following nuclear explosions and would have eliminated the fear of the possible misuses of that specific technology. Halting the spread after Nagasaki would have decrease the fear across the world of unexpected nuclear attacks. All of the scientists that spoke seemed to be extremely impacted from the realization of what they have created. The scientists were very excited about their work until they realized what it was that it would be used for. One said that he got extremely depressed after finding out about Hiroshima and clearly hasn’t been the same since. Most of the scientists realized that what they had created wasn’t ethically right even if the science behind it was innovative.  

Nuclear technology keeps growing and growing, and the fear of nuclear attacks keeps doing the same as we now know more and more about what other countries have created. The thing that concerns me the most is that anything, even small, could go wrong and that mistake could take out half of the world. If something like Nagasaki happened again in today’s day and age, there would be nuclear war. Nuclear war means no one would survive based on the intensity of the nuclear weapons now.  

This video gave the Colorado River the ability to speak in first person in hopes of people showing empathy towards this inanimate object. It is putting human value on the river to show people the harm this river is going through due to humans. I think people care more about something when they can relate on a personal level, so using phrases like “I am drained” will allow people to better connect. This did surprise me, I actually felt sadness for the river and felt a little disappointed. We are watching this river die because of our selfish ways, but no one will do anything to change until they are able to see and feel the distress this river is going through. Treating rivers as people is not as far fetched as some make it seem. At this point, this is the only way to save the river, so people should continue to treat rivers like people. I believe we will be able to connect to the river if we continue to ascribe “personhoods” to rivers, which will have an impact on how the general public views river systems. We cannot continue the same lifestyle we have today. I feel like Americans in the west would be more willing to change their bad habits if human value is put on the Colorado River. 

Reflection 2)

Every time I walk through campus I always notice the bright green grass that compliments the large lecture halls. The grass is always healthy even in the hot summer months. This is interesting because the native landscape that can be spotted on Mt. Zion and South Table seems to get dry and yellow in warmer months. This is not normal. We take the green grass and imported trees for granted; however, our generation has grown up with the normalization of having big aspen trees in the front lawn with the green grass. I have also taken the ability to drive to school on paved roads for granted. I am aware of where my water comes from, but I feel like I only know this because I have sat through many civil engineering lectures. Civil Engineers must be aware of surrounding bodies of water when it comes to building dams, so our professors take this concept seriously. I am not too sure if the general public is aware of where their water comes from. I know I learned a little about this subject in elementary, but it was a brief introduction to the topic. I think everyone should know where their drinking water comes from because the process is not natural at all. If humans continue to take something like drinking water for granted, the continuous partners of running reservoirs dry will continue. I would say it is an engineer's responsibility to educate the general public on water sources. There must be some type of outreach to the public to spread awareness. 

Reflection 3)

I do believe there would be a major difference in the river’s delta if a bigger city like Los Angeles was located near the headwaters of the Colorado River. I believe the U.S. would allow a bigger city to use up more of the water, which would mean less water for communities downstream. I think it is a good idea to have government policies in place to prevent any environmental injustice. These government policies prevent the over usage of water, but if the Colorado River ended in California instead of Mexico, I do believe there The Colorado River would already be bone dry. I think the Colorado River would be talked about in past tense because there would not be any policy ensuring the future of the river. America would be able to use the water in their best interests, which is not always the surrounding environment’s best interest. The current situation assures environmental justice throughout many communities because of the Pulse Flow Agreement. The community that sits at the delta of the Colorado River is guaranteed water for the next 15 years. 

Reflection 4)

One key similarity between the two case studies is that both were caused by engineering failures. There was a common idea between the two situations where it seemed like engineers did not pay close attention to the surrounding environment. It seemed like both situations could have been prevented or even better handled. These two studies also resulted in a decent outcome, but they both could have ended up causing more damage to the surrounding area. The Salton Sea is actually still used by nearby farmers. The two situations did affect different regions and countries. The Salton Sea creation happened within U.S. borders, whereas the Delta incident carried across into Mexico. Communities were affected by both, but I would argue that the Delta incident affected more communities. Looking back at these two situations, it is important to note that engineers need to be aware of the surrounding environment. Many people can be hurt or harmed when situations like these are not fully planned. It is an engineer’s responsibility to bring safety to the general public. 

We don’t have much water here in the west, so we need to know how to treat it and use it sustainably. Social and technical challenges don’t come out of nowhere, and we can trace the source of these challenges through past engineering decisions. This ties into NHV in that the decisions to build structures that hold and control water such as the Hoover Dam directly impact people and the environment and must be carefully considered to ensure ethical practices. Reconciliation ecology is the science and practice of promoting ecosystem health and human well-being at the same time and in the same places. Environmental justice is the equitable distribution of environmental benefits and burdens among people no matter their race, ethnicity, gender, or wealth. 

The first person caught me off guard because I’m so used to viewing rivers as silent, majestic, and simply existent rather than alive. I think this was done so that the audience is forced to view the natural ecosystem as a living being so that we can better empathize with it. Ascribing personhood to rivers causes people to hold rivers to the same value as other humans, so people are more likely to protect rivers when they are personified due to higher levels of compassion. This implies that people are more likely to act ethically when there is an established personal connection, or their moral values align with the ethical dilemma at hand. 

I take for granted the number of trees there are in suburban areas. When I think of “the city,” I automatically think of lots of buildings, but I remember driving home from work back in Grand Junction, and at the top of a sloped street, I was able to see how many trees there were in the city. It seemed like the trees were providing a canopy for the houses. Obviously, things are different based on cities. I used to know where my water came from back in Grand Junction, but I’m not sure where my water is from here in Golden. I’m new to the area and haven’t asked anyone about the water. I call this an engineering flaw but not quite a failure because I think it is important consumers understand where their resources are coming from and what they are putting into their bodies. There ought to be some trust involved, but that comes with educating the public so that they don’t get taken advantage of in the future. If people don’t know where their water comes from, then there’s no way of holding engineers and water specialists accountable for the quality of the water and the sustainability of water treatment. 

If the river ended in a big city like LA, the water would be more heavily utilized, and the river would have less flow. The river would likely be industrialized by private business, and the resources would be more accessible by the wealthy, which goes against environmental justice since resources wouldn’t be equitably distributed. Marginalized communities in LA already face the burdens of pollution and lack of sanitation, so the existence of a river would only perpetuate the issues that these communities are already facing. Think about the Tamarisk Hunter reading. We saw how there was a major class gap between the Californians hogging the water and the other people rationing water to try and survive. I think that by the river flowing into another country, people utilizing the resources of the river act more consciously because they don’t want to hurt ties with Mexico. 

I think the issues rising from these scenarios stem from narrow scopes during projects, meaning that the engineers focused too much on completing a certain task and neglected to consider and account for the aftermath and how it would affect the environment. Some takeaways are that engineering isn’t always about reaching a set end goal, but also about considering the resources utilized and habitats altered on the way towards reaching a solution. 

I believe that the Colorado River video we watched was narrated in the first person as it makes the problem more personal to the viewers. The first-person narrative made me care more about the river as I could see myself more easily helping the river as I would a person rather than trying to tackle a huge inhuman problem. 

Part 2  

When taking a step back and considering what parts of my landscape I take for granted I’m surprised with what I come up with. Mainly the landscape I take for granted is the environment I live in. I never stop to think how lucky I am that I don’t have to worry about oxygen pollution, being able to leave my home and take a fresh breath of air. I also take the nature around me for granted, while I appreciate looking at the greenery I never actively try and preserve the nature around me. This feeling of taking the nature around me for granted is continued as I have no idea where most of my drinking water comes from. I don’t know where my drinking water comes from most likely because I’m never concerned about how I’ll get my next glass of water. With this, I’ve been trained to care less about the nature surrounding me as I’ve had to care for it less and been able to have everything given to me in regards to nature. 

Part 3  

If the Colorado River lead into a bigger and more populated area like LA then I believe the water would have a significant change. First of all, the water would be more heavily used by the population as a whole meaning the freshwater would diminish at a faster rate. Second of all the river would be most likely be more polluted due to the more “urban” nature of LA. I believe with all these factors our sense of environmental justice would be skewed. It would be more of a fight for all to get water with the increased population and increase in pollution. 

Part 2) I definitely take all of the vegetation we have in Colorado for granted. Watching the lecture showed me this because I had no idea that Golden used to be such a desert, I always thought all the vegetation here was just here before humans. I do know where my drinking water comes from; I live in Evergreen and our water comes from Evergreen Lake. I probably know this because I used to drive by Evergreen Lake every day, and it is basically at the center of our city. However, if I didn’t have such a personal connection to my water source I probably wouldn’t know where it came from, and just take it for granted. This presents a problem because you should be aware of the quality of the water you are consuming, and also be a part of the ethical debates about the resources you use to survive.

Part 3) The delta would definitely be in a different condition if it was in San Francisco or LA instead of Mexico. Firstly, there would need to be more water making it down to the delta because both of those are urban cities with millions of people. But also, I think that the fact that the delta would be inside the country rather than outside would change things. Because the delta is outside of the US now, we probably tend to overconsume water because the burdens of our overconsumption are held mostly by Mexico. But if we had to deal with these problems ourselves, we would be less likely to overconsume. This involved environmental justice because we should strive to distribute the benefits/burdens of water consumption equally between everyone, instead of keeping the benefits domestic and the burdens foreign. 

Part 4) I think that Case Study #1 (Delta) demonstrates a more proactive problem, while Case Study #2 (Salton Sea) demonstrates a more retroactive problem. The Delta is something we can decide every year based on data to decide how much water we should let through in a pulse flow. However, the Salton Sea has already happened, so we have to take responsibility for the mistakes made by engineers before us so we can solve them. Both of these case studies definitely have to do with Environmental Justice, because they involve making the benefits/burdens of irrigation more balanced between different groups of people (based on location).

I think this video was put into first person as a rhetorical strategy to evoke a sense of emotion for this river acting like it is a living person, which in a way it is. The fact that it is in first person was a little surprising but not too surprising. What was more surprising was that there were two separate voices talking about them being the Colorado river. There are many instances of treating rivers like a person by law to avoid compromising the river for hydroelectricity. I think that treating a river as a person would be a good thing as rivers provide so much to humans, wildlife, and the environment. If this is what it takes to keep rivers intact, then I think that this is a creative thing.  

 

Pt 2 

I think the part of my everyday landscape that I take for granted is the trees around me. I have always lived in an area with lots of precipitation and just have unconsciously thought that there are trees everywhere. Looking back at Golden in a previous century was eye-opening for me. I am not going to lie, I have no idea where my drinking water comes from at my house here in Golden. I know that at home in Wisconsin we get our water from a well and that is about all I know about that. I think that me not knowing and many others not knowing where their water comes from is an engineering success but also a failure at the same time. This simply means I haven’t been educated, I have never felt the urge to ask or even look up where my water comes from. I think that when people don’t know where their water comes from, they can often take it for granted and not understand the importance of using only as much water as they need. It is also just a little embarrassing to not know.  

Pt 3 

 

If the river’s delta ended in California instead of the border, there would have been much more attention paid to that issue. The river would never end in California if that was the case and engineers would have been proactive about the whole thing. The fact that Mexico didn’t know America’s systems and America didn’t know Mexico’s systems is a point of extremely poor communication and is unfair to the Mexican community and environment. 

Pt 4 

The Delta mistake and the Salton Sea mistake are both very similar in the way that engineers were trying to do something helpful but just didn’t consider any of the consequences. They are different in the results that followed the mistakes. The Salton Sea was created by accident and now holds toxins that are not only harmful to the environment but also humans. The Delta issue just leaves those that are south of the border with barely any water from the Colorado River. My biggest take away from these two disasters is that engineers don’t do extensive enough analysis of what might happen based on their designs. This extra time and effort could save many engineering mistakes.