https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc Allyce Horan LB 119 en-us 2021-01-12 02:52:38 UTC 2024-11-20 05:32:08 UTC hello@padlet.com hbryndal https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1088214580 2021-01-14 17:17:06 UTC https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1088214580 hbryndal https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1088236241 2021-01-14 17:20:46 UTC https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1088236241 hbryndal https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1088261197 2021-01-14 17:25:33 UTC https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1088261197 hbryndal https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1088277532 2021-01-14 17:28:28 UTC https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1088277532 hbryndal https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1088292370 2021-01-14 17:31:16 UTC https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1088292370 hbryndal https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1102804411 Part 1
The moral sphere seems accurate to me as the people nearest to the center are the most important to most people. The people you spend the most time around tend to be the most important especially when it comes to ethics and how we feel they should be treated. The biggest undermining factor of this chart is that it is hard to compare grandparent to grandparent or a friend to a friend. This chart assumes they are all equivalent in the way we want them to be treated but it does not account for significant differences in how strong a friendship or family relationship is which could completley nulify the point of this chart. To account for this disparity, this chart should not be static as it is but should  be more fluid as the categories can change as people grow and develop their differing personalities and morals.

Part 2:
Neither solution is ethical, I believe that is the point of the two tough situations. Rather, we are examining the spectrum of ethicality in which some will argue one is more ethical than the other, but that in and of itself does not make any option ethical. Pulling the lever may seem easier because it is more detached of an action using a mechanical switch while pushing the man off the bridge is direct contact with the person you are killing. So while pulling the lever and pushing the fat man are not ethical because they are both the immediate cause of a death (even though you are technically saving 5 people, the consequences of your actions are still heavy and direct), because pushing the man is more direct and "close contact", it is understandable that that is observed as the more gruesome solution because of the effects of immediately traceable to pushing him while pulling the lever is a more disconnected action. If the fat person or the person who would be killed by flipping the lever were closer to the center of the moral sphere, the decision would become much more difficult. For example, saving 5 people but killing a friend or family member would absolutley change many peoples immediate actions because they would rather save someone closer to them rather than save strangers.

Part 3:
Some of the decisions were hard than others. Some of the scenarios were a bit ridiculous such as should the car kill the female or male executive which are equally horrible. Other decisions were a bit harder such as should the car hit a homeless person or an executive. There is absolutley no correct answer to this question but unfortunatley the car will not take "neither" for an answer. As morbid as it may seem, I chose the homeless person because the executive is the one contributing to society more so in utilitarian terms the executive would be more important to most people but ethically, many people would disagree and say the homeless person hasn't gotten to live to his fullest potential yet while the executive likely has.]]> 2021-01-19 18:42:00 UTC https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1102804411 hbryndal https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1150203769 Part 1:
1. Moral Relativism is the idea that the values one holds are their own and are undebatable. While someone may not agree, they are just personal preference. Advantages are that everyones morals are their own and they are unchangeable by just sheer will, but this can also lead to people will poor morals that may choose to act on them but no one can tell them they are wrong for what they believe in.
2. Utilitarianism is the idea that what benefits the most people is what should be done. Benefits are that it always helps the most people, but people don't always know what is best for them.
3. Deontology is a philosophy that says ones morals should be based on whether an action is right or wrong regardless of the consequences of the action. Stregnths are that it encourages people to be selfless and good, but sometimes people must do what they can to mitigate consequences even if their actions are bad.
4. Virtue ethics is somewhat the opposite of deontology where the focus is more on the consequences of actions and focuses on improving ones character. Strengths are that people themselves can have a better impact on the world but at the consequence of being a worse person themselves.
5.Liberalism is a political theory based on the idea of freedom and human rights that is protected (but not given) by governments or higher orders. Pros are that when it works well, peoples quality of life improves, but can also lead to governments with too much power or control over a population.

Part 2:
1. Compensating professors for the work they do compared to the amount of people that they teach is a good use of things that money should be used for. He argues that money can also buy materialistic goods that can help express friendship even though the gift itself is not friendship.
2. Sandel argues that money cannot buy friendship because a payed friend, as we naturally or intrinsically know, is not a real friend and is of no real value.
3. Market economies are examples of a nation or regions economy being based on the flow of money, while a market society is a society based on money where social bonds between human beings are reliant on money.

Part 3: 
1. The four objections are 1; selling kidneys for profit rather than saving a life and the market might be exploited by the poor, what seems to be a contesting act is actually not voluntary because the person may have no other choice. 2; The access of a kidney would be unfair and highly priced and benefit the rich. 3; producing kidneys that are not of high enough quality or poor quality surgeries resulting in cut corners impacting peoples health. 4; Selling your body can be under the threat of violence for prostitution on moral grounds is objectionable because that person is degrading their own self. Selling parts of your own body such as selling parts on a car is immoral and impairs your 'sanctuality'.

2. The sparing economic gains from selling a kidney may seem beneficial in the short term, but in the long term breaking your own moral bounds just for monetary profit is naturally immoral. Similar to the concept of signing off on a report that could have a negative impact on your community, selling your own body or its organs for a profit is feeding into a market society and degrades the own human spirit. The key take-away is to take the higher ground and abstain from what can be perceived as some huge benefit  that will only be impactful for a short time. 

Part 4
Justice, in my definition, would be a society where people are able to have the ability for self betterment, whether it be economical, social, or political. If everyone can have the same opportunity for success in their lives, and as long as their success does not trample others, then that would be a just society. Need based justice, in my opinion, is lesser in value to merit based justice where if someone works their hardest, they should get what they deserve, but it is also important for everyone to at least have the opportunity to prove their merit. It is only natural that some succeed more than others based on their contributions to society. If someone is pushed down under and not able to prove their merit, they deserve the love and respect of society to get them back in the game.


]]> 2021-02-01 18:12:22 UTC https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1150203769 hbryndal https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1175012947 Part 1:
Adaptive problems would be problems that do not have a clear, objectively correct answer. Examples could be how to best clean up the environment from litter where no one has the right solution even though we are all working towards the same goal. There are millions of different places that need to be cleaned that are constantly disagreed on where there is no precise answer to the problem. For adaptive challenges, it is more about teamwork and is built on opinions and ethics rather than finding a correct answer that is unobjective. What a person or group believes is the driving force behind a adaptive engineering rather than cold hard facts or numbers. Good skills for adaptive problems would be teamwork, discussion/debate, and being open to other opinions and being willing to change your own.

Part 2:
There is no way I would destroy all life on Earth as that is not my decision to make. Just because I am sad and lonely does not mean I need to take that out on anything else. If it is anyones fault that I am alone, it is still not okay for me to destroy this beautiful world because I am depressed and that is not in my nature to be so openly destructive. Most people do not nuke it for the same reasons as me because humanity is not the only species on Earth and we are not here to destroy it. Some people may want to nuke it out of spite or boredom or because it seems inconsequential if you are to die anyway which I find to be a very self-centered viewpoint.

Part 3:
I would consider myself more non-anthropocentric where just because humans can be very self centered does not justify destroying nature. Nature being materialistic useful to  humans is just a bi-product of billions of years of evolution and development that is not ours to destroy even though we use it to our advantage. I have no specific answer for where humans should not live, but as long as they are not destroying or obliterating nature that I find to be attractive or interesting, it seems a fair compromise for humanity to have a habitat. The charter for the US National Park System seems much more focused on humans rather than nature, but the mentions of nature seem materialistic. Tha board can decide whether or not to sell, redistribute, or open up land for various human purposes which infers that nature is more of a tool or material than something of intrinsic value.

Part 4:
Whether or not I think humans fit somewhere in the natural hierarchy seems irrelevant compared to the current reality that humans are clearly the dominating force on the planet now. We are the only species that is able to survive on any continent in any climate, explore from the depths of the ocean to space, and literally move mountains. Because of these reasons, the Judeo_Christian view makes sense logically regardless of the religious aspect because it is inarguable that humans, in pair with the technology we create, are on the top of every food chain and dominate the planet in nearly every way. Because we are just one species, I still feel that we should respect what is around us. Being dominant does not mean we have to crush everything else. As in the nuke example, just because we have the power to do bad things does not mean we should execute those powers out of greed or boredom. Other species are just as valuable and fear for their life just as we do when in danger so it is only fair of us to contemplate that their lives are in our hands.

Part 5:
I plan on having children in the future though that is clearly dependent on so many factors. I don't believe that I have any huge obligation to other peoples children unless it is for their safety and well being in the most critical way. If their life is on the line, of course it is my obligation to save them to the best of my ability. But on a different note, it is not my responsibility to maintain a child or their personality. If they are going to grow up spoiled or whiny. that is not my job to fix. I do believe that everyone has the right to view nature as long as they are not being damaging. Dispersed camping, while obviously an example of viewing nature, is destructive and harms nature and is therefore a violation of humans right to "view nature". Both the rights or obligations have limits but they are specific to the severity of a situation. For example, crushing a leaf is not going to end the world, but plowing down a city block of trees to make a parking lot to a waterfall is an example of peoples violations of their right to view nature. As said before, my obligation to other peoples children is purely based on severity or necessity and is not a clearly laid path.

Part 6:
The most dangerous technologies are the ones that harm people or nature. Humans have a general view of what is good and bad and that tends to be in favor of non-destructivness. Bombs are destructive, and while their importance can be weighed against other, more fowl foes, it is important to acknowledge that bombs are intrinsically bad. These technologies have obvious impacts on human beings, but their destruction of nature is also horrible in its own sense. Human beings are unfortunately a very destructive race and the extent of our damage is not just limited to humans. The precautionary principle was an order to protect the environment from human destruction especially when humans may not scientifically know the extent of the damage they are about to cause. Different version have different emphasis's on aspects of the environment that are at risk. The Australian example puts emphasis on irreversible damage as well as the proportionate damage (whether or not the consequences are as bad as other alternatives). The French rendition is more simplistic where 'public authorities' must restrict irreversible environmental damage in order to ensure the environments safety. Compared to the Australian version, the emphasis shifts from the consequences to saving nature itself.

Part 7:
Issues that can be addressed with cost-benefit analysis could be medical research where while it may be enticing to solve a medical miracle through specific and expensive science, it may be quicker and cheaper to go after the source of the medical issue rather than just treating the aftermath. For example, stopping companies from selling cancer-causing products is cheaper and easier compared to curing cancer itself. Other "fairness" problems with environmental questions could be mining. Is it fair for people in the US to stop mining in all of our states yet still import mined minerals from countries that have no environmental regulation? Electric cars seem green on our end, but is it fair to destroy the environment somewhere else even though it benefits people in the US?
Non-antropocentric people would say that we should not destroy nature anywhere because it is not our decision to make. Anthropocentric people would say that the environment is ours to do with as we please and it is a tool available to us, so why not move forward with something such as mining?

Part 8:
My opinion has not changed on having children because it is my right to do so. Engineering challenges will have to soon overcome these issues and overpopulation will become an issue globally very soon. We have an obligation to our children to keep nature alive and healthy and it is important to keep our Earth in the best shape we can while not redirecting all of humanity and destroying ourselves out of pure guilt. Humanity is resilient and strong, but more than anything we are bright. We will be able to overcome some of the issues that our increasing population will bring and I would rather not sit in constant fear or worrying that my every action is killing off nature while also being mindful and doing my best to keep nature intact.






















]]> 2021-02-08 04:22:44 UTC https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1175012947 hbryndal https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1202087040 2021-02-15 01:07:52 UTC https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1202087040 hbryndal https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1224170265 Part 1:
1. Justice has a different meaning to everyone, but it revolves around the idea that what is fair and equal to everyone will bring justice to someone. However, what is fair or not differs according to peoples opinions and that is why the definition of fairness also changes from person to person.

2. I believe our society strives for justice in every way that we can and it is almost coming full circle to where, in our fight for justice, are taking away justice from others. Especially in social reform, some want everyone to have free healthcare, a guaranteed base salary, free college etc. which sounds great in principle but could result in the overtaxing or diversion of money from other things that we take for granted like well kept infrastructure or public servants and protections. Whether or not one is 'more' just than the other is a topic of debate.

3. Justice would be where everyone is treated fairly and is given the same playing field where we do not supress people for their ideas and beliefs as long as they do not infringe on the justice and rights of other people. Injustice would be where someones freedoms and beliefs trample the sucess and happiness of other people which is unfair.

Part 2:
1. I think bias had something to do with my decisions but I cannot say for sure what bias that would be. The posibillities are endless, but I would think it has somethign to do with societal pressures on what I should believe is right as well as things I have learned over time about what I see is more ethical when it comes to a car hitting someone based on their class, race, or gender.

2. The articles are implying that technology is centered around white men and is biased against all other categories of human beings. While the first two articles give actual technological limitations and rationales, the articles imply that there is something racist behind these technologies which I think has only a small bit of credibility. The lack of data about females throughotu history is a real result of sexism which I think is quickly deminsiioning in the 21st century as there is a clear and consistent theme against sexist behavior in developed countries. These issues could of course be avoided by making sure that dispesners and face ID can detect many different shades of skin, and in the cases of womens data collection, it would be important to use data from all genders and races to ensure everyone is being represented as equally as they can be.

3. Racism is categorizing someone as a person who activley acts in ways that are unfair to other races, specifically minority groups. The 3 groups categorized in the video are racist, anti-racist, and non-racist people. Racist and anti-racist people are about action while non-racists do not act. Anti-racism is the idea that you should be active in combatting racism rather than be complacent.

4. My obligation is to actively combat racism wherever I see it and to make sure that my friends or acquaintances are also making sure that everyone is treated equally and with respect. This issue is mostly up to the people in the community as the institution can only do so much (institutional posters about racism probably aren't helpful, but an active community led seminar could be). The stories show evidence of individuals who are actively racist which is unfortunate and disgusting. I do not believe this is a community effort and does not imply that we are systemically racist but instead that individuals are acting out on what they group up with or think is funny or are making a point that probably isn't true. ]]> 2021-02-21 21:15:52 UTC https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1224170265 hbryndal https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1248896881 Part 1:
Human control over the environment is what makes our species so special, and because of the fact that we already have dominated every single environment on earth and can survive hurricanes, tsunamis, and earthquakes, I believe that humans will always have control over the environment until our extinction.

Part 2:
I believe more in conservation because it is more important us for to be responsible with the resources we use rather than fight an uphill battle in which we try to use no resources at all which is idealistic and unrealistic in the modern Industrial Age. It is a waste of time to try ands to stop recourses from being used, so we might as well do our best at being responsible.

Part 3:
The best approach to ensuring environmental justice would be to slow violence against the environment. It is impossible to stop all use of resources such as hunting or mining because there are some necessary recourse we have reason to obtain, but managing how we go about obtaining them, unlike what happened during the hide hunt era, is a much needed step in the right direction especially when it comes to things like waste management.

]]> 2021-02-27 23:58:46 UTC https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1248896881 hbryndal https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1283681105 Part 1:
Deontology and Consequentialism both have the goal of making people happy and content with their lives, but both measure happiness in different ways. Deontology focuses on making peoples lives better through uniform, unchanging rules or actions that will make someone happy while consequentialism will focus on making the most people happy as possible where the people decide themselves if they are pleased with an outcome, but also does not treat people as strangers as deontology does since everyone has the same value in consequentialism

Part 2:
It is unlikely that I would report my dad to the authorities out of respect of family bonds because I believe it would be better to handle things like this internally with my family before using the authorities as a last resort.

Part 3:
The difference between Confucian ethics and deontology and consequentialism is the most notable in the breakdown of what constitutes happiness and good ethics. Consequentialism essentially says what is good for most people is the right thing to do, while confucian ethics put emphasis on what makes someone happy, such as their honesty, loyalty, etiquette, etc. that makes them a good person. Deontology gives no room to budge on what is good and what is bad because there are only good and bad actions that are equally applied to everything. Confucian ethics say there is certain categories that makes something good or bad and makes things less black and white.]]> 2021-03-08 18:16:32 UTC https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1283681105 hbryndal https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1295761212 1. The third pole is the Himalayan mountains in and around Nepal. The warming climate is causing quick changing and destructive weather events such as flooding from melting glaciers, sudden rain, and mudslides.
2. The goal of the Pad Yatra is to exemplify 'active service' where the people who join the walk will clean the path they walk along the Himalayas. The long term goal is to inspire younger people to become more committed environmentalists when it comes to litter as well as climate change.
3. The nuns are not self centered at all as their entire journey has revolved around the hope to spread kindness and environmental compassion to others. They are helpful with the "westerners" as they struggle to keep up in tough terrain for example. They also spread their messages and morals to the small villages along the way which makes me believe the close circles of their morals spheres are the communities of the Himalayas and the people of the trek because they show special kindness and moral investment. Further examples are the nun pushing her friend out of the way when a boulder then crushes her leg. This shows selflessness which is unparalleled with the other travelers in the Pad Yatra.

4. This film connects with the environmental ethics lecture and the idea of "adaptive problems". There is no simple solution to climate change and plastic pollution in the Himalayan mountains, but the Pad Yatra is an example of the locals best attempt at spreading awareness and good intentions when cleaning their path of waste and plastic. It also connects well with confucian ethics since the goals of the non-western ethical theory regarding the love for family and community. The travelers are committed to their families and communities throughout the entire region, not just their immediate moral sphere which shows selfless ideals that are encouraged by non-western ethics.]]> 2021-03-11 00:51:23 UTC https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1295761212 hbryndal https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1316282380 1. Genetic engineering allows food to grow larger with more nutrients while being cheaper to produce and less reliant on water which are all positives with our ever growing population and dependence on natural resources. Nanotechnology is increasing the power of our computers by doubling the power of a chip roughly every year which is amazing. Finally, robotics can automate dangerous or monotonous tasks that humans generally don't want to do which is better for our mental health and safety.

2. Problems with GMOs is that we do not always know what the affects of genetic modifications are. While it is likely harmless in most of our foods, it only takes one screw up or dangerous chemical to make the product harmful to us or the environment. Nanotechnology also provides a pathway to an invasion of privacy as well as a potentially unnecessary or adverse human reliance on computing over our own intelligence. Robotics has the potential to take away jobs from millions of people especially in manual labor and low income tasks which could increase poverty and job loss.

3. The pessimistic view makes for good tv, but in reality I think we will always have good control over what we make. Even if we make a successful AI, there is always an off switch. We create these technologies with good intentions, and while they could be abused, I don't see why we cannot contain what we create. For example, when a computer program stops functioning correctly, we can simply restart. In more advanced cases, a piece of malware can always be combatted, and as we move to far more advanced technology there will always be an equal and opposite force to stop the bad.


]]> 2021-03-16 15:29:24 UTC https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1316282380 hbryndal https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1339178724 Part 2:
The impact of social media is huge, but it actually surprises me that this is not just common knowledge. Nothing in the trailer is a brand new concept but that might be because I have been taught by friends and family to be aware of social media tracking and analytics which have real world affects. The media and social networks will fragment what you see, such as fake news vs real news where the fake news spreads much faster regardless of if it is true or not, all in order to spark a reaction or emotion in someone.

Part 3:
The benefits are that the systems can detect and analyze faces and genders with having a person manually identify thousands of people which would be monotonous and time consuming. However, the machines are also seemingly inaccurate because their machine learning algorithms learn from more white faces than black, so it tends to perform worse on people of color. While there may be a technological reason, such as less contrast on a darker skin tone, it also shows that there is issues with the algorithms that are based on skin color that are not well addressed. Giving away my image is probably not directly harmful to me physically, but giving away my data such as interests or political affiliations could lead to companies giving me ads and data that is intended to sway my thought process which is unethical but also a reality.

part 4: 
This list was comprehensive, but I would add more emphasis on users not knowing the reality and the background of the companies. For example, Twitter tends to be extremely left leaning and this is not by accident. Its CEO and staff tend to be left leaning as well and push for left leaning news and information but this is not directly displayed or apparent to the user base. I agree that most companies that offer free services are actually selling your data which effectively makes you and your information the product.

part 5:
The biases of data collection tends to be against women and people of color which is evidence of the disparities against them throughout history. Data collection was centered around white men which is what society unfairly found to be most important even if it is not good science. Tech can create injustice by following up on this poor history through things like facial recognition in the previous example, but it also has the ability to change and adapt as society progresses. In todays far more progressive society, it is not too difficult to fix our data analysis and collection to range over a greater audience with more diversity although this also gives way to big tech collecting more data to do with as they please which raises even more ethical concerns.

]]> 2021-03-22 17:17:39 UTC https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1339178724 hbryndal https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1383969544 Part 1: Another example of dual use is social media where most people use it as a means to communicate with lots of people quickly and efficiently and to spread cool new ideas or experiences. It also can be used for spreading misinformation or to sway peoples opinions in a hurtful direction and also swarms our minds with advertisements.

Part 2: Stopping the spread of nuclear weapons would not necessarily save lives after the impacts of Nagasaki, but would eliminate the possibility of nuclear war in the future. In the Cold War for example, nuclear weapons were threatened often but never used, but if they did not exist there may have been a real war between the US and the Soviets. The scientists reactions to the bombing reflects the idea dual use through the mass killings of people using nuclear bombs vs the much better use of nuclear technology for clean and renewable energy. I am not sure if the scientists all regret what they did for creating the bombs, but dual use still led to other good technologies regardless of the initial use of bombs]]> 2021-04-05 17:08:39 UTC https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1383969544 hbryndal https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1405664237 1. The first person viewpoint of the river was definitely a surprising choice but by the end of the video it made sense to me why they chose it. The personification makes the river have more emotion and personality rather than someone else trying to explain what the river is. It is very odd to make it a legal strategy to personify a river that kind of makes a river something it is not in reality, but it also gives emotion that makes humans more attached or empathetic to the river.

2. The things I take for granted as natural are ironically not usually natural. For example, grass on campus seems "natural" but I guarantee it was planted at some point making it technically unnatural. My drinking water comes from a reservoir the is filled by snowmelt from rivers. This is an example of an engineering success because we would not be able to supply adequate drinking water to such a large population off of just natural rivers so instead we stockpile water in a reservoir. Not knowing where the drinking water comes from could lead way to people being able to make unfavorable alterations to the water or the way it is stored without us ever knowing or telling a difference which could have environmental ramifications.

3. The delta would likely be very developed in LA or San Diego and we would probably allow a lot more water to it to supply large cities in the US with water. This is different than how we would treat people in Mexico looking for the same water due to national pride or prioritizing our own nations well-being as well as the city-centers large populations with more water than we would to other countries.  ]]> 2021-04-12 03:55:39 UTC https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1405664237 hbryndal https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1431377938 Part 2: Red lining is the practice of refusing to give someone a loan because of the place they live as they are, unfairly, found to be at risk of not paying the bank back because of where they live. The practice was banned, but it still has affects on current infrastructure in those communities which can make the environments hotter on average than other communities that did not experience red lining.

Part 3: I had never heard of Globeville before although I do drive through it often whenever I drive I70. My impressions have changed slightly but to be honest I have never seen it as anything more than an industrial area of Denver full of factories and rail yards. I understand the plea for i70 to remain at its current size, however I also see an argument to be made that i70 affects places like Vail as negatively as hispanic communities, so I do not see the argument of race as a predominant factor that these arguments seem to make. This reminds me of past eminent domain arguments such as the construction of interstates through rural New York farms. These are definitely engineering problems because it is important to design these roads and towns around the stakeholders that live there and are affected by it the most. 

Part 4: Engineers have the obligation to make sure their technology or innovations affect everyone equally and make everyones quality of life better. With environmental considerations, engineers likely don't get to decide where they put their parks or other "environmental"
 attractions, but it still their duty to make it as accessible to everyone as they can and make sure they address their stakeholders as best they can to make everyone as happy as possible.


]]> 2021-04-19 04:17:15 UTC https://padlet.com/hbryndal/inozsqrmlphxj0bc/wish/1431377938