Blog Post #9, Final Course Reflection

My thinking about science and humanities has changed over the time span of this course, and in ways that I hadn't expected it to. First, I was able to make a clear distinction between the two for the first time. As well, I was exposed to the many facets of humanities which I hadn't been familiar with before. I am now able to see the divergence between actions and movements that are either for the humanities, or for science and technology. I find that this has made all the difference in my understanding new things, and it has given me a new approach to learning and understanding. I appreciated plenty of the readings for it was my first real exposure to Darwinism, as well as my introduction to the Worlds Fair (which for happening so close to my college, I never knew about!), as well as a new understanding of altruism through reading McEwans "Us or Me". I feel that I am still a Humanities type of person, though the exposure to the promise of technology has made me a believer in the awe and promise of science. My optimism towards science and technology has increased over the semester because understanding the humanities side of many promised technologies urges me to believe that it is only a matter of time until we can create technology that satisfies both. For instance, when writing my research paper on e-waste, I often remarked upon the greatest advancement in our electronics and technology over all possibly coming from its ability to decompose properly, or to not be as toxic, and dealt with and recycled properly. I think that by having a humanistic side, and believing in the opportunities that science and humanities can bring to each other, there can be a healthy equilibrium. I think there is definitely no studying either without understanding the other, and this course excites me to take more Humanities classes in the future.

I found that using Blogger helped me follow along with the readings and prepare for the midterm. I think that by having blogging homeworks that coordinated with the class schedule kept me on track, and I appreciated how united all of the work was so that it all felt important and progressive.

Blog Post #8; Scientific Progress

When considering Oppenheimer, and Frankenstein's work, I begin to question the responsibility of scientists. I think that though they are creating in advancements in several fields of study as well as technology, there needs to be a level of responsibility added to their outcome that would prevent them from creating harmful and irreversible outcomes. With the case of Oppenheimer, his creation of the atomic bomb brought about the Cold War, and there is no doubt involved in that. Should he have not created the atomic bomb, there would be no option for mass destruction in that route that he created. It is hard to say whether or not we would have wars to the extremities that we do today, but it is definitely in part his doing that we have the possibility of causing mass destruction. The other issue lies in the unforeseen consequences that even the scientist his or herself could not have predicted. If this is so, it is difficult to apply any sort of responsibility on the scientist for he/she could not have determined that things would end this way. I'm sure that Oppenheimer did not presume that a war would be started, and that they would want to create atomic bombs at the rate they did after he created the atomic bomb. Unfortunately, this was so, and it is difficult to determine his role in the responsibility of it.

    
As well, when considering the techno-romanticism portion of this problem, it is often with unforeseen consequences that developers create new technology. Global issues like electronic waste dumps and lead poisoning caused by exposure to the toxins from these dumps are some of the unforeseen consequences of creating new technology. But how could the programmers and developers who create these products possibly be held accountable for the latter health problems? It is with the intention of advancing technology that create, and unless we coordinate down the same path of eco and health consciousness, we will be unable to reach an equilibrium where there is no consequence. Unlike Oppenheimer, Frankenstein's creation was one that horrified me most. I do not feel comfortable with the possibility that scientists can create beings with the ability to dominate humans. This goes back to the humans vs. robots debate and questions how comfortable I am with robots in the future.

Blog Post #6 Sharing and Reflecting on 2 Research Sources

My research paper thesis statement is "While recent advertisements for new devices like cell phones and computers stress an optimistic, even techno-romantic perspective, the reality is that e-waste is a pressing problem when these new devices are discarded.


I intend on including a page or two in my research paper that covers appropriate ways to discard your devices, and other solutions to the e-waste problem. For this reason, I have looked to sources that cover this topic. One article I found through EBSCOhost is "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle: Good Earth and the Electronics Dilemma" by Don E. Descy. This article provides plenty of relevant information on the possible ways of getting rid of your old computers. I liked this article because he provided innovative and creative ways of doing this such as donating your computer to a local school, or charity, as well as provided information on computer take back programs from several popular technology companies. He also mentions a few statistics that I found interesting concerning e-waste. One special statistic mentioned was "According to the National Safety Council, 63 million computers became obsolete in 2005 alone. They also estimate that the total number in storage in 2007 numbers upwards of 500 million computers." This is fascinating and supports my thesis statements concern for the disposal of computers, as well as the much less appealing side of these tech products. I also liked the tone of this article because it sounds as though it is geared towards younger readers, as he mentions thinking of leaving his own computer in his dorm hallway for someone to take (which implies he is a college student). This is important because I also plan to write about who most of these advertisements wish to attract, and I will focus on some geared towards college students. This article will serve my paper well.

A second source that I will be using for my research paper is the article "Developmental Neurotoxicants in E-waste, an Emerging Health Concern", written by Aimin Chen. This article focuses on the potential exposure to e-waste toxicants in vulnerable populations - that is, pregnant women and developing children - and neurodevelopmental outcomes. It also features a summary of experimental evidence of developmental neurotoxicity and mechanisms. This will serve as a good source for my paper because it is very clear and will help my argument about how toxic chemicals that are released by e-waste and primitive recycling habits are damaging to the population living in the community they are dumped in.

Blog Post #5 Midterm Practice

The 1939 Futurama exhibit about a perfect super highway future was more hype than reality. It disregarded the consequences that would follow a society that depended largely on vehicles, and when this reality came true, the negativity surpassed the positive. The Futurama exhibit toyed with the American peoples fragile state, of being in an economic depression, and sold a brighter, more promising future through the use of a vehicle. Because the exhibit was put together by GM, it was in their own companies best interest that people find promise in owning a vehicle, as well as having the American people support a car-filled future. Unfortunately, little was mentioned about the environmental damage that this future would cause, and surely that is what occurred. Vehicle CO2 emissions account for a large percentage of the environmental damage the world faces today. This surely cannot be considered a "perfect" future. GM did a great job at "hyping" up their own product, but it did not amount to a positive, or anywhere near a perfect future.

There is no doubt that Futurama painted a pretty picture. It envisioned a perfect suburban world, which to some constitutes as Utopia. But even Utopia would have environmental damage with the amount of increased CO2 emissions that were promoted. Although there were intentions to resolve the overcrowding of city streets and the chaotic highways, the larger intention was always to improve the economy by increasing the growth of automobile production. This they achieved.

Futurama unfortunately also promoted another prospective problem for the environment. It excited the thought of a lifestyle that included driving to, and from every destination. They created this hype by showing students driving to school, people driving to work, driving to the market etc.

The Promise and Peril of Robots, In TV and Real Life

I've been exposed to the theme and overall idea of robots in film, and in possibility since I was a child. While this fact makes it less of an exoteric thing for me, it does still spark awe and curiosity. I find that there are specific differences that distinguish a positive robot from a negative one. For instance, the "Touch Bionics i-limb hand" is a remarkable example of the success a robot can bring to a person. This robotic limb replaces an arm, and more importantly, a hand, for a man who has lost his original one. The technology behind the hand is in the shoulder portion of the limb where sensors pick up on muscle movements which control the hand. As the user displays, there are some troubles with the hand, where some of the intended functions are misguided. However, the possibilities are clear. The narrator notes, "Campbells robotic arm is trying to compete with something that took millions of years to evolve." This is important because it dismisses the lack of function the robotic limb sometimes has, by contrasting it to the complexity of human hands. This is also imperative to the entire argument for and against robots because in one way, robots may be excused for lack of time development, and robots are negative because they may never be able to compete with human function.

VS.

So while we understand the vantage that humans have in contrast to robots, I think that the fear of robots is in the possibility that this relationship may one day be reversed. A film that provides this sort of paranoia is I, Robot. This film, directed by Alex Proyas is about a robot filled world where robots coexist with humans, and the robots benefit humans daily life by being garbage men, walking the dogs etc. When things go awry for one robot who is accused of murder, a spark goes off where all of the robots attack the man who is the accuser, and the world they live in. The danger lies in the great numbers of robots that exist, as well as their surmounting strength and abilities. This kind of human disadvantage is scary, and the film plays up our fears of this sort. I think for most people, robots are acceptable up until the point where they must interact with one. I think robots are inspiring to think about, but unacceptable to coexist with. I find that the reason films mostly play up these fears is because they do still exist, and for that reason, they always will because they hone those same fears within us. There are rarely, or none to my knowledge that portray robots such as Watson who are safe, intelligent robots.

Brainstorming for my Research Paper

While all of the options for the research paper topics appeal to me, some seem more feasible than others. The two topics that interested me most are the two I'll decide between to tackle for my paper. The research paper idea #1 is my first option. I'd like to do a close reading/ analysis of the original issue of The New Yorker magazine which featured Ian McEwan's "Us or Me". I'll then discuss it's presentation of science in terms of the short story itself, with regards to the advertising and current events featured in the issue. I find this option appealing because I think it will be a fun challenge to get my hands on such an issue, and I also think it'd be interesting to revisit that time and analyze it. I've never done a research paper using this method, and I think this will force me to use new, and different skills. I also think that the magazine issue will provide plenty of relevant information and resource so that I can write a solid paper. I'm slightly worried about attaining an original copy, or e-copy of the issue, so that may be the one losing point for this option.

However, the option that is giving me no trouble at all is research paper idea #2. I'd be very interested to discuss the promise and peril of technology because I have plenty to say on the topic. I also enjoy being able to write a paper that presents both sides, and that is a requirement of this essay.  I am very interested in either discussing the challenges of a "car-driven future" vs. global warming OR new computers vs. e-waste. I enjoyed the short film I viewed in class about the truth of e-waste, and ever since I'd been interested in gaining more knowledge on the subject. However, I also really liked "The Worlds Fair" reading and advertisements we viewed earlier in the semester, which would aid me to write about the promises of a utopian suburbia.


After giving it much thought and consideration, I've decided on the subject of Ian McEwans "Us or Me" in the original issue of The New Yorker magazine. I decided to embark on this challenge because it will be slightly more difficult but I think I'll find that my end product will be more rewarding.

Science vs. Humanities

I am in my sophomore year at LaGuardia, with a major in Liberal Arts; Social Science and Humanities. My educational goals are to transfer to a 4-year university in the fall, and attain a bachelors degree in the arts, eventually continuing on to attain a masters degree in my choice career field. My career plans are to incorporate my communication skills in the retail industry and work either in brand building, or marketing, or merchandising. I was born in the 1990's and this has made me a child of technology, however I am thoroughly interested in humanities and have a deep appreciation for both. I find that one simply does not replace the other, and for this reason they are both necessary to advancement and well being. I think most people in the United States share this same opinion. Whether or not they are consumed by either of the two, I feel there are very few people who can deny the importance of each. I do not think that the majority of people today accept science as a way of understanding the world because I do not find that science provides that sort of meaning. However, I do feel that humanities does a better job at providing this sort of information and that is one of its many appealing qualities that make it imperative to our culture.