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.
Monday, June 6, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)