Babies, Babies, and more Babies!! Babies for All!

I must admit, there was little that I was aware about when it came down to stem cell research. Thanks to the video, I now know more! With the knowledge that I have about stem cell research now, I can now say that I honestly do feel like stem research is a brilliant idea. Although, I am totally against destroying the unused embryos; simply because if an embryo is considered as a life, then destroying these will somewhat also be destroying a life. And if that really is the case I am totally against it.

Let's think about it for a minute. If stem cell research gives women the opportunity to produce, (especially those who could not before) this is a pretty good experiment. You are literally giving women hope that they may not have had before.

I guess I'm so excited about it because of my personal experience. (No I'm not afraid to admit this) I have a condition know as PCOS (polycystic ovarian syndrome). It is a case where women have higher chances of contacting cysts on their ovaries. Although you do not necessarily get pregnant in your ovaries, your ovaries does play a portion in the who conception stage. In most cases, women who actually have PCOS, the chances of having a child is low compared to average. So the thought of stem cell research sounds like a good idea to me simply because of this particular reason.

My only concern is that if there will be any negative  consequences resulting from this. That is all. And if there are any consequences are they gonna be minor or major.

On My Own: Political Advisory App and Website

Here's a link to our presentation of our Final Project:


And here's the link to the On My Own website we created:


Group:
Kelsie Richardson
Michelle Elsberry
Emily Conrad

Why Must We Fiddle With Everything?

Why must we fiddle with everything?

As the semester comes to a close I have noticed a trend in the subject matters that we have discussed.  This trend is not a secret and more of you may have noticed it but throughout the different types of technologies we have explored I think that the trend is that we as humans have this nature inclination to fiddle with things.  And we fiddle with them because we think that one day our fiddling will lead to improvements.  I think this plays into one major issues with stem cell research.  What will come of it and how will we get there?

In doing research on the pros and cons of stem cell research I have found that the public’s general concern is with the method to which the cells are acquired and how they might be potentially be manipulated and the potential outcome.  While these are very important things to think about and be concerned with I honestly cannot give the majority of the human population credit for being as educated as they should be about stem cell research.

So my questions to our class is this, why do you think we as the human race have the natural inclination to fiddle with things and more specifically fiddle with stem cells?  What do you think the biggest issue with stem cells is?  What will come of our research or how we will get there?

Babies or naw?

The issue with using embryological stem cells (ESCs) is that there isn't a definitive time when "life" is considered to have begun. Few people argue that a 40 week fetus is a living, viable baby. The contested points at which people consider a zygote/embryo/fetus living are: preconception, fertilization, implantation, 8th week, quickening, 20th week, 25th week, and birth. Personally, I'm not sure where that line is, but I definitely don't believe it is preconception, fertilization, or any other time before implantation, and I don't believe that the threshold for life is after development of the functional nervous and cardiovascular systems. New genetic material, as produced by the mixing of the two parents' DNA, is not a definitive marking for new life, in my opinion, and the embryos that are used in ESCR are blueprints and raw materials for human beings, not necessarily human beings themselves. I can understand how people would believe that life begins at almost all of these points, but I don't buy the "potential to become a human" argument, nor do I buy the "fetus isn't breathing, and therefor not living" argument.

I do not have any qualms about embryonic stem cell research. The benefits of that research extend beyond those we can get from adult stem cell research, as we are just finding ASCs that are pluripotent (capable of differentiating into any type of cell), and considering the fact that those embryos would likely never be implanted and thus never become humans, I don't see anything wrong with using them. Hopefully one day, we'll be able to use ASCs exclusively, but until that day, I have no issues with using embryos.



http://brainblogger.com/2009/05/10/medical-controversy-when-does-life-begin/

The Problem of Stem Cell Research

I actually never understood much about stem cell research until watching this documentary, but instead of forming a solid opinion, I find myself conflicted. I can understand the argument against using embryos for stem cell research. I believe that an embryo is still cells, as it is not yet a fetus, but it still has the potential to become a human life. However, I disagree with unused embryos being destroyed. First of all, it seems contradictory to argue that embryos shouldn't be used for stem cell research because one believes they are alive, only to destroy them if they haven't been used by the donors. I feel like frozen embryos that are not used should be donated to infertile parents, or parents looking to adopt, or donated to help with stem cell research. I also agree with Amber, that the choice should be up to the donors. They are the ones that created the cells, and unlike a child in a custody battle or under the care of the state, there is no health risk in letting the parents decide what to do with the embryos. I understand that in some countries like Ireland, stem cell research using embryos is illegal, but then the donors should still have the option to donate the embryos to another couple or parent that might be trying to have a child. Stem cell research can change lives not only through the research it contributes to, but also by allowing individuals the chance at parenting when they might have never gotten that chance without the scientific knowledge we have today. Instead of choosing a side, I guess it's safer for me to say I believe that the donors should ultimately have the decision of what happens to their embryos. Donated to science, or to prospective parents, either seems better to me than throwing away what could potentially be a life or help discover a cure to life changing diseases.

New and Improved Humans

The creation of synthetic biology has taken a toll on science. The big question for it is whether or not it is the moral thing to do. There are pros and cons to using synthetic biology. One large example is stem cell research. The video we watched in class gave some insight on how stem cell research can benefit the progression of science, while benefiting humans. However, it also showcases some personal feelings about stem cell research. Since stem cell research uses embryos and adult stem cell, it is a tricky and highly disliked process. The main con of the research is that it uses embryos. Many people believe that embryos are unborn babies, and should not be used for scientific research. They also believe that embryos have the same constitutional rights as babies who are in someone’s womb. They should be treated as such, and should not be given to science.

            The benefit is that it would help cure diseases and other illnesses. Scientists will be able to figure how cancer and diseases attack the human body, and could expedite the possibility of finding a cure. It would give people who have been injured and can no longer walk to have a second chance at a normal life. It would completely transform how science looks at injuries and would give people hope at being able to be healthy. In my own opinion, I see how both situations are being presented. I believe that embryos are possible babies, but what if those embryos are never used, and they stay frozen? I believe that the decision of whether or they should be donated to science are strictly up to the parents. As far as morality, I think stem cell research would be very beneficial and is looking out for the greater good. If stem cell research is strictly used for the purposes of finding cures for diseases and injuries, it should be considered a moral action. However, if it used for ill purposes like creating the super human, then it becomes immoral. 

If you're bored or a nerd:

Hey all,

I didn't have to blog this week but found this neat article/blog about privacy through the ages. Check it out if you're bored or if your relatives are bothering you :]


THE HISTORY OF PRIVACY

When does human life begin?

I thought the video we watched in class on Monday was kind of hard to follow if you didn't really know what was the main concern so I found this picture that simply puts what people who are pro stem cell research are trying to say and how the process is supposed to go. 

I personally believe that it is super tricky to give a solid answer as to when it is that our lives begin. Because I am pro stem cell research for the most part, I think our lives begin when we are developed from a fertilized egg and a growing embryo still inside the womb.
I know with advancing technologies and the way babies can grow that claim can be denied, but in my unprofessional opinion I say that is when we begin fully. The video shows that when women freeze eggs they are in small tubes and I know what the eggs will eventually become(duh) but it is hard for me to see this frozen tube as a developing baby until it is inside a person and developing. At the put of being frozen it is just at a stand still and could potentially not work for the person who wants to unfreeze them maybe years later.
Therefore, I stand by my idea that life starts in the womb.

Also, this picture shows what can be resolved by the use of stem cells and there are a few simple things like baldness, but if stem cell research could cure diseases like Alzheimer's then I'm all in. Stem cells have the remarkable potential to become many different cell types in the human body during early life and growth. Imagine all the people who could benefit from this! 

If you can't see the picture? Then click HERE!

So, when does human life start for you? and are you pro stem cell research or against it?

Are Stem Cells Our Future?

On Monday we watched a video regarding the research and experimentation on stem cells.  There are two categories of stem cells.  Adult stem cells are cells of a certain type that can reproduce the same type of cells, for example, heart muscle cells and neurons.  Embryonic stem cells are one type of cell that can be extracted from an embryo to reproduce all types of the adult stem cells.  These are like the universal cells.  Stem cells have the possibility of being used to grow new muscle or skin tissue for people who need transplants.  The controversy regarding stem cells come into play when discussing the use of embryonic stem cells.  A potential baby, AKA the embryo, is destroyed when the stem cell is used.  Does this mean that scientists and researchers are murdering unborn babies for the benefit of science?  Some people think that because the embryo was not implanted in a womb, it does not constitute murder; the embryo would never develop outside of the womb anyway.  Other people think that it becomes murder when the embryo is formed; the natural progression of the embryo would be to develop into a human, but researchers are permanently stopping this progression. 


Can we say that is moral to destroy an embryo due to the possibility of using its stem cells to find a cure to a currently incurable disease?  The negative side is that the embryo could have developed to become a human who could make great advances in science or other important field.  I honestly am not sure where I stand on this topic.  I am not sure if I see using an embryo as murder.  I am leaning toward yes but, I want to agree with the statement that if there is extra embryonic material that could be used to develop a cure for cancer or AIDs then it should be used.  I definitely do not think that is it right to dispose of the extra embryonic material; I see that as murder and a waste of potential life.  Maybe that's how we should think about it, as potential life.  If you believe that using an embryo is murder, would you not agree that it is also murder to throw it away?  Experimentation regarding stem cells, even though taking away life from the embryo, can save the life of another human.  I would rather the excess embryos be used to benefit life in some way, and not just be thrown away.  That is a total waste.

Comments for Gabby and Brock

Comment for Gabby:
        I agree with the concept that synthetic biology is not immoral. I think it is something that should be explored on the basis of helping improve human life; especially when pertaining to cures. If we solely use synthetic biology for those purposes alone, then it could actually be looked at as a moral situation. I also agree that people who partake in the use of synthetic biology should be responsible for anything that goes wrong. Biology and every other field is constantly expanding, and I think synthetic biology could be very beneficial.

Comment for Brock:
       It's hard to really understand the real purpose for a terrorist attack. Is it used to scare another country in to doing something? Is it just because people are evil? Or does it show how far people are willing to go just to make a point? I am not sure if I totally agree with that statement that terrorism is becoming harder to do. I believe that it takes a longer time to plan, but I don't believe that there is a sufficient amount of security to make terrorism stop completely. Yes we can go to war, but that doesn't always help the situation. It is definitely going to take more effort to stop terrorism all together.

Science Rules *Bill Nye Voice*

In class, we discussed the morality of synthetic biology and its dual-use potential. The key issue is the unknown and the potential to create a Jurassic Park like world or a deadly virus.  We found ourselves evaluating the morality by the result, a consequentialist theory that does not completely address the moral issue.

 

Creation for the sake of creation is risky, but it can be considered art.  In the case that science is rooted in innovation and discovery, I do not think it is immoral. There need to be guidelines for containment or lifespan control, but in a regulated environment, I do not see issues with synthetic biology.  I agree with the idea that every synthesizer should be traced and whoever purchased the genome should be held accountable in case there is inappropriate use.  

 

As far as modifying diseases, I struggle with coming to a conclusion. I would eliminate deafness, blindness, and depression if I had the choice, but that eliminates some people’s free will. If nine people are wishing their blindness away, while one appreciates the experiences and wants to keep the condition, but a virus is discovered that will cure all blindness: who chooses the final result? Is the free will of one individual more important than majority’s desire to see?  Another tough aspect is the idea that our definition of disease changes with time.  For example, homosexuality used to be called a disease.  Often, the people creating the standards simply do not understand someone with characteristics different from theirs.

 

I have a few qualms with deeming synthetic biology immoral under the guise of “playing God.” As humans, we create and destroy living things constantly: we are inconsistent with our theories on who or what can be killed. For example, we treat some animals like family members while eating animals who are similar in size and sentience. As far as creation, most people eat genetically modified organisms daily.  Some people avoid GMOs for health, environmental, or moral reasons, but for the most part, they are widely accepted. One quote that stuck out to me in the film Transcendence was Dr. Will Caster’s reply to an accusation about playing God; he said, “Isn’t that what man has always done?” Humans create and destroy: it is difficult to determine what makes synthetic biology different. There will always be risks in creation, but the unknown should not hinder discovery.

 

Wind Turbines: Eco Friendly Form of Transportation?

Our environment is an incredibly important part of not only our lives, but the lives of every creature that lives on this planet. This means that we do have some sort of responsibility to take care of it, to preserve it. Unfortunately we don't seem to really care one way or another about the survival of our world. Or at least that's how it's starting to feel. Sure, we talk a lot about the actions that we take to help out, but how much do we actually do?

I've driven many hours, usually on my way to Texas or New Mexico, and passed through miles of flat lands with tons of wind turbines. I've had to pass so many oversized loads that carry parts to make more. I guess that's a testament to our country's "green movement." Of course wind turbines aren't the most efficient way to get energy. There are other ways that we try to use green energy. Dams, for example. I guess the point I'm trying to make right now is that what we have implemented right now to help out the environment isn't focusing on the individual citizens. Green cars exist, but unfortunately they're pretty much out of reach for a good portion of the population. I think it can be agreed that individuals do have some responsibility regarding the environment, but we seem to have some difficulties with putting it into practice and actually helping out. Taxing the people as a deterrent doesn't make much sense. People with enough money would be able to waste in excess if they so desired. On the other side people with less money wouldn't be able to afford the luxury.

Honestly, I think that the appropriate way to combat this issue and help conserve our environment is to make the process easier for the people. It should be easier for people to recycle. It should be easier for people to get to work. Whether by bus or train. People do need to work, and usually the work place isn't within walking distance. Should we be punished because of how large our states are? So why is public transportation so difficult to understand, manage, and use? These are the issues we should be focusing on. This is a step that we should consider before putting a price tag on everything. This country, or at the very least many states within it, actively make it more difficult for the general public to live "greener."

Terrorists Better be Terrified

After the Paris attacks that happened last week, terrorism has been on my mind quite a lot. It's really difficult for me to understand why these things happen, as I'm sure it is for everyone. The first question we all ask is simply, "Why?" Why do people do these horrible things? How in the hell is spreading terror, fear, and grief going to move people closer to a goal that is any type of good at all? And honestly, there may not be a solid answer. But regardless, all I know is that terrorism is wrong, terrorism is absolutely horrible and devastating to those it effects, and I'm incredibly glad that I live in an age where terrorism has become much more difficult to carry out than ever before.

After reading the chapter in The New Digital Age about cyberterrorism, it gave me a lot of hope that terrorism's overwhelming presence in today's world might start to be mitigated due to the increased connectivity of the world. The chances that a terrorist, who is just as fallible as the next human, will mess up and leave some sort of digital footprint that could bring them to justice are quite high. In fact, they're higher than they've ever been and when the other 5 billion people come online, I'm hoping it will be damn near impossible for terrorists to even exist.

Terrorism is actually one of the reasons I chose to go into my field. I watched a lot of 24 in high school and in the show, the main place of operation is CTU or the counter terrorist unit. Seeing data analysts perform incredible computational tasks that help thwart terrorism inspired me. That, along with my passion of technology and social justice issues. So maybe one day, I could help put some of these messed-up, evil people who participate in terrorism in prison where they belong. Anyone who threatens society and innocence like that deserves to be punished heavily.

Would You Like a Chip With That?

As we may or may not have noticed, technology is becoming far more advances than it ever was. Maybe even so advanced that the thought of it may actually be scary. For example, let us look at RFID chips. RFID chips are used basically to track things. Let us say that you lose something and you may really want to find that very thing that you lost. Well there is good news my friend. If you had put a RFID chip in the very thing that you lost, there is a good possibility that it will be found again. With the chip inside of it, it can easily be tracked! These particular chips can be put into almost anything. They could be put inside personal belongings, pets, and even people! Scary right? I can somewhat see how that would be helpful when it comes to finding lost children, but let us be honest. With all of the hearsay that we hear that goes on within the government system, would you really want to insert a chip inside of your body? Exactly how safe would you actually be with the government being able to track your every move? Who even likes the thought of being tracked?

Although there are possible both pros and cons of having the chips inserted. What are the consequences of having these chips inserted? I just honestly do not even like the thought of being tracked. I understand that technically now we sort of are being tracked through our phones, but having a chip inserted; that is a total different level. That has gone too far.

The Ethics of Tracking

We've mentioned implanting chips in pets and even children multiple times in class, and each time we reached the issue of ethics. Is it wrong to implant a tracking chip in a child without giving them the choice? If, in the future, we were  able to develop technology like the grains in The Entirety of You, the ethical debate wouldn't be such a huge problem. When a child is old enough, they can be given the choice to turn their tracker on or off through a mental process, just like the characters in Entirety could control their grains through eye movements or the use of a small remote. It might be difficult to determine a set age, but it would give give children a sense of autonomy without fearing that they never had any privacy. However, if they were to be caught in a natural disaster, kidnapped, or in any dangerous situation, they could activate their tracker at will. The ability to manipulate the tracker through eye movement or a mental process would make it easier to activate than current technology like a 911 call, and it's much easier to hide. It would also be difficult for an assailant to remove the tracker, especially if it was in a place on the body more difficult to reach than behind the ear. I imagine these would be difficult to track in some areas just like how cell phones are difficult to operate in certain areas. However, I believe Dr. Johnson mentioned in Wednesday's class that the range of cell phone towers can be changed by the companies that own them, which would make this a smaller problem. I realize that we are probably far from this technology, but I don't see any breaking news about robots with artificial intelligence high enough to take over the world like we keep talking about in class, so I think it's safe to say my idea is plausible.

Tracking Children?

In class on Wednesday, we discussed the idea of chipping things we cannot live without. This could range from children, to keys (which is being done as we speak). The more important one, I think, is the chipping of children. I think this would be a good idea for teens who can drive or get lost somewhere, and even for small children, in drastic sense, if they get abducted. If any human under the age of 18 were to be taken or run away, they would be able to be found. But by whom? The government? The parents? The legal guardian? What if the child in question runs away from abusive parents? The parents would be able to find them, even if they were placed in foster care, ect. Also, how secure would the information be about the whereabouts of the child? If the child was taken from their parents, would the info about where the child is located be transferred to the government? Does this violate privacy laws? Should the government be able to track children?

Honestly, I have no idea. I tend to lean on the less the government knows about me, the better. But if I was kidnapped? I would definitely like someone to know where I am.
And I feel if you asked parents of children who have been abducted (or even the ones who don't), they would be quick to agree for the safety reasons.

Human Aid

So in class last week Gabrielle mentioned the idea of having a portable computer station to help places reconstruct after a natural disaster. That got me thinking, what if instead of just a computer station we had a full group of people trained to help reconstruction. A world army, but not for war but for reconstruction. The army would consist of doctors, architects, and other professionals that would be specifically trained to handle reconstruction the best way possible. This army would train all year long, running mock scenarios to prepare them for real happenings. If a natural disaster were to hit they would deploy and help those in need. The army would have members from every single nationality. The base could be anywhere in the world. There would have to be no chain of command to go down to get a final decision to deploy. There would be no reason not to help people. 

Governments from every country would be forced to contribute a certain amount of money to the proportion of each country to help fund this project. This would help solve problems that the Red Cross or other programs like it can't help with. Due to the fact that such programs are run by different governments, there usually is a large amount of decision before any kind of action is taken.

I think this idea obviously has some flaws and some things that need to be worked out but I think this would help humans and the world as a whole. Technology and humans would come together even further to help for a world wide cause that would be fair for everyone. The members of this army would have to be large in the case of having a large area or scattered areas affected by disaster. 

Anyway, this was just an idea that came to mind when we talked about the subject in class the other day. 

Immigrants: The Shadows in "America's" Jails

Mass incarceration was the main topic of class today and of the lecturer's speech in last night's event. However, I feel like my surroundings tend to see everything in black and white but when you have been forced to live in the shadows for so long I don't blame them for still overlooking us. Hispanics are the next social injustice problem that needs to be fixed. Women got the right to vote, segregation ended, and now the LGBT+ community can freely marry so it got me thinking how long must I wait to see my people having justice?
In regards of incarcerations, immigrants are constantly being mistreated and abused. Besides the fact that most of the times families are separated and put in immigration detention centers, immigrants are still considered inhuman. People are incarcerated for simple traffic violations and sent to these "detention centers" were they are fed under cooked meals, sexually assaulted, kept in horrible living conditions, detained longer than necessary, and constantly abused of the guards and ICE police officers.
According to the Prison Policy Initiative, Hispanics make up 16% of the population of the U.S. and 19% of the prison population. But does that include these prisoners waiting for the chance of a better life? Some states are even debating on the construction of these types of centers but why would you want to spend money on a prison for mostly innocent people?
"Americans" tend to highly overlook and ignore the issues in regards of the Hispanic and immigrant community. Even our speaker last night mentioned immigration detention centers/prisons ONCE just one time in his speech of over an hour did he mentioned the immigration/Hispanic incarceration. I am highly disappointed in the treatment that Hispanics receive in our society.                


Bibliography:

• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/immigration-detention_n_5811952.html
• http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/rates.html
• http://www.latinospost.com/articles/77019/20151030/undocumented-women-at-immigration-detention-center-on-hunger-strike-personal-letters-say-they-are-treated-like-dogs.htm
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/28/dhs-prison-rape-elimination-act-_n_4874712.html
• http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2015/11/10/nearly-100-immigrant-women-held-in-texas-detention-center-now-on-hunger-strike/

To Be or Not To Be.... Tracked

On Wednesday we discussed the future of tracking chips.  One question that we tried to answer was whether or not we should have tracking chips in all of our material items.  If we did, it would be a lot easier to keep track of our things.  The find my phone app on the iphone has helped countless people find their phone when the loss could have otherwise been an utter disaster.  The tracking chips would also help with finding stolen items.   But, would these chips prevent things from being stolen?  People would know that the item was tracked so either they would need to be smart enough to disable the chip or destroy it.  They could also steal something and then quickly sale it.  The item may be found later, but the criminaol still benefitted from the sale.  Would it be acceptable to put trackers in all material items?  What about in guns?  Would doing so reduce the number of stolen guns?  The chips would hold people more accountable for their guns.  People may try to keep track of their guns and keep them safer so that people would not steal it and then commit crimes with it.  The crime scene would point straight to the owner of the gun.  I believe that trackers would be a positive thing in some respects, but is it acceptable to give up what remains of our privacy and freedom in order to be sure that all of our belongings are safe?  We also discussed reconstruction after natural disasters.  We contemplated whether or not it would be sensible to issue out phones after the disaster.  The phones would allow family members to contact and find each other.  They would be a great way to share the information about who was safe and who was not.  A negative of providing phones would be the amount of money spent on phones for people who may not have access to electricity or phone service (because of the natural disaster), when the money could have been spent on more necessary items such as food, clothes, water, shelter, and medical help.  If it was me that had just experienced a natural disaster, I would for sure want to contact my family but then after I accomplished that, I am not sure what I could do with the phone that would be helpful to the situation.  I think that I would rather have access to food and water.  If we could have access to a device that can check us in as safe, like they had on Facebook for the recent hurricane in Mexico, I think that would be the most sensible option.  I believe that after natural disasters, we should focus on providing things that are necessary to keep the effected people alive.

Next Phase of Technology

Before reading The New Digital Age, I did not realize how much technology played a role on serious situations in the world. I never looked at social media as an outlet to start revolutions, did not expect the virtual world to progress on the same level as the physical world, and did not think of terrorism happening virtually. The book makes some great points about how much power technology holds, and what it can be used for. I believe the most interesting topics were the future of revolutions, future of terrorism and reconstruction. These are both distinctive concepts that have a completely different meaning from the original definition when using technology to execute them. The thought of a social media revolution is new due to the vast awareness that it causes. It is great for getting information out quickly, keeping those people who do not watch the news in the loop about serious and far situations, and causing picture movements. However, will technology develop to the point where social media is actually used as an outlet to solve problems and not just bring awareness to them?

            As far as virtually causing terrorism and virtually kidnapping people’s identity, will these problems start to occur on a regular basis? I remember when cyber bullying started to take place, and became such a huge ordeal because it drastically affected people’s lives. Will cyber terrorism and virtual kidnapping be held to a higher standard of crime, or will it be even harder to prove? We discussed in class which would be more terrifying, being kidnapped in the physical or in the virtual. The virtual causes more complications when dealing a person’s identity and can cause long term damage. Have we given too much power to the use of technology? But what about RFID chips? If we put chips in everything like humans, weapons, and eventually be able to track someone’s use of the internet, can virtual kidnaps be minimized.  What will be the next phase of technology?

If You Like it Then You Should've Put a Chip in it.....

Like Beyonce says, "if you like it then you should've put a ring on it". I think the same idea could go for people who value their property, you should look into putting a chip in it. Right? Right. If we put RFID (radio frequency identification) chips in everything and everyone, it would create clear advantages to our communities. Keeping track of guns, people, criminals, valuables is very beneficial. You could find things with ease, just by the click of a button you can find whatever it is you've been missing. There are concerns that the government would then start tracking us, but they already are. So what's the big deal? If we're already being watched and tracked for the weird reasons the government has to track us, why not do it ourselves? I think once I get older I'll get into the tracking trend. Why spend so much money on things and work so hard to get yourself the things you want and lose them or risk them being stolen.

I admit the idea of being of being tracked is creepy. But why not adopt this technology and use it for ourselves? It would make things a lot easier and I'm in! What do you think about it? 

Comments on Gabrielle's Post

I agree with you that Cohen and Schmidt were a little too pessimistic about how effective hashtag activism can be, and I think the Humans of New York page is a good example of that. When the page director went overseas to cover Syria and several other Middle Eastern countries, he exposed a lot of Americans to the normal daily lives of these foreign countries. It did a lot to show us that many of them are just like us. It also inspired followers to reach out and offer emotional AND financial support. I'm posting two screenshots, both of which show followers donating time, effort, and money to support the activists and people whose stories HONY shared, I believe they were both from Pakistan. Yes, hashtag activism may be the lazier method and it might not even remain in most people's minds, but for people like the ones in the pictures I'm sharing, there was definitely a lasting impact. (The first photo is posted multiple times because there were soo many comments suggesting funds and donation accounts)

Comments for Kelsie and Larshay

Comment for Kelsie:

        I totally agree with the fact that there needs to be more put in place in order to stop cyberterrorism. I'm not surprised that cyber attacks are number two on the list because of how frequent they have become, especially hacking. I think that there should also be a proactive drive to stop cyber attacks through social media sites as well. You are right that we do spend a lot of time dealing with technology, but should cyber attacks be allowed because of it? Will more security mean more censorship and blocks, or will it actually crack down on the people who abuse technology?

Comment for Larshay:

 

       I agree the hashtags can make a difference and bring awareness to what's going on around the world. However, what I worry about is everything turning in to a hashtag and no work is getting done. Yes, awareness is great. Having hashtags are great. But do they actually make a difference when it's on a larger scale? If people are only using hashtags and not taking a stance, nothing in the world changes. It would be kind of cool if every use of a hashtag meant signing a petition for something, or had more impact. But if more work was put in to actually doing something versus creating a new hashtag, more things would change.

Buzzfeed Keeping Us in the Loop

I saw this interesting article on Buzzfeed and figured I'd share it with the class. This link -> GMail of the Future will take you to the article. But it's basically about how we won't have to respond to emails ourselves anymore, our GMail accounts will read up on the what we typically say in email responses and come up with one specifically for us.

If this doesn't scream "someone is looking at your inbox" I'm not sure what does. Not that we needed anymore proof, but this is obviously another way to reinforce our laziness and distract us with the fact that some people out there are looking for more ways to hack into our day to day lives. It relates to our class in so many ways: the black mirror series, future terrorism/ hacking, and what is privacy.

Fight for the Future!

When discussing the emergence of new cyber terrorism technologies it makes me think about how we DON'T know about the potential harm that it can bring. Of course , we are aware of the hacking of our personal information, and government conspiracies about what is actually being done with our leaked info. However , I think that this is the time when we really need to take a step back , and evaluate what we still need to learn about cyberterrorism. The picture above is from an article on the Brookings Institution website that explains the top fears of Americans(I will post the link to the entire article below my post). The article was published October 30, 2015, so the data should be up to date. Saying that cyberterrorism ranks #2 out of 89 other random fears, it says that we have yet to fully discover how potentially harmful it actually is. I think that more energy should be put into understanding cyberterrorism, and how/if everyone can protect themselves from attack. In one of my previous classes my professor told us that it is hard for millennials to predict what career field we would like to enter, primarily because alot of the jobs of the future don't even exist yet. Now we have branches of the FBI and Homeland Security to assist with cyberterrorism. However,  I think that eventually it will become such a major issue that we will have to dedicate a completely new branch of government agencies that deal with nothing but potential cyber attacks. We invest so much of our lives into technology, and as time goes on we are going to invest more and more. So we are going to need someone to help us secure all of our information.

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE : http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/techtank/posts/2015/10/30-americans-top-technology-fears

Virtual Vigilantes

The idea of virtual terrorism is  pretty intimidating one when you think about it. There's so much that we do that depends on technology. We really do depend on the fact that technology will run effectively and without error. When street lights don't behave the way that they're supposed to on a daily basis because of some regular issue people react badly. And that's only one street, or one block! Thinking about everything else that someone could do on a massive scale is incredibly jarring and terrifying. That this sort of chaos can be started with one malicious person's tweaking is kind of scary. I can definitely see how it can be used for evil. I do think that these same tactics can be used for good. I suppose I see people who manipulate technology in order to enact some form of justice the same way that I see Batman or Robin Hood. They're sort of vigilantes, yes they work outside the law and the ability they have to do so could be bad in someone else's hands but instead they're trying to help people out. Plus, a vigilante usually tries to push their own justice because of the legal system's inability to do the same. I think that we should consider that if there wasn't something wrong with our system people wouldn't step forward to fix it. Yes what they're doing is technically illegal, but it's not a bad thing to do. There's a big difference between committing a crime for the sake of committing a crime and doing it for the people. I think that we sort of need people to do this in order to bring attention to the wrongs in our world. At least until we manage to change so that we don't need their aid anymore.

The Illegal Downloading of Music... can be okay.

This week I have really had to consider my stance on the illegal downloading of music. This has actually been really troubling for me because of the argument against my current stance made by Dr. Johnson: shouldn’t art be available for everyone to enjoy regardless of economic status? And my response simply is yes when asked this question directly, but I have to reconcile it with my own behavior and economic status. As is painfully clear, I have a lot of privilege and very high economic status when compared to the rest of the world. And even just in my area, because of my parents both being college educated professionals who work for different areas of the government, we have a nice, steady combined income at my house that’s stable and high. At the very least though, high enough for me to be able to afford music and not need to illegally download it just to enjoy myself a little. It’s not fair to other less fortunate people who can’t afford music, and they see that, so they’re going to do what the majority of people do and disregard the law. And while there are artists out there who deserve to be compensated for their hard work, I really don’t think they’re doing too bad as it is because of the current infrastructure that encourages those with more privilege thanks to economic status to purchase their stuff. I feel like there are enough of those who can afford to pay for access to an artist’s music that those who can’t afford it should be left alone. Plus, this is a very minor crime with very little negative consequences besides people who are more than likely already super privileged and rich being deprived of a minuscule fraction of the potential money they could make. So altogether, I guess I’ve just reconciled my own behavior of purchasing music by using my privilege as an excuse, because others who have less privilege and can’t afford music shouldn’t be deprived of the wondrous and magical power of music. Art is something I feel all should be able to see, hear, and just plain experience, regardless of where you come from or who you are. Music is such a key part of humanity that I can’t help but think of how those who download illegally because they can’t afford are doing the right thing.

It won't be televised...It will be hashtagged #revolution

For those that believe that the hashtag revolutionaries aren’t making an impact, I will say that isn’t completely true. Sadly, I am not as informed about what is going on in the world and don’t take the time to read anything unless it pertains to something directly to my life and survival. The quick times that I do get onto social media, I begin to learn about the stances of people when it comes to crimes of injustice and the crimes themselves. Without such a way to spread information, there would be a lot less people with an opinion about their views and even less of a response to the issues that this country faces.

                I will like to use the Civil Rights movement as an example. Of course, people knew about the injustice to people of color, or at least they thought such prejudices were exaggerated. It wasn’t until people say it on TV and it was spread to masses of people did the public truly understand the issue at hand. With the growth of technology, we can see more than ever and have proof that change must come about. If one denies any injustice at this point, they are racist, or refuse to hear the true because knowing such information will destroy their bubble of perfection.

                And for those that live in their own world, they are forced to see, if even for a second, the times in which we live. Sure there may be people that only hashtag and move on, but that’s better than no awareness at all. It matters not how the revolution is executed the most, because the number of brave souls won’t change. Only the chosen few in any struggle will do the real work. This shouldn’t discourage any that want to make a difference, because it only takes a few.

Matthew 18:18-21
Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.
 Genesis 11:6
The people are united, and they all speak the same language. After this, nothing they set out to do will be impossible for them!

Viva la Revolucion

In class yesterday, we discussed whether or not our generation promotes social justice, to what extent, and why.  One claim was that people limit or monitor bold views as they have to worry about the consequences of their actions, but it’s always been this way. We cannot claim we are more at risk of sacrificing a potential job than those before us who fought for certain issues.  America has not yet mastered problems surrounding equality; in fact, they [problems] are foundational in United States’ history.  At any given time, someone, a group, a family, or a community, was fighting against injustice: the concern for keeping a job and reputable name is not new – it is as old as our history. This has always been, and will always be, but the point of activism is engaging even when there may be sacrifices: the idea is fighting for the greater good – rarely does this battle come without cost.

It is true that some of us are lazy; like the first point, there have always been lazy people, and there will always be lazy people, but I do not think that this is a defining characteristic of our technological use. Technology allows us to participate in current events without getting out of bed.  This may be viewed as lazy, but it is also a means of spreading a message at any given time – working smart, rather than working hard.  Some people have financial capital stored and ready to use or invest: others have social capital which is knowledge, power, or influence over others. Spreading understanding is a key part of revolution.  Awareness is the spark that lights the fire.  A problem cannot be tackled unless the message is widespread.

            Cohen and Schmidt make a valid point: connectivity will bring people together without the obligation to entirely commit to a project, but I disagree with their conclusion on the issue.  They claim that worldwide connectivity will not lead to fulfilled resolution (at any reasonable rate); I believe that it will helpV people from all walks of life and every region to band together to disclose issues.  There may be distractions: for example, suddenly, we will know things about different regions and potentially understand the severity of more problems, distracting from one present issue. But I have faith in the future of activism.  I believe with more connectivity will come stronger movements and the potential for revolution.