Category: Blog English 110 (Page 1 of 2)

One of the feedback comments I received was that I could focus more on art throughout my paper. I have a lot about physical volunteering but my podmates pointed out that a lot of the prompt has to do with if art is a waste of time. I agree with them and I plan on adding more about art throughout each of my paragraphs and I plan to add more from Southan as well to make it more of a well rounded paper. Another comment of feedback I got was that I should add more quotes to my paper as well. I think this was a good idea to make some of my paragraphs better support the claims I am making. With more quotes I would also able to add a barclay’s graph into my paper which is needed as well. I final feedback comment I received was to reorganize some of my body paragraphs to make the paper flow better. I thought this was a really great idea, as sometimes when I write my thoughts can get jumbled and out of order. I started writing a paragraphs about the EA’s towards the end and this comment made me read my paper over again and realized that that paragraph would fit in a much better spot towards the beginning of the paper.

Life’s challenges and hardships are part of being human and are almost unavoidable throughout a lifetime. From daily struggles to world hunger, we face a lot of suffering as a common race. However, many people feel as though they have a responsibility to help relieve some of that suffering. An extreme example could be a group called Effective Altruism, they strive to end suffering by giving money to the needy. On the other hand, there is Dre Urhahn and Jeroen Koolhaas, painters who believe in relief through art and have brought joy to the favelas of Rio by painting murals in the communities. If one feels the need to volunteer and give back to those who need it, there is no right or wrong way to help someone. Although giving money is often seen as the most effective way to give back, there are many other influential acts that others can help by doing.

Alternative thesis:

Good deeds come in all shapes and sizes and should come from the kindness of one’s own heart.

What are the limits of the art discussed in your choice TED talk? What is the power of the art discussed in your TED talk?

I picked the TED Talk about the painted Favelas in Rio with Dre Urhahn and Jeroen Koolhaas. I picked this one because I thought the idea of painting on the sides of buildings is so cool. I think it’s even cooler that they were able to transform these run down neighborhoods and bring some color into where those people live. One limit of the art that they were creating was funding. The paint to buy isn’t cheap and they had to take a lot out of their time to do these murals. Another limit could also be the fact that people might not have been on board with the work they were doing. This didn’t happen in their case but it is possible that the people in the community wouldn’t have wanted a change or wanted people they didn’t know in their neighborhood. The power of art in this TED Talk is humungous. The work that they did affected them, the people that live in those communities, and even people who see the work. I felt very moved and inspired after watching the TED Talk and seeing their work as well. They were able to make the community more personable and bring the people that live there even closer together.

Visit the Effective Altruism website and spend some time looking around. Notice how you react to the website.

After looking around on the Effective Altruism website, it looks like what I would have expected it to be. They have many examples and facts about what good donating money can do. This relates to their ideology that you should give as much money as you can to their cause. All of their information on their website is very specific and targeted towards being as effective as you can with the good you can do. This website obviously portrays EA in the best light possible compared to Southan’s essay. We are getting the same information but rather than hearing it straightforward, the website is putting the focus on all of the good this is doing and using their facts to back it up. They wouldn’t put on the website the idea of replaceability because that would be disheartening to their cause. People would see that it’s a competition and that would take away from the message that they are trying to put out there about the effectiveness of compassion.

Is art a waste of time? Discuss any art (books, music, movies, paintings and/or influential “arty” person in your life) that has had an impact or influence on you (good or bad!). Explore what your life might look like if you woke up tomorrow and all of the aforementioned art was gone. What would you do with your ‘free’ time? What would you listen to, if there were no more music? As someone who is headed into a “helping profession,” how does that chosen vocation fair with the ideals and principles of the Effective Altruism folks? Imagine yourself post-graduation. Would they welcome you into their fold with your chosen degree in tow? How useful would you be to them, in your opinion?

I absolutely do not think that art is a waste of time. Without art in this world we would be missing designs on clothing, the architecture of buildings, and the art we see in our everyday lives. We use so many forms of art to pass the time, like movies, music, and games on smartphones. Art is central to so many things in today’s society and it would be tough living without it. I know for me I spend some of my time creating art with drawing and painting. It’s a fun way to pass the time and keep my brain active. It creates a sense of accomplishment when I make something that I like as well. Art is so important to teach kids to be creative especially at a young age. Kids need to be able to create and be messy so that they can expand their minds and play with right and wrong. Art overall has had such a good impact on me, with favorite movies and favorite songs, it keeps me occupied and my mind busy. Without art, I think my life would be pretty dull. In my free time I would still have friends to hang out with and other stuff to do, but I would definitely miss being able to create art, watch movies, and listen to music.

I think going into a “helping profession”, Effective Altruism can be related to a point. I think being a dental hygienist, I align with the thought that I want to help people, but I will be doing it in a way related to improving oral hygiene rather than giving money to worthy causes. I think that EA’s would welcome dental hygienists because they do make a decent amount of money so they might think they could give donations to the cause.

How do you feel it is to relieve suffering in the world? What are you willing to do to contribute to the goal? As you read, pay close attention to the definition and practice of Effective Altruism (EA). Do you support this philosophy? What do you do that is consistent with this practice?

How to relieve suffering in the world is a tough question to answer, but a starting point would be to help those less fortunate then yourself. I think the idea of relieving suffering is a difficult concept, because part of being human is suffering with daily responsibilities, worries, and needs. The suffering that should be focused on is the physiological suffering, people that need food, water, and shelter to survive, compared to people in the developed world who are suffering with stresses of their jobs. I have contributed to the goal of relieving this suffering before. I have volunteered many times in the past at soup kitchens, donated to those in need, and recently helped build a house for a deserving family. I have always held the value of volunteering and giving back important to me, but I think the concept of Effective Altruism is a bit extreme. I don’t think that giving back should be a competition to see who can do the most, and I don’t think others should be shunned for spending their time doing something they enjoy. Helping someone should be an intrinsic motivation, something that you want to do because you know that person will be better off, you shouldn’t want to help someone if the reason is to beat someone else in how helpful you are. EA is also very harsh with their outlook on people who choose not to volunteer. Some people may not have the time, resources, or be able bodied to volunteer and that is okay. If people choose to spend their time with the arts, that is okay too. I think this article especially struck a nerve with me because I really enjoy drawing, painting, and making art as well. I don’t believe that creation is selfish, if anything it lets one dive deeper into the depths of who they are as they’re own person. I create art because it is fun and I feel accomplished, and I don’t this that me making art takes anything away from the time I spend volunteering.

According to Effective Altruists, when is it okay to make art?

According to the EA, it is okay to make art when it is beneficial to the EA cause. Either if you are already a successful artist and can give money to the cause, or you can use your artistic talent to attract more people to the EA cause.

Central to Effective Altruism is the notion of replaceability. Note Southan’s definition of this term. In what ways does it function withing the Effective Altruism movement?

Replaceability is a concept within EA that keeps the members motivated to give back. The idea that someone else can replace you because they are doing more good than you are will push people to give back even more. They say that the only goo that counts is the good that you can do over someone else.

In terms of science and new discoveries that are being made, it is dangerous that decisions about these life changing technologies are being made solely by small groups of researchers. With Chinese scientist He Jainkui’s situation, that was just the case. A writer from The Atlantic by the name of Ed Yong points out He’s wrong doings by saying he “developed his own personal code” (Yong 2) after seeking many educated opinions and ignoring them. He’s lack of consideration of others advice proved to be a fault for him after revealing his work. Many people would say that is final product is irresponsible and rushed. This genetic code that he is altering is in uncharted territory so we have to background on how to regulate rules on this kind of science. However, even though these findings are still fresh, they should spark a global conversation about how we should handle this in the best possible way. In an article named Ethics and the New Genetics written by the Dalai Lama, he touches upon how everyone should have a voice in this debate as well. He states “one partial solution is to ensure that a larger segment of the general public has a working grasp of scientific thinking and an understanding of key scientific discoveries” (Dalai Lama 70). The Dalai Lama would also agree with the concept that we need everybody’s mind power to come to a common consensus. The understanding of knowledge is key in this problem. Even though everybody has different perspectives and outlooks on what should be done, this will only help us as come to a greater compromise with what is the best for everybody.

Since genetic editing technology is so new, it should be handled ethically with consideration to human decency. The Dalai Lama has written a piece named Ethics and the New Genetics where he describes how he views we should handle this whole debate. In his piece he says “we have to check our motivation and ensure that its foundation is compassion” (Dalai Lama 70). This starting point of compassion allows for a much broader definition of the way this should be handled. This situation is neither black or white, there is a lot of gray area since no technology like this has ever been created before. If we start with that foundation of compassion, we can see others perspectives on this matter with an open mind. Sometimes, it might not be that easy though. In the case of He Jiankui, he went against the ethical views he previously stated and the views he received from others. In an article written by Ed Yong at The Atlantic, he says that “He urged scientists to move cautiously before editing the genome of embryos” (Yong 1). Since He went against everything he said before and everything he was advised to do, he was working against that idea of consideration and human decency. It is a shame that he went against what he was advised to do and ignored his own words as well. This controversy is troubling for many people in the scientific community. If he had only taken into account that idea of compassion and human decency, he might have thought again before making the decisions he did.

When we think about how genome editing should be used, it is important to also think about how it should be governed. Given the public interest in the use of genome editing, an approach will need to be found that acknowledges that people arrive at these questions with different values, priorities and expectations.

I think this is a good conclusion to come to with this matter. I agree with the fact that we should think about how it should be governed, there needs to be laws and rules about how it should be used and what it is used for. I think it is important to take into account that everybody will have different priorities and opinions with how this should be handled. This is difficult because the end result will then be something that not everybody agrees on, or it will be a compromise. I think this conclusion isn’t really solving the problem of the genetic editing debate, it is just proposing a way to start to fix it. It’s saying that we should take everybody’s view into account before making any decisions about this difficult topic.

1. Science is fundamentally not spiritually-based and could even be considered the opposite of religion, as one of the major features of religion is faith (as opposed to proof). At the end of the article, Dalai Lama  states that our ethical response to the dilemma of biogenetics is to “check our motivation and ensure that its foundation is compassion.” In fact a consistent echo of compassion flavors much of his argument throughout the essay. What role, if any, does compassion play in designing ethical standards for biogenetics and genetic manipulation? Much like Yoshino’s “new civil rights,” compassion cannot be mandated. Does Dalai Lama’s role as a spiritual leader enhance or detract from you getting on board with his unique perspective? And lastly, is there room for religion-in-science and science-in-religion? Why or why not? (200 words)

Throughout the essay, the Dalai Lama’s main point is that we have to use our humanity and compassion when dealing with the new ideas of genetics. The Dalai Lama brings up really good points such as that this is very new and powerful technology to be dealing with. I think that since we have never been capable of this much power before, we should handle this situation with compassion. Many people will have different opinions on what this technology should and shouldn’t be used for, and if we add kindness into the mix, the situation will be handled civilly. I think since the Dalai Lama is a spiritual leader, it enhances my perspective of what he is saying. He spends his life devoted thinking about and doing what is right for this world so he has some credibility. Finally, I do think there is room for religion in science or science in religion. I think both are important aspects of our culture and should be treated as such. There just needs to be a good balance if they are going to work together, you don’t want to stray to far away from science because then the research may be ethically wrong, and you don’t want to stray too far from religion because then there are no facts to back up your reasoning, so there needs to be a middle ground.

2. You’ve just been offered the position of ethics coordinator of Bell Labs, a position competitively sought after here in 2032. This position was hotly contested, as several top-notch scientists did not agree with the value of such a position in one of the most innovative research companies in America nor with the starting salary [$345,000 annually]. However, those who feel ethics still has a say in how science is carried out rallied for the position to ensure that Bell Labs will never be accused of losing its “moral compass.”
   
   Your first order of business is to meet with a small, advanced and extremely intelligent team of scientists who are seeking additional company funds for their research. As ethics coordinator, they need your approval on the financial application and before they can apply for a study license. Their revolutionary product? A pill that can alter the genetic code for people with Bechet’s disease that essentially reverses the symptoms of the disease as well as changes the genetic predisposition for future generations. What are the ethical responsibilities you will discuss with this team who must now exhibit “ethical Bell Lab standards?” Part of your job is to play the “naysayer” in order to sniff out non-ethical procedures. As you play “devil’s advocate” what questions will you pose to the team to make sure they have thought of all of the repercussions of such a pill? (200 words)

This is a really difficult question to answer, I think some of the ethical worries would be that you don’t want to mess with the genetic code of future generations. Many people may be wary of a pill that alters something so natural as our DNA. I can rightfully see this because our DNA is part of what makes up who we are as people. Any alteration to that might also bring up the concerns of what else is that pill altering? Since this has never been done before, we should be careful and have a lot of testing to make sure it is not doing anything else to the genes of the person who is taking the pill. It would be terrible for that person to have side effects with their genetic code messed up. Another ethical concern could be the argument to just let nature take its course. One might ask, who are we to interfere with future generations and change what they might have before they even exist? Yes it is knocking out a bad disease but what if we wipe this disease out and an ever worse one arises because of that. There are so many things that are uncertain because something like this pill has never been created before.

3. On page 69, DL urges us to find a moral compass and suggests that “[we] must begin by putting faith in the basic goodness of human nature and we need to anchor this faith in some fundamental and universal ethical principles.” He then presents a list of “ethical principles”: “..recognition of the preciousness of life, an understanding of the need for balance in nature and the employment of this need as a gauge for the direction of our thought and action, and—above all—the need to ensure that we hold compassion as the key motivation for all our endeavors and that it is combined with a clear awareness of the wider perspective, including long-term consequences.” Do you agree with this list? Is it complete, in your opinion? What would you add, or change? Why or why not? Is it comprehensive enough to address the dilemma of ethical standards in science and research? Where could he get more specific? (200-300 words)

I think I agree with this list for the most part. I think compassion is a really big part of our humanity. If we use that for a starting point with anything, we can go into new situations with an open mind and work together to solve a common problem. This compassion lets us see our differences in terms of strengths rather than weaknesses, and we can move forward together because of that. I like that he adds that we need a balance for nature, I agree with this thought, however I think that he could also add that we need a balance for religion and ethics too. I don’t want to take away from this that we always have to be cautious in our every move we make, sometimes I think it might be good to take risks and learn more on the side of nature. This is the only way that new inventions have been created, someone has taken a step a little outside of the comfort of ethics and religion and to something new. This is how we keep moving as a species and how we have already gotten to where we are now. I’m not saying that we should completely forget the ethics, but use it in places it needs to be where things should be evaluated, but always start with good intentions and a good heart for everything that we do.