Socratic Seminar 2

The author seems to stress about the fact that science itself is just knowledge, and therefore, morally neutral. The application of that knowledge is what should be considered good or bad, not science itself. Science is knowledge, and knowledge can only "be", it cannot have an intention, how ever, people see it to be evil along with the scientists that seek this knowledge. It is understandable how people view it to be evil, after all it was science that lead to the creation of weapons of mass destruction. However, it is also science that has provided use with everyday utilities, the light bulb, cars, television sets, phones, etc. Scientists are the pursuers of knowledge, while others seek the application of that knowledge. For example, if a scientist says, "we have discovered an element that could possible lead to the cure of cancer." The people world wide would be only interested in the idea, not the idea itself. Scientists are there to make discoveries, not to say, "If you have a problem, we can solve it for you." I was quite shocked on how much I agreed with the author, if people could come to understand his views (of which I think is great), they would be able to stop blaming scientists if their discoveries went wrong and instead, the people that used it for evil. For example, shortly after the theory of the adam was theorized, the adam bomb was built and used to level many lives during the Second World War. The blame? It was directed at the people who discovered the adam, not the ones who used the bomb for their own profit. Scientists are like little children, discovering knew things is like a child opening a present on Christmas Day.

What is more important, science or moral?

Does science benefit or degrade humanity as a whole?

Could science and moral work together? If so, why?

Oryx and Crake Question

5. If you had the chance to fabricate an improved human being, would you do it? If so, what features would you choose to incorporate? Why would these be better than what we've got? Your model must of course be biologically viable.


If i had the chance to fabricate an improved human being, I would definitely not let such an opportunity pass. With medical at its peak, and advancing nano technology, the "perfect man", would not be impossible to create. Legality is the only wall between us and the "perfect man". If it were to be legal I would definitely improve a human being. First of all, I would add genes that allow faster regeneration, or healing if you will, of organs, tissues, and bones. I would keep the appearance of a normal human being, but adding genes that would improve physic, for example, the genes of a cheetah for speed and agility, the genes of a tiger for strength, and the genes of a deer for sharp senses. I would also genetically modify this persons immune system and make it stronger so that they would not be able to attract known diseases such as, leukaemia, types of cancer, etc. However, I would leave the brain alone, the brain itself is a mystery to us, and to play around with something so powerful and dangerous seems to be unwise. This would be much better than what we have right now because factors that would normally claim our lives would be greatly reduced. Disease and global pandemics would no longer be a problem. Sharp senses, speed, and strength would be able to protect us from people that bear ill will. Improved organ and tissue regeneration would allow people to visit hospitals less so the emergency rooms would not the crowded, and it could even possibly be able to prolong life spans. The possibilities are endless.


http://www.the-eleventh.com/files/hires_human.jpg


As you can see, there are no signs of any physical abnormalities. Unlike what many people think a modified human should look like (usually some kind of beast like figure), this man looks just like any other human being despite having genetic modifications.

Wordle

<a href="http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/2569284/jlseixhjdlgggga201840235u" 
          title="Wordle: jlseixhjdlgggga201840235u"><img
          src="http://www.wordle.net/thumb/wrdl/2569284/jlseixhjdlgggga201840235u"
          alt="Wordle: jlseixhjdlgggga201840235u"
          style="padding:4px;border:1px solid #ddd"></a>

Billy Budd questions 4

2. How is the burial of Claggart ironic?  What feelings and ideas does this burial conjure for you, the reader?

            The irony of Claggart’s burial is that he, the evil one, had a proper and formal burial at sea, while Billy, the kind and innocent one, is to be hanged for his crime. Claggart, someone who has never done anything good in his life, receives such respect in his death, while Billy receives absolutely nothing. It is as if Claggart will laugh at Billy’s misfortune in his grave and saying, “I got my way after all Billy.” This gives the reader a sense of injustice and makes the reader despise the past society as a whole for its unjust actions.

http://www.halloweenmania.co.uk/images/laughing-skullhead.gif

A picture of a skull laughing, this represents that even in death, Claggart laughs at Billy’s misfortune.

4. What is the significance of Billy’s last words?  How does it connect to themes and symbolism in the text? 

In Billy’s last words, “God bless Captain Vere!” is ironic because he is so innocent and oblivious that even if Captain Vere was basically the cause of his sentence, he still has complete respect and trust for his captain. He does not realize that Captain Vere was the man who drove the court to Billy’s sentence, and of course does not blame his captain one single bit. He is thankful for Captain Vere's hospitality during the time he was on the Bellipotent, and is forever loyal and trusting towards his captain.

http://ihasahotdog.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/funny-dog-pictures-loyalty-forever.jpg?w=492&h=442

A picture of a dog that is forever loyal to its owner.