Please Understand Me

For many years, people have always questioned each other’s motives. People have always questioned why certain people do certain things or why certain people act a certain way. We have always wondered what makes other people tick; people besides ourselves. Watching another person perform daily tasks can raise many questions. Questions such as \” Why didn’t he do that the other way? \” or \” How can someone bungee jump? \” Temperament, Character, and Personality have mystified human beings so much, Plato, himself, wrote about four kinds of character.

By understanding each other, humankind may get a better sense of who everyone is. Stereotypes as the outcast will be better understood for what they do and why they do it. By understanding character, people will appreciate differences instead of trying to mold other people into molds of themselves. The book Please Understand Me II, by David Keirsey, is based on the questionnaire, devised by Kathryn Briggs called the \”The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. \”(Keirsey, 1998) Myers labeled her sixteen personality types with four pairs of letters.

E or I, P or J, N or S, or, F or T. E means extraverted, I means introverted, P means perceiving, J means judging, N means intuitive, S means sensory, F means feeling, and T means thinking. by \”extraverted\” Myers meant having an \”expressive\” and outgoing social attitude; by \”introverted\” she meant having a \”reserved\” and seclusive social attitude. By \”sensory\” Myers meant being highly \”observant\” of things in the immediate environment; by \”intuitive\”, she meant being \”tough-minded\” or objective and impersonal with others; by \”feeling\” she meant \”friendly,\” or sympathetic and personal with others.

By \”judging\” she meant given to making and keeping \”schedules\”; while, in the case of \”perceiving\” Myerswent her own way and opposed \”perceiving\” to \”judging. \” (Keirsey, 1998) Myers came up with four different temperaments. She came up with the Artisans, the Guardians, the Idealists, and the Rationals. Artisans can be seen as the most exciting temperament out of the four classifications. They live their lives to the fullest, and they try to do everything they possibly can. They are very impulsive and the do things for the fun of it.

Artisans can be described as \”over-optimistic, adaptable, artistic, athletic, open-minded, easy going, tolerant, unprejudiced, and persuasive\”(Keirsey, 1998). Artisans are supreme optimists and are always looking for opportunities, and the best ways to approach situations. They can be seen as the most resourceful of the temperaments. Role variants of the Artisans are divided into Promoters, Crafters, Performers, and Composers. Promoters, also known as \”smooth operators,\” do everything in their powers \”to advertise, announce, boost, convince, entice, or induce\” others to give into their endeavors.

Crafters know which tools to use for a situation and how to use the tools in the most effective manner. Performers love to perform in front of people so they excel at \”demonstrating, displaying, showing, presenting, staging, enacting, or exhibiting their artistic skills\” (Keirsey, 1998). Whereas, Composers excel in things that require improvisational skills, such as cooking. Guardians are known as relying on common sense and for holding morally correct beliefs, and they are alert to the needs and perils of others (Keirsey, 1998). Guardians are very occupied with morality.

They feel responsible for the morality of people in their lives, even if they feel they should not need to be responsible about it. Guardians care about being reliable and therefore, they are very hard working, even as small children. If there is a job to be done, Guardians feel obliged to do it. Usually they are so hard working, they forget to appreciate themselves for the work they have completed. Guardians are have learned to expect the worse from life, and are very highly prepared for precarious situations. For them, it is better to be safe than to be sorry.

The role variants of the Guardians are divided into the Supervisors, the Inspectors, the Providers, and the Protectors. \”Supervisors enforce standard operating procedures, keeping one eye on their people’s performances, and the other on the rules and regulations that govern their activities, making sure that they behave in keeping with agreed procedures and standards of contact. their business is to mind others’ business\” (Keirsey, 1998) Inspectors like working \”behind the scenes\” in jobs, such as taking inventory. Providers provide people with the basic necessities of life.

They like to be able to improve the well being of people so they take on jobs, such as catering. Protectors like to shield others from danger so they take on jobs such as care taking. Idealists have been praised for being \” accepting, adaptable, adjusted, charming, devoted, idealistic, modest, and sensitive\” (Keirsey, 1998). Idealists have an uncanny ability to read people. They have a so-called \”sixth-sense\” about people, and are able to figure out the true intentions of a person. They are very diplomatic and they use their talent to develop the potential in humans.

The role variants of Idealists are divided into the Teachers, the Counselors, the Champions, and the Healers. Teachers see themselves as instructors, and they always have the intention of \”broadening, edifying, enlightening, illuminating, improving, and refining the attitudes and actions of pupils or students. \” Counselors have a feeling for the emotional needs of others. They are very encouraging and noble. They have the best of intentions, with working with other people, only wanting to improve the well being of others.

Champions love to fight for a cause they truly believe in, in order to inspire others to do the same along side with them. Healers are very reserved, but they can make very effective leaders. They are committed to saving the health of those around them, and they do so with an exalted sense of mission. Rationals seem to be very distant and detached from others. Many Rationals are misunderstood and can often be misinterpreted as antisocial. In reality, Rationals are very caring. They just tend to contemplate about problems in their lives.

Rationals are very logical and skeptical people. They are not only \”efficient, they are also adaptable, curious, experimental, farseeing, and flexible\” (Keirsey, 1998). The role variants of the Rationals are divided up into Fieldmarshals, the Masterminds, the Inventors, and the Architects. Fieldmarshals often take the job of commander. They use resources very well in a hierarchal setup. Masterminds arrange things in intricate plans. They can anticipate everything and set up a proper plan of events based on intuition alone. Inventors are highly skilled in making models.

Functionality is their main concern and this can be seen in their job of choice, which is engineering. Architects are preoccupied with design and naturally make plans, models, and blueprints. For Architects, the consistency of what they do is what matters the most to them. Personality is something that everyone ponders about. Even though people often think others are to different to them, it can be seen with a little understanding people have a similar set of beliefs we just have different ways of going about our normal lives.

The human society

Human relationships have always been dynamic. Change and adaptability have gone hand in hand with the passage of time for human society. Systems have been developed to regulate, direct and control the resources of this society. The systems are referred to as governments and the resources as the populace or inhabitants and forces of production. A government must be dynamic in its nature reflecting the change in society. At times these systems have resisted the necessity to adapt with its components (Society) creating a deficit between the system and those it regulates.

As the deficits develop, they cause nstability, and could lead to revolution. 1 Theories have been developed to explain the systemic phenomenon called revolution. This paper will discuss three modern theories and apply them to the English revolution of 1640. The first theory, developed by Carl Marx (Marxism), will address the economic evolution in English society. This theory will emphasize and explain how the shift from a feudal/mercantile system to capitalism affected English society.

The second, called the Resource Mobilization Theory (RMT) developed by Charles Tilly, will explain how the English organizations (the Crown and he Parliament) effectively obtained, amassed and managed resources. Samuel Huntington’s, “Institutional Theory”, will argue that the existing government at that time was unable to incorporate the demands and personnel that the socio-economic changes created. Marxism was formulated in the 19th century. Carl Marx and his associate Frederick Engels observed the socio-economic changes that were transpiring in Britain.

England was the dominant world power and had the largest industrialized economy during the 1800’s. The development of the factory and the institution of the assembly line created a large emand for workers. This demand was satiated by migrating peasant from the rural areas in England and Ireland to developing urban centers. As these urban centers or cities evolved using industry as the economic backbone for the population, a large number of factory workers were accumulated to operate the machinery in horrid conditions. These workers, which would be termed as the peasantry under a feudal system, were now the working class or proletariat.

They entered cities with hopes of bettering their lives and survival. Though revolution never took place in England during this period, it allowed Marx to study ndustrialization, urbanization and imperialism. The theory of Marxism has three basic concepts: historic materialism, forces of production and relations of production. Historic materialism is defined as a society’s past performance and present capabilities of satisfying the basic means of life. Humankind’s basic needs of eating, drinking and shelter need to be met properly. The forces of production (technology, capital, the infrastructure of society, etc. are important for the simple fact of who ever controls them controls the society. The last aspect of Marxism, the relations of roduction, deals directly with the relationships between classes of people (the aristocracy, the middle-class and the working class). 2 Marxism includes a predictive analysis of socio-economic structures. Using history, logic and the dynamic nature of humankind as guidelines, Carl Marx attempts to map out a sequence of events which will eventually lead to utopia (anarchy). In his work, Das Capital, Marx details the six steps.

These steps are primitive socialism, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism and then anarchy. The evolution of the English economic system during the 16th and 7th centuries points to a shift from feudalism to capitalism. This shift is exemplified by the enclosures. The landlords began to fence their property in the common land areas. The “commons” were large plots of grazing and farmable lands that were used by both farmers and artisans. When the land-owners and manorial lords began to partition these lands the concept of private ownership of property was introduced to the socio-economic system.

During the time period of the 16th and 17th centuries the crown’s economic base began a gradual decline. This economic shrinkage ame to a spearhead during the reign of Charles I. The monarchy favored a monopoly market system over a competitive one. The purpose for this position was for taxation and control of the profits. As the artisan and merchant populations increased, the policy of the crown began conflicting with economic growth. This created instability in three areas. First, the English monarchy needed money to support its army which insures social compliance.

The second area of contention was the restraints and interference the Crown initiated on the rising middle-class. Thirdly, the rise of the bourgeoisie created competition or the state sanctioned monopolies, reducing its profit. Howard Erskine-Hill refutes Marxism. He states that neither . . . “the ‘rise of the gentry’ . . . ideas concerning resistance to rulers . . . nor even the narrowing financial base of the Tudor and Stuart monarchy . . . determined the outbreak of the Civil War . . . They are circumstances . . . contributing to an outcome which was not inevitable. “4 Jack A.

Goldstone, in his work Revolutions, argues that once historical data is carefully examined Marxism falls short. The Marxist reasons for the revolution are factors, but its scope of analysis is to arrow. “. . . the neo-Marxist view. . . with its focus on elite politics and the failings of Charles I run into difficulties when confronted with evidence. “5 An example of this “evidence” that Goldstone refers to, are the enclosures. The land owners had support from the farmers who resided on the land. The parties that were affected by enclosure movement were the artisans and merchants.

These merchant and artisan, or rather Marxism rising bouroeisie, were the unfortunate targets of this policy. The rising English Bourgeoisie used the land to satisfy there needs for resources (i. . wood for fire and craftsmanship). Thus, a new theory must be introduced to explain the factors leading to and the Revolution itself. Charles Tilly, in his work, Political Conflict Theory, introduce the theory of “Resource Mobilization”(RMT). The two aspects of RMT are government and those who contend with the government for power.

Power is defined as control of the resources. The resources are capital, means of production and personnel. 6 There are three characteristics to the RMT7 that help further explain the revolution. First, two or more organizations (government ncluded) must claim the right to rule and control government. The conflict between the Crown and the Parliament during the 1640’s meet this criteria. King Charles I during his rule attempted to close the rift between Catholics and Protestants. This policy was disturbing to the English populace.

However, the brunt of this new policy was felt in Scotland and perceived was a direct assault on their religious organizations. The Scots rebelled and amassed a army to invade England an emancipate themselves from Charles I’s authority. The King needed to acquire funds to raise an army so he called Parliament into session. After 6 years of silence, Parliament was aggressive against the crown. Instead of strong support for the King, they came with a list of grievances which needed to be addressed. 8 It is this aggression which characterizes an organization contending for power in the government.

The second characteristic, is the commitment of a significant amount of the population to each organization. In January 1642, the King attempted to arrest five MP’s (Members of Parliament). Having failed, the King traveled north to an important port which was also a military stronghold, as well. Parliament denied him access. This was a definite sign of the waning power of the King. Charles I traveled to Nottingham to raise his standard. People began to rally behind the King. Parliament severely underestimated the influence of the Charles I and the idea of the monarchy.

A significant amount of people rallied behind the King and the Civil War soon followed9. The third, and the most applicable, is the incapacity of and/or the unwillingness of the government to suppress the challenges for power. The King was desirous to put down the Scots, and eventually Parliament, after it was called into session (long Parliament). He was ncapable in raising an army earlier without Parliament’s appropriation of the necessary funds to pay an army. 10 Therefore, the opponents of the Crown were given space to develop and acquire resources.

Resource Mobilization Theory focuses on the leadership of both the revolutionary organization and the government in power. The three above stated characteristics of England in the 1640’s, only emphasizes the short term factors for the revolution The fact that Parliament is actually part of the government provides a complication in the application of RMT. However, Parliament was struggling against the King o acquire more control over resources. The King showed himself as a bungling statesman in dealing with parliaments demands and grab for power.

This is a classic example that shows what happens when “carrot ideas”11 are implemented without discretion and supervision. It could be argued that Charles I lack of sensitivity to the people was the cause for this lack of discretion. Even with the application of two theories, a satisfactory explanation of both the factors leading to the uprising and the revolution itself are lacking. A third theory must be brought to this case study. Samuel Huntington’s, “Institutional theory”, argues that there are inherent tensions between political and economic developments.

If there are large economic changes in society then there must be political change to guide the modifications which are taking place, as well as, incorporating new social developments. 12 England’s Crown during the 17th century was lacking in ability to be dynamic. Trade and production began to increase so did the population. This increase created a middle-class in England. The middle-class consisted of artisans, merchants, land owners and landlords these classifications are not all inclusive). Competition between the middle-class and state encouraged monopolies became evident during this time.

There was a definite power shift away from property to the people. 13 Another long term factor lies within the King’s policy toward the Catholics. This relaxing of tensions between the Protestants and Catholics was not viewed as favorable by the rising gentry (Middle-class). A form of Protestantism referred to as Puritanism was the main belief system of the gentry. This was an extremely conservative sect of protestantism, religious toleration was not cceptable to them14. This was another social development which Charles I “over-looked”.

Institutionalization was never a reality in British politics during this period in history. The organizations that existed in the English monarchy during the early 1600’s were unable to promote value and stability. The system became rigid and unadapting to the demands for change made by new socio-economic factors. The constant attempts by both the Crown and the Parliament to subordinate one another removed their ability to reach a compromise. Thus, there is not one theory that can be used to satisfy all of he causal factors, institutional developments and socio-economic changes of the English revolution of 1640.

Marxism addressed the changes the English economy made creating capitalist markets and free trade. It maps out the general factors which helped lead to capture and execution of the King of England, Charles I. Resource Mobilization Theory argued in more specific terms, defining that the organization which controls the resources has the power. It clarifies the power struggle between the Crown and the Parliament. Short term factors, present before and during the revolution, were emphasized by RMT. The last theory presented by this paper was Institutional Theory.

It explained, in long term factors, the causes leading to the revolution by discussing the rise of the gentry, economics and religious intolerance. There is no single theory to explain every relevant factor present in revolution. However, the application of a select number or combination of theoretical approaches, helps to establish a proper framework for analysis of revolutions. Despite all of the ground breaking research and theorizing being done on revolution, it still remains a phenomenon and can not be predicted.

Multi-Regional Continuity: The Fossil Evidence

With regards to the multi-regional continuity model of human evolution, there is without a doubt a preponderance of fossil data that supports the diverse origins of Homo sapiens in different regions of the globe. Skulls displaying a wide variety of mixed modern and archaic features have been found in every corner of the world. The mere existence of these fossils is evidence enough to prove that human evolution was far less cut-and-dried a process than the advocates of the replacement model of human evolution would like to suggest, and, in fact, rather astonishingly complex.

It is useful before discussing the individual fossil specimens to to preface with what exactly is meant by the terms “modern” and “archaic” in reference to skull morphology. “Modern” features in skull morphology as the word is used here include thin cranial walls, small supraorbital ridges, small teeth, small eye sockets, broad, flat foreheads, large cranial volume (above 1200 cc. ), low prognathism in the area of the lower face, and a high, vaulted shape in the area of the cranium.

Archaic” features in skull morphology include thick cranial walls, heavy supraorbital ridges, large teeth, large eye sockets, sloping foreheads, low cranial volume (below 1200 cc. ), high prognathism in the area of the lower face, and a small, football-shaped cranium. The presence of various mixtures of these modern and archaic traits forms the basis for identifying a fossil as transitional modern/archaic in accordance with the multi-regional continuity model of human evolution.

As an example of transitional fossils found outside of Africa and in accordance with the multi-regional model of human evolution, the remains found in the Ngangdong beds of the Solo River in Indonesia are an excellent beginning. Dating from roughly 250,000 years ago, the skulls of the thirteen individual recovered lack faces, but the crania are markedly archaic, football-shaped and flattened in general contour (Poirier 1987: 222). Other archaic features include heavy supraorbital ridges and thick cranial walls (222).

Their archaic features put the Solo remains in the classification of Homo erectus, but the skulls display at least one distinctive modern trait: they have, as a group, a much larger cranial volume than average Homo erectus specimens, as high as 1,300 cc. (222). The occurence of this modern cranial capacity with other archaic traits in specimens consistent with a limited geographical setting suggests a local transition from primitive to more modern traits, as would be expected from the multi-regional continuity model of human evolution.

Crossing over the distance of two continents, the next fossil was recovered from a gravel pit in Swanscombe, England, and is believed to date from 250,000 years ago. The Swanscombe skull consists of an occipital bone and left and right parietals, all well-preserved (1987: 223-224). The cranial volume has been estimated at 1,275 to 1,325 cc. , putting it well within the range of modern populations. There are some archaic features, however, as well. There is some indication of a heavy brow ridge, and the cranial walls are relatively thick (1987: 224).

Also, the vault of the skull is low, further suggesting some sort of transitional between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens (1987: 224-225). Again, this mixture of modern and archaic features is very conveniently explained by the multi-regional continuity theory of human evolution. Now, a shorter distance, to Arago Cave in France, for one of the more interesting and perhaps bizarre specimens to be presented in support of the multi-regional continuity model. The remains of at least twenty-three individuals comprise this sample, dating from about 190,000 to 180,000 years ago.

The most complete skull from Arago displayed a set of traits that were markedly primitive, even for Homo erectus populations (1987: 226). The skull has massive brow ridges, a forehead that is more horizontal than vertical, and teeth that are among the largest in the human fossil record, surpassing Homo erectus and falling within the range of the austrolopithecines (1987: 226-227). The presence of such an over-abundance of archaic traits in a population from less than 200,000 years ago is further evidence of multi-regional continuity.

Sometimes, it would seem, evolution worked in reverse in determining the developing morphology of the human skull… Finally, to a spot north of Stuttgart, Germany. The Steinheim skull was located in a gravel pit and has been dated to roughly 250,000 years ago, though this date is still much open to debate (1987: 227). In spite of being badly crushed, a number of significant features are still observable from the Steinheim skull. The skull has a low cranial capacity, 1,150 to 1,175 cc. eavy brow ridges, and large eye sockets, all archaic traits (1987: 228).

Although it has a low forehead, the forehead is steeply vertical, and the general skull shape is smoothly-rounded, as in modern specimens. The skull exhibits one other significant trait, as with the Arago Cave example, in the size of its teeth. Unlike the Arago Cave sample, however, the Steinheim skull exhibits the opposite tendency: the teeth are very small. In fact, the size of the third molar is below the mean for many living European populations (1987: 228).

Once more, the curious mixture of archaic and modern traits is a phenomenon best explained by the multi-regional continuity model. If the replacement model is to be believed, then no transitional skulls can exist outside of Africa. Homo sapiens developed in one place alone, South Africa, and subsequently spread north and into Europe and Asia, replacing populations of Homo erectus as they went. But the presence of transitional skulls outside of Africa clearly refutes this reasoning. Perhaps, the replacement modelers might argue, the examples given for the multi-regional model are isolated freaks.

This claim, too, however, is easily disproved by examples of transitionals from outside Africa for which large fossil sample populations exist, as in the case of the Solo River and Arago Cave examples detailed earlier. What becomes clear in the process of examining the many-and-varied fossil examples of transitions between modern and archaic features is that human evolution was more of a tangled, convoluted web than it is the neatly pruned tree that many textbooks are so fond of depicting in illustration.

Not all of those specimens detailed here could be the ancestors of modern humans… their odd mixture of features is testament enough to that. But that human evolution was an unfocused, even chaotic process seems less-and-less an overstatement, the more evidence is reviewed. The definition of what are commonly referred to as “modern” and “archaic” features may be the results finally of no more than luck of the evolutionary draw, as it were.

This Life Time has 42048000 Minutes

Listen up soldiers, we have a crisis on our hands. A silent army has been built up over hundreds of years and is the most deadly enemy we have ever had to face. This enemy you people have known since the day you were brought into this world. You are face to face with this enemy every day, unknowing that every step you take, every move you make, and every decision you face is contributing somehow to this armys strength. In case you havent noticed yet, ladies and gentlemen, this enemy is ourselves.

Slowly and surely we are destroying nimals, ourselves and most importantly the only planet we have, Earth. You have probably all heard this speech a thousand times before, and well if this has to be the 1001 before we get off our lazy, self-destructing asses and do something to fix it, so be it! I admit Im no better than the rest of you at the simple things in everyday life that are destroying this planet, but the whole issue pisses me off. Our whole existence revolves around money, and our personal benefit.

We have forgotten how to do things for thers, how to help the planet and, in turn, how to benefit the species. The fact is simple people, were killing ourselves. Many, however, dont notice it. They believe what theyre doing is either beneficial, or that they are too small to do anything about it. Well most of them are right, most of us fall under some sort of higher power, which means that the root of the problems are mainly the governments. Dont think that this is leading into one of those x-filesy, conspiracy theory type lectures, however if youd like to call it that, I wont be ne to judge.

I do believe the governments know how to prevent and stop much of the problems in our world today. For example, its a widely known fact that we have the technology to use water instead of gas for cars, but the government wont allow production because they get money off gas, and to them its more important than a clean environment, more important than contaminating the water, or killing off animals because of the pollution even when the money they get from the gas ends up being put back into trying o control these problems anyway.

And who was the guy who thought that burning fossil fuels would be a good source of energy anyway? Did they take the first suggestion that came up or what? Fossil fuels are not everlasting guys, HELLO! Is our species so narrow-minded that we cant see into the future and realise that one day it will run out. Or did we know that in the beginning and not care cause it was the only resource we could use? Did we then become so lazy that we couldnt spend the time and money (ooo not money!! o figure out some other sort of fuel or energy source?!?! This is nuts!!! So go ahead try and hide.

Protect yourselves with your fancy guns and munitions, run away with your trains, planes, and automobiles or go about as if nothings happening. None of those will help you much cause the only way we can shelter ourselves from whats to come is if we stop it from ever happening. Now are you all able to get off your couches, stop watching your TVs and do something about it? Didnt think so but it was worth a try anyway.

Should Animal Organs Be Transported Into Humans

Should humans be able to have a choice if they would like an experimentally procedure? I feel that yes- humans can use animals’ organs transported into them for medical research! We have come along ways on our research of organs transplants between animals; but of course the monkey is similar to humans but it is not exactly like it. I feel its great they are trying it to see if their laboratory tests were really accurate or not.

All the scientists are finally being able to test their results and really think how neat it is to been able to finally found a way to prolong life. The only negative thing is that humans will then start living longer, and we will have to devour a plan so overpopulation does not happen throughout the world. Animal organ transplants into humans is a human medical breakthrough! Who should be eligible to be a medical case study for animal organ transports? I feel that anyone who wants to be a case study individual should be able to do so.

Some of the people that really needed for individual case studies are AIDS victims, diabetic people, and various other illnesses. For example, Jeff Getty, who has AIDS, had to battle to have a chance to try an experiment with baboons bone-marrow transplant for many years. Getty finally had the procedure done in December 1995, after a very long waited time, but no one had a choice to try it yet. Getty is so far has had no complications due to the baboons bone-marrow transplant procedures. Animal organ transplants should be openly available to everyone.

Evolution of Immunity and the Invertebrates

The complex immune systems of humans and other mammals evolved over quite a long time – in some rather surprising ways. In 1982 a Russian zoologist named Elie Metchnikoff noticed a unique property of starfish larva. When he inserted a foreign object through it’s membrane, tiny cells would try to ingest the invader through the process of phagocytosis. It was already known that phagocytosis occurred in specialized mammal cells but never in something less complex like a starfish. This discovery led him to understand that phagocytosis layed a much broader role, it was a fundamental mechanism of protection in the animal kingdom.

Metchnikoff’s further studies showed that the host defense system of all animals today were present millions of years before when hey were just beginning to evolve. His studies opened up the new field of comparative immunology. Comparative immunologists studied the immune defenses of past and current creatures. They gained further insight into how immunity works. The most basic requirement of an immune system is to distinguish between one’s own cells and “non-self” cells. The second job is to eliminate the non- self cells. When a foreign object enters the body, several things happen.

Blood stops flowing, the immunity system begins to eliminate unwanted microbes with phagocytic white blood cells. This defensive mechanism is possessed by all animals with an innate system of immunity. Innate cellular immunity is believed to be the earliest form of immunity. Another form of innate immunity is complement, composed of 30 different proteins of the blood. If these mechanisms do not work to defeat an invader, vertebrates rely on another response: acquired immunity. Acquired immunity is mainly dealt by specialized white blood cells called lymphocytes.

Lymphocytes travel throughout the blood and lymph glands waiting to attack molecules called antigens. Lymphocytes are made of two classes: B and T. B lymphocytes release antibodies while T help produce antibodies and serve to recognize antigens. Acquired Immunity is highly effective but takes days to activate and succeed because of it’s complex nature. Despite this, acquired immunity offers one great feature: immunological memory. Immunological Memory allows the lymphocytes to recognize reviously encountered antigens making reaction time faster.

For this reason, we give immunizations or booster shots to children. So it has been established that current vertebrates have two defense mechanisms: innate and acquired, but what of older organisms ? Both mechanisms surprisingly enough can be found in almost all organisms (specifically phagocytosis). The relative similarities in invertebrate and vertebrate immune systems seem to suggest they had common precursors. The oldest form of life, Protozoan produce these two immune functions in just one cell. Protozoan phagocytosis is not uncommon to that of human phagocytic cells.

Another basic function of immunity, distinguishing self from non-self, is found in protozoan who live in large colonies and must be able to recognize each other. In the case of metazoan, Sponges, the oldest and simplest, are able to do this as well refusing grafts from other sponges. This process of refusing is not the same in vertebrates and invertebrates though. Because vertebrates have acquired immunologic memory they are able to reject things faster than invertebrates who ust constantly “re-learn” what is and is not self.

Complement and lymphocytes are also missing from invertebrates, but which offer an alternative yet similar response. In certain invertebrate phyla a response called the prophenoloxidase (proPO) system occurs. Like the complement system it is activated by enzymes. The proPO system has also been linked to blood coagulation and the killing of invading microbes. Invertebrates also have no lymphocytes, but have a system which suggests itself to be a precursor of the lymph system. For instance, invertebrates have olecules which behaving similarly to antibodies found in vertebrates.

These lectin molecules bind to sugar molecules causing them to clump to invading objects. Lectins have been found in plants, bacteria, and vertebrates as well as invertebrates which seems to suggest they entered the evolutionary process early on. This same process occurs in human innate immune systems with collections of proteins called collectins which cover microbes n a thin membrane to make them easier to distinguish by phagocytes. And although antibodies are not found in nvertebrates a similar and related molecule is.

Antibodies are members of a super family called immunoglobulin which is characterized by a structure called the Ig fold. It is believed that the Ig fold developed during the evolution of metazoan animals when it became important to distinguish different types of cells within one animal. Immunoglobulins such as Hemolin have been found in moths, grasshoppers, and flies, as well as lower vertebrates. This suggests that antibody-based defense systems, although only active in vertebrates, found their roots in the invertebrate immune system. Evolution seems to have also conserved many of the control signals for these defense mechanisms.

Work is currently being done to isolate invertebrate molecules similar to the cytokines of vertebrates. Cytokines are proteins that either stimulate or block out other cells of the immune system as well as affecting other organs. These proteins are critical for the regulation of vertebrate immunity. It is suspected that invertebrates will share common cytokines with vertebrates or at least a close replication. Proteins removed from starfish have been found to have the same physical, chemical, and iological properties of interleukins (IL-1, IL-6), a common cytokine of vertebrates.

This research has gone far enough to conclude that invertebrates possess similar molecules to the three major vertebrate cytokines. In the starfish, cells called coelomocytes were found to produce IL-1. The IL-1 stimulated these cells to engulf and destroy invaders. It is thus believed that invertebrate cytokines regulate much of their host’s defense response, much like the cytokines of vertebrate animals in innate immunity. Comparative Immunology has also found defense mechanisms first in nvertebrates only later to be discovered in vertebrates.

Invertebrates use key defensive molecules such as antibacterial peptides and proteins, namely lysozyme, to expose bacterial cell walls. Thus targeting the invader. This offers great potential for medicinal purposes, because lysozyme is also found in the innate immunity of humans in it’s defense of the oral cavity against bacteria. Peptides of the silk moth are currently being developed as antibacterial molecules for use in humans. Two peptides found in the skin of the African clawed frog actively fight bacteria, fungi, and protozoa.

Antibodies which bind to these two peptides also bind to the skin and intestinal lining of humans. The potential of these peptide antibiotics only now being discovered is a rather considerable thing to ponder. For that reason it is surprising that such little attention has been paid to invertebrate immune responses. In the end, the complexity of vertebrate immune systems can only be understood by studying the less complex systems of invertebrates. Further studies look to explain immunity evolution as well as aid in the solving of problems of human health.

Existence of Man

For centuries man has grappled with the riddle of what it means to be a person. But the questions Who is man? and What is the meaning of life? are still unanswered. Yet, while man is still a long way from arriving at any acceptable definitions, there is deep within everyone the hint of an idea of what it means to be a whole person, that is happy, functioning and fulfilled. So, throughout history man has made a continuous search to find out what makes him whole. Every person is different so the special situation in which one person finds fulfillment can’t work for everyone.

But in the lives of those who ave found fulfillment there is a universal pattern. The universal pattern is that those who have found fulfillment have had a willingness to accept change and take risks. Conversely, those who have not found wholeness are characterized by an unconquerable desire to be safe, to be out of danger and to avoid risk. The first step in the search for identity is to answer the question, How do you see yourself? In the play No Exit by Jean Paul Sartre Estelle loses sight of her identity. She says “When I can’t see myself, I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist.

What a man sees himself as in the mirror largely etermines his actions during the day. Estelle had to look into the “mirror” of men to confirm her identity. A man is the number one determining factor in discovering who he is. Each individual must understand that he is responsible for his own pain, misery, unhappiness, or for his own joy. Man is not a product of what people have done or are now doing to us. Man has the power to become whatever he wants to be; to feel as much love or anger or joy as we want to feel.

Another subsequent factor in determining our identity is the image, name, or label given to us by society. In other words, what we believe other people hink of us. Most people participate in many groups friends, school, family, jobs, clubs, churches and more each contributing to our identity. We have to accept the death of the superman who is alone needing no one, inner directed and indifferent to his surroundings. We see in Dostoevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment that when Raskolnkov separates himself from humanity by committing murder that he could not survive.

A person needs to understand that they are responsible for their own choices but they cannot discount the fact that there will always be a group that is essential to understanding their identity. There is a far more important area than how man sees himself or how society sees him, this area is where he has the most control over his own identity. The area in which he has most control over his own identity is in the area of what he is actually doing. In other words, man determines himself by the choices he makes.

Having this freedom of choice entails commitment and responsibility. Since individuals are free to choose their own path they must accept the responsibility of following their commitment wherever it leads. In the play No Exit by Sartre the characters Estelle and Garcin thought of hemselves as being nobler than what they were, when in reality the choices they made determined one to be a boy toy and the other to be a cruel coward. The Bible also gives us some insight on this point. What made Moses Moses? The fact that he made the choices he did.

If Moses had stayed in Pharaoh’s court, if Moses had stayed in the desserts of Midian, or if Moses had refused to go to Pharaoh, then he would not have been Moses. We have the freedom to choose and we become what we choose to do. Far to many people are locked into set patterns of thinking and living. People resist change vigorously satisfied with the dull normality of the same outines. One of the most vital ingredients to any fulfilling life is the ability to accept change and choose to risk. Change for most people does not always feel good but it is an important part in growing.

Most people fear change because they are afraid of the risks that it will bring. When people do not conquer their fear all growth stops. The fear of growing of old is what kept Estelle from being more than mere a boy toy. The fear of dying kept Garcin from being a great pacifist journalist. If a Congressional Medal of Honor winner had not conquered his fear of death, to jump out of a trench to save his uddy, his friend would be dead. If Moses had not conquered his fear of losing a comfortable life, Israel would still be slaves to Egypt.

If Columbus had not conquered his fear of falling off the earth, America would not have been settled. If my Dad had not conquered his fear of rejection, I would have never of been born. People need to look at their fear, consider all the options then move out and act boldly. People can stand outside their fear indefinitely and nothing will change. But everyone has within themselves the resources and the strengths to face and confront their fears, and to become the whole person they ant to become, they have to do it.

The questions Who is man? and What is the meaning of life? ay never be answered in our lifetime. But people can begin to lead more fulfilling lives by understanding and applying three closely related principles. People must begin to see themselves as being their own self and not just a product of society. After people realize that they are their own self they must realize they are what they do. The final step in living more fulfilling lives is to be open to change and risk. Breaking from this paralyzing fear will allow people to realize life is a gift and they will try to live every day to the fullest.

Organ Of The Body – The Ear

The ear is an organ of the body that is used for hearing and balance. It is connected to the brain by the auditory nerve and is composed of three divisions, the external ear, the middle ear, and the inner ear. The greater part of which is enclosed within the temporal bone. The ear is looked upon as a miniature receiver, amplifier and signal-processing system. The structure of the outer ear catching sound waves as they move into the external auditory canal. The sound waves then hit the eardrum and the pressure of the air causes the drum to vibrate back and forth.

When the eardrum vibrates its neighbour the malleus then vibrates too. The vibrations are then transmitted from the malleus to the incus and then to the stapes. Together the three bones increase the pressure which in turn pushes the membrane of the oval window in and out. This movement sets up fluid pressure waves in the perilymph of the cochlea. The bulging of the oval window then pushes on the perilymph of the scala vestibuli. From here the pressure waves are transmitted from the scala vestibuli to the scala tympani and then eventually finds its way to the round window.

This causes the round window to bulge outward into the middle ear. The scala vestibuli and scala tympani walls are now deformed with the pressure waves and the vestibular membrane is also pushed back and forth creating pressure waves in the endolymph inside the cochlear duct. These waves then causes the membrane to vibrate, which in turn cause the hairs cells of the spiral organ to move against the tectorial membrane. The bending of the stereo cilia produces receptor potentials that in the end lead to the generation of nerve impulses.

The External or Outer Ear – comprises of the auricle or pinna which is the fleshy part of the outer ear. It is cup-shaped and collects and amplifies sound waves which then passes along the ear canal to the ear drum or tympanic membrane. The rim of the auricle is called the helix and the inferior portion is called the lobule. The external auditory canal is a carved tube and contains a few hair and ceruminous glands which are specialized sebaceous or oil glands. These secrete ear wax or cerumen. Both the hairs and the cerumen help prevent dust and foreign objects from entering the ear.

A number of people produce large amounts of cerumen, and this sometimes cause the build up to be impacted and can bring about muffle incoming sounds. The Middle Ear – is an air-filled narrow cavity or cleft that extends vertically for about 15 mm and the distance horizontally is about the same. It is located in the temporal bone and is lined by epithelium. The middle ear is separated from the outer ear by the eardrum and from the inner ear by a thin bony partition that contains two small membrane-covered openings. These membranes are called the oval window and the round window.

On the other side of the eardrum, embodies the mechanism for the conduction of sound waves to the internal ear. It comprises of three of the smallest bones in the body, the auditory ossicles which are connected by synovial joints. These bones are called the malleus or hammer, incus or anvil and stapes or stirrup. The malleus is attached to the internal surface of the eardrum and the head of the malleus articulates with the body of the incus. This is the middle bone, which then articulates with the head of the stapes. The base (footplate) of the stapes then fits into the oval window.

Just below the oval window is another opening called the round window. This is enclosed by a membrane called the secondary tympanic membrane. The anterior wall of the middle ear consists of an opening which leads directly into the auditory tube. This is called the Eustachian tube. This tube is made up of both bone and hyaline cartilage and connects to the middle ear with the nasopharynx which is the upper part of the throat. This is generally closed at the medial end. When swallowing or yawning occurs, it opens. This allows the air to enter or leave the middle ear until the pressure in the middle ear equals the atmospheric pressure.

When both pressures are balanced, the eardrum then vibrates freely as the sound waves hit it. If these pressures are not balanced, an intense pain, hearing impairment, ringing in the ears or vertigo could develop. The Inner Ear or Labyrinth- consists of two main divisions an outer bony labyrinth which encloses an inner membranous labyrinth and the bony labyrinth which is a series of cavities in the temporal bone and it is divide into three areas. These are the semicircular canales, the vestibule and the cochlea. Both the semicircular canals and the vestibule contain receptors for equilibrium.

The Cochlea contains receptors for hearing. The labyrinth is lined with periosteum and contains perilymph. This fluid surrounds the membranous labyrinth, which is a series of sacks and tubes inside of the bony labyrinth and has the same common form. The vestibule is the oval central proportion of the bony labyrinth. Attached to the vestibule are three bony semicircular canals. They are named based upon their positions, anterior, posterior and lateral semicircular canals. The anterior and posterior semicircular canals are in a vertical orientation and the lateral one is in a horizontal orientation.

The Cochlea is also attached to the vestibular. It is a bony spiral canal and resembles a snails shell. There are three channels that divide from the cochlea. These partitions, together are shaped like the letter Y. The stem of the Y protrudes into the canal while the wings of the Y are made up of mainly membranous labyrinth. Just above the bony partition is the scala vestibuli. This ends at the oval window and the channel below is called the scala tympani and this ends at the round window. The third channel is called the cochlear duct or scala media.

The vestibular membrane divides the cochlear duct from the scala vestibuli. The basilar membrane separates the cochlear duct from the scala tympani. Resting on the membrane is the organ of Corti or spiral organ. This organ is a coiled sheet of epithelial cells as well as supporting cells and in the range of 16,000 hair cells. The hair cells are the receptors for hearing. There are inner and outer hair cells, the inner hairs are arranged in a single row and the outer hairs are arranged in three rows. Equilibrium Equilibrium or balance is controlled by the semicircular canals and the vestibule.

There are two types of equilibrium, static equilibrium which maintenances the position of the body relative to the force of gravity and dynamic equilibrium which maintenance the body position in response to any sudden movements, for example, the rotation, acceleration and deceleration of mainly the head. The receptor organs for equilibrium are called the vestibular apparatus which include saccule, utricle, and semicircular ducts. The saccule and utricle contain a small thickened region called a macula. The maculae are the receptors for static equilibrium and some aspects of dynamic equilibrium.

These receptors provide sensory information on the position of the head in space for static equilibrium making it essential for maintaining appropriate posture and balance, where as dynamic they detect linear acceleration and deceleration. There are two kinds of cells in the two maculae, hair cells and supporting cells. The hair cells are the sensory receptors. Laying over the hair cells are columnar supporting cells that probably secrete the thick, gelatinous, glycoprotein layer called the otolithic membrane and over the membrane is a layer of dense calcium carbonate crystals called otoliths.

When the head is tilted, the otoliths shift, and the hairs beneath respond to the change in pressure and bending the hair bundles. Dynamic equilibrium functions in the three semicircular ducts, the saccule and the utricle. The two ventical ducts are the anterior and posterior semicircular ducts. The lateral semicircular duct is horizontal. In the dilated portion of each duct, the ampulla, is a small elevation called the crista. This contains hair cells and supporting cells which are also covered by a mass of gelatinous material which is called cupula. When the head moves the attached semicircular ducts and hair cells move with it.

Development Of Man

In the dictionary a human being is defined as a person showing qualities of people. But what exactly is a person or people? Do dictionaries go into detail about that? Where do we come from or why do we have ears? Scientists have been trying to answer questions like these for years, but everyone has a different opinion. Some say people originated from the very human like animal known as the Gorilla, others say we all came from an African American woman.

But does anybody know for sure what we really came from or who we really are? The story of man first told to people and still told today is the story of Adam and Eve, God ormed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. We have found many artifacts to contradict this story although most of us still believe that God had something to do with the creation of man as said in the bible. Prometheus story of man is not very different from the bibles.

Prometheus and Epimetheus were spared imprisonment for not fighting with the Titans during the war between the Titans and the Olympians. So they were given the task of creating man. Prometheus supposedly shaped man out of mud, and Athena breathed life into his clay figure. At first Prometheus is said to have made man on his hands and knees and Epimetheus had given the creatures of the Earth all of the other qualities so Prometheus gave man the ability to walk upright, and gave him fire.

When Zeus discovered that man had fire he became enraged and took fire away from man, so we were left to only stand upright and supplied us with the feeling of hope. This story, not unlike the bibles, was also questioned whenever scientists started finding fossils of prehistoric man. Although we do not know very much about the mythology point of views on where humans came from, we do know the cientific explanation. For millions of years primates, chimpanzees, and orangutans roamed the forests and lands all around them.

They ate nuts, fruit, insects and occasionally the eggs or young birds out of the nests. Just about anything they could find that didnt look poisonous or dangerous, they would eat and make up different meals with each new item of different food that they found. They got their water from rivers and rain and just about anything else they could get water out of. When they slept, it wasnt on the ground or in a tent, it was up in a tree. As the centuries passed by, we have evidence that things began to change.

Spines straightened out and they began to walk straighter and faster, in an upright position. Fingers began to get longer, which made it easier to grasp objects. Today human newborns have only twenty-five percent of adult brain capacity, resulting in an extended period of helplessness. Unlike humans, chimpanzees are born with sixty-five percent of their adult brain capacity and an Australopithecine, an erect, tool-using near human of three million years ago, was born with about fifty percent brain capacity.

Scientists have done research on the human brain trying to determine why we do not use as much of our brain as primates, but so far all they have found is that the development of the modern brain remains incomplete, therefore we do not use it as much as we should. Today on Earth there are many languages, varying from the place you are living. Prehistoric man are also said to have had their own language, although we cannot prove this and only have little evidence of it, scientists believe that they talked to each other in screams or grunts, similar to gorillas and chimps.

A large number of fossil bones and teeth have een found in various places throughout Africa, Europe, and Asia. Tools of stone, bone, and wood, as well as fire hearths, campsites, and burials, also have been discovered and examined. With all of the discoveries we have made we are able to come up with a picture of what we believe early man looked like. One group particularly talked about around the world is the Neanderthals. The Neanderthals occupied Europe and the Middle East from 100,000 years ago until about 35,000 to 40,000 years ago, when they disappeared from the fossil record.

Scientists dispute over the Neanderthals also involves the question of the rigins of modern population, or race. By some scientists, it is believed that the color of our skins vary because of the places where our ancestors adapted. But other scientists believe that the color of our skin has changed just recently. In their opinion, the features of the Neanderthals-a low, sloping forehead, large brow ridge, and a large face without a chin- were to early to be considered the ancestors of the modern humans.

About 10,000 years ago, one of the most important events in human history took place-plants were domesticated, and soon after that, animals as well. This revolutional change set the stage of events in human history that eventually led to civilization. Todays understanding of the creation of humans is based on what we learn from fossils and artifacts that are found around other fossils. When Columbus arrived in the New World he found a Stone Age culture. He found the Indians, their way of life left them vulnerable to the Englishs attacks.

Nearly every anthropologist believes that the predecessors of North American and South American Indians came to the two continents by way of Asia, across the Bering Strait and down through Alaska and Canada. The Indians had very dark skin, unlike Africans or the English, so scientists believe that the Indians were from mild climate areas and that is how they determine where man came from. The colors of your skin tell a great deal about you, also, DNA tells us just about everything genetically that anybody wants to know about you.

Human beings and other primates share the same general reproductive habits. With very few exceptions, primates bear only one baby at the time, and the female nurses the child for a long time. The rate of growth to maturity in young primates is slower than that in any other animal. There is a lot of dependence of the young on the adult in its first few stages of life. The first few years of a child that was born when man was first developing might have depended on their parents for about three or four years, unlike those today who depend on their parents for eighteen years or more.

To escape comparing man to other animals, early biologists went so far as to develop systems of animal classification setting man on a plane by himself, free from comparison with other animals. Anthropology has become so complex that it is difficult to explain exactly how many things are considered in attempting to valuate man properly. To help this problem, anthropology has been divided into two major divisions. Part of it was concerned with mans appearance, his internal organs, and his general structure. These are all called physical anthropology.

The tools men use, the things man does as an individual and in groups, the dwellings he uses, and other things that sort are called cultural anthropology. Man is the only known animal capable of forming and maintaining a culture, but the growth of any culture rests upon a foundation of biology. The backbone and arms were the first parts to become “modern”. Anatomists say that mans ribs, arms, hands, and the larger bones that make up the main part of the spine, including the shoulder blades, were the first parts of the human skeletal framework to evolve to their present condition.

This conclusion was made by comparing sections of the skeletal structure with that of any other similar mammal, mostly the apes and monkeys. The second largest area of our body to evolve into present form was the pelvis, our legs, and feet. We have made that conclusion by the fossils of apelike animals. Many doctors believe that the uman body is still evolving, and the proof of this is the trouble we all have with our joints, the bones of the legs, feet, and lower back. The final body unit to form was the head and its contents, and the first bone of the spinal column, the atlas.

The face, brain and teeth apparently assumed their modern form only recently, although there have been no noticeable changes in these areas since the time of the Cro-Magnon cave dwellers. Many scientists believe that even today our teeth and face are taking shape in many other ways and making changes slowly but they predict over time that these changes will be oticeable. So far mans shape has changed tremendously over the years, just as the story has, but even so, we still may be changing right now while we sit or walk.

In many more years we could be much shorter or maybe even taller, if the Earths gravity changes any we could be either, if it gets larger our bodies could grow as short as three feet, and we would be walking midgets. That may not seem probable now but whose to predict the future without knowing whats happening in the present tense. Of course scientists think that we are changing but who really knows, and the only way we are ever going to know is to wait it ut and see what happens.

Maybe we all did come from Apes, or maybe we originated from Adam and Eve, atleast that would explain why men are missing a rib. But what real proof do we have? Fossils, paintings on walls, stories passed down from generation to generation, and the Bible. We may never know where we exactly originated from or what we were actually put on this Earth to accomplish, but maybe were succeeding in whatever it is. Maybe one day in the future we will have all the facts of what human beings really are, but until then we have our predictions.

Understanding of Suffering

The suffering of man is a very complicated matter that is most likely impossible to understand completely. It is a subject that people have grappled with since the dawn of recorded history. In fact, suffering is evident in every form of art man has created. Suffering is in our paintings, our poetry, our music, our plays, and in anything else that is conceivable. But still, we as a whole still struggle with the idea of suffering. It is my opinion that some individuals may grasp the notion of suffering more than others, but that no one person will ever fully understand suffering in every form.

A person may only understand his or her own personal suffering, not suffering as a whole. It is the next step to then say that “understanding comes through suffering,” which I also believe to be true. It is impossible to fully know what the suffering of a person is like, unless you have experienced the same thing in his own shoes. Death is the reward of Life Life is considered, by some, to be a journey towards death and the great reward of afterlife. This traveling process is held in many different views and is expressed in numerous manners in literature.

In these works it is very easy to see that they experience great misery, but it is impossible to understand their suffering. Their suffering can only be identified, and compared to an individual’s own suffering. One must experience suffering in order to fully understand what it was like. It is entirely a personal experience. It is for this reason that understanding comes through suffering. Suffering is one of the things that make us human, it is what lets us enjoy the good times and thank God for them.

Because it is though suffering and trials of life that we come to know our true selves. Suffering is a gift from God that people many times don’t realize. Now we have this idea of suffering but what is suffering really? Is it evil? Is it physical? Does it just pertain to one area of life? Suffering is emotional pain that runs deeper than physical pain. Suffering runs deeper and longer if someone suffers emotionally from something, which could take a lifetime to recover.

Suffering also forces us to usually ask for help; to search out others for strength, for many of us that are when some of the greatest bonds of friendship will be made is helping someone that is suffering. In the play Antigone we see much suffering mainly by the main character that was persecuted and eventually committed suicide in a cave after being buried alive. Antigone came from a messed up family her father Oedipus killed himself after he found out that he had killed his father and married his real mom. Then not too long after that Oedipus’ sons kill each other in a battle to become king.

So Creon becomes king and declares Plyonises an enemy of the state so he won’t be buried. This troubled Antigone because she believed that if Plyonises weren’t buried he would not cross in to the land of the dead but be forced to walk the land as a ghost. We see that Antigone held her brothers and the laws of the gods sacred were as her sister just thought well of the laws of Zeus. We can tell this because she wasn’t willing to risk suffering to bury her brother. Where Antigone not only went and buried her brother but she also wouldn’t hide that fact from her uncle the king.

Suffering is something that tests our faith and values; it is like the tests of fire in the New Testament were Paul says that we will have our actions tested by fire. Suffering is like that fire it will separate something that we idealize from something that we hold sacred. One thing that I find many people miss is that suffering is caused by evil in this world but people forget that many times suffering is caused by other people’s sin. Such as Antigone’s suffering was because her brothers couldn’t get along and because her uncle felt that he was better than the gods law and wouldn’t bury his kin.

We must not forget compassion in dealing with each other, for if we help others and forgive we will save others from suffering and maybe even ourselves. We see that in the case of king Creon, if he had given Antigone grace for doing the right thing even though it was against his law. He would have saved himself a lot of pain and saved his family from the on going curse of death. What I believe Sophocles is trying to show in the area of suffering is that we show our true colors when we are suffering. We see that even though her life was in danger Antigone did the right thing.

Sophocles shows us also that suffering can be one of the best teachers “Creon: Wisdom is by far the greatest part of joy and reverence toward the gods must be safeguarded. The mighty words of the proud are paid in gull with mighty blows of fate, and the long last those blows will teach us wisdom. ” One of the best stories that parallel this play is the story of Job. Job is taken from being a rich man to being a poor, sick, lonely man. He never gave up what God told him to do, but at one point he asked God why was he letting Job suffer.

This angered God because he is sovereign and we: as his creations have no right to question his motives and standards. What we forget many times when dealing with God is that he made us and he is so superior to our minds that he can handle his greatness and his ways. Lets for argument sake change the story of Antigone and make her God, Yahweh but she is still punished for doing right why? That is because evil works or thoughts cause suffering, these don’t have to be because of something that you personally did.

In her situation it was more the sins of her father, brothers, and Creon. For example the farmer has to work hard and sometime even after a whole season of hard work, there is still a weak crop. This is because of the evil that Adam and Eve did and God consequently cursed the ground. Also God maybe teaching this family to depend more on him we never know the complete reason for our suffering we must know that it is for us to gain wisdom as Sopicles said.

If this play had the real living God in it this is what Feinberg has to say about the actions of the characters (Finberg pg. 0), ”In particular, I hold that an act is to be done, not because of its consequences. But because God reveals that it is the right thing to do, Regardless of its consequences. ” We should follow with faith the direction God points us in, whether that is to brake man’s law. Man’s law isn’t always perfect and that evil is what causes the servants of Christ to suffer. Some might bring up why should I obey God’s law if it goes against man’s laws. This is really a basic question; think of life like a computer game and you are play that game with the guy that made the game.

You try to cheat but he already knows what you’re going to do and he has already programmed a response in the game. To follow God and face persecution is better than to go against God. So Antigone was right according to this theology, where she would have gone wrong was when she expected God to deliver her from Creon. There will many times be consequences to your action even if you try to do the right thing. Where Antigone gets in trouble is when she questions God, because she expected God to role out the red carpet for her because she did what was right in God’s eyes.

The thing we for get is that God isn’t about to be judged by men it is always the other way around. The dog doesn’t judge its master we don’t judge ours. God is a being above everything he created us and allowed us to see evil and experience suffering as a gift. So we could better understand love and happiness. We are not able to question God on this one because he is omnipotent; he knows what is best for us. This is where faith becomes so important we must trust God for everything. Antigone had faith in the gods and trusted them to take care of her situation.

Humans And Their Ability To Make Mistakes

In today’s pop culture, there is one very popular view of the future. All humans will be free to do as they wish, because robots and computers will work for us. Computers are viewed as the ideal slaves. They work non-stop, never complain, and above all, never make mistakes. It is often said that computers don’t make mistakes, that it is the person using the computer who commits errors. What is it that makes humans err, but not computers? I will prove that it is simply the way humans are built that makes us commit errors. Unlike computers, uilt of mechanical or electronic parts, humans are made of organic matter and nerve pathways.

These same pathways, with the help of the brain are responsible for all the decision making. I shall demonstrate why humans err, despite the fact that we have eyes and ears to sense with. Before I can establish causes for error, I shall define the terms “error” and “mistake”. In the context of this essay, they will simply mean that a human obtained a result different from the expected, correct one. Whether it in be adding two numbers, or calling someone by the wrong name, these are all rrors that a computer would not make. An error can also be interpreted as being a wrong physical move.

If a person is walking in the woods and trips on a branch, it is because the person erred in the sense of watching the path followed. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that humans make mistakes all the time. Let us simply analyze any process in which there is a chance for someone to commit an error. Take for example a cashier in a grocery store. The cashier obtains the total on the cash register, and receives a twenty dollar bill from the customer. She must now give the patron back his/her change.

The cash register tells the cashier that the client is owed 4. 0$. The cashier then reaches into her change drawer to retrieve the proper set of coins. This is where the opportunity for error increases. What if the cashier only gives the customer back $4. 55, because she mistakenly returned a nickel instead of a dime? What caused this blunder? Would this blunder have happened if the cashier had had 15 minutes to decide on how much change to return instead of 15 seconds? Logically speaking, we can establish that if the cashier had 15 minutes to elect the proper set of coins, she probably wouldn’t have made a mistake.

This is due to the fact that she would have taken more time in figuring out which coins to choose and would even have had time to review her decision several times. What can we deduce from this discussion? Humans are more prone to make mistakes if they are rushed than if they have lots of time to do an operation. There are many other examples. If you give a class a math exam, but restrict them to 15 minutes, we can be almost certain that they will get a lower mark than the same class doing the same test in one hour. The reason is fairly simple. Our brains and senses simply do not react fast enough.

That is why computers are so renown for their dependability in terms of errors. Computers can perform thousands more operations per second than a human with no chance of error. This is due to the construction of these machines. Their inanimate parts are better adapted to executing these operations at very high speeds. Let us take another example. A man is adding up a column of numbers. We will pretend that this individual has a basic knowledge of math. The mistakes he ight make, if any, will not be due to his lack of knowledge of the basic addition rules.

He sits down with a sheet of paper with a list of many three digit numbers. What kinds of errors can he commit, and why? While adding up the numbers, he might mistake a 7 for a 1 and add the numbers together wrong. He might, while adding, disregard a number once in a while. All these possible mistakes would lead to the wrong final answer, but what causes these errors? Once again, the time factor is very important. Given the chance to redo his calculations another 99 times, he would certainly produce the correct final nswer.

The reason he committed errors was simply that he was doing an action faster that his brain and eyes could handle with 100% accuracy. It seems that our brains can compute complex operations that allow us to drive a car through terrible weather conditions, at night, but all these operations cannot be accomplished within too short a time limit. So far, we have discussed the speed at which the brain can compute operations without error. We must consider other factors which can also lead to mistakes. To explain other types of error, I will use a terminology developed nd used by the philosopher Bertrand Russell.

He identifies something called sense data. Sense data is the data received by our senses from the object being “sensed”. For instance, if a person is looking at a red apple, the shape and color and all other aspects of this apple are received in the form of sense data. In the case of the man adding up the numbers, he mistook a 7 for a 1. What really happened is that his senses misidentified the number. The sense data was received by his eyes, which then converted this information into an electrical signal to be sent to the brain for analysis.

There are thus two possibilities. Either the eyes did not transform the signal of the 7 properly, or the brain misunderstood the signal received from the eyes. In both cases, the sense data was analyzed incorrectly, leading to an error in the final calculation. Some skeptics might criticize my position by saying that, no matter how much time a person has to complete a job, he or she might still commit errors. In the example of the cashier that I used earlier, one might say that although she had 15 minutes to select 3 different coins, that she still might make a istake.

One could justify this position by saying that this is due to a lack of attention. If a person has 15 minutes to complete a simple task, they will pay very little attention to the details. If the coin is slightly worn out, and the cashier is not paying attention, then she will pick it up by mistake. Moreover, once the coin is selected, she will assume that it is the right one, so that even if she checks the coins before handing them to the customer, she might simply assume that she has selected the correct amount. My answer to this position is fairly clear.

No matter how little attention she pays to the job she is doing, that is not where the error lies. If she is distracted while picking up the coins in question, then her senses are not receiving and analyzing the sense datum properly, or thoroughly. This is simply a more complex case of what I described earlier, with the man mistaking a 7 for a 1. The individual is not drawing the right conclusion from the sense data received. In light of the examples and discussions presented, I think is safe to say that human error is due to the fact that the brain can only function erfectly up to a certain speed.

Also, the five human senses do not always properly interpret the sense data received, causing the brain to make mistakes. Not paying attention to what one is doing is not a reason for making a mistake. It is the repercussions of this behavior that cause the error, because the person is not using his/her senses properly. In conclusion, it is understandable that humans make mistakes despite the fact that our senses receive sense data from objects surrounding us. After all, if this weren’t true, you would have just finished reading a perfect essay!

User Friendly in Childhood’s End

In Arthur C. Clarkes novel Childhoods End, people or beings use each other for selfish reasons. Sometimes it is subtle, even subconscious; other times it is a blatant usage. Three obvious examples occur and kind of chase each other around in a triangular fashion. 1) The Overlords use humans/humanity. 2) The Overmind uses humans. 3) The Overmind uses the Overlords. Humans also attempt to use the Overlords even though the Overlords are omnipotent and seem to already have humanitys fatal future planned out.

Other than these overlying uses, small examples exist between characters throughout the novel. These will be cited and explained in a somewhat chronological One of the first instances is Wainwright and the Freedom League using Stormgren for information about the Overlords. Next time you speak with the Supervisor, Mr. Stormgren, ask him that! (17), says Wainwright referring to why Karellen wont show himself. Wainwright and the league want information like this so they can form their revolt against the Overlords takeover.

This brings about one of the bigger uses: The Overlords need a human mediator to communicate with the rest of the world on a personal level. On page 36, Joe says, …but the Overlords have to use human agents. Karellen uses Stormgren to speak to In the chain of events surrounding Stormgrens capture, Joe and the kidnappers are holding Stormgren hostage. They use him to try and gain information. You know what our motives are here…you are the only man who can tell us anything of the Overlords, (40) says one of the leaders. This turns into a reciprocal situation when from Stormgrens thoughts it is written, There were acute minds here, and perhaps they could uncover something new (41). Also, …he [Stormgren] was hoping that they might help him unravel Karellens secret (42-43).

So, while this undercover organization seeks information from Stormgren, he takes advantage of the circumstance in an attempt for the acute minds to help him solve his puzzle. These little reciprocal use situations take place many times throughout the novel. While Stormgren is reminiscing the events of the kidnapping, he realizes that with all of Karellens power, Karellen could have saved him at anytime. He thinks, It was more than obvious now that Karellen had used him as bait (49). Then, Karellen puts a tracer on the terrorists and lets them go. He gives them their freedom, but uses this to his advantage.

I can trace their movements anywhere on Earth…far better than locking them Despite the small examples cited in the first section of the novel, the larger theme is the Overlords getting the human race to conform to their ideas. The Overlords are turning the inhabitants of Earth into a well-oiled machine. This process will allow them to use the planet and people–whether it be for research and knowledge or the collection of specimens–how they want before its future end. Right from the start, …with a human child resting on either arm, (68) Karellen uses children as an additional cover for his alarming body structure.

This brilliant idea Rupert is a rich selfish prick who uses all the material goods he can to impress his guests. He greets George and Jean with his image projector and Georges reply is, Have you ever known Rupert not to get anything he wanted (78)? The couple go on to discuss how nice his new house is. Rupert refers to Rashaverak as Rashy around his guests and treats him as an equal at most. Concerning this, George states, …[Rupert] likes to show Rupert uses his guests for self-gratification. Clearly, the majority of the people in attendance are mere acquaintances who get the opportunity to spend an elegant night at Ruperts. The narrator suggests, [a]bout three-quarters…[are] perfect strangers (79).

On a reciprocal note, Rupert also uses the Overlords and the Overlords use Rupert. Rashy gets to read from the psychic phenomena library, and Rupert gets an image projector for personal use. Just a bit of bargaining (87), explains Rupert, to strike The other significant example from the second section of the book is Professor Sullivan helping out Jan. Jan goes five kilometers deep in the ocean because he thinks he can use Sullivans position and wisdom to get aboard an Overlord ship. After the initial meeting and exchange of ideas, Jan thinks, Right into my hands (120), referring to George uses Jean.

He might have been in love with her once, or thought he was–at least enough to live and raise a family together. Now, their partnership has allowed them to move into Athens and appear to be upstanding citizens. It seems Georges intent to move there was with disregard for Jeans ideas or happiness. Granted, she ends up being quite happy, but Georges push to move was so he could take part in Genes interest is for the children. [T]he children would love it. That…was all that mattered (142), she says. A kiss from George is described as perfunctory (143). He is busy with plans for the future, …too much occupied by his work and his children This passage from George sums up his thoughts for Gene and their partnership: George looked down at her with sympathy, but nothing more. He was fond of her: she had borne his children and was part of his life.

But, of the love which…George Greggson had once known towards…Jean Morrel, how much remained? His love was divided between Jeff and Jennifer…and Carolle. He did not believe that Jean knew about Carolle. (165) Since the Overlords found out that Jean was special at Ruperts party, theyve been monitoring her. Theyve waited for her offspring so they could observe them and possibly further their understanding of the Overmind. This is quite possibly the entire reason the Overlords use the human race.

They appear to be helping humanity when all along they were preparing the world for the Overmind. They were selfishly playing God so that when the children started to mutate, the Overlords could examine them and maybe gain more knowledge about their own masters. Why else would they have saved Jeff from While the Overlords are carrying out their various side projects to gain knowledge, the Overmind is using them. And you [Rashaverak] do not resent being used as a tool by the Overmind, (206) asks Jan.

For whatever specific reason the Overmind needs the Overlords, it is unclear, but it is evident that the Overmind must have the Overlords for the implementation of their harvesting process. In a similar way the Overmind uses the human race. In its higher power of existence, it preys off of colonies of beings. The Overmind continues to search for more overall power, maybe? Whatever its reasons are, with regard to human morals, the Overmind uses humanitys last offspring to further the development of its being.

Characterization in Catch-22

The large cast of characters in Heller’s Catch-22 is what makes the novel so memorable. The experience of each character makes the “catch” more believable to the reader. Each character symbolizes a different attitude and reaction to the system in which he is trapped. Oftentimes, the characters are stereotypes rather than actual “individuals.” There is no obvious division in intelligence between the authority characters and those governed by the authority.

Milo Minderbinder, Colonel Cathcart, and General Peckem are all excellent representatives of the military bureaucracy. Heller’s portrayal of these characters makes a solidified statement about the way the army works. These characters do not see the men under their command as human beings, but as tools to further their careers. Milo uses his manipulative powers to improve his “syndicate” and his personal wealth. Pearson notes,”…by the time his[Milo’s] activities have taken over Europe and North Africa in one vast syndicate and he has bombed his own men, he has become little more than a personification of greed”(277). Milo’s tactics are often outrageous, and they even endanger the physical and emotional well-being of his fellow soldiers. According to one critic, “For Milo, contract, and the entire economic structure and the ethical system that it embodies and represents, is more sacred than human life”(Frank 266).

Colonel Cathcart also uses his troops, but for different purposes. Cathcart’s scheme involves manipulating his soldiers so as to advance his own rank. Like Milo, Cathcart has no qualms about placing his men’s lives in danger. In fact, solely to impress his superiors, he purposely volunteers his men for the most dangerous missions. Constantly raising the number of required missions his men have to fly, he perpetuates the catch.

Another character more concerned with upholding the appearance of order than with actually doing his job is General Peckem. He entertains himself by placing other officers at odds with each other and is representative of the stupidity in the military hierarchy. The personification of Heller’s attitudes in his characters strengthens his dissent for the bureaucracy.

The characters governed by the military represent another of Heller’s perspectives on war. These characters are truly trapped in the system. Each character has a different mechanism for coping with the horror. Havermeyer takes out his aggression on helpless field mice at might. McWatt dangerously buzzes tents and actually tries to get himself shot down. Flume retreats to the woods to hide from dangers he cannot cope with. Hungry Joe’s fears are magnified in horrible recurring nightmares. For these characters, insanity is truly the only sane response to an insane situation.

Yossarian epitomizes the character who rebels against the system. Yossarian tries as hard as he can to control his own fate. His most important goal is to simply keep himself alive. He attempts to keep out of combat as much as possible, even refusing to go. He relates to and sympathizes with his fellow soldiers. Yossarian believes in the importance of the individual human life, “Catch-22 did not exist, he was positive of that, but it made no difference. What did matter is that everyone thought it existed, and that was much worse…”(Heller 410).

He constantly tries to maintain his individuality in the face of an impersonal war machine. As rated by one critic, “Yossarian eventually ends up as a survivor with integrity by becoming an outsider and renouncing the values and potential rewards of the bureaucracy”(Mullican 199). His paranoia separates him from the rest of the world. It turns him into a loner who has to overcome the insanity or be engulfed by it.

Through characterization Heller generates a specific point. Each character serves to reiterate Heller’s feelings on war, capitalism, and the military itself. The attitudes that the characters personify make Catch-22 both poignant and memorable.

The Population Problem

Two hundred years ago, Thomas Malthus, in An Essay on the Principle of Population, reached the conclusion that the number of people in the world will increase exponentially, while the ability to feed these people will only increase arithmetically (21). Current evidence shows that this theory may not be far from the truth. For example, between 1950 and 1984, the total amount of grain produced more than doubled, much more than the increase in population in those 34 years. More recently though, these statistics have become reversed. From 1950 to 1984, the amount of grain increased at 3 percent annually.

Yet, rom 1984 to 1993, grain production had grown at barely 1 percent per year, a decrease in grain production per person of 12 percent (Brown 31). Also strengthening to Malthus’ argument is the theory that the world population will increase to over 10 billion by 2050, two times what it was in 1990 (Bongaarts 36). Demographers predict that 2. 8 billion people were added to the world population between 1950 and 1990, an average of 70,000 a year. Between 1990 and 2030, it is estimated that another 3. 6 billion will be added, an average of 90,000 a year (Brown 31).

Moreover, in the 18th century, the world population rowth was 0. 4%; it increased to 0. 54% in the 19th century and in the first half of the 20th century to 0. 84% (Weiskel 40). Neo-Malthusians base their arguments on the teachings of Thomas Malthus. Of the Neo-Malthusians, Garrett Hardin is one of the most prominent and controversial. Hardin’s essays discuss the problem of overpopulation and the effects it will have on the future. In Lifeboat Ethics, he concludes that continuous increases in population will have disastrous outcomes. Neo-Malthusian arguments come under much scrutiny by those who believe that the population explosion is only a myth.

Those who hold these beliefs state that the evidence Neo-Malthusians use to justify their views is far from conclusive. Critics hold that the Neo-Malthusian call for authoritarian control is much too radical. Thus, these critics belittle the theories of Neo-Malthusians on the basis that population is not a problem. However radical Hardin’s theories may be, current evidence shows that he may not be too far off the mark. It is hardly arguable that the population has increased in the past few decades, for current statistics show that this actually is the case.

Equally revealing, is the fact that vast amounts of land re being transformed into more living space. More people means more waste, more pollution, and more development. With this taken into consideration, it seems that Hardin’s teachings should no longer fall on deaf ears. When discussing the issue of population, it is important to note that it is one of the most controversial issues facing the world today. Population growth, like many other environmental issues, has two sides. One side will claim that the population explosion is only a myth, while the other side will argue that the population explosion is reality.

Because of this, statistics concerning this ubject vary widely. But, in order to persuade, it is necessary to take one side or the other. Thus, statistics may be questioned as to their validity, even though the statistics come from credible sources. Lifeboat Ethics The United States is the most populous country in the world, behind only China and India. Unlike China and India though, the United States is the fastest growing industrialized nation. The United States’ population expands so quickly because of the imbalance between migration and immigration, and births and deaths.

For example, in 1992, 4. 1 million babies were born. Weighing this tatistic against the number of deaths and the number of people who entered and left the country, the result was that the United States obtained 2. 8 million more people than it had gotten rid of (Douglis 12). Population increases place great strain on the American society and more particularly it causes tremendous destruction to the natural environment. For example, more than half of the wetlands in the United States are gone, and of all of the original forest cover, 90 percent has been destroyed.

This depletion has caused the near extinction of over 796 individual plants and animals. At least part of the year, the air that ver 100 million people breathe is too dirty to meet federal standards. And finally, almost 15 million people are subject to polluted water supplies (Douglis 12). It is very likely that total destruction of the environment can take place and probably will if something is not done to curb the population growth. When discussing Hardin’s essays it is necessary to confront the problem of immigration.

Immigration is responsible for approximately 40 percent of the population growth in the United States (Douglis 12). The United States now accepts more immigrants than all other developed countries combined (Morganthau 22). It is estimated that approximately one million immigrants from all over the world are making the United States their new home each year (Mandel 32). This estimate does not include illegal immigration, which makes this total even greater (McKenna 336). It is obvious that immigrants have a much better life in the United States than in their previous homes.

Immigrants come to the United States to benefit from the United States’ economy, and return to their original homes with more money. Take for example a quote form a Malaysian immigrant working illegally in the United States: If you take one dollar back o Malaysia, it is double the value. You work here to earn U. S. dollars so you can greatly improve your living standard in Malaysia. (Mandel 32) While immigrants benefit themselves by coming to the United States, they leave natural born Americans competing for jobs. By 2050, it is estimated that the population of the United States will be close to 383 million.

Of this, approximately 139 million, or 36 percent, will be immigrants and their children. This will make Americans of European descent, which in 1960 were an 89 percent majority, a minority of less than 50 percent (Brimelow 42). Immigration poses reat threats to the national economy, and costs taxpayers millions of dollars every year. Studies show that post-1970 immigrants, legal and illegal, used $50. 8 billion of government services in 1992. Subtracting the $20. 2 billion they paid in taxes, the difference, which American taxpayers had to make up, was $30. billion.

These figures, averaged out, account for $1,585 for every immigrant. Over the next ten years, it is estimated that an additional $50 billion in American tax money will go toward supporting immigrants (Thomas 19). According to Garret Hardin’s idea of Lifeboat Ethics, continuing to add to the opulation of the United States will create many hardships. In order to bring the population within a reasonable number, Hardin suggests population control. Like other Neo-Malthusians, he states that this can only be accomplished under authoritarian government.

Under authoritarian control, couples would no longer be able to receive private benefits from reproduction, while they pass the costs of their fertility on to society (Chen 88). He claims that individual rights– particularly reproductive rights–are too broad. He argues that population control cannot be achieved with birth control alone. Birth control simply gives he person the choice of when to have children and how many to have (Chen 90). Thus, in order to attain a stable population, the right to reproduce freely can no longer be allowed.

Hardin begins his argument by noting that poor countries have a GNP of approximately $200 per year, while rich countries have a GNP of nearly $3,000 a year. Thus, there are two lifeboats: one full of equally rich people, the other disastrously overcrowded with poor people. Because of the overcrowding in the poor lifeboats, some people are forced into the water, hoping eventually to be admitted onto a rich lifeboat where they can benefit rom the goodies on board. This is where the central problem of the ethics of a lifeboat becomes a primary issue. What should the passengers on the rich lifeboat do (Hardin 223)?

First, Hardin notes that the lifeboat has a limited carrying capacity, which he designates at 60. Fifty people are already aboard the lifeboat, leaving room for 10 more. He also notes that the 10 empty spaces should be left empty in order to preserve the safety factor of the boat. Assuming there are 100 swimmers waiting to be taken aboard, what happens next (Hardin 223)? Hardin suggests three solutions. First of which is to allow all 100 people to board the lifeboat. This would bring the total passengers of the lifeboat to 150. Because the boat only has a capacity of 60, the safety factor is destroyed, and the boat becomes overcrowded.

Eventually the lifeboat sinks and everyone drowns. In Hardin’s words, complete justice, complete catastrophe (Hardin 224). The second solution is to allow only 10 more people on the boat, abolishing the safety factor, but keeping the boat from becoming too overcrowded. T….. he problem with this solution though is which swimmers to let in, and what to ay to the other 90 left stranded in the water (Hardin 224). The final solution is to allow no one in the boat, thus greatly increasing the chances of survival for the 50 passengers already on board.

This solution, to many of the passengers, would be wrong, for they would feel guilty about their good luck. Hardin offers a simple response: Get out and give up your seat to someone else. Eventually, if all of the guilt ridden people relinquish their seats, the boat would be guilt free and the ethics of the lifeboat would again be restored (Hardin 224). Hardin next argues the issue of reproduction. He notes that populations of poor nations double every 35 years, while the populations of rich nations double every 87 years. To put it in Hardin’s perspective, consider the United States a lifeboat.

At the time Hardin wrote his essay, the population of the United States was 210 million and the average rate of increase was 0. 8% per year, that is doubling in number every 87 years (Hardin 225). Even though the populations of rich nations are outnumbered by the populations of poor nations by two to one, consider, for example, that there are an equal number of people n the outside of the lifeboat as there are on the lifeboat (210 million). The people outside of the lifeboat increase at a rate of 3. 3% per year. Therefore, in 21 years this population would be doubled (Hardin 225).

If the 210 million swimmers were allowed onto the lifeboat (the United States), the initial ratio of Americans to Non-Americans would be one to one. But, 87 years later, the population of Americans would have doubled to 420 million, while the Non- Americans (doubling every 21 years) would now have increased to almost 3. 5 billion. If this were the case, each American would have more than 8 other eople to share with (Hardin 225). Immigration causes more problems than those discussed by Hardin. It causes social friction, and the decline of English- speaking Americans (Morganthau 22).

As more and more immigrants poor into American cities, they collectively will feel no need to learn the English language. If one city becomes a majority of immigrants rather than a majority of natural born Americans, tension is the result. This tension will result in societal separatism, which will finally lead to political separatism (James 340). There are many arguments that focus on the benefits of immigration. Arguments that conclude that immigration creates jobs, promotes a diverse culture, and even arguments that immigration may produce the next Einstein.

These arguments, that the United States should not close its borders, come primarily from those people who claim that the United States is a melting pot. If the United States continues to live by the words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty, it is destined to create more bad than good, not only socially and politically, but also environmentally. Arguments for immigration tend to miss the primary problem that immigration causes: the environmental problem. Immigration means more people. More people give rise to the need for more living space which in turn leads to destruction of the environment.

Even though immigration may be beneficial in some ways, the United States must protect its national identity, and even more importantly, it must protect what land it has left. Failure to close the doors to immigrants will continually increase environmental, economic, and societal problems in America. Without proper legislation, these problems will never be solved. Although America is the land of opportunities, the environment must not be taken for granted. For if it is, disaster is inevitable. Conclusion The Book of Genesis tells the story of creation of man. God said to man, be fruitful and increase in numbers; fill the earth and subdue it.

Prior to the nineteenth century, it was believed that God would provide for those who came into the world (Day 101). But, in 1798, this view was shaken by Thomas Malthus’ An Essay on the Principle of Population, in which he concluded that while population increases geometrically, agricultural production only increases arithmetically. Thus, eventually, food production will not be able to keep up ith an increasing number of people. The question is, which theory can be justified? Those who say the we always have room for more people fall into the category who feel that the Bible justifies increases in population.

What these people fail to understand is that when more people are added, the standard of living decreases. These people who say that living space is near infinite may be correct in their beliefs. The question is, which is more desirable: the maximum number of people at the lowest standard of living–or a smaller number of people at a comfortable standard of living (Hardin 58)? In order to further xemplify how increasing population decreases the standard of living, consideration should be given to a study done by the National Institute of Mental Health.

The study was done to show the negative effects of overpopulation (Calhoun 6). This study shows what the world has to look forward to if Garrett Hardin and Thomas Malthus are correct. Four male and four female mice were placed in an eight foot square cage. The eight mice were not subject to problems they may have faced in the outside world. In two years the eight mice turned in to 2,200 mice. During this time, the effects of overcrowding had ecome relevant, as not one newborn mouse had survived in the two year testing period. Finally, after two years and three months, the final mouse (a female) died (Calhoun 6).

During the experiment, various abnormalities were considered related to the overcrowding. Once the carrying capacity of the cage was reached (620), strange things started to occur. Aggressiveness and cannibalism overcame some of the mice. Sexual activities became perverted. Some mice become excessively active, while others became passive blobs of protoplasm (Calhoun 6). One of the experimenters stated the implications of the study. He noted hat the mice were subject to a perfect universe, free from disease, weather, etc. The mice progressed and took advantage of their ideal habitat, but only until they ran out of room.

The abnormalities of the mice became so predominant that even after the mouse population returned to its original carrying capacity (620), there was nothing that could be done to alter their behavior. Before all of the mice died some were taken out and placed in a new environment, left to freely reproduce again. This resulted in failure though, as all of the offspring soon died. In conclusion, the study showed that the situation of the ouse population would grow worse until the animals destroyed their entire world (Calhoun 6).

If this experiment would hold true for the human race, it is time (maybe even past time) to make some changes. Either way, the earth is not to be taken for granted. No longer can natural resources be used as if there is an infinite supply. Even if there is an infinite supply (and one may never know) sustainability remains to be the best way to totally ensure that natural resources are used in the most effective manner. But if natural resources are not infinite the future of human survival is in jeopardy.

What is the Human Genome Project

The Human Genome Project (HGP) is an international research program designed to construct detailed genetic and physical maps of the human genome, to determine the complete nucleotide sequence of human DNA, to localize the estimated 80,000 genes within the human genome, and to perform similar analyses on the genomes of several other organisms used extensively in research laboratories as model systems.

This project is estimated to take 15 years to complete from October 1990 and has already cost the U. S. 2. 5 billion dollars. The scientific products of the HGP will comprise a resource of etailed information about the structure, organization and function of human DNA, information that is the basic set of inherited instructions for the development and functioning of a human being. What is the overall goal of the Project? In September, advisory committees at DOE and NIH approved new 5-year goals aimed at completing the Human Genome Project two years earlier than originally planned in 1990.

The new plan, published in the October 23, 1998 issue of Science, covers fiscal years 1999-2003 and calls for generating a “working draft” of the human genome DNA sequence by 2001 and obtaining he complete and highly accurate reference sequence by 2003. A new goal focuses on identifying regions of the human genome that differ from person to person. Although the vast majority of our DNA sequences are the same, scientists estimate that humans are 99. 9% identical genetically.

These DNA sequence variations can have a major impact on how our bodies respond to disease, environmental insults, such as bacteria, viruses, toxins, drugs and other therapies. Other major goals outlined in the plan include exploring the functions of human genes using methods that include comparing human DNA equences with those from organisms such as the laboratory mouse and yeast. Then they must address the ethical, legal, and social issues surrounding genetic tools and data, develop the computational capability to collect, store, and analyze DNA.

If successful, the completion of the human DNA sequence in 2003 will be the 50th anniversary of Watson and Crick’s description of the fundamental structure of DNA. Already revolutionizing biology, genome research provides a vital thrust to the increasing productivity and pervasiveness of the life sciences. Current and potential applications of genome research address national needs in molecular medicine, waste control and environmental cleanup, biotechnology, energy sources, and risk assessment.

Scientific Processes Chromosomes, which range in size from 50 million to 250 million bases are broken into very short pieces. Each short piece is used as a template to generate a set of fragments that differ in length from each other by a single base (template preparation and sequencing reaction steps). Now the fragments in a set are separated by gel electrophoresis. Then fluorescent dyes allow separation of all four fragments in a single lane on the gel. The final base at the end of each fragment is identified (base calling step).

This process recreates the original sequence of As, Ts, Cs, and Gs for each short piece generated in the first step. Current electrophoresis limits are about 500-700 bases sequenced per read. Automated sequences analyze the resulting electropherograms and the result is a four-color chromatogram showing peaks that represent each of the 4 DNA bases. After the bases are read by a computer, another computer is used to assemble the hort sequences in blocks of about 500 bases each, called the read length into long continuous stretches that are analyzed for errors, gene-coding regions, and other characteristics.

Finished sequence is submitted to public sequence databases, such as GenBank. Now The Human Genome Project sequence data is made free to anyone around the world who would like to view it. Benefits of the completed Project This project will be a great jump in understanding human genes which will provide us with many answers we would like to know, and many that we haven’t thought about yet. Genome maps of other organisms will provided so we can compare them to the human genome and let us compare and understand other biological systems.

Information generated and technologies developed will revolutionize future biological explorations. Genes involved in various genetic diseases will be found, and further studies will lead to an understanding of how those genes contribute to genetic diseases. Among these diseases will be the genes involved in cancer. Medical practices will be altered when new clinical technologies based on DNA diagnostics are combined with information coming from genome maps.

Researchers will be able to identify individuals predisposed to particular diseases and come up with therapeutic practices based on new classes of drugs, immunotherapy techniques, avoidance of environmental conditions that may trigger disease, and possible replacement of defective genes through gene therapy. Another benefit will come from understanding genetic similarities between mammals and humans. There isn’t that much difference between human biology and cattle or mouse biology.

What we learn about human genetics will help us to raise healthier, more productive, disease-resistant farm animals that ight, through wise and careful genetic engineering, produce drugs of value to us. Technologies, databases, and biological resources developed in genome research will have an enormous impact on a wide variety of biotechnology-related industries in such fields as agriculture, energy production, waste control, and environmental cleanup. The potential for commercial development presents U. S. industry with a great deal of wealth and opportunities from sales of biotechnology products.

The Criticism With all the benefits people tend to forget about a lot the things that could hurt our way of life by uncovering this nformation. This new information could be used to take biological warfare to a new level that is incomprehensible. It could also create a form of genetic racism that could separate countries and states. There are some less serious but still very important legal and social and ethical issues that will also need to be addressed. One of the major ethical issues is if we will allow this technology to be used to genetically engineer a so called “Super Race”.

In my opinion I don’t think messing human nature in this way is a good idea at all. It could cause less genetic diversity which makes humans what hey are. There’s also the big picture of over population and how it could ruin our planet. Nature has to take it’s course even with this technology unless we can figure out how to make other planets inhabitable for humans. Genetic Information Discovered So Far According to the Genome Database (GDB), the public repository for human genome mapping information, over 7600 genes had been mapped to particular chromosomes in January 1999.

Tens of thousands of human gene fragments have been identified as expressed sequence tags (EST’s). These are lso being assigned to positions on chromosome maps The physical mapping goal is to establish a marker every 100,000 bases across each chromosome (about 30,000 markers). The most complete map yet was published in summer 1997 and featured about 8000 landmarks, which provided about twice the resolution of previous maps. Similarly detailed maps have been produced for a few individual chromosomes, but this map offers landmarks across the entire human genome that are also positioned relative to each other.

Currently an estimated 5% of the human genome has actually been sequence. My Opinion In my opinion I believe that the information found by the Human Genome Project is going to be a useful tool for our future, and well worth the billions of dollars it is costing us. But there will need to be laws made to protect it from being misused. It should be used to cure diseases by gene therapy and to better our lives with this technology. It shouldn’t be used to make a “Super Breed” of humans or cloning. The information should also be banned from being used in the military. If this information is not used improperly I believe it will better our lives.

International Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms

After the war crimes committed by the Germans in the holocaust that occurred during World War II, the United nations decided to create a document guaranteeing respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all people, regardless of race, sex, language, or religion. This document was called The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The declaration was voted in on December 10, 1948, which is now celebrated each year as Human Rights Day. The Declaration says that “all human beings are born free and equal” and establishes basic rights for all people and rules for the actions of governments in many areas pertaining to those rights.

For example, it says that all people have the right to liberty, religious and political freedom, education, and economic well-being. It bans torture and states that all people have the right to participate in their governments. The declaration is not a law, unfortunately, and in some cases has had little actual effect on the member countries of the UN. Governments with poor human rights records, such as China, do not agree with the UN’s attempts to promote human rights, saying that such actions interfere with their internal affairs. The UN has a Commission on Human Rights.

Its job is to monitor abuses of the declaration in member countries, hold international meetings on human rights issues and handle complaints about violations to the basic human rights. It was in 1993 that the General Assembly created the position of High Commissioner for Human Rights. The commissioner job is to oversee all of the UN’s human rights programs, work to prevent human rights violations, and investigate human rights abuses. It is also in the commissioner’s power to publicize abuses to human rights taking place in any country.

However most publicity about abuses to human rights does not come from the UN but from rival countries or non-governmental groups like Amnesty International The UN has also written four international treaties on human rights. These treaties do have the force of law but are very hard to enforce. The treaties deal only with the problems of genocide, racial discrimination, civil and political rights, and economic and social rights. These four treaties have only been signed by about half of the countries of the world.

Notably the United States has only signed the treaty concerning genocide. Other countries have also refused to sign the conventions because of concerns about the specific terms of the conventions and the loss of authority that such treaties imply. Recent Human Rights Activities The UN’s most well known recent activities dealing with human rights are the two International Criminal Tribunals held to bring to justice those responsible for the horrible acts of violence committed during the recent civil wars in the former countries of Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

The tribunal for crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia was established by the UN’s Security Council in 1993. The council started the Rwanda tribunal in 1994. They are the first international war crimes trials since the Nrnberg Trials for Nazi war criminals that followed World War II. Although the tribunals were established by the Security Council, they operated independently of the UN. The trials depend on contributions from countries to keep operating and were often hampered by financial shortages.

Another more serious problem was the inability to arrest suspects in countries that do not recognize the treaties brought in by the UN as valid. The Yugoslav tribunal indicted 75 people for war crimes and genocide, including the top military and political leaders of the Serb forces in Bosnia and a high officer in the Croatian militia in Bosnia but neither Serbia nor the Bosnian Serb forces have turned over suspects. The international military forces in Bosnia have also refused to arrest them. The president of Croatia actually gave an indicted officer a promotion and medals.

In 1997 the tribunal had only a handful of low-ranking suspects to actually bring to trial. Impact Many critics of the UN claim that the International Declaration Of Human rights has had very little real impact on infringements to any of the rights outlined in it since it does not carry the force of law. In many cases this is true, China still has virtually no freedom of speech, in the former country of Yugoslavia there are still reports of ethnic cleansing and horrible crimes against humanity committed by both sides.

What the Declaration has done is spoken up. Before it was put into writing there was no real outline for how people should be treated or what are the most basic in alienable rights that should be given to any human being. Another thing the declaration has done is cause people to stand up and take notice of human rights issues in the world. Before it was drafted, many cases involving human rights were simply ignored or kept quiet.

Take for example just before World War Two, Nazi Germany was known to want to eliminate a great percentage of people not fitting into their “Aryan” master race, yet they still hosted the Olympics of 1936. At those Olympics they refused to grant a gold medal to a Jewish person, Jesse Owens, and still America and many other countries chose to ignore Germany for political reasons. After the war, almost in response to the declarations, various human rights organizations, such as amnesty international have been created.

They almost always use the Declaration as their basic outline for the rights of human beings. These groups bring much attention to the human rights problems of the world. A good example was the later war in Vietnam, protests in the United States over unfair treatment of enemy civilians is one of the main reasons they were forced to pull out. So in conclusion I must say that nobody can argue that forcing people to stand up and take notice is the only way to eliminate a problem and that is what the Declaration has achieved.

Stem cells are primordial cells of a human organism

Science is moving at such a rapid speed these days, between cloning, gene therapy, miracle drugs, exotic therapies, etc. One of the most significant breakthroughs came in November 1998, when two separate researchers successfully isolated stem cells from human embryos and aborted fetuses. Stem cells are primordial cells of a human organism, which are capable of becoming all or most of the 210 different kinds of tissues in the human body. Stem cells have been defined as not fully differentiated yet to be any particular type of tissue or cell.

They range from totipotent, i. e. ( the arly stages of the human embryo up to about 4 days after conception. ) To pluripotent I. e. (a bit older and therefore only capable of being some cells or tissues in the body. ) As in the 5-7 day blastocyst stage of the early embryo, with decreasing capacity in later stages of fetal development and in human beings. The impassioned hopes are that these stem cells can be used to great advantages. The cautious fears are that innocent and vulnerable human beings are destroyed, and needlessly so, in the process. The debates are raging.

Many people are confused about what stem cell research eally is, and wonder why all the fuss. There are several well documented and well- articulated sources of information available on this issue already, so the following is a brief overview of some of the major scientific, ethical, pros and cons. For centuries humanity has been plagued with numerous diseases, such as the black plague, Cancer, AIDS, and other diseases. These horrific, dreaded diseases have killed millions of people due to doctors or scientists not having a cure, but thanks to a scientific and medical breakthrough these diseases can and will be a thing of the past.

With this new research scientists are hoping to gain important scientific knowledge about embryonic development and its application to related fields; curing debilitating diseases, e. g. , Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, stroke, spinal cord injuries, bone diseases, etc. ; and screening drugs for pharmaceutical companies, instead of having to rely on animal models. In order to continue with these medical and scientific breakthroughs you have to accept the right-to-life argument in its most extreme form. Im talking about newly formed embryos. These are not fetuses with tiny little waving hands and feet.

These are microscopic groupings of a few differentiated cells. There is nothing human about them, except potential, and only if you choose to believe it, a soul. However, Bush is blocking, stem cell research would not actually take the life of a single embryo. Researchers would only use embryos that are being discarded anyway. 1 I understand that some people and pro lifers say that stem cell research is murder. But I strongly fell that it is ethically acceptable – even morally required – to destroy a few human beings in order to possibly benefit millions of patients.

Besides, these cells do not cause the same immuno-incompatibility problems after transplantation as do adult stem cells from different patients. Further, these early cells from human embryos and fetuses are MORE “totipotent” and “pluripotent” than adult stem cells, and therefore they can be “coaxed” to become more different kinds of tissues, and can last longer in culture awaiting use. Besides, these fetuses and left- over IVF-produced human embryos are going to die anyway, so we might as well get some good use out of them.

Researchers believe that stem cells can mimic the ctions and activities of nearly every other cell in the body. Eventually, scientists hope to use them to repair damaged hearts after heart attacks, regenerate livers devastated by cirrhosis or viral disease, reconstruct damaged joints, or seed the brain with fresh neurons to reverse the effects of Parkinson’s and Lou Gehrig’s disease, according to the November issue of Technology Review, a research magazine published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or MIT.

Now for every good there is a bad, and with all this technology there has to be a egative side, after all everything with medication and medical research has its side effects, and thousands of people in the world feel that stem cell research is morally and ethically wrong regardless of what stem cell research promises, as well as all the side effects that come along with stem cell research. Here are just some of the side effects or things that are wrong or unethical. First, one minor complication is that use of human embryonic stem cells requires lifelong use of drugs to prevent rejection of the tissue.

Second, another more serious disadvantage is that using embryonic stem cells can roduce tumors from rapid growth when injected into adult patients. A third disadvantage: the March 8, 2001 New England Journal of Medicine reported tragic side effects from an experiment involving the insertion of fetal brain cells into the brains of Parkinsons disease patients. Results included uncontrollable movements: writhing twisting head jerking, arm-flailing and constant chewing. One man can no longer eat and now requires a feeding tube. Fourth, a recent report in the Journal Science reported that mice cloned from ESC were genetically defective.

This is particularly relevant. If human ESC are also genetically unstable, that could materially compromise efforts to transform cells extracted from embryos into successful medical therapies. Fifth and finally, the research may be hampered because many of the existing stem cell lines were grown with the help of mouse cells. These mouse cells were needed to enhance their growth. If any of this research is to turn into treatments, it will need approval from the FDA, which requires special safeguards to prevent transmission of animal diseases to people.

It is unclear how many of these cell lines were developed ith the safeguards in place. This of course leads to a whole host of problems related to transgenic issues. Upon receiving this assignment I was asked to form my own opinion, and I will admit I did not know much about this subject, but after doing all the research and finding the Pros and the Cons, and my decision is a difficult one to make. I am definitely against human cloning (most cloning in fact) because of the serious ethical concerns. For one thing, I don’t advocate striking Stem Cell research because we simply don’t know enough about it.

We need that research to help answer some questions. If it is going to create ethical problems or revolutionize medicine then we’ve got to know one way or the other, and the only way to do that is by researching more. The federal government is the key to answering this question by providing funding for research–if the US doesn’t go ahead with it, other nations will. We do know that stem cells are the cluster of cells formed within days after conception. After a few days, they go from being blank slates to growing into various organs. Some of them become skin cells and others the brain and others still the heart, etc.

With mice nd Chimps, we have taken their stem cells and injected them into dying organs. Amazing things have happened: dying hearts have become brand new, brain damage has been repaired and more. Then in 1998 this same thing was done in humans. Experts predict that it will be used to cure parkinsons, Alzheimers, brain disease, skin cancer, huntington’s disease… in other words it could change everything for the better. I’m not sure what kind of ethical problems would arise. I mean, the only issue is whether you are killing an unborn baby; the whole abortion thing, and I don’t think that t applies.

These stem cells come from embryos that are either discarded by the parents already or are grown in the lab specifically to do research on without the potential for full life. Furthermore, these are blank slate cells, its not like you can grow organs or humans out of them. What they do in the lab is they inject them into dying organs and the cells replace the dying ones in that given organ. You cannot grow organs with stem cells from scratch, John Hopkins tried and failed six months ago. That would be cloning and this is not cloning.

Discussion on the Negative Implications of the Information Derived from the Human Genome Project

Should man govern nature? This is a question that has been posed more often recently than ever. Human will soon know the secret to life and be able to use that secret in many different ways. This is all made possible by a nation-wide research effort called the Human Genome Project. The HGP is a scientific study and mapping of the estimated 50,000-100,000 genes in the human body. It is being hailed as one of the most important projects in the world by scientists and scholars alike. The information that these researchers uncover could be helpful for generations to come.

The research will allow doctors to correct genetic disorders before children are born, eliminate the often-fatal problems associated with babies born prematurely, and to cure diseases such as AIDS. The problem with this project is not the doctors, scientists, and other researchers investigating the genes. They are out to help people and are not doing this to get rich. Large corporations, such as insurance companies, and governments are looking to save money on future policyholders through the use of genetic testing. These illustrate the negative and corruptive aspects of the HGP.

The Human Genome Project was originally founded by the Department Of Energy (DOE) and is now jointly researched by the DOE and the National Institute of Health (NIH). Research on the project began in 1990. They used a four-letter system to decode the long strands of deoxyribonucleic acid. As understood from previous research, there are four nitrogenous base pairs that make up DNA. ‘A’ stands for Adenine, which is paired with ‘T’ for Thymine, and ‘G’ stands for Guanine, which is paired with ‘C’, Cytosine. Using this system, scientists from across the globe have properly sequenced a large part of the human genome.

This research project was expected to take approximately fifteen years from the beginning. By 1993, the initial plan was in need of revising, because the effort was already ahead of schedule and greatly under budget (Lee 1-3). It is believed that at the current pace of research, 90% of the genome will be sequenced by the year 2000. The entire genome will be completed by 2003 (Begley 3). The government issues thousands of grants a year to the HGP effort, 6500 in 1989 and 4700 in 1990 (Lee 247).

‘Traditionally drug companies have developed drugs by looking at ‘function’ i. the illness, and then going back to discover the molecular structures. Now we are drowning in structures, i. e. genes, and trying to find their function’; (Branfman 2). This information can provide a little bit of background to the HGP and its purpose. Despite the positive efforts made by the research community to complete the project and improve many lives, there are many negative aspects that need attention. Insurance companies are very likely to create some problems that will need to be regulated by the government.

There has already been evidence that insurance companies have and will use genetic testing as a way of choosing policyholders. Insurance companies will start requiring genetic testing of unborn children for predispositions of undesired traits or diseases. They may then deny the child coverage if the test results prove to be undesirable. The unborn children are not the only ones who will be affected. The current policyholders may be required to take a genetic test to show whether or not they are susceptible to genetic disorders, in which case the insurance company would drop their policy if the results prove to be positive.

If the policyholder refuses to submit to a genetic test, his insurance coverage may be discontinued. Spouses, children, and other dependencies may also be required to test for genetic flaws, in which their coverage will discontinue in the event of an undesirable predisposition. One real-life example, ‘A healthy boy who carried a gene predisposing him to a heart disorder was denied health coverage by his parents’ insurance company, even though the boy took medication that eliminated his risk of heart disease’; (Bereano 3).

People seeking first time insurance coverage will find it to be the most difficult. They may have to be tested before they can be covered. This scenario can mean that if a potential policyholder is rejected at one company, they may not be able to find coverage from any company (Bereano 2-4). The insurance companies are not the only area for concern. Government agencies will actually prove to be a very large problem. Many questions can be raised about the government policies on failed genetic tests. One such question would be: Will the government protect people with a predisposition to recklessness?

There is no clear-cut way to answer this question, but it seems that it will be self-evident within the next few years. How will the government use genetic testing as a way to control convicted criminals? This is another such question that may have been posed, but for this one there is already an answer forming. ‘The FBI has been promoting the genetic screening of criminals to establish state DNA identification data banks to be used in criminal investigations; recent federal legislation penalizes states fiscally if they don’t participate.

Yet the data includes samples from those whose crimes have low recidivism rates or don’t leave tissue samples; in some states, people merely accused are forced into the program. ‘; This system is actually beginning to come into use within this nation. This process though is just one step towards the possibility of a nation-wide, person-to-person DNA data bank, in which every citizen of the United States of America may be forced to submit a sample of their own DNA for reference in future crimes or as a means of identification.

The government may also use a system of genetic testing to selectively choose who can remain on welfare. A major ethical issue of the genetic testing capabilities is that the government could essentially not provide welfare to certain persons that test positive for the ‘laziness gene’;. Another possibility is that to save money, the government will alter the genotype of its welfare recipients to get them to work. HMO’s (Health Maintenance Organizations) have and will use genetic testing in negative ways to determine whether or not a person should be covered under the policies.

There have been many such instances of genetic discrimination already documented. One such case, ‘A pregnant woman whose fetus tested positive for Cystic Fibrosis was told by her HMO that it would be willing to cover the cost of an abortion, but would not carry the infant under the family’s medical policy if she chose to carry the pregnancy full term’; (Bereano 3-4). The greatest government concern is not welfare or selective protection, but rather the military implementations. The Human Genome Project can be compared to other such government projects as the Manhattan Project and the Apollo space missions (Lee 240).

These both have military purposes. The Manhattan Project was researched to learn how to unleash the incredible power of the atom, with which the military created horrible weapons of mass destruction. The Apollo space missions were designed to put a man on the moon, but they could essentially be used to learn how to launch and set up nuclear weapons from space. James Watson, co discoverer of the double-helical structure of DNA stated, ‘We used to believe our destiny was in the stars; now we know it is in our genes’; (Bereano 3). The Human Genome Project can be viewed the same way.

While there are many positive uses for the knowledge that these scientists are about to receive, there are also future military purposes. The more that can be understood about the human genome, the more information that can be used to create biological weapons. Discoveries are being made of the immune system that could lead to the engineering of viruses that could potentially render a victim defenseless against infection (Lee 240, 241). The government will undoubtedly have many ill-fated uses for the code of life, but genetic testing will affect every working-class citizen.

Corporations, if not regulated by law, can have the power to require a genetic test be taken as a term of hire, or test current employees to determine job capabilities and placement. If the government and insurance companies can take advantage of a new technology, such as genetic testing, then there is not anything that can prevent large corporations or even small businesses from choosing the best person for a specific job based solely on there genetic makeup. The dawn of the genetic age brought forth the use of a new word, ‘Eugenics’;.

Eugenics is a word used to describe unnatural selection. The Nazi’s attempted such crude experiments in the thirties and forties on Jews and other ethnic minorities. In modern terms, this is the process by which a parent will be able to choose the desirable traits in their child before, during, or even after conception. The use of this practice is not only unethical, but is also greatly immoral. Eugenics is broken up into two sub-categories. Genetic therapy is the manipulation of genes in order to bring a being up to a normal physical or mental standpoint.

Genetic enhancement is the other form, in which human genes are altered to express desirable traits, prolong life, or increase mental status beyond the normal level. It is of great concern that the altering of the genes in one generation will ultimately affect the germ line, or every descendant of that original generation. The majority of scientists and ethicists oppose gene therapy that will alter the germ line. Researchers are experimenting with different ideas to make it possible for an introduced gene to self-destruct in the presence of an enzyme that is only located in the reproductive cells.

This would allow for the altered gene to remain in one generation, allowing for future generations to make different choices (Begley 1-3). The concerns of the general public usually center on genetic discrimination. DNA testing is a relatively new idea; the government has not yet perfected its plan on regulation of knowledge of genetic test results. The Kennedy-Kassebaum bill limits genetic discrimination regarding certain medical insurance policies, but does not apply to life, disability, or automobile insurance or to employment – all areas of documented discrimination (Bereano 3,4).

Some individuals argue that the law should reflect moral judgment, while others oppose, and think that people should be free to make their own decisions in private (Lee 260). The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Council for Responsible Genetics (CRG) are both active groups towards the opposition of genetic discrimination (Bereano 4). Environmental issues are often an overlooked aspect of ethics. If both genes and environmental issues are linked to a specific disease, the environmental issues may be ignored in pursuit of the disease causing genes.

This project has posed many questions regarding the productivity of the effort. It is said that between 95% and 98% of human DNA consists of worthless code that does not provide information to the cell and probably has no function at all. The genes that actually cause the genetic diseases are located on the remaining 2% to 5% of the genome. These can easily be located and sequenced without wasting the time and money to sequence the entire genome (Lee 244). Genetics is a relatively new study in practical medicine.

Most community-based, university affiliated family physicians have had little if any training on genetic counseling. Many of them feel that there has not been an adequate educational opportunity to learn about genetics, and some indicate a reluctance to invest in self-education until genetic problems become more relevant in the practical field. These physicians do not perceive genetics as having a substantial impact on their practices, but do expect major clinical changes in the future (Fetters 1).

Although the Human Genome Project will bring upon many aspects that will be beneficial for generations to come, there are too many negative implications that will turn a lot of cheeks. Supporters of this effort will in the future regret their choice. There will be employment and insurance barriers due to genetic testing. Perhaps the worst part about the government implications is the biological military applications that will spawn destructive biological weapons. Man should not and could not govern nature. Nature has always prevailed from the beginning of time. Man has finally sealed his own fate.

A Goal Implicit In Human Evolution

A goal implicit in human evolution is survival; thus, humanity directs some of its energy toward creating a state of peace to achieve the necessary efficiency and conservation of energy to survive in a hostile and sometimes unpredictable The foundation of the emergence of rule systems in the world is built upon centuries of reasoned insight and personal experiences that reveal which actions are better than others, which are productive, and which are disruptive and should be avoided.

As efficient actions reveal themselves to an evolving society, its people develop the means to make productive choices between one ype of action and another. Some choices are decidedly better than others. This prioritizing of human actions into efficient hierarchies establishes the foundations of rule systems which later refine themselves into more sophisticated systems of morals, manners and statutory laws. All these systems have a tendency to address the fundamental need of the human species to survive and avoid the common fate of extinction by conserving energy and directing social attention towards more productive kinds of behavior.

It could be said that as civilization approaches the ideal of efficiency, the harmony that ollows from efficient and thoughtful actions inspires a state of peace that exponentially increases the chances of human civilization surviving over long Social change has more or less followed the more reasoned logic and experiences of people. Change is not always perfect. However, as people experience more and learn more about their world through formal education, they have more resources by which they can make judgments about the behavior of their fellow humans.

Knowledge of the past lends to enlightened minds a knowledge of the future. Common education and experiences inspire the emergence of informal belief ystems, clarifying what appears to be acceptable behavior and what is not. Observations that endure centuries of reasoned scrutiny integrate ultimately into the cultural ethic. As a rule of thumb, an action that contributes to the disorganization of society is often considered “wrong” and that which contributes to the organization of society “right.

Behaviors that corrupt the peace, prosperity, and productivity of a society are generally discouraged as “wrong,” in favor of behaviors which contribute to the well-being of the society and are generally considered “right. ” In any event, the evolution of rules in omplex societies addresses the fundamental impulse of the human species to survive in a world of competing biological systems. Ethical systems and formal laws together serve to bring order to a world that tends to become disorganized and sometimes violent if ethical views and rules of conduct are not established.

Ethical systems that emerge for any given period of historical development may not represent the finest of rules ever conceived, but they are sufficient to hold the growth of humanity in the balance. Along with the emergence of good rules have evolved many others that were bad. These bad rules evolved from errors, delusions, and self-interest. But over time the good rules that incorporated a keen insight into human relationships have likely endured and have slowly grown into a reasonably consistent set of rules.

These rules today are expressed formally and informally in systems of laws, Rules spontaneously evolve in every social system, whether it is a group of small-time criminals or highly educated people in a multinational corporation. Rule systems evolve along the lines of an efficiency algorithm that effectively organizes the prevailing state of affairs in small increments of change over ong periods of social time. In the beginning of the formation of social systems, rules may not have been as refined as they are today.

But rules necessarily existed from the beginning simply to keep volatile passions, immaturity, ignorance, and misunderstanding from inspiring endless fighting and Written laws, morals, manners, and customs help synchronize the various parts of an increasingly complex society. Developments in higher education, technology, national politics, or even from natural phenomena, such as extremes in the weather, all affect the destiny of humankind. Some people are slow to see hanges in the world, while others are quick. As a result, people’s lives operate at different speeds.

Moral and legal systems help sustain order in a society where people operate at different levels of sensitivity, understanding, and speed of thinking. Rule systems, on the whole, concern the evolution of sensibility rather than insensibility and self-interest. Rule systems are not always the result of one person or party imposing dogmatic prescriptions of behavior on another. They evolve because they are inherently sensible reflections of the natural order. The capacity of a tiger to kill and aim other animals, for example, is part of the natural order.

Wishing tigers away will not make the danger disappear. Natural order bestows a power upon tigers, which like other powerful things or people in the world should be dealt with prudently. The ability of a tiger to inflict harm is not subject to opinion or political perspective; it is a “reasonably” known fact. Not all facts are deduced by time-consuming laboratory experimentation.

Some are learned over centuries of time through the experiences of people who, in this instance, have tangled with tigers and learned their power to inflict pain, suffering, and Systems of morals and manners are inherently sensible perspectives of what constitutes prudent behavior in a dangerous and sometimes unpredictable world. Prudence is an aspect of sensibility. The history of the evolution of ethics is essentially the history of sensibility and intelligence coming to life. To move toward the ethical and legal is to move away from the primitive. There is a dynamic relationship between the evolution of rules, concern for human survival, and the need for increasing systemic efficiency. The evolution of ethical systems is a natural result of this relationship.

Efficient biological systems re likely to survive where inefficient ones do not. Organization follows If the theory of natural selection holds true, it is likely that one of the mechanisms that determines extinction or survival is an organism’s ability to use its energies efficiently. The ways in which human beings or organisms struggle to survive profoundly affect the way they behave. If order and efficiency in a biological system truly enhances its chances of survival, then the system will encourage the evolution of rules to make existence more orderly.

By this thesis it could be said that, as the construction of human society pproaches the ideal of efficiency by the promotion of societal peace through thoughtful lawmaking, the chances of human civilization surviving extremely long periods of time, increase exponentially in biological terms. It would be difficult to separate the biological evolution of humans from the evolution of the rule systems they create to define order. Human beings are a part of nature. They are subject to the influences of genetic development that have been in the works for perhaps billions of years.

At certain points, evolutionary ethics moves from talking about concerns of survival at the human evel to concerns of survival at the genetic level. This is a gray area, and one that evolutionary biologists perhaps need to sort out. What is important, however, is that many behaviors arising from human struggles find their analogs in genetic and cellular activity. Clues explaining human behavior may run deep Over centuries the construction of social rule systems (formal laws, customs, manners) may result from credible and accurate observation rather than self-serving beliefs defining what is real and true about human nature.

For instance, if people observe the destructive effects of alcoholism, the accuracy f such observation over centuries will eventually overcome the most hardened of self-serving beliefs to the contrary. From such observations, attitudes and laws will likely follow. There is a chemistry evident in social life that allows certain things to occur and other things to be prevented, if there is a way of preventing them. For example, there has been a natural progression of laws that prohibit an intoxicated person from driving an automobile.

After decades of experience, people can fairly accurately guess what will happen when people drink and drive. That intoxicants are destructive is no longer considered to be erely a belief. Some moral values, therefore, derive from physiological facts. Over centuries of time, facts concerning generative or degenerative behaviors invariably lead to the creation of values. To a degree, values evolve as a consistent response to persistent social problems. In this respect, biological principles lie at the root of ethics.

The accumulation of facts and observations leads to the construction of values to enhance systemic efficiency and the ability of individuals, as well as the entire species, to survive. While values may vary from culture to culture, the principles of biology affecting human ehavior that contribute to the evolution of value systems remains the same. Sound empirical knowledge implied in portions of ethical systems is sometimes difficult to distinguish from self-serving beliefs, delusions, and unexamined opinions.

Since ethical systems are complex, few want to take the time to examine their logic. It is easier to believe that rules are merely opinions; thus, people never have to accept the discipline of any rule set. They are morally free by their own ignorance to do whatever they want. Since laws are believed to be opinions, or an extension of an authoritarian state, the rohibition against drinking and driving restricts their actions only as far as the legal sanctions intimidate people into conforming to the proper use of alcohol and automobiles.

Because the idea that excessive alcohol consumption is wrong (for good reasons) is not understood, laws and values must force a spirit of compliance on those who seek the protection of ignorance to maximize their Ethical prescriptions many times represent a statistical accumulation of facts and observations that have been gathered over centuries and appear to point to some inherent truth (e. g. that excessive consumption of alcohol injures the health of a person and disrupts the lives of those around them). A much different form of moralism might be the view that “patience is a virtue.

This view is not simply some off-the-wall belief of personal propriety; rather it derives from mature observations concerning behaviors that help people navigate the stresses of life without an overreaction to their circumstances that would be counterproductive to their attempts to realize their ambitions. Clear, concise, and reproducible observations about human conduct are generally xpressions of wisdom rather than of opinion. While there are elements of belief present in almost all ethical systems, it is their fundamental wisdom that shines through the generations.

As a civilization grows, it archives its wisdom in many ways. In more ancient times, myth and religion served to archive the essential nature and wisdom of humankind. Literature has carried some of this essential knowledge. In more refined form, philosophy has dealt with the essentials of wisdom, but few can understand the complexity and rigor of its language. The larger portion of proven and practical knowledge to guide our ehavior is known through our legal system, morals, manners, and customs. When a civilization blossoms, a wide spectrum of ethical views, customs, and laws evolves.

Ethical systems can vary greatly. Some are better than others at fostering the growth of a culture. Some become so corrupted with self-serving intentions that they must be rebuilt. There is a natural tendency of biological units to become compartmentalized. In a similar way, different ethical systems may evolve and become compartments in a larger system. Ships are built so that the many areas in them are divided into watertight compartments. In this way if ne area of the ship is damaged and water begins to pour in, then the damaged area can be isolated and sealed off so the entire ship does not sink.

The evolution of the human species appears to operate along similar lines. Compartmentalization of societies makes sense. If one legal or ethical system leads to the destruction of a nation, the entire world does not suffer. The inherent efficiency in natural design lends itself to a multipurpose design in systems. Not only does compartmentalization keep a world that is operated by only one standard ethic from being destroyed by some opportunistic manipulation f the system, it also allows for the natural diversity of local customs and genetic differences to be accommodated in “culturally friendly” ethical systems.

People have choices in how they will decorate their lives by adopting a variety of value, ethical, and social systems. The evolutionary process operates on a grand scale. It is somewhat analogous to a laboratory experiment, operating on an enormous scale, in which new ideas and methods are constantly applied. Sometimes the experiments lead to counterproductive results. However, the mishaps do not spread, because their ffects are limited by compartmentalization. Compartmentalizing civilization is essential to its ultimate survival, as is the creative exploration of new systems.

In time, an uncreative system, whether it is a cell in a plant or a human society, will be overcome by more vital systems that more creatively adapt to the ever-changing demands of t he environment. The evolution of efficient rule systems may be crucial in maximizing the possibility of survival and minimizing the possibility of extinction. By this thesis, the development of rules could further assist natural selection at all evels of human development: it could be an isolating mechanism that keeps people who can follow rules from genetically mingling with people who are unable to follow them.

Organisms, and the environment that produces them, necessarily must be symbionts if either is to maximize its chances of survival. At the human level, an ability to follow rules satisfies the debt of giving to the environment (the social environment). In response the environment bestows greater opportunities on cooperative people than on uncooperative rule violators. A natural separation occurs between the two (cooperative and ncooperative people), further enhanced by the isolating effects of value and moral systems warning a society’s members of the problems of dealing with uncooperative people.

Natural selection likely favors cooperative elements in nature rather than uncooperative elements. Nature does not provide a single system of rules, but rather a wide spectrum of rule systems that the human species can follow and thus benefit from the natural system’s efficiencies. Which ethical system is best is less important than which system isolates cooperative from uncooperative elements to maximize systemic efficiency. Rules represent the minimum standards of conduct necessary for a person to act cooperatively with a society that is a heterogeneity of widely different people.

The presence of rule sets helps clarify in a society who is cooperative and who is acting in counterproductive ways toward the goals, intents, and energies of the society. The evolution of ethical systems is an integral part of social growth. Formal and informal rule systems promote systemic efficiency by maximizing the system’s social power; they minimize conflicts by developing laws to the point that peace and prosperity grow incrementally. Social problems that have been repeatedly met and overcome become “behavioral information” recorded in the sentiments of the various moral systems that spontaneously emerge.

If an individual, society, or civilization must repeatedly relearn the lessons of the past, that ignorance becomes parasitic on the energies of the person, society, or civilization. A biological system whether it comprises genes, bacteria, animals or humans that acts in inefficient ways places itself at a strategic disadvantage. Social problems lead to conflicts that distract from the orderly rowth of civilization and are a waste of vital social energies. A society that invests more in creatively building a future instead of sustaining conflicts of the past will probably outperform its competitors.

If a society is to conserve energy, it must develop some method of distinguishing wasteful activities from productive ones. It must remember which elements in its past are associated with conditions that gave rise to conflicts. Remembering what works, and what does not, is recorded in a society’s formal laws, customs, manners, ethical systems, and literature. The simple idea of good and bad would naturally arise in the consciousness of even the most primitive society. A “good choice” would be avoiding behaviors that demonstrably lead to conflict and a “bad choice” would be a decision that ignores the dangers inherent in certain behaviors.

The idea of refraining from kicking a tiger has an Aristotelian quality to it: first, it is a practical idea; second, it is definitely a productive idea because it leads to a longer life; and third, it is theoretically the best way for everyone to live the longest life in the presence of tigers. The tiger is a metaphor for human nature. A human analog might be that if you are a one hundred and thirty pound professor, it is probably a bad idea to make romantic overtures toward the girlfriend of a two hundred and thirty pound drug dealer on a dark street.

Certain conditions invite certain dangers. There are various formal and informal ways a civilization teaches people such things. What people value profoundly affects the way they define their world and make laws. Every person values something. People value their health, their families, their possessions and their careers. The things that people value most are their lives and the lives of their friends and their families. Survival is a cardinal value in an extensive hierarchy of values.

If people value their careers more than their lives, they are thought to have misplaced their priorities. If one’s hedonistic pursuit of sexual pleasures carries with it the high possibility of disease and death, again society might think such a person had misplaced his or her priorities. To comment on this possibility is to express a sense of morality that comes from prudent thinking. Drugs, alcohol, gambling, are activities that ave repeatedly caused people to temporarily misplace their priorities.

Rule systems help keep people in their “right mind” instead of going “out of their minds” through excess. People who are repeatedly “out of their minds” have less chance of surviving and surviving well than people who remain true to their original personality. Some behaviors corrupt the efficiency and social compatibility of people more than other behaviors. Some part of the evolution of ethical systems monitors the growth of potentially harmful behaviors and looks Rules help to reign in human passion as progress demands finer and finer elineations of labor, resources, and authority.

The visceral compulsions of humans to survive rather than perish commands intelligent people to try to hold their society together and to keep people and their passions from tearing it apart. Survival places an imperative to be sensible enough to stay above the threshold of extinction as a species. This evolutionary process inspires finer and finer details of order, and is first evident in the moral senses of reasonable people who push for better rules to keep society orderly. To do this they must look from past experience into the future.

Multi-Regional Continuity: The Fossil Evidence

With regards to the multi-regional continuity model of human evolution, there is without a doubt a preponderance of fossil data that supports the diverse origins of Homo sapiens in different regions of the globe. Skulls displaying a wide variety of mixed modern and archaic features have been found in every corner of the world. The mere existence of these fossils is evidence enough to prove that human evolution was far less cut-and-dried a process than the advocates of the replacement model of human evolution would like to suggest, and, in fact, rather astonishingly complex.

It is useful before discussing the individual fossil specimens to to preface with what exactly is meant by the terms “modern” and “archaic” in reference to skull morphology. “Modern” features in skull morphology as the word is used here include thin cranial walls, small supraorbital ridges, small teeth, small eye sockets, broad, flat foreheads, large cranial volume (above 1200 cc. ), low prognathism in the area of the lower face, and a high, vaulted shape in the area of the cranium.

Archaic” features in skull morphology include thick cranial walls, heavy supraorbital ridges, large teeth, large eye sockets, sloping foreheads, low cranial volume (below 1200 cc. ), high prognathism in the area of the lower face, and a small, football-shaped cranium. The presence of various mixtures of these modern and archaic traits forms the basis for identifying a fossil as transitional modern/archaic in accordance with the multi-regional continuity model of human evolution.

As an example of transitional fossils found outside of Africa and in accordance with the multi-regional model of human evolution, the remains found in the Ngangdong beds of the Solo River in Indonesia are an excellent beginning. Dating from roughly 250,000 years ago, the skulls of the thirteen individual recovered lack faces, but the crania are markedly archaic, football-shaped and flattened in general contour (Poirier 1987: 222). Other archaic features include heavy supraorbital ridges and thick cranial walls (222).

Their archaic features put the Solo remains in the classification of Homo erectus, but the skulls display at least one distinctive modern trait: they have, as a group, a much larger cranial volume than average Homo erectus specimens, as high as 1,300 cc. (222). The occurence of this modern cranial capacity with other archaic traits in specimens consistent with a limited geographical setting suggests a local transition from primitive to more modern traits, as would be expected from the multi-regional continuity model of human evolution.

Crossing over the distance of two continents, the next fossil was recovered from a gravel pit in Swanscombe, England, and is believed to date from 250,000 years ago. The Swanscombe skull consists of an occipital bone and left and right parietals, all well-preserved (1987: 223-224). The cranial volume has been estimated at 1,275 to 1,325 cc. , putting it well within the range of modern populations. There are some archaic features, however, as well. There is some indication of a heavy brow ridge, and the cranial walls are relatively thick (1987: 224).

Also, the vault of the skull is low, further suggesting some sort of transitional between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens (1987: 224-225). Again, this mixture of modern and archaic features is very conveniently explained by the multi-regional continuity theory of human evolution. Now, a shorter distance, to Arago Cave in France, for one of the more interesting and perhaps bizarre specimens to be presented in support of the multi-regional continuity model. The remains of at least twenty-three individuals comprise this sample, dating from about 190,000 to 180,000 years ago.

The most complete skull from Arago displayed a set of traits that were markedly primitive, even for Homo erectus populations (1987: 226). The skull has massive brow ridges, a forehead that is more horizontal than vertical, and teeth that are among the largest in the human fossil record, surpassing Homo erectus and falling within the range of the austrolopithecines (1987: 226-227). The presence of such an over-abundance of archaic traits in a population from less than 200,000 years ago is further evidence of multi-regional continuity.

Sometimes, it would seem, evolution worked in reverse in determining the developing morphology of the human skull… Finally, to a spot north of Stuttgart, Germany. The Steinheim skull was located in a gravel pit and has been dated to roughly 250,000 years ago, though this date is still much open to debate (1987: 227). In spite of being badly crushed, a number of significant features are still observable from the Steinheim skull. The skull has a low cranial capacity, 1,150 to 1,175 cc. eavy brow ridges, and large eye sockets, all archaic traits (1987: 228).

Although it has a low forehead, the forehead is steeply vertical, and the general skull shape is smoothly-rounded, as in modern specimens. The skull exhibits one other significant trait, as with the Arago Cave example, in the size of its teeth. Unlike the Arago Cave sample, however, the Steinheim skull exhibits the opposite tendency: the teeth are very small. In fact, the size of the third molar is below the mean for many living European populations (1987: 228).

Once more, the curious mixture of archaic and modern traits is a phenomenon best explained by the multi-regional continuity model. If the replacement model is to be believed, then no transitional skulls can exist outside of Africa. Homo sapiens developed in one place alone, South Africa, and subsequently spread north and into Europe and Asia, replacing populations of Homo erectus as they went. But the presence of transitional skulls outside of Africa clearly refutes this reasoning. Perhaps, the replacement modelers might argue, the examples given for the multi-regional model are isolated freaks.

This claim, too, however, is easily disproved by examples of transitionals from outside Africa for which large fossil sample populations exist, as in the case of the Solo River and Arago Cave examples detailed earlier. What becomes clear in the process of examining the many-and-varied fossil examples of transitions between modern and archaic features is that human evolution was more of a tangled, convoluted web than it is the neatly pruned tree that many textbooks are so fond of depicting in illustration.

Not all of those specimens detailed here could be the ancestors of modern humans… their odd mixture of features is testament enough to that. But that human evolution was an unfocused, even chaotic process seems less-and-less an overstatement, the more evidence is reviewed. The definition of what are commonly referred to as “modern” and “archaic” features may be the results finally of no more than luck of the evolutionary draw, as it were.

The Human and Dolphin Relationship

The voice of the dolphin in the air is like that of the human in that they can pronounce vowels and combinations of vowels, but have difficulties with the consonants (Aristotle internet). The communication between dolphins can only be described scientifically and historically. The true nature of how dolphins communicate with one another and possibly with other species is something only known to the dolphin. It is an evolving, complex mystery we are only now starting to grasp the significance of. Eventually it may be possible for humans to speak with other species.

I have come to this conclusion after careful consideration of evidence gained through my research experiments with dolphins (John Lilly internet). In this research paper evidence will be shown to prove that it is possible for dolphins and humans to communicate in a significant and meaningful way. Since the beginning of recorded history, it has been said that man has had an interest in dolphins. People from many countries have met and interacted with them. It has been well documented that dolphins have saved lives, assisted sailors in navigating through storms, and have supported fisherman in their daily catch.

The earliest incident of drowning that was saved by a dolphin that researchers know of is that of the Greek poet Arion, who was thrown into the sea by pirates. The dolphin carried him home to Greece on its back. This legend was recalled in Shakespeares Twelfth Night (Walther 39). It is noted that it was a dolphin who had found a wife for Neptune, the Sea god (Walther 39). The Greek philosopher Plutrach states that through the help of a dolphin Telemachos, son of Odysseus, was saved from drowning. Pliny the elder, the Roman scholar, wrote about Hermias, a boy who often took rides on a dolphins back.

One day while out with the dolphin, a storm hit and Hermias slipped off the dolphins back and drowned. The dolphin brought Hermias body to the shore and beached himself over the grief of Hermias death and died. It has been recorded that for twenty-four years a male dolphin guided every boat safely across the dangerous Cook Strait in New Zealand, day and night (Dolphin Synergy internet). It is thought that the dolphin was an animal who years ago tried to live on land and didnt like it. Scientists think that dolphins are descended from a four-legged hairy animal that returned to the sea, making them re-entrants (Brooks 7-8).

It has now been proven that sixty million years ago the dolphins ancestor was the cow. Cows are the distant cousins to the dolphins and the whales. Fossils have been found, showing the missing link with hooves on its flippers (Dolphins video). The body of a dolphin can be described as sleek and smooth. Dolphins are extremely fast swimmers, and their blubbery flesh allows them to reach speeds over twenty-five miles per hour. Dolphins can be identified by blowholes on top their heads, fore-fins, and horizontal flukes. Unlike fish, dolphins are mammals and must come to the surface to breathe, about every five minutes.

Some dolphins can hold their breath for up to thirty minutes while others can only hold it for twenty seconds. Their ears are small openings that are hardly noticeable, but are able to pick up sounds more than 150 feet away. Dolphins vocalize underwater by using a series of clicks and whistles. Dolphins appear to have their own signature whistle, like their own name. Individuals recognize each other by their own voices, and can mimic sounds of other animals. They have no vocal cords, but are able to make sounds by moving air through the lungs with the blowhole closed underwater.

Also dolphins have sonar, the ability to see underwater with sound (Dolphins video). It is well known that by using sonar dolphins can see through one another, getting a better understanding of who they are. Dolphins are very sociable, playful, and friendly. Dolphins spend their lives with a pod, which is a close family/social group consisting of a few males, females and their offspring. They cooperate with each other when hunting or catching fish. They are constantly talking and communicating with each other, showing affection, and other emotions.

A hurt or wounded dolphin is always taken care of by others, even at risks to their own lives (Brooks 5-6). Others in the group will take turns lifting the wounded to the surface for air, taking turns until it gets well again or until death. During birth, the mother is always assisted by another female called an Auntie. She is there to help fend off sharks and to push the calf directly to the surface for air the minute it is born. Other females gather around forming what is believed to be a protection circle, and is used as a defense against sharks and orcas.

The mothers and their young will reside in the circle while the others leap out to butt the gills and heads of sharks, sometimes killing it. Over 70% of the Earths surface are covered by ocean and there might be intelligence far beyond our own (Lilly internet). Dolphins have the highest brain capacity of any non-human animal, twice that of higher primates (Herman internet). The bottlenose dolphins brain is physically more folded than any other mammal, including humans. Its cerebral cortex, however, is only half as thick as humans, but thicker than a chimps.

This is a sure sign of higher intelligence. Ken Martin and Earth Trust Laboratory studies dolphin intelligence. He wants to see what dolphins see and what they reveal about themselves when they are not trained. Martin believes that dolphins have a higher intelligence and tried to prove it with research. He says that dolphins are always doing hydrodynamic tricks. They create air rings that is a matter of experimentation and complex play. This is an indication of an interested active brain and shows that dolphins have the capacity to learn.

To prove that dolphins are self-aware, Martin did a mark test. He put a zinc oxide mark on the dolphins side, and put up a one-way mirror in the observation tank window. This was done to see of the dolphin would notice the mark in their reflection and examine himself in the mirror. He immediately went to the mirror and moved around with the mark facing the mirror. When the dolphin saw himself in the mirror, his reaction less surprise than to a strange dolphin. The dolphin turns and shows his teeth to check the relation between himself and his mirror image.

The dolphin usually brings objects to the mirror and plays with it, and is seemingly more self-aware when playing with the object in front of the mirror. Martin comments that this is not social behavior, and since dolphins dont have hands to touch the mark, researchers need to require more experimentation to see if this behavior was social or not. Martin wanted to determine if they could watch TV before he did a test. Do they see images or actual pictures? The TV shows an attendant throwing fish into the water, as dolphins bite and squeal as they are being fed; and the dolphins see this as a representation of reality.

Next, a TV with a highly reflective screen was used, the screen acting like a mirror when the TV was off. So the dolphins current behavior was similar to that of the dolphin on the TV screen. Martin turned the TV on to see how the dolphins would react to the TVs images that were not similar to the dolphins current behavior. The dolphins could react differently to the images playing on the TV screen, and realize that it is now a mirror. If the dolphins were not self-aware when watching the playback, they would be biting back when the dolphin in the TVs mouth was open.

Research shows that they would not behave in such a manner when the dolphins are self-aware (Martin internet). Dolphins have been known to use a variety of hunting techniques to catch fish. Fish kicking, the technique of hitting a fish with its tail, is a local custom among dolphins and appears to be a learned behavior rather than instinct. One interesting example involves two captive dolphins intent upon capturing a moray eel from a rocky slit in the corner of their tank. One dolphin captures a scorpion fish and with the fish in its mouth it poked the eels rear end with the fishs poisonous spine.

The moray fled from its haven only to be captured by the second dolphin stationed at the opposite end of the hole (Walter internet). This example proves that dolphins can learn new techniques of hunting through experimentation, and also through to see what techniques are more successful. Louis Herman, a dolphin language researcher, taught two dolphins artificial languages. One was taught an acoustical language made of computer-generated sounds, while the other was taught a language in a series of gestures. The signals of these languages represent objects, object modifiers, or actions.

Neither the gestures nor the sounds resemble the object or relational terms to which they refer (Walter internet). The languages also use simple grammar rules, where the word order effects the meaning of the sentence; thus, showing the learned capacity to comprehend sentence structure. The dolphin that was taught the acoustical language was taught a straightforward left to right grammar; and the other dolphin was taught in the opposite manner, requiring it to view an entire gestured sequence before it can be interpreted correctly.

Both dolphins have learned about fifty words, allowing more than a thousand different sentences. In the past ten years language researchers, like Louis Herman and Ken Martin, have shown that dolphins have the cognitive skills to understand simple language, including concepts such as direction and basic rules governing the sequence of words. It is said that recently dolphins have started to talk back (Chollar 52-53). It is has been definitely proven that dolphins are speaking to each other by means of local dialects that they learned during their childhood.

Researchers still dont know what they are saying but one fact is for sure; their language is able to carry meaning and abstract information and could even be more sophisticated and efficient than any human language except Chinese (Pryor internet). Dolphins have been trained to entertain humans for thousands of years. Training takes about two to three years to complete, and are usually trained by using props. They can be trained to jump through hoops, flip, tow trainers around, and many more amazing tricks. Dolphins memory capacity matches that of our own.

They can follow extremely complicated directions, through both visual and auditory commands (Sea World internet). Dolphins are always communicating with each other. They communicate with each other through beats of sound at high frequencies. Dolphins have their own signature whistle, which identifies them like a name. Dolphins can call each others name by imitating anothers whistle. These signature whistles are distinguished from the whistles of other dolphins by its distinctive frequency variation over time. Calves seem to develop their own signature whistles between two months and a year.

These whistles remain unchanged for up to twelve years or through their whole life. Psychologist James Ralston and computer specialist Humphrey Williams discovered that signature whistles can covey more than just a dolphins identity has discovered it. By comparing sonograms of the signature whistles during usual social activities and stressful situations, they found that although keeping its original configuration, a signature whistle might change in pitch and duration, relaying information about the emotional state of the dolphin (Walter internet).

Dolphins appear to use whistles to maintain contact, when socializing and meeting other dolphin groups, and maybe to coordinate school activities, because whistles are usually heard when groups change an activity or direction. In addition to using whistles, dolphins also use sonar, a form of echolocation that enables them to see far distances underwater. By making clicking sounds that travel through the water they are able to locate objects, and other animals. By listening carefully to the sounds that bounce back at them, the dolphins can detect objects that are too far away to be seen or things buried.

Using their echolocation, they can see right through the sand and hunt fish with excellence. Humans and dolphins have always held an extraordinary attraction in one another. For those who have encountered dolphins in the wild, many are left with a sense that they have shared a special connection/bond with them. Many encounters with dolphins are depended on for a way of life. For example, Australian Aboriginal tribes depend on dolphins to help them fish . The Aborigines would clap their hands under the water signaling the dolphins that they are ready for them to round up the school of fish.

The dolphins round up the fish and drive them towards the shore so the Aborigines can catch them in their nets. Communications between humans and dolphins have gone on in ancient times. But the significance of this communication is that the dolphins do this for no rewarded in any way and are volunteering to come in and herd the fish (Nature video). One of the most extraordinary accounts of a wild dolphin seeking human friendship is the story of OPO. OPO was orphaned on the New Zealand Opononi beach. She started approaching people in the water at the beach.

She loved the children and would swim between their legs and allow them to play with her. She would even willingly swim and take them for rides on her back. Another great example of a human and dolphin relation ship is that of JoJo and Dean Bernelle. JoJo, an orphaned bottlenose dolphin, sought out the friendship of a human. So Bernelle and JoJo have had a ten-year relationship and they seemed to understand one another. The significance of this is that it was JoJos idea to seek human companionship with a human.

Another account of a dolphin and human communication is that of Robin Williams and Stubby. Stubby is a spotted dolphin that lived in the Bahamas. Williams swam with a group of spotted dolphins in the wild, and one member of the group, Stubby, left the group to swim with Williams. They swam together and enjoyed each others company, Its like being in the presence of someone wise, someone whos seen it all, who has seen years of life in the ocean, a lot of hard times and good times and survived it all. (In the Wild video).

Williams thought Stubby could detect his mood and emotions while they were swimming together. Williamss encounter with the little dolphins reminded him of his son Cody, his active playing, his playful inquisitiveness, his childs energy (In the Wild video). In a strange way I feel that for a moment with Stubby I communicated with an animal who chose to make contact (Williams Dolphins video). Another example of communication between humans and dolphins are in the experiments of Denise Hersing. She has attempted to learn how dolphins communicate in the wild.

She swam with a group of wild dolphins and they accepted her into their group. She swam with them as a member of the group. She mimicked their body language (nods and turns) and they responded. The previous paragraphs have been cited scientific research, experiments, and documented data that provide evidence to prove that it is possible for dolphins and humans to communicate in a significant and meaningful way. One piece of evidence is that of JoJo and Dean Bernelle where it was JoJos idea to seek Bernelles friendship for no advantage.

Another example is the special bond of Stubby and Robin Williams, In a strange way I feel that for a moment with Stubby I communicated with an animal that chose to make contact for no reward. Another example of meaningful communication is that of the Aborigines fishing with the dolphins who chose to make the connection. Then the experience of Denise Hersings swim with the dolphins that had accepted her into their group, showed the relationship developed over time. Another is the story of OPO on the New Zealand Opononi beach where the young dolphin allowed children and adults to play with her.

Finally, the results of the communication research done by Louis Herman. All of these examples of man and dolphin becoming friends and working together for no advantage demonstrate that it is definitely possible for significant and meaningful communication. John Lilly M. D. dreamed of inter-species communication between man and dolphin; now technology and psychology are finally catching up to make this vision a reality. Researchers like Lilly and Louis Herman, one-day hope to learn more about the dolphins communication to reach this new beginninghow the possibility of inter-species communication may develop in the future.

Value Of Human Life

The beliefs and views of modern society are hypocritical and unjust. By the time an individual matures from a young child to an adult, they have been taught an uncountable number of life lessons. One of the outstanding lessons that each and every person has learned is that killing another human being is wrong. This is perhaps the first recognizable lesson on the value of human life. Most children know that killing is against the law and learn religiously that it goes against all religious morals and beliefs, yet society is bombarded by violence everyday in the media and in real life.

Today, the value of human life can be questioned, especially that of the young. Through numerous examples of child murder and abortion it is rather obvious that the lives of the unborn or newly born are not valued to the degree that they should be. In most cases, the young are not recognized as “people” and are robbed of their human rights and freedoms. Young lives, both born and unborn, are seen as more of a commodity these days, than as precious, magical miracles.

In the media today there are ridiculous numbers of reports pertaining to accidents, shootings and robberies-these are just a few examples of unjust acts that are occurring everyday. There is also a shocking amount of coverage about parents accidentally, or on the other hand, brutally murdering their kids. Parents are supposed to be loving and supporting caregivers, they have a great influence over everything a child can possibly say or do. It is hard to believe that some parents would actually take their children’s lives into their hands.

Recently in the news there have been accounts of a mother poisoning her son to a father taking a knife and slashing his son’s throat. These are all cases where the parent in charge has taken advantage of their control. Each helpless child is defenseless in these situations. In many cases, children have become victims of a parent’s mental instability. In one case a mother claims to have been “suffering form delusions about hell when she took the life of her twenty month old child. ” In the end this woman was found not criminally responsible because “she had apparently been suffering from psychosis the day of the drowning.

She was then committed to a psychiatric hospital. This seems to be common place today, and there is no justice done for the young slain victims. Another account of a mother murdering her children is that of Diana Yano who “has only a patchy memory of the afternoon she ran the bath water and drowned her two children” to “send them to a watery grave”. She too was found “not criminally responsiblebecause of a mental illness-triggered by a serious bout with breast cancer-that made hr believe her children were better off dead”.

The father that slit his son’s throat suffered from a “manic depressive illnessMr. Meehan was legally insane”. He also had four breakdowns which his ex-wife was aware of before she left her children with him that horrible night. She also recalls “the evil look that came into his eyes when he went off his medication”. Were any of the relatives of the deceased; that knew of these mental states, at all concerned with the safety of these children? This could be thought of as a disregard for the children and their well being or as just a lack of respect.

Any individual old enough to have a kid understands that babies are helpless, totally without control of their surroundings because they do not have the mental capability or life experience to understand most things. In a different situation, a single, young mother; still attending high school is charged with manslaughter and criminal negligence after her ten month old son died of a drug overdose. An autopsy revealed that ” the codeine level was sufficient to killmorphine was also in the baby’s blood, but the amount fell within therapeutic range”.

There had been testifies stating that the mother ” was prescribed a bottle of liquid codeine weeks before her son’s death”. Her charges were dropped from second-degree murder because she had taken good care of her son, he was well-groomed and well-nourished before his death. Does this justify her reasoning for having her son ingest her prescribed medication? If she had taken such good care of her son before his death and she accidentally had given him her medication she would have taken him to the hospital or called a doctor had she been concerned with his health.

She willingly gave enough codeine to her son to kill him and for some reason, given him morphine too. The life of this baby was cut short, knowingly by his own mother. This does not display value of young human life. Along with cases of young children, there have also been those involving disabled children who are not valued as people. A mother in Kitchener, Ontario was “charged with stabbing to death her mentally handicapped daughter”. In this case, the parent has no excuses’ to help bail her out of the consequences.

Rather disturbing was the headline that accompanied this article; “Mother accused of killing child called a great parent” because she was “supportive, actively involved in the school”. The principle of the small school that eleven year old Ashley attended was quoted as saying “Ashley was tremendously well-liked. Everyone wanted to be Ashley’s buddy, they gravitated toward her. ” Why couldn’t her mother have given her that same attention? Ashley had down syndrome, an inherited genetic condition that can produce mental handicaps along with facial, speech and other defects.

At the time of this article, investigation was still taking place “to figure out a motive”. Ashley, despite her age and handicap, was still a person. An article of different nature clarified. This article dealt with the way children are treated. “Children in Canada with disabilities are not guaranteed basic educational and social services”. This article also stated that “Canadian legislation does not specifically recognize the rights of children. Sadly, this means “adults can place arbitrary limits of children’s fundamental freedoms”.

Children are not seen as equal individuals. Senator Landon Pearson, founding chairwoman of the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children (CCRC) does not agree with these views. She thinks that “putting children in legislation matters because it makes people understand that were talking about human beings with rights”. If children aren’t seen by law as human beings with rights, how can they be treated otherwise. If children are murdered, they don’t really matter because they are not seen as real people.

The article brings up interesting information regarding the repeal of Section 43 of the criminal code which actually “allows reasonable force’ to be used by parents and teachers meting out discipline”. It turns out this provision has been used to justify a child being punched in the face or pushed down the stairs. One fact that this article admits is “in Canada, children are the only category of persons who can be subject to physical assault without due process”. This does not signify a land of the free, these issues are serious and require immediate attention.

In the future there hopes to be human rights for children, but for so many children it is already too late. Abortion is another serious matter that deals with the rights of children. It has become a question not only of ethics, but morals. The courts have ruled that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy by abortion in the first trimester. Over years, there have been numerous restrictions on abortions. As a society it was thought that Canadian’s were well informed about abortion.

The booklet ” Abortion in Canada” notes that many people thought that if abortion was offered there would be better sexual morality, “but instead we have tremendous numbers of teenage pregnancies”. There have also been sexual education courses that “deny a moral code and encourage a hedonistic lifestyle”. Abortion is presented as ” a back-up to contraceptive failure in this do your own thing’ lifestyle”. It was thought that legal abortions would do away with illegal dangerous ones but, it turns out that they have increased rather than decreased.

Throughout this booklet, it is displayed that abortion has brought about a “cheapening of human life”. This disrespect for the unborn has brought about two other impacts on society. The first is infanticide, “the killing of a newborn by active or passive means because he is considered to have a life not worth living”. What started out as a woman’s right became a selfish, yet legal, right to a dead baby. As much as a woman has the right to a dead baby, does she not have the right to a dead baby outside the womb as well as inside the womb? Apparently she does.

This does not show any regard for human life. Medical journals published in the United States carry clear indications that “doctors are practicing infanticide, and yet the law hasturned it’s back. Infanticide in reality is homicide”. Infanticide is the killing of innocent human beings. The second effect is the practice of euthanasia or so-called mercy killing’. This is the “termination of a life of a dependent individual allegedly for his own benefit”. Clearly, the old, sick and dying, that have no use in society, do not have any human rights either.

When doctors are willing to become social executioners for millions of babies, someone must examine the mother’s motives used for justifying her actions. Reasons given include: preserving the life of the mother (neglect for right to life of an unborn child), expectation of a defective child’ (disrespect for natural selection, or playing God), rape and incest. “Even if these were valid reasons, they would account for only 3% of all abortions”. Abortion mainly occurs for matters of “convenience and economy”.

Having a child is a huge responsibility and if individuals cannot handle sex and it’s aftereffects responsibly and with a mature attitude they should not being doing it’. This particularly takes on a strictly Catholic view. The Pope’s (Paul II) argument against abortion is extremely religious. He uses exerts from the Bible, other religious documents and he quotes many clergymen and priests to help defend his position. He explains how society must follow the ten commandments to live a good life and have eternal life. “Jesus replied, If you would enter life, keep the commandments'” (Matthew 19:17).

The first of these ten commandments is “You shall not kill”. On the contrary, individuals should love respect and promote life as stated in “The Gospel of Life” by Paul II. In order to do this, one must carry out God’s plan of procreation with love and intentions to multiply. By having an abortion or murdering the young, one is doing the exact opposite. Not only are they killing an innocent human being, but they are killing a child of God. Also, man is not the final judge in matters such as life and death, he is only a minister of God’s plan’ as explained in Humanae Vitae by Paul VI.

Paul II goes on to explain how human life is “sacred and inviolable”. Life is sacred because it is a gift from God and man was created in the image of God. God overlooks our lives from birth to death, and no one else has the right to destroy an innocent human being, especially one as innocent as an unborn child. Man is suppose to be the defender of the innocent, not the destroyer. He explains how the man who kills the innocent is one who has been deceived by the Devil, because only Satan delights in the death of the living.

You shall not kill” represents the extreme limit which cannot be exceeded. It is meant to encourage man to see life with respect and lead to the promotion of life with love. Along with the teaching that one shall not kill another, is this, as stated in the Didache, the most ancient non-biblical Christian writing: “you shall not put a child to death by abortion nor kill it once it is born … The way of death is this: … they kill their children and by abortion cause God’s creatures to parish … they are filled with sin.

As time goes on, the Church will continue to teach the ndeniable value on the first commandment. Even in the first centuries, murder was considered one of the three most serious sins. This should not come as a surprise. To kill something that was created by, and in the image of, God should be considered a serious sin. The most important case involving the first commandment of You shall not kill’ is when it refers to innocent human beings. This is especially so when it refers to defenseless, weak, human beings such as an unborn child or infant.

The taking of an innocent life, especially at it’s beginning or end, is gravely immoral. This direct and voluntary action will always be regarded as morally evil and can never be considered as necessary, either as an end, or as means to a good end. Nothing and no none can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, and infant of an adult … no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for him/herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care … Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). Every innocent human being has a right to life.

Every man, woman and child is a person worth protecting, not just an object to be used. Of all crimes possible, abortion and infanticide are defined as “unspeakable crimes” by the Second Vatican Council. When such crimes are accepted by much of the population and permitted by lawmaking bodies, it is a dangerous sign that the moral line between good and evil is getting obscured.

This is especially dangerous because the right to life is at stake. The decision to have an abortion is often painful and tragic to the mother. Not only is she ridding herself of the fruit of life, but a part of herself, too. Much like the reasons mentioned before, Paul II restates in “The Gospel of Life” that “reasons however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being”. This decision is, in the end, completely up to the mother. But she may be influenced by many others on the way.

The father of the child, either by coercing her or by leaving her alone, can lead her to such a decision. There are rare cases where the male would like to be put in charge and offers to take complete responsibility for the child. The family and friends of the mother may also have a grave influence upon her decision. These people are not the only ones to blame, legislation allows abortion, foundations encourage the legalization of abortion, and those who promote sexual behaviors in those who cannot care for a child can all be held responsible.

Paul II has different thoughts, “No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church”. No simple act of man can repeal the fact that only God endows life, by giving the fully formed body and breath, and only God should be able to take ife away. People today, despite freedom of speech cannot think or talk for themselves.

Our country, which has prided itself on it’s lack of discrimination on any grounds has succumbed to discrimination against the unborn because they cannot speak for themselves, against the newly born because they are not seen as individuals with rights. They are people too. Abortion and murder take away the potential for life and they show the ignorance of society today, they show that murder is acceptable to rid the world of so-called unvaluable’ lives.

The Roots Of Eugenics

The roots of eugenics can be traced back to Britain in the early 1880’s when Sir Francis Galton generated the term from the Greek word for “well-born”. He defined eugenics as the science of improving stock, whether human or animal. According to the American Eugenics Movement, today’s study of eugenics has many similarities to studies done in the early 20th century. Back then, “Eugenics was, quite literally, an effort to breed better human beings – by encouraging the reproduction of people with “good” genes and discouraging those with “bad” genes. ” (www. eugenicsarchive. g)

According to Merriam-Webster, the modern day definition of eugenics is, a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed. The topic of eugenics is a controversial one, but through research it is evident that there are both positive and negative aspects. In 1926, the American Eugenics Society was founded by Harry Crampton, Harry H. Laughlin, Madison Grant, and Henry Fairfield Osborn. The main goal of the organization was to distribute accurate scientific information on genetic health, draw attention to eugenics, and promote eugenic research.

Between 1907 and 1937 thirty-two states required sterilization of various citizens viewed as undesirable: the mentally ill or handicapped, those convicted of sexual, drug, or alcohol crimes and others viewed as degenerate” (Larson). In late 1994, The Bell Curve was published. The research quoted in the book is taken mostly from members of the American Eugenics Society and other eugenics groups. “The book concludes that all men are not equal, and that the Declaration of Independence is badly worded. Clements) The book was generally praised by conservatives and attacked by liberals. The summary of eugenics, was on the best seller list for weeks.

In modern society, eugenics most recently became a hot topic when scientists announced the first successful cloning of Dolly the sheep. Dolly had the exact genetic make up as her mother. This revelation immediately got people talking about the possibility of cloning humans. “If cloning research were pursued, it has been estimated that human cloning could become a practical reality within the next one to two decades. Pearson)

Some negative aspects of eugenics include reducing the fertility of persons suffering from low intelligence and physical defects that are deemed as undesirable, and can be passed on to future generations. At the same time, cloning could operate as a form of positive eugenics, increasing the number of births of babies with excellent health and high intelligence. One thing that many people disagree upon is whether or not eugenics and genetic cloning is ethically right or wrong.

On one hand, it could eliminate children being born with life threatening diseases by forewarning parents of potential medical problems. “It is known that hemophilia, albinism, and certain structural abnormalities are inheritable. Family gene maps, called pedigrees, can help families with serious diseases avoid having children with the same diseases through genetic counseling, and, increasingly, prospective parents can be tested directly for the presence of undesired genes. ” (Prothero) Another possible use of genetics could be the production of healthy organs.

For example, heart disease is one of the top causes of death in the United States. Scientists predict that they will someday be able to clone healthy heart cells and inject them into damaged areas of the heart to cure defects. There is also a possibility that doctors will be able to take healthy cells and tissue from a patient’s body and use them to create organs. This would eliminate the need for organ donor waiting lists. People would no longer be facing early death because there is not a healthy heart or other organ available to them.

At the same time, some people question if it is morally right to, in terms, “play god”. Some go as far as calling eugenics “scientific racism”. They compare the science of eugenics to the time of the Nazi’s when selective breeding took place to generate desired characteristics (blonde hair and blue eyes) in offspring. “In the twentieth century, eugenics led to the introduction of policies such as sterilization, marriage laws, immigration restriction, and the institutional segregation of the mentally ill and mentally handicapped” (Rafter).

Another argument of critics of eugenics is that it is impossible to agree upon which traits we want, so therefore, the entire venture is impossible. However, eugenic supporters feel that it’s absolutely predictable that people will choose traits such as good health, intelligence, beauty, talent, kindness, and honesty for our children because these are universally valued traits. All over the world people value these qualities in a person.

But all people having these traits would take away the diversity that we as Americans pride ourselves on. In conclusion, the science of eugenics has both positive and negative characteristics. Because it is such a debated subject, it is hard to say if it will ever come into full existence in modern society. “Fear is a powerful motivator, and a powerful deterrent. What is done today will greatly affect tomorrow. ” (Clements) No matter what happens though, genetic studies will always be an important part of medical science and research.

The Searching For An Absolute Truth

David Hume attempted to study human nature by using the laws of physical science. He also set out to find an absolute truth by using scientific reasoning. In his search for an absolute truth he discovered an immense difference among opposing opinions on nearly every subject confronted by man. Each of these opinions has an equal truth-value and there is really no way of justifying any one over the other because the truth is different for each individual.

The sequence of events that each person has experienced throughout their life depicts how they will interpret things and because no two people experience the same exact events throughout their life no two people will interpret the same things from what they perceive from their senses. When it comes to things like this that are matters of fact, there will never be a case where everyone is in agreement. Their will always be disagreements over the validity of everything because the “truth” is only how different people comprehend the things they perceive through their senses.

Therefore using any type of scientific method was useless in proving certainty of human nature because there would always be enough evidence to prove the opposing view as being the truth. However the truth can be proved when referring to the relations of ideas. When dealing with things like (2+2=4), there is no openness to interpretation and no exceptions. 2+2 must always = 4 because it is based on scientific factual information and there is clearly no argument against it.

Hume boldly states that “impressions” and “ideas” make up the total content of the mind. His definition of ‘impressions” is what each person perceives from the physical world through their senses. And according to this theory “ideas” are merely copies of these impressions within the mind. He justifies this by saying that when we imagine something that we have never actually seen before our minds are actually transposing impressions that we have formerly perceived and rearranging them in a new way.

For example, we can clearly imaging things that don’t exist like a unicorn. This could lead us to believe our minds have created a new image which is contrary to what Hume says is possible. But actually this unicorn is made up if images that we have already seen before and our mind is just combining the image of a horn with that of a horse. Thus the human mind is incapable of creating anything completely original. It only has the ability to rearrange pieces of what has already been imprinted in us through our senses.

This seams extremely constrictive upon our imagination and it left me with a feeling of confinement to our perceptions. If this is all we are capable of than all we really are is as Hume says “A Bundle of perceptions. ” But the more I tried to disprove this theory the more I found myself believing it. At first I tried to think of something totally original, but how is anyone to know for sure that this new thought isn’t simply an obscure combination of images retrieved from former impressions originating from the senses.

To determine the originality of my thought I broke it down into its components only to find that they were all composed if things which I had seen before. For example the colors of this supposedly original thought were clearly colors which I had seen before. So then I tried to think of a totally new color, one which no one had ever seen before. I closed my eyes and tried to imagine this new color, hundreds of colors I had seen before filled my thoughts but the best I could do to think up a new one was to mix the ones that I had already seen. And this was exactly like the unicorn example.

I thought that perhaps using the word color to trigger the search was limiting my ability to see anything other than what I have previously labeled as a color. So I began focusing on forms, for example God. Because I had never seen God before I was hoping for a color, which I had never seen before. But an unmistakable deep dark shad of red immerged from somewhere within my memory. I tried it again with beauty concentrating this time on this idea that I have never used my senses to know what beauty is but again all I found was a familiar shade of purple.

Finding this impossible I concluded that Hume was correct and our thinking cannot extend beyond our immediate experiences. Even though I can not disprove him on the ability to create something from nothing I still feel like there has to be more to us than interpretations of perceptions. I am not totally disregarding my former beliefs as an apostasy, but I am beginning to doubt the boundless capacity of the human mind. If people are nothing more than a bundle of perceptions than how would anyone explain emotions. You don’t need to use any of your senses to experience things such as love.

I have never seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled love but there is no denying its existence. If Plato is right and our senses deceive us. If the physical world were an illusion than everything we perceive from it would be a falsity. And if all we are is what we perceive than our existence is based on an illusion and nothing is real perhaps including our existence. Hume says that we have no impressions of ourselves because our mind is always filled with impressions from this physical world, such as pain, heat, or pleasure.

It is memory that gives the impression of our continuous identity. The thought of only consisting of impressions, ideas, and memories of them made me feel even more insignificant and at first I was in disagreement. I can not disprove this notion just like I can’t disprove his idea that the human mind is incapable of creating anything. This is grounds for me to doubt my former belief but at the same time I don’t believe Hume’s belief on the subject either but I am willing to accept the possibility he could be right.

Compounds That Compose the Human Body

There are five major groups of compounds that compose the human body. They are carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, nucleotides, and water. These are all very important to humans and without them we would not be able to survive. They have many functions that encourage a human cell and a human body to function. Carbohydrates include sugars and starches, contain carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen which appears in a ratio of 1:2:1. Carbohydrates are classified according to size as monosaccharides, disaccharides, and polysaccharides.

The primary function of carbohydrates is to serve as sources of energy. Carbohydrates are some of the most numerous molecules in living organisms. They play a major role as food molecules in the cell, being broken down to produce energy. Polysaccharides play an important role serving as energy reserves also. It provides a quick-release energy source that keeps us going between meals. Small amounts of carbohydrates are also used for structural purposes and others are attached to outer surfaces of cell membranes to guide cellular interactions.

For many cells, sugars are the most important source of energy. Lipids are important because they function as structural components of cell membranes, sources of insulation, and a mean of energy storage. The lipid molecules are most well known as forming basic structures of cell membranes and as energy storage molecules as well. In this group of lipids, there are about three main types: true fats (triglycerides), phospholipids, and steroids. True fats represent the body’s most abundant and concentrated source of usable energy. When they are oxidized, they yield large amounts of energy.

They are stored chiefly in fat deposits beneath the skin and around body organs, where they help insulate the body and protect deeper body tissues from heat loss and bumps. True fats are a storage form for excess food, they are stored energy. Any type of food consumed in excess need to be converted to fat and stored. Phospholipids although similar in structure to the true fats, are not stored energy but rather structural components of cells. Lecithin is a phospholipid that is part of our cell membranes and myelin provides electrical insulation for nerve impulse transmission. The third group is steroids and cholesterol is an important steroid.

Cholesterol is another component of cell membranes and a form of cholesterol in the skin is changed to vitamin D on exposure to sunlight. All of the sex hormones like estrogen and testosterone are also steroids. So despite the links to bad effects, cholesterol is an essential substance for human beings. Proteins are very important in biological systems as control and structural elements. Proteins do almost everything in the body, from catalyzing reactions, fighting off foreign things, storing and transporting oxygen, to forming muscle, skin, hair, and a variety of other structural tissues.

They exist in a multitude of forms, but almost all are constructed from a basic set of just 20 common amino acids. They account for over fifty percent of the organic matter in the body. The building blocks of protein are small molecules called amino acids. Proteins are classed as either fibrous or globular proteins. The fibrous proteins often called structural proteins appear most often in body structures. They are very important in binding structures together and for providing strength in certain body tissues.

Collagen is found in bones, cartilage, and tendons, while Keratin is the structural proteins of hair and nails, the waterproofing material of the skin. Globular proteins are molecules that play crucial roles in virtually all biological process. Some of these are antibodies, which help provide immunity, hormones, which help regulate growth and development. There are also others that are called enzymes, which are biological catalysts that regulate essentially every chemical reaction that goes on within the body. Enzymes are functional proteins that act as biological catalysts.

Although there are hundreds of different kinds of enzymes in body cells, they are very specific in their activities, each controlling only one chemical reaction and acting only on specific molecules. The enzymes also promote blood clotting so if it were not for them, then there would be potentially large numbers of lethal blood clots. Nucleic acids are polymers composed of monomer units known as nucleotides. The main functions of nucleotides are information storage (DNA), protein synthesis (RNA), and energy transfers (ATP and NAD). They make up the genes, which provide the basic blueprint of life.

They also direct your growth and development. They do all of this by dictating protein structure. Nucleic acids are composed of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen and phosphorous atoms. There are two major kinds of nucleic acids; they are deoxyribonucleic acid and ribonucleic acid. DNA is the genetic material found within the cell nucleus. It makes up the genes that an organism inherits from its parents, and these tell the cells which proteins to make. Each gene directs the production of a particular protein in the cell. The proteins, in the form of enzymes, then initiate and regulate all the chemical reactions within the cell.

DNA also replicates itself ensuring that the genetic information in every body cell is identical. Then it also provides the instructions for building every protein in the body. RNA is located outside of the nucleus and this is considered the slave of the DNA. The RNA carries out the orders for protein synthesis issued by DNA. Water is also very important for the functioning of a human cell or a human body. Without water, there would be no life on earth. Water makes up sixty to seventy percent of the human body, and is essential for several reasons. Water is a solvent so it is able to dissolve many substances.

Nutrients and vitamins are dissolved in blood, which is mostly water and is transported to cells throughout the body. The excretion of waste products is also possible because they are dissolved in the water of urine. Water also has a very high heat capacity. It changes temperature slowly. So water will absorb a lot of heat before its temperature rises significantly. This factor helps the body maintain a constant temperature. This makes excess body heat evaporate sweat on the skin surfaces, rather than overheating the body’s cells and raising our temperature so fast.

Water is very important to all living things and the unique characteristics of it help our bodies to grow and function normally. These are the five major groups of compounds that compose the human body. They have many important functions all special and made just for humans. Their chemical structures promote and encourage a human cell and a human body to function normally and well. Without any of these things, we would not be able to survive nor would any other living organism on Earth. They help us greatly in our everyday lives but we just don not realize how they work and keep us strong, healthy, and unique human beings.

Population Overgrowth

One day, you wake up and 240,000 more people are living in your mansion. It is a big mansion with normally ample supplies to sustain your lifestyle. However, with 240,000 more people inhabiting that same area, it has become cramped and small. The next day, 240,000 people more come to live with you. This happens everyday for many years, soon supplies start to stretch thin and space starts to be a rarity. Unfortunately, this is not fiction. It is reality. Everyday, 240,000 babies are born around the world, according to United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

This figure works out to be about 12,000,000 people over the next 50 years, if the growth stays, steady. However, as stated by World Population Profile: 1998, the population of our plant will reach 9. 6 billion people by 2050, a discouraging number. That should frighten every citizen of earth, because the enormous population will affect every person. Unless, people understand the causes and the problems they create. Experts list various reasons that the population has boomed. One is a desire for large families.

Experts estimate that twenty percent of the projected growth over the next fifty years- or 660 million people- will come from families that may have access to family planning services but choose to have more than two children. Another reason that the population is growing at a rapid pace is that family planning services are not available to all people. Many governments ban or restrict valuable methods of contraception. In Japan, regulations discourage the use of birth control pills and encourage the use of condoms.

However, condoms prove to be only 90-98% effective under the best circumstances, while, if taken correctly, the pill is 99. 67% effective against unplanned pregnancy (NO and Other Methods of Birth Control back of pamphlet) This is at least a 1% difference. Therefore, one woman out of one hundred using condoms will get pregnant. That would mean 647,200 women would conceive children if every person in Japan had sexual intercourse and relied on condoms alone. (Basing the statistic on a census taken in 1999 by Age Group and Sex Statistics Bureau, which cited 64,720,000 women in Japan.

World Watch reports that a 1989 study found that in sixty countries, the wife must have her husbands permission to be sterilized or receive contraceptives. This law hinders the woman from protecting herself against unwanted pregnancy, and increases she chances of becoming pregnant. Another reason that contraceptives are not readily available is sparse availability in rural areas that lack clinics and pharmacies; therefore, to purchase contraceptives a woman must travel a great distance.

Face-to-Face Campaign reports that 120 to 150 million women who want to limit or space their pregnancies are still without the means to do so effectively, a surprising statistic for the twenty-first century. In addition, often the contraceptives are either too expensive, or poor quality and ineffective or dangerous. In 1990, when officials increased in price of controceptives sixty percent, the regularly increasing sales dropped significantly, twenty-nine percent in condoms, twelve percent in the pill.

The next year they rolled back prices and sales rebounded, World Watch declares. A badly made or poorly inserted intrauterine device (IUD) will injure the wearer significantly. Consequently, this could turn the women off birth control altogether. In some cases, the best methods are unavailable, leaving only one option for a majority of women to prevent unwanted pregnancy: sterilization. In Ghana and India, 69% of women choose this option, but not until well after they have birthed multiple children. A further reason the population continues to boom is population momentum.

Population momentum is defined as: The tendency for population growth to continue beyond the time that replacement-level fertility has been achieved because of a relatively high concentration of people in the childbearing years. For example, the absolute numbers of people in developing countries will continue to increase over the next several decades even as the rates of population growth will decline. This phenomenon is due to past high fertility rates, which results in a large number of young people.

As these youth grow older and move through reproductive ages, the greater number of births will exceed the number of deaths in the older populations (World Bank 5). Nearly one half of the population increase in the next fifty years will come from population momentum from the next reproductive generation. These people are teenaged and younger and are the majority of the current population. In fact, in the next twenty-five years, three billion people-the entire world population in 1960-will enter their reproductive years. Only 1. 8 billion will actually reach reproductive age of the original three billion.

Yet, if the surviving population has children at what industrial nations would consider an early age, the population will still expand 1. 7 billion even if each couple only had two children each. The problem compounds more because of the longer life expectancy and that the children of the teenaged and younger will come of age to bear children, causing a state of population upheaval. Finally, religion and society plays an important role in the population explosion. Many of the most populated countries religions are either Muslim or Christian. Pakistan is 97% Muslim.

In Pakistan, forty-three percent of husbands disapproved of family planning. In fact, they believe the number of children they have is up to God (Mitchell 4). If the Quran is worded as the Bible, then a husband and wife only have sexual intercourse during the wifes fertile period, because she is unclean for two weeks after menstruation. As a result, the chances that people who rely upon God to decide how many children will be given to a family will have either large family, or much death to look forward to, from stillborns, miscarriage, starvation, or the wife dying in child birthing.

Large families are also a result of a desire for sons. Many women will have children until they bear a son. In India, for many instances, many Hindus believe that they need a son to perform their last rites, or their souls will not be released from the cycle of births and rebirths (Mitchell 5). This reason alone holds great importance, because like in Christianity the next life should be better. In reality, more worry that is significant comes from fear of being released in this life, many husbands desert wives who do not bear sons (Mitchell 5).

In some castes, sons give financial security, when the husband dies, because society forbids the woman from returning to the village of her birth or joining her daughters family. She must instead join her sons family. Lack of sons grants no other option than to die with the spouse. In fact, all children provide financial security. In the parents old age, the children take turns caring for them, when the children are young the labor they provide rather than detracting from the familys livelihood, actually contributes (Mitchell 4).

This rational led to the developing nations contributing to the majority of the worlds populous, and is one of the main reasons that population momentum will be the future citizens biggest problem. Despite the different demographic projections, no country will be immune to the effects of population growth. Of course, the countries with the highest growth rate are likely to feel the greatest immediate burdenson their educational and public health systems, for instance and on their forests, soil, and water as the struggle to grow more food intensifies.

Mitchell 2) The Oregon Chapter of Zero Population Growth reports that there will be only as much fresh water per person in 2050 as there was in 1950 Pakistan/ Nigeria/ Ethiopia/ Iran with a projected combined population of more than one billion people by 2050 will have a grain area per person of only 0. 1 acre. Already nearly one hundred nations must depend on grain imports to some degree, and 1. 3 billion of the worlds people are living on the equivalent of $1 a day or less. Thirty-one nations with a collective population of over a billion are experiencing a chronic water shortage for over a year.

Researchers predict that within the next twenty-five years, that figure will explode to fifty nations and three billion people35 percent of all the projected people to be living on the earth in 2025. Jordans King Hussein once said, that water was the only issue that could lead him to declare war on Israel. Not only does this example give proof of the severity of the issue but shows that no country will escape. A war for water would cause Israel’s financial and political backers, the Western World, to step forward, directly involving themselves in one of the many issues caused by overpopulation.

Biological Determinism Essay

According to the author of the article “All in the Genes? “, there is no intrinsic causality between genetics and intelligence. The author analyses different aspects of biological determinism, and supplies many examples, which illustrate aspects of this problem that are being discussed since the time when these ideas became popular. He does not agree with biological determinist that the intellectual performance of a person depends on genes inherited from his parents. There are a lot of different theories about intellectual capabilities.

All these theories reflect different points of views, depending on the period of time the authors of these theories lived. The author argues for the theory that in the nineteenth century , artificial barriers in social hierarchy prevented people from achieving higher intellectual performance. In the end of XX century, in most places these barriers were removed by the democratic processes, and nothing artificial can stand between the natural sorting process and social status of the people.

These changes can not be considered as historical because the age of democracy is just wo hundred years , and the time when inequality between classes and between people was a natural situation is almost as long as the history of the world . The author insists that there is no connection between environmental differences and genetics. In support of his idea the author state that any Canadian student can perform better in mathematics than some ancient professors of mathematics.

The author comes to the conclusion that changes in a cultural environment are the main factor that determines level of intellectual erformance, not inherited combination of parent’s genes . He argues that genetic differences that appear in one environment may easily disappear in another. A theory that twins were raised in different social conditions will have the same level of intellectual performance because identical genetics constitution was used by the ideologist of biological determinism.

The author rejects this theory because from his point of view, all these cases cannot be considered as always reliable on a close look, in most cases, twins were aised by the members of the same family or in other words, not in a diametrical opposite level of society. The author believes that there is no convincing measure of the role of genes in influencing human behavioural variation. During the argumentation of questions of biological determinism, the author supports his idea with numerous examples. He gives examples of supporters of bio determinism and outlines that these examples are not reliable.

One of the fallacies of biological determinism is the result of IQ testing. According to ome scientist only 20% of performance depend on environment and other 80% depend on genetic variations. The author state that this is completely fallacious because there is no connection between the variation that can be ascribed as genetic differences and whether an IQ performance was affected by environment and by how much. IQ measures little more than a person’ s ability to take a test. Scores increase dramatically as a person is trained or familiarised with a test.

It means that an IQ level does not depend on the ntellectual abilities of parents but on the manner of studying and preparation that can be considered as environmental changes. For the author, there is a casual relationship between genetic and environmental differences. He gives us an example of a fruitflies with more bristles under the wing on the left side than on the right side. He says that these differences are caused by random chances of cell during growth and development and that every organism is a unique combination of genes and environmental random chances.

Another fallacy can be illustrated by the tatement provided by the author, which is built on the ideology of biological determinism: “. . . if most of the variation in, say, intelligence among individuals is a consequence of variation among their genes, then manipulating the environment will not make much differences”. The author argues that the proportion of variation in genes is not fixed properly, but one that varies from environment to environment. So, the author of the article provides many examples and rejects the fact that the intelligence is only affected by genes.

Human Values And Ethics Vs. Philisophical Ethics

They had discussed it, but not deeply, whether they wanted the baby she was now carrying. I dont know if I want it, she said, eyes filling with tears. She cried at anything now, and was often nauseous. That pregnant women cried easily and were nauseous seemed banal to her, and she resented banality (p. 389 Alice Walker The Abortion). It could sound familiar to many of us. Either in personal life or while discussing and debating, whether during college courses or encircled by close friends, I am sure that each and everyone of us has come across with the issue of abortion, developing a distinct, ndividual opinion about that particular subject.

What we think about abortion will be a function of what we think about sex, about reproduction, about the beginning of human life, about responsibility, about killing, about sexual equality, and about religion. Actually, there is little in life to which the issue of abortion is not in some way related. It is not surprising, then, that there is so much disagreement about what abortion is and whether of not it is good, bad, or neither. At the root of the controversy is a basic value judgment about the human status of the fetus; does it have any ights, and should the fetus be considered a person.

The question of abortion is compounded by a related issue — the right of a woman to control her own body. First, I would like to say a few words about the legal issues of abortion. We all know that abortions were prohibited many years ago by various cultures and countries. Pregnant women, not having a choice, were forced to perform illegal abortions, sometimes done not by doctors but by herbalists. Without much of technology, they tried to induce the bleeding, scraping off the walls of the uterus in attempt to remove the fetus.

As a esult of internal and external bleeding, blood infection and other side effects, many women died. Not only through some historical periods, but during the twentieth century it continued to happen. Even here, in the United States, in 1969, most state laws prohibited abortion, unless the life of the pregnant woman was threatened. In the mid-1960s, the estimated death rate for abortions performed in hospitals was 3 deaths per 100,000 abortions; the rate for illegal abortions was guessed to be over eight times higher than that — 30 deaths per 100,000 abortions was a rough estimate and almost certainly conservative.

For minority and poorer women, it was certainly very much higher (statistics are taken from Moral Revolution by Kathryn Pyne Addelson, from Twenty Questions: . . . ). My point is that abortions will surely continue, as they have through human history, whether we approve or disapprove or hem and haw (Barbara Ehrenreich, Is Abortion Really a Moral Dilemma? p. 425 Twenty Questions: . . . ) Therefore, it is much better for abortions to take place legally and under proper medical supervision.

I think that here, a person committed to utilitarian ethical theory would agree with me because according to my conclusion it ould produce more amount of good for the greater number of people — by doing abortions legally, more women could afford it and less of them would die. As a result of my little discussion, I believe that performing abortions should remain legal as it is of 1973. However, whether the issue of abortion is ethical or not, is the subject of the following discussion.

In order to discuss the ethical issue of abortion, first of all, I would like to turn to and illustrate the central factors, which might lead a woman, or a married couple, to the decision concerning the termination of her regnancy. It could be one (or a few put together) of the following circumstances: 1) a woman got pregnant due to rape; 2) the health of the woman or the unborn child was at a serious risk; 3) a woman did not plan her pregnancy; it was accidental; 4) a woman changed or was persuaded by others to change her mind about having a baby.

I dont think that many people would oppose the moral status of abortion in pregnancy due to rape. Judith Jarvis Thomson did a beautiful job in describing the similar situation, where she pretended that you were kidnapped, and without your ersonal approval, the famous violinist was plugged into your kidneys, because otherwise he would die. In elaborating and expanding her essay, Judith drove to a conclusion that … nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitments, for nine years, or even nine months, in order to keep another person alive (p. 89 Contemporary Issues In Bioethics).

Lets say you have done a good deed, youve suffered through nine month with the violinist. You let him to use your kidneys; he is alive; you are hero; everybody is happy. In the case of rape, however, the consequences would not be as nice and easy. A woman would not know who the father of her baby was: either he was a drug addict, or an alcoholic, or someone else. She would definitely know though, that he was not a normal person: he was a rapist. Now she is left alone to take care of this child if she cannot make an abortion. What answer could she give to the question, Mammy, where is my daddy? osed by the child, couple of years from that time, if he or she is born.

Besides, this child would be genetically redisposed to become a rapist too. Moreover, the woman in question has already suffered tremendously from the act of rape and the physical and psychological aftermath of that act. It would be especially unjust for her to have to live through an unwanted pregnancy owing to that act of rape. After these kinds of arguments, I do not think that many people would try to convince me otherwise. Can those who oppose abortion on the ground I mentioned make an exception for a pregnancy due to rape?

Certainly. They can say that persons have a right to life only if they didnt ome into existence because of rape; (p. 284 Contemporary… ). From the readings Ive done, I have found out that there are some people, who actually regard abortion as impermissible even to save the mothers life. I dont know who these people might be, but this is ridiculous. I absolutely disagree with the notion that the act of abortion should be considered immoral, if a mother is trying to save her own life. In one of our class discussions, we came to a conclusion that it is wrong to kill an innocent person in order to save your life.

Of course this argument is a subject to debates and uarrels; as Judith Jarvis Thomson has shown that it also depends on a situation. Killing of an innocent person is undoubtedly wrong, however, the fetus is not a living person. Therefore, . . . it cannot seriously be thought to be murder if the mother performs an abortion on herself to save her life. It cannot seriously be said that she must refrain, that she must sit passively by and wait for her death (p. 285 Contemporary . . . ). Hence, I can conclude that a woman can protect her life against the danger imposed on her by the unborn child, even if doing so causes its death.

Utilitarians would choose abortion as the right thing to do in both of these cases. It would minimize unpleasure and bring greatest amount of good to the maximum number of people — for a pregnant woman and her family. To my opinion, a person who is committed to Kantian theory, would argue against abortion on the premises that a moral act is the one that is done from ones duty. One of the womens duties is to produce and bring up children; therefore, it would be considered immoral, according to deontological ethical theory, for a woman to have an abortion.

Moreover, Kant was ery influenced by the nature and its laws. He was arguing that everything in nature operates in conformity with certain rules and standards. More specifically, Kantian personal moral law — categorical imperative says the following: Act as if the maxim [that is the subjective governing principle] of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature (p. 31 Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals). Now, could you imagine what it would be like, if abortion had became a universal law of nature? The existence of human species would come to an end.

Therefore, I think that deontologists, based on the facts Ive just given, would consider abortion in general as an immoral thing to do. Nevertheless, I think, that in two cases I have just presented (rape and danger impinged on a woman), a Kantian theorist might say that a woman was raped and stripped out of her autonomy. In order to preserve her autonomy at least for a little bit, she should be able to make a choice. In these kinds of situations, I think it is better to simply remain a person, who is not committed to any theories and try to slide in to the other persons hoes, try to see how she feels.

According to ethical relativism, which views that what is right or wrong and good or bad is not absolute but variable and relative, depending on the person, circumstances, or social situation, each society and culture would examine abortion differently, according to their rules and principles. By the way, much of the opposition to abortion throughout the time in history had come from religion. For sexual intercourse was procreation the making of a new life. Thus, anything that interfered with fertility was immoral.

This viewpoint changed during he first half of the 20th century, when many religious bodies accepted new ideas on birth control. The method chosen by a couple was declared to be their own decision. The Roman Catholic Church condemns all forms of birth control. Eastern Orthodoxy traditionally permits only abstinence but has not sought to prevent the distribution of contraceptives. In Judaism there is a long tradition of the use of sterilizing potions, vaginal tampons, and even abstinence during famines. In Islam the Koran advocates marriage and procreation but has no clear objection to birth ontrol, allowing a liberal interpretation.

In Japan and Eastern European countries, however, abortion is used routinely to end unwanted pregnancy and is not regarded as a moral issue. In Europe by 1992 only Ireland had a complete ban on abortion (this information is taken from the Comptons Interactive Encyclopedia). As you can see there are absolutely distinct views upon different ethnic groups. Moreover, in our society there are people who differ in their opinions: the prolife activists generally have less education and income than the prochoice activists, but are more ikely to be married and to have more children.

I assume that animals do not have these kinds of problems, and even if they do, they cannot do much about it. If the poor creature is sick, it can only sit there and wait for its destiny to take place, unless a HUMAN interferes. There is no such a thing as unwanted pregnancy for animals. Also, I would assume that no one knows an animal, except Homo Sapiens. Even though, most of the time animals have more than one newborn, they try to take care of everyone, especially of those that are smaller and weaker.

I personally had been a itness to these acts a couple of times, when my cat had its kittens. If we (humans) are the members of the same kingdom (Animalia), what makes us so special and unique that not only we perform abortions, but also claim to have a right to do that? First of all, human advance in technology, especially during the last fifty years, makes it possible to engage in protecting oneself from pregnancy and in disposing the unwanted fetus from mothers uterus. I think no one would oppose that no other animal, except us, uses contraceptives and involves in such activities.

Physical Anthropology Essay

Physical anthropologists view humans as biological organisms. Coupled with genetics and biochemistry, scientists can form a more complete picture of human anatomy, both past and present. Physical anthropology looks at human variation and evolution. Variation looks at the biological differences that exist between individuals within a population and at individuals between populations (e. g. , body shape, size, and physiological responses). These differences in human biology are measured using a technique called anthropometry.

In order to explain this diversity, physical anthropologists look to environmental conditions (including culture) and genetics. Taking these factors into account, the anthropologist attempts to formulate an evolutionary explanation for the differences. Human evolution looks at the bodily changes that have occurred over the years leading up to modern day Homo sapiens. In order to determine the changes that have taken place in human anatomy we rely on paleoanthropology, the study of human fossil remains, and primatology, and the study of other primates.

Paleoanthropology helps us determine who our ancestors were, and when, how and why they evolved. Primatology allows us to see the similarities and differences between other primates and ourselves and allows us to trace these evolutionary relationships. For example, such a study has determined that humans share approximately 98. 6% of their DNA (their genetic code) with gorillas, 98. 8% with chimpanzees and 97. 6% with orangutans 2. Approaching human variation from the perspective of the anthropologist leaves a vast field of study before the world of medicine.

One of the most fascinating examples of human variation is the found in albinism. The word \”albinism\” refers to a group of genetically inherited conditions. People with albinism have little or no pigment in the eyes, skin, and hair (or in some cases in the eyes alone). They have inherited from their parents an altered copy of genes that does not work correctly. The altered gene does not allow the body to make the usual amounts of a pigment called melanin. Approximately one in 17,000 people have one of the types of albinism. About 18,000 people in the United States are affected.

Albinism affects people from all races. The parents of most children with albinism have normal hair and eye color for their ethnic background, and do not have a family history of albinism. Melanin is a dark compound that is called a photoprotective pigment. The major role of melanin pigment in the skin is to absorb the ultraviolet (UV) light that comes from the sun so that the skin is not damaged. Sun exposure normally produces a tan, which is an increase in melanin pigment in the skin. Many people with albinism do not have melanin pigment in their skin and do not tan with exposure to the sun.

As a result, their skin is sensitive to the sunlight and they develop sunburn. In people with albinism, all other parts of the skin are normal even if there is no melanin in the skin. Melanin pigment is important in other areas of the body, such as the eye and the brain, but it is not known what the melanin pigment does in these areas. Melanin pigment is present in the retina and the area of the retina called the fovea does not develop correctly if melanin pigment in not present in the retina during development.

The other areas of the retina develop normally whether or not melanin pigment is present. The nerve connections between the retina and the brain are also altered if melanin pigment is not present in the retina during development. The iris has melanin pigment and this makes the iris opaque to light (no light goes through an opaque iris). Iris pigment in albinism is reduced, and the iris is translucent to light, but the iris develops and functions normally in albinism. Melanin forms in a special cell called the melanocyte.

This cell is found in the skin, in the hair follicle, and in the iris and retina of the eye. There are many steps in the process of converting the amino acid tyrosine to melanin pigment. Two types of melanin form: black-brown eumelanin and red-blond pheomelanin. As with most metabolic pathways in our body, the first compound in a pathway is converted to the next compound by the action of an enzyme. For example, in the simple pathway A–>B–>C, the conversion of compound A to B occurs because of the action of Enzyme 1, and the conversion of B to C occurs because of the action of Enzyme 2.

The formation of melanin pigment follows a pathway like this, but the pathway is more complex and not all of the steps are known. Tyrosinase is the major enzyme involved in the formation of melanin pigment. Tyrosinase is responsible for converting tyrosine to DOPA and on to dopaquinone. The dopaquinone then forms black-brown eumelanin or red-yellow pheomelanin. The tyrosinase enzyme is made by the tyrosinase gene on chromosome 11, and alterations (mutations) of this gene can produce one type of albinism because the tyrosinase enzyme made by the altered gene does not work correctly 5.

Two additional enzymes called tyrosinase-related protein 1 or DHICA oxidase and tyrosinase-related protein 2 or dopachrome tautomerase are important in the formation of eumelanin pigment 5. The gene for DHICA oxidase in on chromosome 9 and the gene for dopachrome tautomerase in on chromosome 9. Alterations of the DHICA oxidase gene are associated with a loss of function of this enzyme and this produces on type of albinism. Alterations of the gene for dopachrome tautomerase do not produce albinism.

Three other genes make proteins that are also involved in melanin pigment formation and albinism, but the exact role of these proteins remains unknown. These genes are the P gene on chromosome 15, the Hermansky-Pudlak syndrome gene on chromosome 10, and the ocular albinism gene on the X chromosome 5. The eye needs melanin pigment to develop normal vision. People with albinism have impairment of vision because the eye does not have a normal amount of melanin pigment during development. The skin needs pigment for protection from sun damage, and people with albinism often sunburn easily.

In tropical areas, many people with albinism who do not protect their skin get skin cancers. There are several less common types of albinism, which involve other problems also, such as mild problems with blood clotting or problems with hearing. Albinism may cause social problems, because people with albinism look different from their families, peers, and other members of their ethnic group. Growth and development of a child with albinism should be normal and intellectual development is normal 4. Developmental milestones should be achieved at the expected age.

General health of a child and an adult with albinism is normal, and the reduction in melanin pigment in the skin, hair and the eyes should have no effect on the brain, the cardiovascular system, the lungs, the gastrointestinal tract, the genitourinary system, the musculoskeletal system, or the immune system. Life span is normal. Most children with albinism should function in a mainstream classroom environment, provided the school gives specific attention to their special needs for vision. Contact with the school system should begin well before kindergarten, since school systems provide preschool services to children with disabilities.

Preschool evaluations allow parents and teachers to form an Individual Education Plan for the child. The use of Braille is not necessary, and, if a trial of Braille is given, children with albinism will read the dots visually 4. Children with albinism often prefer to read with a head tilt and usually hold the page close to the eyes. Occasionally it can be difficult to get them to use their glasses, as they do not notice significant improvement in their vision when glasses are used. Furthermore, use of glasses or books with large print can be difficult because of peer pressure.

There are two main categories of albinism: \”oculocutaneous albinism\” or \”OCA\” which means that melanin pigment is missing in the skin, the hair, and the eyes; and \”ocular albinism\” or \”OA\” which means that the melanin pigment is missing mainly in the eyes, and the skin and hair appear normal. OCA is more common than OA 5. It is usually possible to determine the type of albinism present with a careful history of pigment development and an examination of the skin, hair and eyes. The only type of albinism that has white hair at birth is OCA1.

Individuals with other types of OCA will have some hair pigment at birth, although it may be very slight in amount. It can be difficult to tell if the hair is completely white or very lightly pigmented in a very young child, and changes in pigment over time will usually help clarify the OCA type present. The most accurate test for determining the specific type of albinism is a gene test 5. A small sample of blood is obtained from the affected individual and the parents as a source of DNA, the chemical that carries the ‘genetic code’ of each gene.

By a complex process, a genetic laboratory can \”sequence\” the code of the DNA, to identify the changes (mutations) in the gene that cause albinism in the family. The test is useful only for families that contain individuals with albinism, and cannot be performed practically as a screening test for the general population. None of the tests available are capable of detecting all of the mutations of the genes that cause albinism, and responsible mutations cannot be detected in a small number of individuals and families with albinism. The test can be used to determine if a fetus has albinism.

For this purpose a sample would be obtained by amniocentesis, a procedure which involves using a needle to draw fluid from the uterus, at 16 to 18 weeks gestation. As mentioned, albinism is genetic. It is inherited. It is passed on from one generation to the next in the genes. Genes are contained in the egg and the sperm that combine at conception to start the process of forming a baby. Genes act as blueprints that tell the system how to do its work 6. In the case of albinism, the genes involved are those that tell the eyes or skin how to make melanin pigment.

Each cell in the body has two copies of each gene- one version from the mother and one version from the father. For OCA, the individual with albinism has received an albinism gene from both parents, and both versions of his blueprint for making pigment are incorrect. If a person carries one normal copy of a gene and one altered or albinism copy of a gene, he or she still has one blueprint that will provide enough information to make pigment. That means that he or she will have normal eye and skin color.

For OCA, parents carry an albinism gene with an incorrect version of the blueprint, but they have normal pigmentation, because they still have one normal gene with a normal version of the blueprint 7. About 1 in 70 people carry a gene for OCA 5. Suppose a man and a woman each carries an altered copy of the same gene and have normal coloration. They each have a normal copy and an albinism copy of the gene, and will pass one of these two copies when they conceive a baby. They each have a 1 in 2 chance of passing on the albinism copy of the gene to their baby.

As a result, for each pregnancy there is a 1 in 4 chance (1/2 x 1/2) that their baby will get two copies of the gene for albinism, in which case the baby will have no normal blueprint for making pigment, and will have albinism 4. The above explanation of the inheritance of albinism does not apply to one type of ocular albinism, called X-linked ocular albinism. For X-linked inheritance, the gene for albinism is located on an X chromosome. Females have two X chromosomes, while males have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome.

X-linked ocular albinism appears almost exclusively in males. The gene for it is passed from mothers who carry it to their sons. The mothers have subtle eye changes that an ophthalmologist could identify, but mothers generally have normal vision. For each son born to a mother who carries the gene, there is a one in two chance of having X-linked ocular albinism 4. One of the two most common types of albinism is tyrosinase related OCA, produced by loss of function of the tyrosinase enzyme in the melanocyte. This results from inherited mutations of the tyrosinase gene.

Classical OCA, with a total absence of melanin in the skin, hair and eyes over the lifetime of the affected individual is the most obvious type of OCA1, but there is a wide range of pigmentation associated with tyrosinase gene mutations. The range in phenotypes extends from total absence to near normal cutaneous pigmentation, but the ocular features are always present and help identify an individual as having albinism. Many different mutations of the tyrosinase gene have been identified in individuals and families with OCA1. Most mutations lead to the production of tyrosinase enzyme that does not work.

As a result, the first two critical conversions in the melanin pathway (tyrosine–>dopa–>dopaquinone) are not made and no melanin pigment forms; the pathway is \”blocked\” at the start. Mutations that produce an inactive enzyme or no enzyme at all are called \”null\” mutations. Some tyrosinase gene mutations are not null mutations but are called \”leaky\” mutations 4. These mutations lead to the production of a tyrosinase enzyme that has a little activity but nowhere near the normal amount of activity (often in the range of 1-10% of normal activity).

Leaky mutations and the resultant tyrosinase enzyme allow some melanin to form. The formation of melanin can be very small (the minimal pigment type of OCA) or can range to nearly normal (the type of OCA that was mistakenly called autosomal recessive ocular albinism). An important distinguishing characteristic of OCA1 is the presence of marked hypopigmentation at birth. Most individuals affected with a type of OCA1 have white hair, milky white skin, and blue eyes at birth. The irides can be very light blue and translucent such that the whole iris appears pink or red in ambient or bright light.

During the first and second decade of life, the irides usually become a darker blue and may remain translucent or become lightly pigmented with reduced translucency. The skin remains white or appears to have more color with time. Sun exposure produces erythema and a burn if the skin is has little pigment and is unprotected, but may tan well if cutaneous pigment has developed. Pigmented lesions (nevi, freckles, lentigines) develop in the skin of individuals who have developed pigmented hair and skin. OCA2 is the other more common form of albinism.

The common features of OCA2 include the presence of hair pigment at birth and iris pigment at birth or early in life. Localized (nevi, freckles, and lentigines) skin pigment can develop, often in sun exposed regions of the skin, but tanning is usually absent. It was once thought that the ethnic and constitutional pigment background of an affected individual had a more profound effect on the OCA2 phenotype than on the OCA1 phenotype, but this no longer appears to be the case. Both OCA1B and OCA2 have a broad range of pigmentation that, in part, reflects the genetic background of the affected individual.

There may be some accumulation of pigment in the hair with age but this is much less pronounced as that found in OCA1B, and many individuals with OCA2 have the same hair color throughout life. OCA2 is the most common type of OCA in the world, primarily because of the high frequency in equatorial Africa 2. In Caucasian individuals with OCA2, the amount of pigment present at birth varies from minimal to moderate. The hair can be very lightly pigmented at birth, having a light yellow or blond color or more pigmented with a definite blond, golden blond or even red color.

The normal delayed maturation of the pigment system in northern European individuals and lack of long hair can make it difficult to distinguish OCA1 from OCA2 in the first few months of life. The skin is white and does not tan on sun exposure. Iris color is blue-gray or lighted pigmented, and the degree of iris translucency correlates with the amount of pigment present. With time, pigmented nevi and lentigines may develop and pigmented freckles are seen in exposed areas with repeated sun exposure. The hair in Caucasian individuals may slowly turn darker through the first two or more decades of life.

There is a distinctive OCA2 phenotype in African-American and in African individuals 4. The hair is yellow at birth and remains yellow through life, although the color may turn darker. Interestingly, the hair can turn lighter in older individuals, and this probably represents the normal graying with age. The skin is white at birth with little change over time, and no tan develops. Localized pigmented lesions such as pigmented nevi, lentigines and freckles can develop in some individuals. The irides are blue/gray or lightly pigmented.

The history of genetic variations is explained in several theories, the most notable is Darwins explanation for adaptation and evolutionary divergence. Darwin states that because of the \”struggle for existence\”, few offspring survive to reproduce 8. Any heritable variation that improves an individuals ability to survive and reproduce will tend to be passed on to the next generation. This is called natural selection. Adaptation is explained by natural selection. Natural selection results in features that, under particular environmental conditions, bestow an advantage in the competition to survive and reproduce.

Each successive step in the evolution of an adaptive feature must itself be adaptive 9. If a form or feature requires any particular step to be disadvantageous, such a form will not exist under constant selection. That is, adaptations are not necessarily predicted to be \”perfect\”. The probability of a reversal of a complex series of changes is very small 9. An example of adaptation by natural selection is the retina of the vertebrate eye (in contrast to some other eyes, such as those of some molluscs) is \”inside out\” relative to an efficient design 10. The vascular tree shadows the photoreceptor cells.

Because it is on the \”wrong side\”, the optic nerve has to go through a hole in the retina, resulting in a blind spot. These features imply that vertebrate retina evolution was processive, not designed in a single creative step. From its origin in a flat, light-sensitive layer in the dorsal side of the anterior nerve system, development of the vertebrate nerve system (making a tube from a planar surface) resulted in the inverted orientation of the future retina. This retinal \”inversion\” is not a result of some underappreciated function, because some independently evolved eyes have \”noninverted\” retinas.

Once a pathway of successive adaptations begins, reversals may be competitively disadvantageous (e. g. , to completely reorganize the vertebrate retina, a redesign of neural tube development might be required. Again, ancestry apparently constrains the range of variation available to natural selection. Adaptation is used differently in evolutionary biology than it is in physiological anthropology. Aspects of an organism that suggest its adaptability are the complexity between structure and function and the comparative method of correlating species differences with ecological factors.

Direct evidence for adaptation can only come from experimental studies 8. The problems with adaptive significance and studying diseases such as albinism are many, but not invalidating. The possible problems are an adaptation may not appear to result in better performance with respect to the environment. Adaptation increases relative fitness, not necessarily absolute fitness but better competition with other genotypes 11. A variation of a structure could simply be neutral. These adaptations may not have evolved for purposes for which they now appear to be useful.

A trait might not be determined genetically, but be a direct consequence of environment or learning. The same trait might be a simple consequence of chemical or physical \”laws\”. It is evident that different species may have (neutral) variation for the same adaptive feature merely because of different ancestry; e. g. , although a pattern that provides good camouflage is likely to be an adaptive trait, alternative patterns that also provide good camouflage may work just as well 11.

Many variations that appear may be \”constrained\” by the developmental system or the genome (e. , that tetrapods have 4 limbs may not be an adaptation–why couldnt 6 work just as well? –but this number depends on what is allowed by the developmental mechanisms that pattern the organism and on the ancestry of the genome). Any trait is likely to be anachronistic, since the conditions under which a feature evolved existed in the past. Adaptation, presents obstacles to validity, however, given the formula for environmental factors, genetic influences, and biological variation, it is evident that albinism falls into this category.

Human Nature vs. Mother Nature

Are you unhappy with your looks? If you are, then you should feel at home as a member of human kind. You can dye your hair and wear colored eye contact lenses. Humankind is the only place where one can receive a ‘boob-job’; or have a tattoo put on your chest and then have it removed when you are ready for a change. An instant, effortless weightloss program? Just step into my office and we will discuss lyposuction. And while we are at it, we should discuss removing thatthing. It just doesn’t become you. As one can see, it seems quite easy in today’s world to redo nature’s intent.

Yes, the field of medical science has greatly advanced within the confines of the past two hundred years or so. Skills and procedures that have been learned during this time can be used in such powerful ways. Anyone can become practically anybody else they choose—just a clip here, slice there, take fat cells from here and add them to there, and voilaa new person. However, Mother Nature as been around for quite a bit longer, and she knows what she is doing—leave her alone! Messing with nature’s intent is dangerous and I wouldn’t go there.

Aylmer Chillingworth, a scientist in Hawthorne’s short story, ‘The Birthmark,’; has married a young woman, a certain Georgianna, despite the fact she possesses a birthmark upon the center of her left facial cheek. Aylmer feels that he has ignored this ‘ugly marking’; long enough and decides he can ‘make her better. ‘; ‘ ‘Geogianna,’said he, ‘has it never occurred to you that the mark upon your cheek might be removed? ”; Of course, Mrs. Chillingworth has grown up from child to woman with this birthmark and she feels nothing of it.

To tell you the truth, it has been so often called a charm’; However, Chillingworth is just being the scientist that he is, and thinks he can fix this ‘visible mark of earthly imperfection. ”; Through many acts of persuasion and begging, Georgianna begrudgingly agrees to undergo the operation of removing the birthmark from her body. However, the operation procedure is dangerous and, once the procedure is over with and Aylmer is happy with his work (‘My peerless bride, it is successful! You are perfect! ), Georgianna dies.

My poor AylmerYou have aimed loftily;Do not repent thatyou have rejected the best that earth has to offer. Aylmer, dearest Aylmer, I am dying. ‘; Is messing with nature’s intent and beauty worth the consequence? That is a question that people deal with everyday. It is true that many changes can be made without the same consequence that Geogianna ended with. A man won’t die because he has the size of his nose reduced. Nor will a woman die because she has the wrinkles that are present around her eyes removed. People have even gone so far as to changing his or her sex to just the opposite!

Is this not perverse against Mother Nature? Messing with nature’s intent is a big deal. Are we, as humans, trying to play God? And why is it that we are constantly changing the look that was created just for us? Is it being unhappy with ourselves? Or is someone else unhappy with the way we look? Yes, it is possible to do these things. It is possible to change your voice or skin color. Just open your vocal shaft and stretch the chords out. And have your skin medically bleached. But why? Just because the cookie jar is left open doesn’t mean you have to eat one.

The Human Genome Project

Does the Human Genome Project effect the moral standards of society? Can the information produced by it become a beneficial asset or a moral evil? For example, X chromosome markers can be used to identify ethnicity. A seemingly harmless collection of information from the Human Genome Project. But let’s assume this information is used to explore ways to deny entry into countries, determine social class, or who gets preferential treatment. Whether or not this type of treatment is acceptable to a moral society remains to be seen.

The major events of genetic history are important to understanding the Human Genome Project. Genetics is the study of the patterns of inheritance of specific traits. The basic beginnings of genetic history lay in the ancient techniques of selective breeding to yield special characteristics in later generations. This was and still is a form of genetic manipulation by “employing appropriate selection for physical and behavioral traits”(Gert, 93). Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk, completed experiments on garden peas so as to establish the quantitative discipline of genetics.

Mendel’s work explained that the inheritance of traits can be stated by factors passed from one generation to the next; a gene. The complete set of genes for an organism is called it’s genome. A genome creates traits that can be explained due to the inheritance of single or multiple genes affected by factors in the environment. Mendel also correctly stated that two copies of every factor exists and that one factor of inheritance could be dominate over another. The next major events of genetic history involved the discovery DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid).

DNA is a double helix of amino acids and proteins that are encode the blueprint for all living things. DNA was found to be packed into chromosomes, of which 23 pairs existed in each cell of the human body. DNA was also found to be made of nucleotide chains consisting of four amino acid bases known as Adenine, Cytosine, Thymine, and Guanine (A, C, T, and G). Any ordered pair of bases makes a sequence. Sequences are the instructions that produce molecules and proteins for cellular structure and biochemical functions.

A marker is any location on a chromosome where inheritance can be identified and tracked. Markers can be expressed areas of genes (DNA) or some segment of DNA with no known coding function but an inheritance can still be traced. It is these markers that are used to do genetic mapping. By the use of genetic mapping, isolated areas of DNA are used to find if a person has a specific trait, inherent factor, or any other numerous genetic qualities. “Research and technology efforts aimed at mapping and sequencing large portions or entire genomes are called Genome projects”(Congress, 202).

Genome projects are not the effort of a single organization, but instead are groups of organizations working in government and private industry throughout the world. The controversies surrounding the Human Genome Project can be better explained by explaining the structural and moral aspects of the project. Begun in 1990, the US Human Genome Project is a 15-year effort coordinated by the US Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health.

It’s purposes are to identify all the estimated 80,000 genes in human DNA, determine the sequences of the 3 billion chemical bases that make up human DNA, store this information in databases, and develop tools for data analysis. The objectives of the Human Genome Project are carried out by organizations such as the National Institutes of Health, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and various other private organizations. These organizations all have two shared objectives, placing “new methods and instruments into the tool-kit of molecular biology” and “building research infrastructure for genetics”(Murphy, 17).

Any attempt to resolve moral issues involving new information from the Human Genome Project requires direct, clear, and total understanding of common morality. Webster’s Dictionary defines morality as ethics, upright conduct, conduct or attitude judged from the moral standpoint. It also defines a moral as concerned with right and wrong and the distinctions between them. A moral theory is the attempt to explain, justify, and make visible “the moral system that people use in making their moral judgments and how to act when confronting a moral problem” (Lee, 34) This theory is based on rational decisions.

With this in mind, the moral system must be known by everyone who is judged by it. This leads to the rational statement that “morality must be a public system” (Lee, 34) The individuals of the public system must know what morality requires of them, and the judgments and guidelines made must be rational to them. Just like any game, the players play by a set of rules and these rules dictate how the game is played. When rules are broken penalties are enforced by the other players, according to the rules.

However, if everyone agrees to change the rules then the game continues without any penalties. Therefore, “the goal of common morality is to lessen the amount of harm suffered by those protected by it” (Lee, 35) and it is constrained by the knowledge and need to be understood by all it applies to. Justified violations also exist in common morality. Just like in the game, a change in the rules causes acceptance. Morality in every instance can be viewed not as an evil by the public perception but as a decision backed by common morals.

Based on the pattern of common morality, the issues of genetic race and class distinction or any other controversies involving the Human Genome Project can be put to a set of common moral standards. Just like the moral standard that says killing is wrong but justifiable in self-defense, the Human Genome Project can be argued along the same line of moral discussion. The justifiable violations that genetic information is based on, depends on the common morality of the public system which, in turn, is based on the common beliefs and distinctions between right and wrong.

Thus the moral dilemma of genetics is simple; will it be an asset or an evil to the individuals public perception of common morality based on the right and wrong of the information? This answer is based on the societies structure. Our particular social structure is largely based on modern medicine. From this it is reasonable to assume that the Human Genome Project is largely accepted by the general populous. So it may be accepted, but is this acceptance propitious?

Isn’t there a point where the morality of mapping a persons entire physical and mental character becomes a violator of the personal privacy we all reserve the right to? That is exactly what the ELSI branch of the Human Genome Project is all about. The US Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have devoted 3% to 5% of their annual Human Genome Program budgets toward studying the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) surrounding availability of genetic information (Murphy, 4) This represents the world’s biggest bio-ethics program, which has become a model for ELSI programs around the world.

ELSI was established to develop not only answers but also raise questions about the Human Genome Project. ELSI’s primary goal is to make clear and informative statements to the public about moral issues surrounding the Human Genome Project. They readily make this information available through publications and their world wide web site. I would now submit to you a list of just a few of the many controversial statements that ELSI is beginning to investigate.

A Technical Analysis Of Ergonomics And Human Factors In Modern Flight

Since the dawn of the aviation era, cockpit design has become increasingly complicated owing to the advent of new technologies enabling aircraft to fly farther and faster more efficiently than ever before. With greater workloads imposed on pilots as fleets modernize, the reality of he or she exceeding the workload limit has become manifest. Because of the unpredictable nature of man, this problem is impossible to eliminate completely.

However, the instances of occurrence can be drastically reduced by examining the nature of man, how he operates in the cockpit, and what must be done by ngineers to design a system in which man and machine are ideally interfaced. The latter point involves an in-depth analysis of system design with an emphasis on human factors, biomechanics, cockpit controls, and display systems. By analyzing these components of cockpit design, and determining which variables of each will yield the lowest errors, a system can be designed in which the Liveware-Hardware interface can promote safety and reduce mishap frequency.

The history of cockpit design can be traced as far back as the first balloon flights, where a barometer was used to measure altitude. The Wright rothers incorporated a string attached to the aircraft to indicate slips and skids (Hawkins, 241). However, the first real efforts towards human factors implementation in cockpit design began in the early 1930’s. During this time, the United States Postal Service began flying aircraft in all-weather missions (Kane, 4:9). The greater reliance on instrumentation raised the question of where to put each display and control.

However, not much attention was being focused on this area as engineers cared more about getting the instrument in the cockpit, than about how it would interface with the pilot (Sanders & McCormick, 39). In the mid- to late 1930’s, the development of the first gyroscopic instruments forced engineers to make their first major human factors-related decision. Rudimentary situation indicators raised concern about whether the displays should reflect the view as seen from inside the cockpit, having the horizon move behind a fixed miniature airplane, or as it would be seen from outside the aircraft.

Until the end of World War I, aircraft were manufactured using both types of display. This caused confusion among pilots who were familiar with one type of display and were flying an aircraft with the other. Several safety violations were observed because of this, none of which were fatal (Fitts, 20-21). Shortly after World War II, aircraft cockpits were standardized to the six-pack’ configuration. This was a collection of the six critical flight instruments arranged in two rows of three directly in front of the pilot.

In clockwise order from the upper left, they were the airspeed indicator, artificial horizon, altimeter, turn coordinator, heading indicator and vertical speed indicator. This arrangement of instruments provided easy transition training for pilots going from one aircraft to another. In addition, instrument scanning was enhanced, because the instruments were strategically placed so the pilot could reference each instrument against the artificial horizon in a hub and spoke method (Fitts, 26-30). Since then, the bulk of human interfacing with cockpit development has been largely due to technological achievements.

The dramatic increase in the complexity of aircraft after the dawn of the jet age brought with it a greater need than ever for automation that exceeded a simple autopilot. Human factors studies in other industries, and within the military paved the way for some of he most recent technological innovations such as the glass cockpit, Heads Up Display (HUD), and other advanced panel displays. Although these systems are on the cutting edge of technology, they too are susceptible to design problems, some of which are responsible for the incidents and accidents mentioned earlier.

They will be discussed in further detail in another chapter (Hawkins, 249-54). A design team should support the concept that the pilot’s interface with the system, including task needs, decision needs, feedback requirements, and responsibilities, must be primary considerations for defining the system’s unctions and logic, as opposed to the system concept coming first and the user interface coming later, after the system’s functionality is fully defined. There are numerous examples where application of human-centered design principles and processes could be better applied to improve the design process and final product.

Although manufacturers utilize human factors specialists to varying degrees, they are typically brought into the design effort in limited roles or late in the process, after the operational and functional requirements have been defined (Sanders & McCormick, 727-8). When joining the design process late, the ability of the human factors specialist to influence the final design and facilitate incorporation of human-centered design principles is severely compromised. Human factors should be considered on par with other disciplines involved in the design process.

The design process can be seen as a six-step process; determining the objectives and performance specifications, defining the system, basic system design, interface design, facilitator design, and testing and evaluation of the system. This model is theoretical, and few design systems actually meet its erformance objectives. Each step directly involves input from human factors data, and incorporates it in the design philosophy (Bailey, 192-5). Determining the objectives and performance specifications includes defining a fundamental purpose of the system, and evaluating what the system must do to achieve that purpose.

This also includes identifying the intended users of the system and what skills those operators will have. Fundamentally, this first step addresses a broad definition of what activity-based needs the system must address. The second step, definition of the system, determines the unctions the system must do to achieve the performance specifications (unlike the broader purpose-based evaluation in the first step). Here, the human factors specialists will ensure that functions match the needs of the operator. During this step, functional flow diagrams can be drafted, but the design team must keep in mind that only general functions can be listed.

More specific system characteristics are covered in step three, basic system design (Sanders & McCormick, 728-9). The basic system design phase determines a number of variables, one of which is the allocation of functions to Liveware, Hardware, and Software. A sample allocation model considers five methods: mandatory, balance of value, utilitarian, affective and cognitive support, and dynamic. Mandatory allocation is the distribution of tasks based on limitations. There are some tasks which Liveware is incapable of handling, and likewise with Hardware.

Other considerations with mandatory allocation are laws and environmental restraints. Balance of value allocation is the theory that each task is either incapable of being done by Liveware or Hardware, is better done by Liveware or Hardware, or can only be done only by Liveware or Hardware. Utilitarian allocation is based on economic restraints. With the avionics package in many commercial jets costing as much as 15% of the overall aircraft price (Hawkins, 243), it would be very easy for design teams to allocate as many tasks to the operator as possible.

This, in fact, was standard practice before the advent of automation as it exists today. The antithesis to that philosophy is to automate as many tasks as possible to relieve pressure on the pilot. Affective and cognitive support allocation recognizes the unique need of the Liveware component and assigns asks to Hardware to provide as much information and decision-making support as possible. It also takes into account limitations, such as emotions and stress which can impede Liveware performance.

Finally, dynamic allocation refers to an operator-controlled process where the pilot can determine which functions should be delegated to the machine, and which he or she should control at any time. Again, this allocation model is only theoretical, and often a design process will encompass all, or sometimes none of these philosophies (Sanders & McCormick, 730-4). Basic system design also delegates Liveware performance requirements, haracteristics that the operator must posses for the system to meet design specifications (such as accuracy, speed, training, proficiency).

Once that is determined, an in-depth task description and analysis is created. This phase is essential to the human factors interface, because it analyzes the nature of the task and breaks it down into every step necessary to complete that task. The steps are further broken down to determine the following criteria: stimulus required to initiate the step, decision making which must be accomplished (if any), actions required, information needed, feedback, potential sources of error nd what needs to be done to accomplish successful step completion. Task analysis is the foremost method of defining the Liveware-Hardware interface.

It is imperative that a cockpit be designed using a process similar to this if it is to maintain effective communication between the operator and machine (Bailey, 202-6). It is widely accepted that the equipment determines the job. Based on that assumption, operator participation in this design phase can greatly enhance job enlargement and enrichment (Sanders & McCormick, 737; Hawkins, 143-4). Interface design, the fourth process in the design model, analyzes the nterfaces between all components of the SHEL model, with an emphasis on the human factors role in gathering and interpreting data.

During this stage, evaluations are made of suggested designs, human factors data is gathered (such as statistical data on body dimensions), and any gathered data is applied. Any application of data goes through a sub-process that determines the data’s practical significance, its interface with the environment, the risks of implementation, and any give and take involved. The last item involved in this phase is conducting Liveware performance studies to determine the capabilities nd limitations of that component in the suggested design.

The fifth step in the design stage is facilitator design. Facilitators are basically Software designs that enhance the Liveware-Hardware, such as operating manuals, placards, and graphs. Finally, the last design step is to conduct testing of the proposed design and evaluate the human factors input and interfaces between all components involved. An application of this process to each system design will enhance the operators ability to control the system within desired specifications. Some of the specific design characteristics can be found in subsequent chapters.

Human Nature Essay

Human nature is the egotistical behaviours that drive the human race to be creative and inquisitive. Although some philosophers may disagree with the validity of this statement, others such as Aristotle, John Stuart Mill and Thomas Hobbes would believe it to be true. After examining the beliefs of these philosophers and using real-life examples to rebut the beliefs of those who disagree, man’s true nature of curiousity, creativity and selfishness is clearly evident.

Once inspecting the philosophical beliefs of Thomas Hobbes, Aristotle and John Stuart Mill, human’s creative, inquiring and self-indulgent nature seems indisputable. Thomas Hobbes was correct in saying that self-interest is man’s true nature. He spoke the truth when he described man as an “aggressive, greedy, competitive, anti-social and vain” (Gini- Newman et al. 28) species. Everyday, man demonstrates this nature as he works steadfastly to make money so that he can indulge in the life of luxury and opportunity that he desires.

He then donates to charitable organizations so that he does not have to suffer from feelings of guilt for not sharing his wealth with those less fortunate. Even human’s creativity and desire for knowledge illustrate our races egotistical nature. Aristotle once said that “all men by nature desire knowledge. ” (Gini- Newman et al. 26) John Stuart Mill later said that “no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool. ” (Gini- Newman et al. 26) Both of these philosophers were correct in their observations.

Man is an incredibly intelligent human being. He can think abstractly and develop unique ideas and theories. However, man’s creative ideas and broad range of knowledge all contribute to his self-interest. Man prides himself on knowledge. His intellectual endeavors build his self esteem and ego. He feels proud and worthy when he invents something. Although many human being use their innovative nature to improve the quality of life for others, their intentions are always inspired by their innate desires to feed their selfish nature.

The selfish desires of man and his needs for creativity and knowledge of self are difficult to dispute. Although philosophers such as Joseph Butler, Mengzi and Siddhartha Gautama have expressed different beliefs on this issue, there are many examples that challenge the soundness of them. Joeseph Butler once said that self-love and benevolence do not conflict. One could disagree with this statement because there are many instances in life when one’s own desires do conflict with their desires to help others.

For example, in society today, many secondary students are feeling pressured by the competition for acceptance into universities and colleges. As a result, they are doing as much as they can to better their chances at getting accepted into university or college. Some students are running charitable drives to enhance the quality of their applications. Others are volunteering so they can complete their community service hours. Although these students are helping others, their intentions are inspired by their own desires to get accepted into a post-secondary institution.

Speaking of education, the renowned Chinese philosopher, Mengzi, once said that “evil exists because some people do not cultivate their inner goodness through proper education. “(Gini- Newman et al. 32) The truth in this statement can easily be argued due to the fact that people have been taught how to become “good” individuals for centuries. Parents teach their children how to share and be respectful of others, secondary schools administer Character Education programs, yet people continue to do evil.

Siddhartha Guatama, founder of Buddhism, believed that the self did not exist and should therefore not be questioned. However, much of man’s creativity is inspired by his questionings of self. Inventions, such as the telephone, are designer to make life easier for the individual. If man never questioned himself, his creative ideas would have nowhere to stem from. Therefore, one should let man engage in his creativity and answer seeking activities, despite their selfish foundations, because selfishness is man’s true nature. It cannot be changed.

It often appears that all of our efforts are made in an attempt to benefit and/or improve the quality of our individual lives. As a result, I have come to believe that as humans, we truly are a creative, inquiring, yet exceedingly selfish species. In my life, I demonstrate my innate nature of curiousity, creativity and egocentrism everyday. I go to school and ask questions in an attempt to learn more about the world around me. I talk to my friends so I can get filled in on all the gossip. I also use my creativity in art class by producing unique pieces of work.

However, through all my endeavors, I notice the self interest that lies beneath them. I realize the self-assurance that I gain by being knowledgeable and I yearn for the praise I receive when I create a masterpiece. Even when I help others, by donating money to charitable organizations for example, I am being selfish because my actions are inspired by my personal desires to alleviate my feelings of guilt and sympathy. When I reflect on my life, I often feel ashamed of my self-centeredness. Unfortunately, this is my nature. I can try to control it, but I can not change it.

The writer, Alfie Kohn, was correct when he noted the negative connotation on the expression, “I am only human. ” (Gini- Newman et al. 43) Man’s creative and curious nature does make him distinct from all others; however, he truly is a selfish specimen. Everything man does, from working hard to earn a degree to finding a cure to save the lives of others, is aimed to fulfill his personal desires. Although philosophers may disagree on the true nature of man, it is difficult to dispute his selfishness as a species because there is so much evidence that prove him to be exactly this.