Cloning

Continuing the discussion we had on class 1/30 on cloning. I believe that cloning hold the key to developing a plethora of medical advances, from finding cures to cancer, and to solving food issues. With cloning stem cells can be replicated, thus fewer fetuses must be used to obtain these cells. This would then result in more support, both morally and financially. With this funding and a higher interest from the general public, medical advances are bound to occur. Then cloning can be used to create genetically engineered food, which then can be used to increase crop yields, even with the changes in environment which are occurring. If a plant is developed which can endure the blistering heat and lack of water in Africa, then a major problem can be mollified. The possibilities are nearly endless with cloning, but with this great power, comes great responsibility, and this power must be controlled to avoid chaos.

Too idealistic. It is a nice idea that we all wish would work... however, if a country's government is corrupt and selfish as to kill millions of their own people, they will certainly not make peace treaties with other countries. We can at least agree that a minimum of 1 coutry (of course there would be more) would not buy into that kind of treaty. It only takes one. The problem with being the "global police" is that American citizens want to save everyone. In itself that is fine, but it is also impossible. There about 7 billion people on the planet and at least half have major problems. So we all prioritize in our own minds who needs help the most. We come up with different types of aid and different recipients and as a country, we will less that likely ever agree. It is easy to talk about solutions. It is much harder to follow through. Personally, extra food is a great option... tough to organize. I think the best thing that can be done is medical aid. Trying to reformat a government gets dangerous...like in Iraq... it is tough to let it stand on its own. Education is a great option. I think medical aid is a better place to start. America spends about $6,000-$7,000 per death from aids (research). We spend about $67 per death from malaria. These two diseases account for about the same amount of deaths. We obviously like to give money to the diseases close to home. Nothing wrong with that. However, this topic is about global problems, so what do you think about the stat about money for research?

I agree that the U.S. should use their excess food and resources to aid third world countries if both the US and the receiving country agree to it; the enormous increase of the percentage of obese Americans recently is proof of the food overabundance. We have plenty of factories that could donate leftover products to developing countries. Many should model themselves after the NFL. I have read, for example, that the NFL produces championship tshirts and gear for both football teams competing in the Super Bowl. At the end of the game, the losing team's shirts are sent to a charity organization that ships them to third world countries (generally in Africa: Uganda, Niger, and others). Also, I worked in a grocery store this summer, so I know the large quantities of food consumers in my community can buy, and the frequency of their trips to the grocery store. Many consumers buy things just because they're on sale and they can afford them, but then they never actually use them. I therefore also agree that education (not only of people in the developing worlds, but also of the American people) is essential; these wasteful purchases could be greatly reduced if more of the public empathized with impoverished developing countries and realized these countries' need for the products more than their own need.
And yes, if amateur entrepreneurs can survive and even come to dominate the American marketplace, then the governments of developing countries could successfully improve their economies and states of existence. But in order to do so, all other developed countries need to agree not to invade the countries; they need to let them reconstruct themselves and their own cultures without the interference or influence of multiple other countries, and with however much time they may need.

2

on the subject of other developing countries, i believe in most cases we should stay out of their lives. they choose to stay where they are and some are ran by other countries such as england.

I believe everyone who has the means and resources to provide help and aid whether in the form of donations or time spent working in a developing country should feel the responsibility to take action to help third world countries. There is no reason there should be starving people when there is enough food on this planet to provide for everyone. Some may argue saying there is not enough food for the earth's population, but look how much America alone wastes in restaurants and households. If we lower or portions in restaurants and donate the food abroad, we could possibly feed less fortunate people and maybe diminish obesity at the same time. The only way a country can be changed for the better, I believe, is through education though. If someone learns how to start their own business whether in agriculture, medicine, or personal services, a country can develop a strong, self-sufficient economy. Also, through education people can give meaning to their lives when they have lost hope such as in the middle east where people have lost their will to live causing people to risk their lives fighting for numerous extremists groups in the country. If everyone gives a back even if it is just a little, I think the world can be a different and better place.

Pro Humanitate

When it comes to giving aid to problematic countries, we as a nation must decide two things: should we help, and if so, how. Before becoming involved in situation such as Darfur or Iraq, the US must first decide if it is wise to do so. Sometimes we have the ability to help (or at least create change) but it is not always wise to do so. Although we succeeded in eliminating a harmful dictator from Iraq, we opened the way for insurgent groups to emerge and now we have to fight to keep them under control. In a situation such as Darfur, the motivation for helping is mostly humanitarian as we do not have valuable resources at stake there. If we do find the need to give aid, then the question is how. Giving money and food do more harm than good in the long run and sending aid workers is only a short term fix. I think that sending troops is a viable option, but I'm not sure that given the negative image that the Iraq war has given the US that we would gain enough support for such an invasion. Perharps if the war in Iraq is resolved and public image improves, the media and other countries would stand behind military presence in Darfur.

Pro Humanitate

The discussion in class raised many interesting points about the ability of the united states to give foriegn aid to developing countries in need. One specific point discussed the paradox between wanting to help, yet refusing to use force. I agree with the point made, but I believe the country could use its force more wisely. I believe the use of force was unecessary in Iraq, but would be largely supported in a place such as Darfur. It is clear that force is essentially the only method that will work at this point since the corrupt government has responded to nothing else. Currently, the government and Bush are being criticized for not doing enough with Darfur. If we were to in fact send troops in, I believe the media would be behind the government all the way.

Pro Humanitate

I believe that many people, especially at Wake Forest, have the desire to help people. This is demonstrated by our willingness to participate in numerous fund-raisers and community service opportunities here at wake forest. However, it becomes harder for us to be as helpful to the rest of the world because many individuals lack the power or money to interact in a global way.

I think Tommy is on the right track. Machines do not have the ability to reason or be aware of their own existance, but neither do animals. Every animal on this earth looks and acts the way it does because natural selection has chosen that phenotype as the most fit for its environment. So in this way, how are animals not machines? To take this idea a step further, humans are animals as well. Just because we have the ability to reason and be conscious now does not mean that we have always had that abilty. There must have been a time in human evolution when humans did not have the ability to be aware of their own existence. At that time, humans must have been machines since they did not have that ability. Fortunalty, somewhere along the evolutionary course, it was adaptive for humans to possess the brain pathways that allow for consciousness. When this happened did humans suddenly stop being machines and rise into a higher order above the machines of which they are made? I think that all living organisms are biological machines, though some may be more complex than others, and none are perfect.

As i tried to state in class but was so rudely interrupted by the library ventilation system, i believe that a machine is something that does not have the cognitive ability to be aware of its own existance which is the main difference between humans and "machines". Humans generally are aware of their presence in this world, which gives us the freedom of free will, motivation, gives us the ability to have emotions and thoughts. However, I have given this further thought and am beginining to question my answer. Look at a different animal who one would not ordinarily consider a robot, such as a panda bear. Does this panda bear have the same ability as humans to realize its own existance in the world or to think about its wants, needs, or desires in such a way as to satisfy them. I think it is somewhat clear to all that an animal, such as my panda bear, that they do not have this advanced ability. So, does this make panda a machine? The panda bases its life, finding food or a mate, on instinct and the molecular machines that guide its processess. So there is not enough evidence to conclude that the panda bear is not a machine.

Machines

I'd like to continue what I was talking about in class about whether or not humans are just machines. As I said in class i think humans are not machines because our brains give us the ability to think and give us free will. Yes, its true that you can argue humans are put on earth in order to reproduce, yet, many do not. Today in my biology class we were discussing almost the opposite and saying whether or not certain objects were alive because of characteristics they had. First of all the class came to the conclusion that robots or machines were not alive, and humans are certainly alive so therefore they cannot just be robots or machines. I was interested in what my teacher had to say so I explained the situation we talked about in class and she brought up a very interesting point. She first said that they had free will as i stated above and then added that humans had the ability to be creative which machines do not. I think this is a defining difference between humans and machines. Humans are not just machines.

blog 1

first of all i would like to say that the movies are very educational. on the topic of if we are machines, i say we are machines, but we wouldnt call ourselves machines. if cars could talk and such they wouldnt call themselves machines. furthermore, the body is a machine! the brain however is the reason why people would argue if we are actually machines because of our ability to think and reason.

Are we just machines?

As I stated in class, I do believe that we are one large machine made up of a combination of little machines. Every single part of our body is made up of a molecular machine and I challenge you to name one part of the body which is not. The topics of emotion and free will were brought up in class, yet emotions are felt because of biological processes, because of reactions that occur within the brain. If those machines didn't work the way they do, we would fail to show any emotion or mental response. The free will topic is a little harder to discuss because the term is so broad, but again I would argue that these cognitive decisions and the ability to choose among them is made possible by the molecular machines in our brains. Without the nerve ending in our brains which send signals to each other and provoke certain emotions we wouldn't have the ability to make decisions. Finally, I also mentioned in class that humans have the sole biological purpose of reproducing. I'm not arguing that humans are forced too or don't have other goals, such as obtaining a job or marrying, but we are biologically rigged to reproduce and pass on our genes to the next generation.

I agree that the processes seem highly complex. Though I've learned many of these molecules' individual functions before in biology courses, I still don't know many of the intricacies of their interactions with other molecules within a cell. Also, I'm interested in understanding the processes involved in "harnessing" these complex interactions (that were demonstrated in the videos) for product design inspiration in the business world. The videos are also helpful because I'm very much a visual learner. Earlier this year in BIO112, our class watched a video clip of kinesin "walking" along a microtubule. Before then, the only mental image of this process I possessed was a cartoon-like model from a textbook. It's wonderful to come that one step closer to fathoming (at least visually) how molecules move inside an organism. I enjoy reading and listening to lectures about the functions of "molecular machines," but I believe these videos make the subject--mitosis, meiosis, transport, and general molecular movement--so much easier not only to learn, but also to visualize and retain.

The videos gave a great visual demonstration to the aspects of a cell which are usually just read about in biology. I had no idea how cells have so much movement and chaos. I cannot fathom that the clips of the "molecular machines", such as a ribosome forming a protein, are in reality moving many times faster and simultaneously with other molecular machines.

These movies gave a great demonstration of what actually happens inside of the cell. I do not normally get to see how the "molecular machines" operate inside of the cell, and these movies showed that the organelles don't just stay in one place. Some parts of the videos were great reviews, like the stages of mitosis, and how cell division works. I hope to understand more of what I saw in these videos by the end of the year, because right now, they look like they were clips from a Star Wars movie.

While much of the videos were way over my head, they were excellent tools for demonstrating the mechanisms that perform the complex operations essential to the cell being alive, and therefore that keep us alive. I was amazed by how seamlessly the cell functions despite the intense coordination that simple processes require. I'm curious to know - although I don't think I'd ever be able to really comprehend - the scale of a person's steps compared to the "steps" of the molecular machine carrying the mitochondria. The videos are definitely eye opening to all that's happening all the time beyond what meets the eye.

I also thought that the videos were very complex, although at the same time they presented the cell structures and functions in a very unique way. The 3D images and dramatic "camera work" really show how these cell parts are machines and work together in a brilliantly complex system. Text books and conventional animations do not convey the intricacy of these processes in such an understandable way and certainly are not as interesting to watch. I found myself staring at the videos completely captivated with intrigue, especially the ones with music. Overall I enjoyed the videos and look forward to seeing more.

Videos

I thought the videos were very interesting, but very complex. I'm very used to learning about the processes within the cell through textbooks and two dimensional figures, and it was very different seeing it in a three-dimensional sense. The most interesting part was the mitochondria, which literally looked like a miniature animal crawling along a string. Another aspect the videos covered was the interconnectedness that occurs within the cell. Each part of the cell is dependent on every other part, a concept I failed to understand when previously learnign about the cell. Originally, I learned each part has a unique role and sat in the same place in the cell. The video also did a great job showing that every part of the cell is constantly moving, and organelles are running into each other. Overall, the videos were a strong visual aid, and I hope we continue to view many more.