On the alteration of man...

In a world that is becoming more and more artificial, where do we draw the line? Nowadays, even the idea of artificial manipulation of human genes is not unheard of. It is not too crazy of a vision that one day, humans can be perfect or near perfect. It is nevertheless a chilling, sci-fi sounding thought: that perhaps in the future, our parents can determine what we grow up to look like, everyone could be created to look beautiful, we would not have to worry about diseases or terminal illnesses, we could use our brain to its fullest capacity, we could be created with specific abilities (whether it be athletic, musical, etc.). It is only a matter of time before we can no longer suppress our urge to be better, to surpass natural design, to become a better race. Why is this a bad idea? Why would we not want to improve the human species? Why would we not want to become stronger, smarter, healthier?

            Transhumanism is a movement supporting the possibility of fundamentally altering humans through technologies in order to eliminate aging, enhance intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities. The idea is to overcome fundamental human limitations and basically create a superior species with expanded abilities. This idea has been growing in popularity and gaining more attention within the past few years once people realized this was actually a feasible idea. The appeal of it stems from our desire to constantly become better. Why should we settle for what we are when we can be something better? This idea of creating a better human becomes more and more tempting to us. We as a race are gifted with our talent to alter and manipulate what is around us in order to survive or live better/easier. Why should we draw the line when it comes to altering us as humans?

            “In a sense, the goal toward which humanity has been striving for millennia has been to liberate ourselves from more and more of our ancestors’ biological constraints” (Bailey 1). Through transhumanism, we can rid ourselves of harmful diseases and illnesses that have no known cure at the moment. We can make people less vulnerable, maybe even give back natural movement to people who have lost limbs. However, critics are wary of even this idea as some debate whether or not this is moral. Should we be allowed to design genes we are not born with in order to allow us to function in ways that we could never have functioned naturally?

            Through this idea of transhumanism, the issue of individuality, personality, and what makes us, us arises. Would altering our brains to make better use of it change who we are as a person? Could we eventually come to a point in which it is not unheard of to have memory chips implanted in our brains? In my opinion, I think a person develops who they are as an individual through experiences. Perfecting the mechanical and functioning aspect of the brain should have no effect on what we have experienced, our memories, our perception of the world. Therefore, the part of our brain that controls our feelings and personality would remain unscathed. In addition, the human brain is a complex and often inexplicable organ. Although fundamentally made up of cells and electrical firings, the way it is all fit together dictates how each particular brain will function. The human brain is one of the greatest achievements of nature/evolution, impossible to replicate.

            Although there are legitimate reasons to fear this form of advancement such as possible enslavement of “inferior humans” and inequality, ultimately, I feel if this type of advancement were to occur, it will be inevitable. Fukuyama also brings up a good point that if we start transforming ourselves into something superior, these enhanced creatures may feel entitled to more rights compared to those who haven’t been modified. This poses an issue of equality on an even larger scale because there are entire nations that cannot afford the technology to make these modifications. Bioethicists such as George Annas, Lori Andrews, and Rosario Isasi hold more extreme beliefs of what may happen when we create a new species; the “posthumans” will likely view the normal humans as inferior, even savages, and fit for slavery or slaugher while the normal humans may see the “posthumans” as a threat and attempt to kill them before they themselves are killed or enslaved. In my opinion however, because of society, humans should be used to political and moral principles that apply and we should not worry that posthumans will upset this balance.

            Although the idea of transhumanism is radical and perhaps even scary at this time, I believe that it can ultimately benefit humanity and society. If we have the ability to make ourselves better and more suited for this changing world, why not do it? “The human race is a pretty sorry mess with stubborn diseases, physical limitations, and short lives. Throw in humanity’s jealousies, violence, and constant anxieties, the transhumanist project begins to look down right reasonable” (Fukuyama). We as humans constantly strive to become better and continue to research developments that can benefit the society as a whole. We have been manipulating our surroundings and liberating ourselves from our biological constraints since the beginning of the species. It would almost be irresponsible for us to ignore possible technological progress and rule this idea out based on fear alone. We are destined to continue moving forward as a species and this change seems almost inevitable at the moment. The only question is when it will happen. 

The Americanization of Everything

Although we do not realize it on a daily basis, our lives today depend/revolve around major corporations and chains. In an average, suburban town, it is not unusual to drive by multiple McDonald’s stores and several Starbucks Coffee houses. This is not only happening in America, globalization, an increase in interconnected and interdependent nature of communication systems, economies, cultures, and politics of contemporary societies, is occurring in foreign countries across the world. McDonald’s stores have even sprung up in Havana, Cuba. While globalization seems like a good idea to some because of the extended wealth and products that will be available to more people, increased living standards, and shared values worldwide, it also evokes much criticism and doubt. Perhaps we as a world are becoming too “Americanized”.

            I am a first generation American born to Chinese immigrant parents. Living in the United States has almost entirely disintegrated my Chinese roots and culture. Although my parents are very traditional in their upbringing of my brother and I, because we interact with other Americans everyday and growing up in an extremely American suburb (Milford, Connecticut), we have inevitably adopted an almost entirely American set of values. This is what people refer to as Americanization. Apparently, because the United States is such a dominant and influential world power, the world is becoming westernized and homogenized.

            However prevalent America and the West have become in the world, I do not believe the world will become homogenized. This summer when I went to Beijing, China for the first time in my life, I didn’t know what to expect. I thought I would see people dressing in the same brands and fashions as in America. Instead, I got off the plane and couldn’t find one person wearing a Hollister or Abercrombie shirt. Much of the clothing they were wearing were either brandless or from an Asian company. It surprised me to see that as “cool” and “modern” as we Americans seem to other countries, people in Beijing had their own fashion and style. I saw styles of clothing I have never encountered in America. This shows that however prominent the West becomes in the world and no matter how much influence it may exert, people will never truly lose the sense of their own background. There will always be something unique to their culture that they will be proud of and cling to.

            As long as countries don’t lose their sense of identity and uniqueness, I do not see why Americanization is a bad thing. If other countries can pick out the good parts of America to utilize them in their own societies, shouldn’t that be a good thing? Being more like America in some aspects, can unite the world and create a better understanding of ourselves as a whole and not separate, unreachable countries. 

Laptops in class? Blasphemy! or perhaps not? Should we be more open to incorporating technology into education?

All my life, the only type of class/classroom I was used to would be that of a traditional lecture. The teacher would prepare a lesson or a Powerpoint and stand in front of the class copying down the notes from her notebook onto the blackboard behind her or reading off slides projected onto a screen while the students would try to copy down everything she says and writes on the board. Recently though, due to the rapid rise of technology and use of the internet, we start to ask ourselves if this traditional style of teaching really is the most efficient and effective. Now, in more and more classes (mainly in college), students are allowed to bring their laptops and tablets into class to take notes or view the daily agenda of the class. Could allowing the use of technology and laptops in the classroom enhance the learning that takes place there? Some experts and companies encourage the development of online classes as a substitute for traditional classrooms arguing that it is innovation and that it provides low cost, but high quality education. Still others argue that the best kind of learning takes place inside a traditional lecture/seminar style class where no technology is allowed. These advocates for traditional classrooms are mainly concerned with students getting distracted in class/distracting others who prefer taking notes with pen and paper and also losing the sense of classroom community and the connection between students and teacher.

            Today, in a consistently improving and progressing world, is it possible to continue living in the past? Is it practical for us to ignore innovation and remain confined by methods that have worked in the past while stopping our quest to find more efficient ways of doing the same thing? I feel as though stalwart opponents of bringing technology into the classroom are, in addition to avoiding the problems it may bring, also preventing possible advancements. Timothy Snyder, a professor at Yale, is a strong opponent of letting students bring laptops to class. He argues that students will develop the habit of being easily distracted and it will spill into the workplace. He says that students who want to take notes become distracted by the call of social networking sites or catching up on the newest episode of their favorite TV show. In addition, students who bring laptops to class become a distraction for the students who are trying to take notes using pen and paper. “The ability of one human being to reach another by speech s an irreplaceable part of what it means to be human. In seminars, laptops are still more harmful serving as physical barriers that prevent a group of students from becoming a class” (Snyder). I can understand this concern as it does become difficult to engage a class while everyone is on their laptops doing something different.

            By limiting the use of technology in lesson plans, teachers also hinder possible student interaction and critique. Cathy Davidson, a professor at Duke University, through comparing her students’ writings on their blog and their traditional written papers, discovered that the writings they had to post on their blogs were considerably better than their papers. “Research indicates that, at every age level, people take their writing more seriously when it will be evaluated by peers than when it is to be judged by teachers” (Davidson). She also noticed that incorporating technology (iPods) actually promoted connection amongst the students. They figured out themselves ways to turn iPods into social media to actually enhance their learning. For example, in the music department, the students uploaded their compositions to their iPods so their classmates could listen and critique. Letting students discover creative uses for technology will enhance their learning, promote their creativity, and motivate them making them eager to learn. 

            In conclusion, although there are two valid, opposing sides for the issue of whether or not technology should be incorporated more into education and the classroom, I think there are obvious benefits to using technology to enhance learning. We should not be afraid to stray from the traditional classroom style of teaching and try a different approach that may work better. The amount of information and possibilities on the internet is so vast and there is so much potential for it if we utilize it in the correct way. Ultimately, I think that students should be allowed to use laptops in class. If they can take advantage of the information and tools, good for them. If they cannot exercise self control and get distracted, it is their loss but just because it may not be a good idea for certain students does not make it automatically detrimental to all students.

Learning from video games? contradictory much?

            I remember when I was in elementary school, my parents bought my brother and I an Xbox for Christmas. They also bought us our very first video game, which was Halo. Back then, video games and gaming systems were often considered luxuries/accessories that most parents didn’t feel was necessary to buy for their children. My brother and I were so excited to own a gaming system and once we told our friends, they would want to come over every week to play. Since then, video games have been consistently rising in popularity. Today, 90% of American children and teens play video games and the typical child plays an average of 2 hours of video games per day (Prot, McDonald, Anderson, Gentile). I think video games appeal to people for many reasons. Video games are consistent and fair. There are set rules and there is little you can do to cheat and get around them. This is pleasing to players because we like to feel in control. Also, advancing to the next level or beating a game always gives me a sense of achievement. Especially if I was having a bad day at school, things were troubling me, or I felt like I couldn’t do anything right, video games would offer solace and give me a sense of pride. I know, sad life. Because of the consistent rise in the popularity of video games, there has been much debate about the potentially harmful and beneficial effects of video games. Some scholars argue that video games encourage violent behavior, emotional numbing, and also distracts students from school work. Others believe that video games, especially educational or pro-social video games, enhance empathy, promote helping behavior, teach us how to collaborate and problem solve. In my opinion, video games may have completely different effects on different people based on each circumstance. Yes, it is very possible they can negatively affect us but there are also things we can learn from video games and ways we can benefit from playing them.

            Some scholars use the social learning theory to argue that video games, especially violent ones, encourages violent behavior because they make children prone to suggestion, especially since they are actively participating in the game and not just watching it like in a movie. And some people believe that even though video games may have a miniscule effect on one child, small effects can add up changing the behavior of an entire society. However, Christopher J. Ferguson, a clinical psychologist, tells us to let go of claims about the danger of video games because they are ideological and not data-based and harm the integrity of the scientific community. Another possible effect of playing violent video games, researchers argue, is that it can cause emotional numbing; in other words, children will be so used to seeing and participating in violent acts through video games that if they were to encounter something like that in real life, they wouldn’t react or think it was a big deal. In my opinion, this does not make sense. Unless the child has some sort of mental disorder in which he/she has a hard time differentiating between reality and fantasy, such as schizophrenia, it would be difficult to lose the ability to feel scared or react to a real, threatening situation. There is also apparently a negative relation between the amount of time a child spends playing video games and their school performance. Gamers spend 30% less time reading and 34% less time doing homework. This I do agree with. It becomes difficult to focus and prioritize when you are preoccupied doing something that you feel you would rather spend time doing. There is only 24 hours in a day and the more time you spend playing video games, the less time you have available to study. However, I believe that this is only an issue of self control and discipline; performing badly in school should not be a problem if the child knows self restraint. In a way, playing video games will force the child to learn how to manage his/her own time in order to allow time to study and to play video games.

                 Video games, when indulged in in moderation, can benefit us as well; it increases brain function, boosts creativity, perception, and cognition. From acquiring these skills from video games, we are able to apply them to real life tasks through a process called broad transfer. Video games also teach you a lot about strategy and planning. In almost every video game, you must figure out a specific plan and know how to communicate it effectively with your teammates who might also be playing with you toward the same goal. I remember when I used to play video games with my brother when I was younger, I would get easily frustrated when we couldn’t beat a level. Video games taught me to be patient, set goals, and accept challenges. Video games also force us to develop problem solving skills in order to advance through the levels. When you play multiplayer video games with friends, it helps enhance your collaboration skills and teaches you how to work effectively with another person. Through video games, I have also learned to always be on guard in new situations. Unexpected things can happen in a new, unfamiliar level that can cause you to lose a life and return to the previous checkpoint but that only conditions you to be actively observing and helps you develop the ability to act quickly.

            In conclusion, I think that video games affect everyone differently and it is unfair to generalize over an entire population that video games are harmful. Children with exhibited violent tendencies or mental disorders should be discouraged from playing video games but I think in normal situations and in moderation, video games can actually teach us things and we can benefit from the skills we can acquire from playing video games.