HIV

Here's an awesome map of people living with HIV, circa 2007.

http://data.unaids.org/pub/GlobalReport/2008/GR08_2007_HIVPrevWallMap_GR08_en.jpg

"The Other Tibet"

Please click on the following link to National Geographic and read the article titled, "The Other Tibet." Please come to class prepared to discuss the article on Friday. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/12/uygurs/teague-text

Photos of Kashgar

Awesome slideshow of Kashgar.

Response to Obama at West Point

When I saw how long this speech was, I thought that I would be bored watching it. I was happy when I realized my assumption was wrong because once Obama started talking, I wanted to listen. I loved how Obama started his speech with a basic summary of how we got in Afghanistan in the first place. I think this is so good because it makes it easy for Americans to understand why he made his decision. I also loved how Obama was very respectful towards the troops who are and will be fighting. I liked the line: “As your commander in chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined and worthy of your service”. It made me feel confident that Obama put enough thought into his decision and that it is truly the right decision. I also really loved how Obama recognized the American people and honestly gave his sympathy towards the families of those who are serving. It made me smile when Obama stated: “"As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars”. I think that is so admirable. The speech overall kept my attention, and was easy to understand.
When Obama stated that our troops would be out in 18 months, I was in such a trance of watching this video that I automatically wanted to believe him. Part of me still does, but the other part of me is being realistic and wonders if 18 months is enough time to actually resolve the complex situation in Afghanistan. As intelligent I think Obama is, I have to take what he says with a grain of salt because we have seen throughout the past that leaders do not always keep their word. Although I do not fully believe our troops will be out within 18 months, I do believe that Obama will take them about as soon as it is safe, and possible.
As difficult as it would be, I would support a “war tax”. As I realize the economy is not doing well and most are already financially struggling, our country needs us. It is clear that our country is in much debt and can not afford much. As no one really likes war, we need to finish what we started. If we pay an extra tax to help the war effort, it can only help to end the war quicker, so we can be done and focus more on our own issues back here in America.

Obama at West Point

Watch Obama's speech at West Point and respond to the following: 1. what was your general reaction to the speech? 2. Do you think troops will really be out in 18 months? 3. Would you support a "war tax" to help pay for the costs of the war?

Response to Obama speech

I really liked this speech, if for nothing else except for the lovely silence of the audience. While Obama made his health care speech, it was interrupted at least every 15 seconds with applause, and it was nice to hear him talk, uninterrupted, for such a long time as he did. I also liked the way he said Taliban ;), even though he pronounces it correctly, I guess I'm just not used to hearing it that way. Anyways, I support Obama's decision to send the 30,000 more troops to the area to train the Afghan police force, yet it is nowhere near enough. General McChrystal just upped the ante in October, increasing his request to over 60,000 troops, with 40,000 as the absolute minimum. As the general responsible for Afghanistan, McChrystal is more of an expert on the situation than Obama, and while it may have been political suicide to accept McChrystal's request, the lives of our troops and the prosperity of our country should come before political self-preservation. Also, there was a lot of "me me me" in this speech, and yes, while the speech is about his decision, it should mostly reflect the views of the American people. It should not be a time to dispel rumors or brag about his actions in the past and how he's right. To say some good things, he is a very charismatic speaker, and actually looked at the camera (which was exciting!). I'm just also wondering how he can drive out al-Qaeda if he doesn't have Pakistan's permission to go in. I understand that he's calling in some favors, but I don't believe that it will be enough. We need more troops, plain and simple. Overhauling an entire country and chasing al-Qaeda and the Taliban across the Middle East will take more than the approximate 108,000 troops in Afghanistan.

UIGHURS!
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Han-vs-Uighur-Conflict-in-Western-China

Here is the entire video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrQ-VjOn_KQ

Check This Out!

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/09/photo_essay_who_are_the_uighurs?page=0,0

President Obama Holds "Town Hall" Meeting in Shanghai

Please click on the following link and watch the video of President Obama's speech in Shanghai. Please respond to the speech in one-two paragraphs.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/16/obama.china/index.html

Economist Readings Falling Baby Edition

"Fertility and Living Standards" p. 29
"Afghanistan's Election" p. 49
"China' Navy off Somalia" p. 50
Banyan: "India and China Row" p. 56

Chavez and Ahmadinejad

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1929256,00.html

Another good article:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1933498,00.html

Make Sure you Read the Last Paragraph

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114280811&ps=rs

Read This!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4031603.stm

Latest news on Potential Deal

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8327558.stm

Read before Simulation!

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1024/p02s02-usfp.html

response

This video completely stunned me. There were so many facts stated in such a short amount of time and each and every one is true; whether we like it or not. I too asked the following question brought up by Austin: “As humans become more dependent upon technology, what will the future look like?” After seeing this video how can we ask any question other than that? One of the main things that bothered me after seeing this video is the realization that education is becoming less and less valued and special to people. With each year that passes, more and more technology is replacing precious resources of knowledge and learning. One of the most prominent examples of this is that students are hardly ever using books or encyclopedias anymore when doing research; they instead head straight to a computer and go to Google.com to look up the answer. I cannot deny it; I too am sometimes guilty of this, but I hope that people soon come to realize the importance of education and learning in every country and every culture. No matter what era someone is from, education should always be of the utmost importance. It needs to be respected and anyone, anywhere should have the opportunity to gain knowledge and learn things. Although technology has brought information to places that otherwise would not receive it, we must learn to control the amount of dependency that we place on things such as computers; they are only so reliable.

Response to Did you Know.

I have mixed feelings about this video. In one respect, I think its amazing that we have advanced so much in so little of a period of time, in another respect, this is kind of scary. To think that we have advanced this much so quickly can make one wonder about the sources of error present in the new technology. This concept kind of reminds me of anatomy class, when we talk about how if one cell regenerates at a constant rate there is less chance of mutation, but when it regenerates quickly, there is more chance of mutations which cause cancer in most cases. The case in which a common computer will soon be able to generate more than the entire human species is also a bit frightening as Kyle mentioned. But in response to this topic, technically we already have this capability, its called Google. Google brings together the intelligence of almost everyone from every part of the world, and this information is stored overtime, and added onto over generations. Although we haven’t had this luxury for long, it will continue to grow and expand as time goes on. So do we have a long way to go with technology? Yes, absolutely. But will we know when the point of no return is? When technology takes over? Probably not, but when you think about it, we have grown up and adapted to the present technology and will continue to do so, whether we’re ready for it or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHmwZ96_Gos

In response to Emily T.

I agree with Emily that it is totally bizarre for a robot to take care of a person, when since the beginning of time, humans took care of humans. Emily also brings up an interesting point about being exceeded by technology in your third year of college. Not only does it cost money to go back to college to be updated after working in a specific field for years, it also requires multiple trips back to college to be constantly updated on the new technology that will never cease to advance. Another good point she made was that technology could take your place. The way our economy has been declining lately with an unemployment increase of 4.1% since last year [1], the human race cannot afford to have the joobs taken by machines. To answer her question "Have we already gone too far with our technology?", I don't think so. Sure, technology has surpassed our highest expectations, but we are not yet at the point where we have robots that are running around doing jobs like delivering mail, serving in the police or even preparing food like a professional chef (like the movie I, Robot). However, the way we rely on technology today, from the simplest things like boiling water on the stove to the most far fetched of ideas like pens that help you solve math equations, is a little frightening, because like Emily said, what if technology fails and we have to rely on ourselves? The answer for most of us is terrifying. Lastly, I disagree with her very first sentence “…are becoming way too technologically advanced than we should be.”, but I agree more with the fact that humans are becoming way too technologically dependent than we should be.

[1] http://www.google.com/publicdatads=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&q=unemployment+rate

What I know, 3.0

Though some of the facts in this video are shocking, some of them are not too surprising at all. Everyone knows how large of a population both China and India have. Mentioning that the 25% of India’s population with the highest IQs exceeds America’s total population it didn’t really shock me, considering that there are almost 1.2 billion people living in India and only 300 million in the US. And so what if China becomes the number one English speaking country? For this to happen only a little over 20% of its population would have to speak English due to the massive amount of people in the country. What did surprise me though, as it did most other people, was the statement that “by 2049, a $1000 computer will exceed the computational abilities of the entire human species”. This was so surprising because currently most regular computers aren’t even that cheap and a computer of any price that will outsmart the entire human population has yet to be successfully created.
Technology throughout time, except for warfare, has been developed to make everyday tasks easier and more enjoyable. Inventions like the automobile, the telephone, and the computer, have helped to revolutionize society. Even smaller advancements like Velcro and the mechanical pencil have helped to improve people’s lives in one way or another. But what happens when the potential risk of danger in new technology outweighs its benefits? This is where I draw the line. For example, when a robot takes a doctors place, a patient’s life would be in the hands of this technological being. Technology malfunctions all the time, who’s to say that robotic doctors will never have any glitches? A simple glitch in this case would cost someone their life. Many new robots are stationed at military hospitals like the Brooke Army Medical Center in Texas. Here, a robot nicknamed “Chungbot” visits patients daily and allows Dr. Kevin Chung to monitor them from over 1,500 miles away with a computer and a joystick. Though Chungbot can only examine wounds, with information and technological developments increasing at an incomprehensible rate, it won’t be long before something like this robot will be able to operate on patients while being controlled by someone miles away. This is the type of technology that really frightens me. I have no doubt that robots might be able to eventually successfully complete a surgery with more precision than a human being, but I have enough distrust in my laptop to do the right job without any problems ever, never mind the distrust I have in a robot to complete surgeries without any even minor malfunctions. It is one thing when a doctor messes up and causes someone to lose their life, but it’s a completely different story when you throw a robot causing people to die in the mix.
So what does it all mean? It means that the world is growing rapidly, not just in population but in technology and information as well. How we decide to use this technology and information, and what limits we set, will determine the outcome of this increasingly concerning exponential growth.

Source:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/23/tech/main5260524.shtml

Did you know?

This video really took me by surprise due to the shocking aspects of some of the facts presented. The rapidness in which the world is increasing and the rate at which technology is advancing is almost scary. It is hard to imagine what our world will be like when there is a computer available to the general public that has the capabilities of computing more than the entire human species. By making greater technology available easier, I feel that the world will become more dangerous as more people will have the ability to do whatever they want. As technology advances the human species is becoming more and more dependent on the use of computers. This can clearly be seen through the use of Google as a search engine. In only 2006 the number of Google searches was at 2.7 billion per month. Currently this number has dramatically increased to 31 billion. The image that comes to my mind from this statement is similar to that seen in the movie IRobot where robots are created to assist the human species in making living easier. However the question is, when will the technology become so great that it will be able to control itself and destroy the human species completely? The accessibility of technology today is exponentially greater than 200 years ago where a man living in the 18th century came across less information than that which is presented in one weeks worth of the New York Times. So how much more advanced will things in 200 years from now be? when if ever will the advancement of technology come to an end? These ideas are almost impossible to imagine of what the human species will be capable of.

Another part of the video that i found to be amazing was how the United States isn't as superior of a nation as many people make it out to be. In the video it said, "China will soon become the number one english speaking country in the world, and that India's smartest 25% of its population consists of more people than the entire population of the United States. This really puts into perspective how other countries in the world are becoming greater powers and will eventually over take the United States as a global leader. I believe that eventually this continuous increase in the human population and advancements in technology are going to lead to mass chaos which will result in a global war having the majority of the human population killed. If nothing is done to control either of these than it is certain that the world will suffer due to it.

What does it all mean?

My first reaction to watching the video was: "oh my god, terminator". As humans become more dependent upon technology, what will the future look like? Perhaps we're discovering all our minds can handle and will soon make the switch to technological means to discover what the human mind simply can't handle. The video said that by 2013 there is the capability to have constructed a supercomputer that exceeds the human mind... First of all, how is that even possible, and secondly, why would we do that?!? As far as I know, all technological devices built by humans have some eventual roadblock since it is a product of the human mind, so it seems to me that the only way to have a supercomputer built that exceeds this boundary would be.. by another machine? But wouldn't this machine have its limits, as it was created by the human mind as well? It's all extremely confusing to me and if such a thing were to happen, just imagine the irony in humans making themselves obsolete to their own creations. Technology can also turn humans against each other, creating some conflict. For example, the video mentioned 694,000 songs being illegally downloaded during the course of the presentation. Lars Ulrich (drummer of super awesome band Metallica) had an experience with a large number of Metallica songs being downloaded illegally and this created some conflict in between humans. Sure, it's a pretty minor conflict when looking at the world.. but imagine the possibilities of larger conflicts resulting from the use of technology. Through the use of technology, it makes it so much easier to insult other people, and even fight them with technological weapons or tactics (IED's).

Speaking of humans becoming obsolete to their own creations, the video states that we are living in exponential times. The usage of "exponential times" should scare the hell out of us all, because when you look at exponential growth curves with any species on Earth, it has a seemingly steady rise in population then a very steep crash. Extinction. The carrying capacity of our planetary environment will surely soon be broken, and after that, there's no amount of realistic technology that could save the species.

This video means that humans are becoming victims to technology. I would think that the more technologically inclined a species is, then the more aware that species is of the outcome. Apparently not, which is probably why our militaries may likely be fighting over computers or, (like in terminator), possibly against machines in the future. All in all, this video really scared me and now I have a less-supportive view of expansion of technology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHmwZ96_Gos

What does it all mean?

Did you know 3.0 was quite jaw dropping with some of the facts that it presented. At first, I felt very positive about the facts being presented and was baffled at how amazing our technology is becoming and the changes over the last few years. As the presentation went on, I went from feeling baffled to a little nervous as the facts of the huge population growth was shown. Seeing how much our population across the globe is growing while in a time where we already are dealing with global warming threats scares me quite a bit. I simply do not know how the world is going to deal with so many people in such a fast amount of time. Though there is plenty of undeveloped land right now, we are on the verge on a water crisis and have already started an energy crisis. This means that something needs to be done, either stop the population growth somehow or find alternative ways to deal with it.
Another shocking fact was that more people in Asian countries speak english than in America. To me, this means that the world is becoming much more diverse, and that the one time racial barrier across the world is slowly diminishing. If everyone eventually speaks the same language, than it will be much easier for everyone to get along and interact. With everyone on the same page, great things will be much easier to accomplish. There is no denying the technology advances Japan and China have brought fourth, and if America and these countries could work hand in hand, even greater things can be accomplished.
The fact about how a computer that has the capabilitites of the brain will be developed within a few years scares me a little as will. If a machine is as capable as a human, it may put a lot of people out of jobs, and make more people useless. I feel like technology may be on the verge of too advanced for our time, and we may be headed towards a dangerous path. Obviously, the computer will not be a human with emotions and such, but if it can produce at the rate of a human in certain tasks, then surely companies will use those instead of expensive employees.
The facts about 25% of India having a smarter IQ than everyone in America didn't really bother me, because India is so massive it is not really an even playing field. Some other facts in the presentation were like that as well, when at first glance you are astounded, but then realize it is not that big a deal. The fact China will be the largest English speaking country in the world isn't that amazing because it has more than twice the population of the US.
The facts about people googling so much means that people have a lot of time on there hands to spend at the computer. With nearly every profession now providing a computer, workers spend quite a bit of time browsing the net, essentially wasting time. The question was posed, "who did people ask these questions to before google," and the answer is no one. Before the internet, people really didn't have much time to think about silly stuff they ask now. They spent there time working or focusing on other things, but now with technology so developed they don't need to work so hard, and have more time to pose "who won the 1932 world series" or something along that nature. Also, with the news now always online and much more accessible than newspaper, which is a dying breed, the internet gets a lot more use and searches as it is the number one news provider, when back in the past people had to wait each morning for the newspaper.
So all in all it means that we are growing too large as a society, becoming too technologically advanced for our own good, and need to slow it down a little. With all this brain power we should spend our time thinking of alternative energy solutions and not who is the next American Idol.


Did You Know? 3.0. YouTube.com, 8 Apr. 2009. Web. 13 Oct. 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHmwZ96_Gos.

Is it really that surprising?

At the start of this video, I was truly anxious about my future; the statistics presented are astonishing. One of the most surprising statistics was that technology is advancing so fast that by the 3^rd year of college, half of what tech students learned their 1^st year is irrelevant. Same is true with medicine; due to advances in pharmaceutics and surgery techniques, as well as robotic contraptions and other technological advances. This is crazy! It’s no surprise that medical students are constantly stressed: in addition to working in a stressful environment and competing against their peers, they also have to worry about competition from robots while maintaining current skills to match the new developments.

As I progressed through the video, however, I thought about if there was any need to be concerned. During the first decade of the 20^th century, significant inventions included color photography, vacuum cleaners, crayons, and instant coffee. Did people in the early 1900s completely lose their minds over inventions such as crayons? During the first decade of the 21^st century, notable inventions include hybrid cars, YouTube, multiple forms of birth control, date-rape drug detectors, iPods, and Segways. There is an incredible difference between the two centuries, and many of our contemporaries are unable to accept some of these advances.

When asked what this all means, I would have to say nothing. Change happens, as is evident in nearly every aspect of modern life. Upon the increased popularity of day care centers, people became concerned that this would negatively impact the family system. Although there is some truth to this statement, the overall benefits of having another working parent to contribute to the family income as well as increased socialization for the child potentially outweigh the negative aspects.

Society adapts to changing times, as seen by the different values shown by the various inventions. Society often has no control over technological discoveries. I see no end to the rapid growth of technology that infiltrates daily life, unless the entire world collectively decides to stop making any technological advancements and revert to a simpler time. This is a highly unlikely possibility, as countries currently compete to see who can make bigger, better nuclear weapons or smaller, faster computers. Is anyone truly surprised that people in India are striving for more educated children? Or that Americans are attempting to improve their social lives by adding most of the 2 million members of MySpace? It is human nature to make something "better", even if it is already of high quality. So while many people continue to crusade against modern technology for fear of it corrupting otherwise “good” humans, I believe we would benefit from taking a step back from the stress and appreciating the good intentions of the geniuses who are making these outrageous advances in modern technology.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHmwZ96_Gos

http://inventors.about.com/od/timelines/a/ModernInvention.htm

The video aptly entitled Did You Know? 3.0 outlines the major advancements in today's society with a focus on changes in social environment and technology over the recent years. The advancements made not only show the success of human culture but also reveal a frightening future. The exponentially increasing sophistication of technology without equal advancements in human understanding could lead to an extremely dangerous world. The video states that it is predicted that by 2049 a computer costing $1000 will exceed the computational abilities of the entire human species. This extraordinary prediction, were it to become a reality, could easily be used to further advance every field of science, from medicine development to space travel. However, if this technology is not closely monitored, and kept distinctly as a tool for humans to use, not as a machine to replace human input and thought, great problems are bound to follow. The idea of semi-sentient machines replacing humans has abounded for years in sci-fi novels and films, however plots that were once laughable are now not only becoming plausible but very likely to mirror human progress in the coming decades. In order for the human race as we know it to continue to exist alongside such marvelous technology key elements must be remembered, as more and more things become automated for sake of convenience and cost-cutting human input and control must preside over all matters of importance. The amount of technology that is used daily and depended upon by millions of people all over the world that did not exist five or ten years ago is astounding and as computers continue to progress advancements are made faster and faster. Without any sort world-wide plateauing of technological advancement, a infinitely high improbability, the only option is to create a more aware world that realizes the potential task-oriented technology has of rendering the human useless. Advances in technology have already shown that as soon as a machine is invented to automate even the most simple of tasks humans completely forgo learning to do the task manually, relying on the machine to do the work. If too many essential tasks are left completely up to machines what will happen to the world when a mechanical error or electronic virus hits the system? People already are at a loss of what to do when the internet, or even sites such as facebook, is down, what would happen if computer-controlled cars were to fail, or automated farms were to break down? Human kind cannot afford to allow itself to completely rely on technology, for as it is too few people could exist successfully without it. As technology advances, more human-controlled methods must be remembered and retained in order to prevent the creation of dystrophy in society.

What does it mean?

I was rather concerned by this video. As an American I was a bit worried by the news that other parts of the world are smarter and more prepared than us as a nation. I think that the government should watch this video and do something about the dire situation our country is facing if we continue to go down the road we are on. This information, coupled with the fact that we are being grossly out populated with countries like India and China makes me think we need to do something. Not necessarily an increase in population, but using the population we have to its full potential through education.
I was deeply troubled by the news that a supercomputer will be built in 2013 that will exceed the human brain in computational skills. In case this happens, I am personally preparing myself for a Terminator uprising. All jokes aside though, the news that new technology is advancing at such a rapid rate is quite troubling. If we continue to , better technology and network each other together, the human species will no longer be a necessary part of the planet and will cease to be. Technology will do all the thinking and work for us, and we will be replaced in the world by machines. The basic fact is that new and better technology is replacing hard work and skills that humans have depended on for millennia. For example, in the old days people would have to walk half a mile to the river, get water, chop down a tree, build a fire and heat the water for an hour just to take a bath. Now people get mad when the water pressure turns down in the shower. People are becoming lazy and relying more and more on machines to do their jobs for them. I'm not saying that all technology is bad, I'm just saying that people need to be able to work for things so that they can appreciate them when they get them. Hard work is the key to success in any endeavor, and people need to realize this.
So basically what i got out of this video is that unless we drop our dependence on technology and become more intelligent and educated as a nation, we are not looking at a very bright future.

what does it mean?

Watching that video was truly surprising. In a way it scares me to think how we are preparing for a future that we are still not 100% sure of. The statistic that stated that we were educating students for jobs that do not even exist yet truly baffles me [1]. I think the video was put out for everyone to take a step back and realize that we really need to start to prepare for the future better. It made me realize that America is not as big and as superior in technology as I thought before I watched the video. The shows great examples of how technology has changed over the years. For example, couples meet each other over the internet, Myspace has become a huge hit with over 200 million people signed up for the web page with the extremely interesting fact that if Myspace were its own country, it would be the 5th largest in the world [1]!!! Google has become increasingly important to many people as it has grown in the past 3 years, with an increase of searches to 31 billion, every month. What this video means, is that as the world gets bigger, with the huge amount of people that are coming into the world daily, we have to make a place in the world, as it will get more competitive for everyone to get a job in the future. We really should not specialize in one specific field, only to see what new kinds of jobs will be created in the near future. What would happen if we spent so many years in schooling to become specialized in one field, with only knowledge for that topic, and it is replaced with new technology? We are growing closer and closer to a future where we solely depend more and more on technology. How many of us can go without our cell phones, I-pods, or computers for a week? I know I certainly cannot. On a daily basis, we rely on technology to get us through the day. This is good and bad. It is bad because we are depending less and less on our common knowledge and imagination, and rely on computers and technology to do reports, retain information, and entertain us. Technology is certainly a great thing for everyone all over the world, we have solved so many problems, and helped so many people with technology, but we have also started to become "brain dead" almost. There are 31 billion searches on Google a month. What happened to the encyclopedia? Or going to the library to retain information through books? The video raised the great question, how did we function B.G (Before Google). It truly scares me, that although technology is great, we also are loosing our sense of humanity almost. We are not thinking for ourselves a lot of the time, we have to computer do that for us. Have a question? Text Cha- Cha. A Google-type device that you can text from your cell phone and receive an answer. I think that this is great, and at the same time, once again brings up my point of not being able to figure things out on our own.

Did You Know? 3.0. YouTube.com, 8 Apr. 2009. Web. 13 Oct. 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHmwZ96_Gos.

What DOES it mean?

Honestly, I thought almost every statistic was kind of cool, thinking that all that information was really interesting, and how amazingly fast we’ve advanced. That was until I saw the statistic about how by 2049, it is predicted a $1000 computer will exceed computational capabilities of a human being. At that point I just got really scared for the future, and realized that even though the video was certainly interesting, it isn’t really that cool. If we could survive before all these technological advances, I don’t understand why we need half of them. A few Fridays ago, I saw a movie in theaters called “Surrogates,” which was basically a futuristic sci-fi movie about how everyone has surrogates that looked 100 percent like a human, that they activate from their homes or work places, using their thoughts and brain power. That way, in the outside world, they can save themselves from being hurt. After seeing the movie, I thought about how our world would be if that came true eventually. Though I thought it might seem far-fetched now, it could be quite possible in the future. The New York Times posted an article July 15th of this year, titled, “Scientists Worry Machine May Outsmart Man.” The article discusses how if we let science take our society too far, we will lose self control. An example they gave was, computer viruses that no one can stop. That would be insane!? Past that even, consequences to computers outsmarting us could turn extremely dangerous. Another example from the article was a self-driving car. We are completely capable of driving cars every single day normally, so why would we need a self-driving one? Or, service robots at home. People honestly need robots to do their chores? All of these examples summed up pretty much sound like ways to rapidly increase laziness and decrease self-sufficiency. It sounds really convenient, but our world would be so incredibly boring. In 2003, BBC posted an article titled, “Have Scientists Gone Too Far?” and it was an article about embryonic cells. Just six years ago, the world thought science had gone past its limit by inventing an incredible way to “edit” cells. The movie Gattaca, from 1997, predicted this science by creating a movie where almost every parent got this “new science” and had children that were literally, perfect. This science, to me, is a blessing and a curse. The optimistic part about this invention is that, any “bad” cells, that could physically or mentally affect the child from living a stable life, could potentially be removed. However, how boring would the world be if everyone was the same? No one would ever be good at one thing – because everyone would be good at everything. That being said, this embryonic cell invention is just as bad as a robot, because rather than having a machine do things for you, you could do things for yourself.. perfectly. Boring. So what does this all mean? It means that science is amazing, and definitely technology is something that we all need, considering we have grown so accustomed to it. However, science can be taken too far. And, I think we should try and slow down the process, because we are risking are own lives if we don’t.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3040126.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html

It means that...

The quote that struck me the most and summed up the entire presentation is the phrase “We are living in exponential times.” That, in a nutshell, is the basis for everything that is happening. Humans are parasites and expand whenever and however we can. In China and India, populations have far, far surpassed those of every developed country on the planet and don't seem to be stopping anytime soon. I figure that Chinese and Indians will become experts at packing themselves on top of each other, then realize that other places are not nearly as crowded, and then maybe think twice about having that seventh child they'd been talking about for the past few months.

As a result of our technological boom, people are changing. Kids are becoming less and less patient, waiting to receive a text message from their boyfriend or girlfriend, or not wanting to rake a neighbor’s yard because it doesn’t pay enough money. There are many reasons why technology is exploding, and that is to make our lives easier. Cars, computers, cell phones…all of these were made with the promise of more relaxation for families in the future. However, there is danger in technology; it can replace the usefulness of humans. [1] What happens when we are no longer needed; how are we to function in society?

Technology is coming to the point of ridiculousness. The video claims that “…for students starting a 4-year technical degree, that means that half of what they learn in their first year of study will be outdated by their third year of study." It is now impractical to complete a technical degree, or delve into a technical field, without at least considering extra, constant training to update workers on the new ways of the world. I agree with Emily when she says that we will not be able to keep up with technology; it is a pretty grim future considering the lengths we will have to go to in order to stay informed and up-to-date with technology. It is interesting to consider what technology will be like in the future. In the recent past, many were hung up on the huge decision--Playstation 3 or XBox 360? Wii or unlimited texting? Either way, technology is on such a boom that sales have to go down eventually. Not everyone can purchase such expensive items in the span of less than a year. Technology is getting smaller and better in order to perform a function with compete ease that would have had humans scratching their heads for hours on end. I just wonder, and hope, that one day the exponential increase of technology will slow down and/or stop. What would a world be like where everyone was completely satisfied with what they already had? I wonder if there will ever be an existence like that, although I highly doubt it. Too much of the American and world mentality is focused on inventing and developing the "next big thing", and hey, maybe the world will eventually be like Disney predicted in Zenon the Zequal.

[1] http://www.bizhelp24.com/it/the-pros-and-cons-of-new-technology.html

So what does it all mean?

In my opinion, it means we, as the human race, are becoming way too technologically advanced than we should be. I do believe that in our modern world, technology is necessary, but we are beginning to go too far and we need to slow down. It is very scary to think of what we are capable of, and what we could accidentally create. According to the New York Times, scientists’ concern is that “further advances could create profound social disruptions and even have dangerous consequences”. For example, there are machines developed that try to diagnose and sympathize with sick patients! How can we allow technology to take care of us? If we become too dependent on technology, we will forget how to live without it! One in eight couples married last year met online! There are 31 billion searches on Google every month! What happens when we forget how to be resourceful and only depend on technology to find the answers? What if instead of technology depending on us to develop it, we depend on it to develop us? In the video, it said that because of the pace that we are acquiring new technology information, half of the information a student learns in their first year of a four year program is already outdated by the third year. If we keep moving at such an increasing pace, eventually no one will be able to keep up. This will cause even more issues because people will not be able to afford the necessary education and there will not be as many job opportunities because where humans were once needed, technology has taken their place. As I do think it is amazing what we have proven ourselves capable of creating with technology and love my internet and cell phone just as much as anyone else, I think we all need to realize that there needs to be some point where we draw the line.

My thought is, have we already reached that line? The idea that humans should be micro-chipped is coming out. Although no one has to adhere to this now, what if that changes in the future? According to Associated Content: “Realistically, we do need an organizational infra-structure in order to keep things....well...organized. Tagging store items is acceptable. Tagging people, however, is another issue altogether different.” I could not agree more with that statement, and although my point here is about technology as a whole, micro-chipping humans wraps together my point. My point is that we may have gone too far in our ideas and inventions for technology and if we do not slow it down, we are going to cause ourselves an even bigger problem, the problem being that we will depend on technology for our own survival. Some dependence on technology is inevitable, but it needs to be an amount that if technology failed we would still remember how to take care of ourselves without it. With that being said my thought comes back up again: have we already gone too far with our technology?

"Digital Angel - Is Technology Going Too Far? -." Associated Content - associatedcontent.com. Web. 10 Oct. 2009. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/184426/digital_angel_is_technology_going_too.html?cat=9.

"The New York Times Log In." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Web. 10 Oct. 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/science/26robot.html?_r=1.

Amnesty International--please join!

Thanks to Austin for creating this FB group--please join!

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=148009458603&ref=nf

Did You Know 3.0

Click on the following link, watch the short video, and respond the question, "so what does it all mean?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHmwZ96_Gos

Tonight's Homework

Please watch the 60 Minutes interview with General McChrystal and come to class prepared to discuss your reaction.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5345009n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

Racism in our country

After reading President Carter’s thoughts, I whole heartedly agreed with him when he said that the outbursts and rallies against the new President in the recent months all come from racism. President Carter has every right to be so angered by the recent outbursts (including signs of Obama being compared to Hitler) that whether intentional or not, offended many people in this country. Though it’s a sad thing to realize, I believe that it’s the truth; that peoples buried racism is surfacing due to the many critical decisions made or to come in the near future by a President with different colored skin than any President we’ve had before. When Senator Wilson of South Carolina so rudely yelled “You lie!” at President Obama, the people of the United States reacted in the way they should have. They were appalled that someone could have the nerve to disrespect the most esteemed and valued member of the US government. There are however the few who are glad that Wilson made the remark, Senator Knotts (for example) said the following; "Washington has been getting away with lies for too long....It's time we have people like Joe Wilson stand up," (Wall Street Journal). Without question, Senator Wilson’s action was the most impolite and offensive thing to ever do while in the presence of the President of this country. Though the public reacted in the correct way by scolding the Senator and supporting the President, it is necessary to realize that there are problems with our government and our politicians. More respect and enthusiasm is needed throughout the different branches of government, especially now at a time when crucial choices are made daily pertaining to national and international security issues. Though it was believed that the level of racism within the country has receded, it is now clear that many people’s true feelings are beginning to re-emerge causing them to verbally attack and insult members of other races. So many of our most important historical documents and verbal texts include the word “we”; in my eyes “we” means that for always and forever, no matter what race you are, you are an important member of this country and that is why I support and agree with President Carters beliefs on the subject.

Dade, Corey and Bendavid, Naftali. “ 'You Lie!' Jars Washington but Resonates Back Home.” September 2009. Wall Street Journal. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125258756088899359.html>

“Racism and President Obama - Do some people oppose Obama because he's black?.” September 2009. The Week.

"You lie" Outburst

There is no doubt that the action, by Senator Wilson on the floor of the Senate during President Obama's presentation was completely inappropriate and embarrassed not only the Republican Party and the institution, but also our country. Senator Wilson has formally apologized and shown distress over his outburst. He admits that he could have dealt with the issue with much more tact and grace. I personally believe the outburst was more on account of a difference of believe and of the controversy of the issue than of racism. Former President Jimmy Carter lived in an age where racism was still very much an issue. He witnessed animosities at their highest during the Montgomery Bus Boycotts and the sit-ins during the 1950s. Times have changed since then. People have changed since then. Jimmy Carter is acting on his knowledge of what life was like then, and what people would have acted upon at those times. Senator Wilson is of a different generation than President Carter. He has grown up with a more modern ideology. It is reasonable to consider racism prevalent because there is still some animosity; however there is evidence that levels of racism have actually dropped since Obama has taken office. His success during and after his presidency could lead to more respect and appreciation of the African American race. In any case, the public’s active response to this outburst has been reassuring as to the levels of racism in the country. Because everyone was so quick to condemn Senator Wilson, and come to the President’s defense, it is safe to assume the public realizes an injustice was served, and no one, especially the President of the United States, regardless of his race, deserves that kind of disrespect. I truly believe more respect toward the government overall is necessary. Obama in particular is the head of our country and represents all of us to the international community. Just like the teacher of a class of students once we begin to publically show our disrespect it permits others to do the same. Vice-President Joe Biden was quoted saying "I was embarrassed for the chamber and a Congress I love. It demeaned the institution." The people have the responsibility to ensure the government is the best representation of the populations by questioning motives and methods of dealing with issues. However, we must all take into account that with the position these people have assumed they take on a great deal of responsibility. They must account for information and factors the public may not have access to or be aware of. The public must trust to a certain degree that politicians make decisions based on what is right and what will benefit the people the most, not just on public opinion. We must all trust that President Obama truly has the good of the people in mind as he attempts to provide all citizens with healthcare.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32767813/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112714470
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Racism-Dropped-Since-Obama-Took-Office-104464.shtml

Response to Carter's Article

Unfortunately, I have to agree with former President Carter when he says that racism still exists in a lot of the country. It is unfortunate that the people of America cannot look at the fact that we have a President that is African American in a positive way. Our country is finally making a positive change in rights of all citizens, and yet a lot of whites believe that African American's are inferior to them, which makes our country look hypocritical when we say the Pledge of Allegiance. "For liberty and justice for ALL". All, would mean blacks and whites equal. Racism in America has been around for hundreds of years. Starting when Americans came to Jamestown, and a Dutch slave trader traded a ship of Africans for food in 1619 [1]. Throught the years, the idea of Africans as an inferior race in America escalated to the 20th century, when a social group called the Klu Klux Klan formed [2]. The KKK was formed in Tennessee in the winter of 1865-66. They later became known as the "Invincible Empire of the South" in 1867 [2]. The KKK terrorized African Americans all the way up the the 1950's, and although they do no terrorize African Americans physically today, they still have extreme hate toward African Americans. The idea of racism to our President is appalling. We chose this man to lead our country in the right direction, and people have such extreme prejudice towards this man for the color of his skin, that they cannot even give him a chance to make a change. I agree with former President Carter that many citizens are very prejudice and believe that they are inferior. To be honest, I would like to see these people who are racist towards Obama become President.

I feel that there is some racism being implemented on President Obama. It is evident that the rude outbursts during Obama’s speeches are due to either the fact that they disagree with his plans for the country, or that they truly have racist feelings for the president. Some see Obama’s universal healthcare system as totally impractical and unrealistic, hence the offensive comments and gestures. There is clear controversy over this matter and it is not unlikely that this provoked such disorderly conduct.

Yet studies show that ever since the 9/11 al qaeda terrorist attack on the World Trade centers, racism across the country has showed a drastic increase. This statement supports the possibility that the government officials are racist. It seems to me that if someone with such governmental influence were to act in such a admirable way, they would have strong racist feelings towards the president. If they were not to act out of conduct against what Obama was saying, it could be assumed that they would be able to control their disagreement with the president’s statements because they solely don’t agree with his beliefs, not that they are racist.

In today’s society, one doesn’t commonly encounter someone who is racist, however there still are many racist groups that exist such as the Ku Klux Klan. They preached the extermination of African Americans, because they believe that the white race is far more superior. Therefore, there is definitely a possibility that people outside of this group are racist, and prefer to express their negative feelings towards other races by being impolite during the president’s speeches.

When Senator Wilson shouted out during president Obama’s speech, Obama had just finished stating that his healthcare system would not cover illegal immigrants. Having said this, either Wilson didn’t like the fact that illegal immigrants would still get healthcare after the reform, or, that they will get healthcare, but they should not because he is racist. It could go either way, but normally if someone were to read an article on Wilson’s interruption, they would think he simply disagreed with Obama’s idea for healthcare not being given to illegal immigrants. Yet isn’t there more than one person who feels that illegal immigrants should not get free healthcare?

So is Carter right when he says racism is the reasoning behind discourteous comments and actions against Obama? Truth is, no one really knows because the answer could go either way. Yes, there is undeniably a chance that Carter is racist and created a disturbance during Obama’s speech because of this. However, being a senator means being open minded, so he must have gone into this job acknowledging the fact that there will be other authority figures of different ethnicities. Knowing this, there could have been no way for him to be racist; therefore, he merely disagreed with Obama’s healthcare system reform.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/165/racism#RacisminNorthAmerica

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAkkk.htm

http://www.freep.com/article/20090924/NEWS15/90924070/1008/NEWS06/-You-lie--shouter-to-stump-Oct.-2-in-Jackson

Response to Carter Article

I agree with former president Carter when he says that, “racism inclination still exists”. America was built on the backs of African-American slaves who were considered to be below the caucasian race. These racist views have carried on throughout the history of America as seen with the Jim Crow Laws, and Segregation in the early 1900’s and they are still present in todays society. I do not, however, agree with Carter when he says that, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American,". I do not believe that when Senator Joe Wilson shouted, “You Lie” during President Obama’s Speech on health-care reform that it was based off of racism. Although he interjected in an unorthodox way, his statement was not rooted in racism but rather his disagreement with the policy in itself. The animosity shown towards Obama is not from the color of his skin, but rather a difference in opinion based off of a political party. Many republicans, like Joe Wilson, do not agree with the comments made from President Obama concerning illegal immigrants not being eligible for health care, and though it is their right to disagree with the Presidents policies, it should have been done so in a more respectful manner. Obama is the head of State, the leader of our country and he should certainly be treated with the upmost respect from all parties in agreement or disagreement with his policies.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, also disapproves of the statements made by former President Carter on racism toward President Barack Obama. Issued in a statement on the subject Gibbs stated that, “The president does not believe that criticism comes based on the color of his skin. We understand that people have disagreements with some of the decisions that we’ve made and some of the extraordinary actions that had to be undertaken by both this administration and previous administrations to stabilize our financial system, to ensure viability of our domestic auto industry.” Furthermore, the President has accepted Senator Joe Wilson’s apology for his outburst at the joint session of Congress.

It would be a lie to say that racist views are non existent, but that does not mean that America has not come a long way from the extreme racism of the past. The election of the First African-American President Obama is evidence of this statement. Senator Joe Wilson’s comment to Barack Obama was very brusque, but it was certainly not one based off of racist views like former President Carter would seem to think. The comment was rooted from the difference in political party and their political views on an issue.

"White House Deflects Charges of Racism Leveled at Opponents - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com." Politics and Government - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com. Web. 26 Sept. 2009. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/white-house-deflects-charges-of-racism-leveled-at-opponents/?scp=4&sq=obama%20on%20racism&st=cse

"'You Lie!' Jars Washington but Resonates Back Home - WSJ.com." Business News & Financial News - The Wall Street Journal - WSJ.com. Web. 26 Sept. 2009. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125258756088899359.html.

Ms Field Loves Her IR Class

I am so proud of everyone for an excellent day of debate! Well done. IR I students are really getting the hang of things and are learning to be critical and go after others in a forceful, but diplomatic, manner. I love reading the chats--so much work is going into these working papers and draft resolutions. Thank you to all IR II students for their support of first year students. I can't wait until Monday to resume debate!

Responce to Carter article

I agree with Carter’s statement about racial inclination in regards to the President. Racial prejudice has been present since the creation of the United States of America and has continued to be a problem; clearly this racism is not going to end on a whim because the current president happens to be African American. Over the course of President Obama’s time in office and during his presidential campaign, there have been many statements and judgments made about his race and his ability to run our country in the correct way in order to benefit our people. But does his skin color really alter his ability to run our government in any way different than that of our other former presidents and political leaders?
It may be that Obama’s administration is “playing the race card... from the bottom of the deck." But it is not for sympathy. There is no way to deny that Obama has received a lack of respect from many people of the country, but is it really any worse than the criticism that Bush received as president? Or for that matter almost every other president. Obama has only begun to implement and achieve the goals he is looking to accomplish during his term, so why be so tough on him now? We do have his as the leader of our country for the next three and a half years and he has done a very good job in keeping his promises regarding health care and the war in Iraq. I believe, that the conflicts that have arisen in the past 8 months, were not solely the fault of Obama’s choices, but more so the disagreements between our top political parties. This was shown during Obama’s speech when South Carolina’s senator had the audacity to yell. “you lie” to the president. Thanks to his outbreak, I am given the perfect example to show the lack of respect towards the president these days.
But the truth is, is that our people, the people of the US, are the ones that voted him as president. Regardless of who personally voted for who, the fact is that the majority of the people in our country voted for, to be blunt, a black man. This only shows one thing, how far our country has actually come since the creation, since the time when each white plantation owner owned dozens of slaves, since the people of country were not able to sit together on a public bus, and since it was absolutely unheard of to assume that an African American man would be voted, by all American citizens, as President of our country.
There is no doubt in my mind that it will take a far longer amount of time to overcome racism and there is no guarantee that all racial ties will ever be cut.

Frank Harris III. (2009, September 17). A CLEAR LINE BETWEEN OPPOSITION AND DISRESPECT. Hartford Courant,A.19. Retrieved September 25, 2009, from Hartford Courant. (Document ID: 1861029511).Eugene Robinson. (2009, September 18). The Favor Jimmy Carter Did Us All. The Washington Post,p. A.25. Retrieved September 25, 2009, from Northeastern Newspapers. (Document ID: 1861361191).

Racism and Obama Presidency

Former president Jimmy Carter's stated this month, "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president" in reference to racist attitudes regarding Obama's presidency.

There is certainly a possibility that Obama's presidency faces racist opposition. All presidencies face opposition for one reason or another. However, I personally feel that society today likes to pull out the "race card" way to much. Whenever, there is some kind of problem in society a lot of people like to blame their race or the race of others for it.

For example, a lot of African Americans are quick to say that the reason they were stopped by a police officer, or turned down for a job is because of their race. In some circumstances, this may be true, however certainly not in all of them. Caucasian people are not exempt from this either. A lot of white colored people like to complain about "reverse discrimination." For example, giving African American's special scholarships for college some whites feel is unfair because there are no special scholarships just for them.

What I am really trying to get at, is that racism is an easy answer to a problem because it is something that had been around since humanity has been in existence and thus is one that everyone understands and most can even relate to on a personal level. While I do believe that there are those people out there who think that Obama shouldn't be President just because he is black, I also believe that society as a whole is slowly growing more tolerant, especially the younger generation. This can be seen in our very own school. A club like GSA (Gay, Straight Alliance) would not have enacted or even allowed fifty or even twenty years ago. Now, it has formed, has members, and is respected by the faculty and student body. Why? Because most people are starting to not care about sexual preference differences. The same I believe is true for racial differences. Overall, I believe most of society is accepting to a black president and the reason there is controversy is because the media during the campaign and now have emphasized the fact that he is “The FIRST black president" just to gain more viewers and to write a better story.

So, then the question becomes, " If its not racism, than why is there animosity toward Obama?" The same reason that there is animosity toward any president. He's the opposite political party that that person supports. Or there could have been a decision he made that some people might not agree with. Or maybe its just because hes just not a good speech maker (*cough* George Bush *cough*) <-- (No Offensive Republicans) Either way, there are numerous reasons that a person does or does not like a President and I think we and everyone else should start thinking about those reasons instead of simply throwing the race card around just to make a good news story.

Works Cited
http://thefuturebuzz.com/2009/01/02/gen-y-observations/

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/stephen_a_smith/20070201_Stephen_A__Smith____Using_racism_as_an_excuse_.html
http://www.theaquarian.com/2009/09/22/reality-check-the-race-illusion-jimmy-carter%E2%80%99s-insult-as-excuse-making/

Response to Carter article

Carter’s statements are not unfounded. The United States does have a history of racism towards minorities. Just over 150 years ago African-Americans were used as slaves. (Franke-Ruta) It is not improbable to believe that people take President Obama less seriously and insult him because he is African-American. However I believe there has been an overall decrease in manners and respect for the position of president within the United States. George Bush was ridiculed and showed as much disrespect as Obama, if not more due to his problems with the word nuclear and heavy southern drawl. And while noone ever stood up and yelled “You Lie,” just as many Democrats and Republicans twittered, facebooked, and texted during his addresses. (Gavin) Before Nixon’s administration, the presidency held a certain respect that no long exists today. When Nixon disrespected the American people by lying to them in a number of scandals, they lost respect for him. And by seeing that the position could be so easily ethically abused, many people lost respect for the institution.
Another possible cause of the American people’s disrespect for President Obama is the tension filled line between the Democrats and Republicans. The animosity has become so intense on both sides that as harsh as the Republican’s criticism of Obama is, the Democrat’s criticism of President Bush was equally harsh. Bill O’Reilly, of the extremely conservative Fox News Network constantly mocks Obama. On the other hand, Rachel Maddow who has a show on the very liberal MSNBC claimed she was insulted and embarrassed by Bush. (Shea) I believe that no matter what color the president is, as long as he is a Democrat, the Republicans will criticize him, and vice versa.
Another possible reason for the disrespect for Obama is the situation that the United States is in right now. We are in the middle of a financial crisis, two violent conflicts, and strained relations with other countries such as North Korea and Iran. In crisis, everyone tends to blame an authority figure, no matter who he or she is. To be fair, Obama did not cause the solution, he inherited it. It is possible that many people still blame him for not fixing the situation sooner.
There are many factors that account for the animosity towards President Obama. Race is certainly one of them. However it is certainly not the only factor, because there are plenty of people of many races that dislike, and like, Obama. An overall loss of respect for the position of President, tension between the two parties, and the current situation in America also contribute to his poor approval ratings.

Works Cited
Franke-Ruta, Garance. Carter Cites "Racism Inclination" in animosity towards Obama. 15 September 2009. 24 September 2009 .
Gavin, Patrick. The 10 Most influential D.C.Twitterers. 23 Feburary 2009. 24 September 2009 .
Shea, Danny. Rachel Maddow on Daily Show, "Insulted" "Embaressed" by Bush. 8 January 2009. 24 September 2009 .

Gadhafi is a Lunatic

You have to listen to Gadhafi's speech in front of the United Nations! Here is the link: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/09/un_gadhafi_call_it_terror_coun.html

response to margo

In response to Margo’s post, I disagree when you say; “We, along with other animals, have violence as a built-in instinct,” or “war would always exist because it is human nature.” Though the first statement is true for some creatures, I don’t believe that violence is a built-in or pre-existing instinct for all people. There are many different opinions about this topic but it is my understanding that everything a person grows up to be and what they do comes from the environment they grew up in and the experiences they had while a child or young adult.

I am in agreement that sometimes war is the only logical choice and sometimes it cannot be avoided. But that doesn’t mean that everyone grows up with violence as the thing to revert to when something goes wrong. I think that it may have just been the way you phrased this sentence, but when reading it, it seems as if you’re justifying some acts of violence by using the idea that we’re born with it in us. Violence should be something that is reverted to ONLY when a person has no other options what-so-ever. This is sadly not always the case and some world leaders unfortunately always turn to violence and inflict harm as their first action. But in these cases I have to believe that their damaging ways come from people’s bad influences and bad examples, not from a pre-existing idea that they were born with.

I agree with everything else you said though, about the nature of war and the superiority idea that starts it all. I especially support the fact that “Often, war is not two-sided; if it was, both would attack each other in tandem.”

You! All of You!

All of you are so wonderful and answered the What is War? question much better than my World Politics Class here!

In Response To Austin Swank

Austin I have to disagree on the fact that war is nothing more than just our animal agressions rising in us, or that it's a cowardly way out from peace. Sometimes war is necessary, to preserve ones own dignity as a country. War is one country preserving their rights against another, or trying to impose their will upon another. There is no other way to put it. Everyone in the world feels as if their ideals and visions are the right ones; and why not? Why should one person's view be any better than the next. They could both work in the same way. That's what countries think about. There is no other way in the world these days to impose your will or protect your rights. Humans become more increasinly hostile as the years progress mostly due to world events. After 9/11 it seems americans have taken it in their hearts to cleanse the entire middle east. America as a nation was shattered when the twin towers felt, and retaliation was in order. I can understand that under the heat of the moment you would want to send you're entire country into war, but after a while this war you have started becomes a mistake. Countries with pride like the United States of America cannot just back out, they must prove a point first to show that there was a point. Wars are basically larger versions of 10 year old's in the playground. There's no other solution to something petty than to duke it out to assert your dominance. In the world these days dominance and past agressions is the only thing that will save you from everyone else.

Response

In response, I appreciate that Emily was able to mention that war is not only international but also internal. Many times we assume that war is conflict between multiple nations but this is not always the truth. Technically war can be any sort of conflict between peoples, but I agree that a conflict does not morph into a true war until a certain degree of aggression and violence has taken place. But where do we draw the line? There is no way to determine what degree of violence is high enough to be considered a war, especially with the multiple types of wars we have experienced throughout history. And to add to that point, if a war is not “a war” until the fighters have intended to declare war and done so with heavy force, then what DO we call those wars in which force and declaration have not yet taken place and will not take place, such as the Cold War.But I have to disagree with the second part of the definition pertaining to whether or not fighting against an idea constitutes as a war. Whether people are fighting over trade, land or ideas; if they have force and declaration, it is considered a war. Groups of peoples can be opposed against each other because of an idea, which can lead to conflict and aggression. Therefore, I do agree with Emily that the use of force is necessary for a war to be considered a war.

In Response to Courtney

I agree with your point that sometimes the bigger party of the two doesn't always have to win. This also applies to the Civil War, where everyone still believes that the North was victorious because the South retreated at the end, however, when looking at each battle individually, you see that te South won just as many battles as the North. On the topic of the Civil War, this was also fought over multiple ideas, such as state rights, slavery, and the fact that nobody in the South really liked Abraham Lincoln. I would just like to point out that your hypothesis that a war can be fought over an idea is possible, but hasn't happened can be proved wrong by the Civil War. I understand that you didn't really research this theory, but this was one of the biggest wars in our history and it greatly impacted our nation today. I also agree with you in that war is inevitable, because yes, sometimes violence is the answer, and if you were to just allow another country to attack your own and do nothing about it, the result would be incredibly unpleasant. Since you put that many people wil disagree, with you, I have no choice but to! We can avoid war, and I feel that the Civil War was avoidable, because it seems to me that if the North and South could have peacefully come to terms, the bloodiest war in history could have been evaded. Instead, manifest destiny just had to get in the way and egg on our country.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/09/15/carter_cites_racism_inclinatio.html

Click on this link and read the article titled, "Carter Cites 'Racism Inclination' in Animosity Toward Obama." Do you agree or disagree with the former president? Please answer thoughtfully and consult at least two additional sources.

What is War

By definition of War from Dictionary.com, war is "a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air" [1]. But in my opinion, it does not necessarily have to be by land, sea or air. It could be fought by threats. Take the Cold War for example. Technically, the Cold War was not necessarily a "war" but threats between the USSR and the United States. The Cold War came about because of increasing tensions between the countries because of nuclear weapon threats. Hence the nickname the "Hot War". The Cold War was more of a verbal conflict. The United States and the USSR were more or less were trying to make each other look foolish. Threatening to denounce each others countries [2]. During this time period, the United States took extra precautions, in the event of a nuclear attack. Children would do drills in school in case of a bomb attack, hiding under desks (as if that were to do anything). This brings me to a more contemporary topic. On June 19, 2009, North Korean intelligence officials stated that they were planning on launching a Taepodong-2 which can cover over 4000 miles on Independence Day [3]. North Korea was planning for this missile to hit Hawaii. As we all know, this never happened, but it was alarming to many Americans, especially citizens of Hawaii. This goes under the idea that not all wars have to be violent conflicts. If the missile was to be launched, then im certain the United States would take the appropriate actions, that could have quite possibly led into a war with North Korea, but it didn't. Which shows that you can verbally threaten and it could be considered a form of war. Right now, America does not have the greatest relations with North Korea, which leads me to believe that it is not impossible, although it is unfortunate, that we could very well get involved in a war with North Korea if they do not do something about the excessive number of nuclear weapons that they are currently in possession of. After this verbal threat from North Korea, America took the proper steps as to securing anti- missile defenses around the small state of Hawaii. It is also known that 3 years ago, North Korea fired a missile at Hawaii and it was unsuccessful. The fact that the first time they were unsuccessful, but now they are trying again certainly sends a threatening message to the United States of America. The way technology is growing certainly makes it possible for North Korea to fire missiles at America. The Cold War and the situation in North Korea certainly could be considered wars. Although the definition may disagree. War could be without direct conflict. Which leads me to the answer of what war is. War is any altercation, or disagreement between two parties, whether it is verbal fighting, or physical.

What is War?

In my opinion, war is any sort of extended conflict that consists of two or more opposing sides. I do not think that all violent conflicts result in war. Two sides could have one battle, but it is not necessarily a war just because there was a conflict. I believe that for something to be considered war, it has to go on for an extended period of time. I can not say a specific amount of time, but it can not be something that is resolved quickly. Therefore, I would not consider any violent conflict a war, unless it continues on with each side battling to win. Just one violent outburst or conflict is not considered to be a war, in my opinion. With that being said about violent conflicts, I also believe there can be war without direct violence.

There does not have to be direct conflict between the opposing sides to have a war. For example, The Cold War went on for 46 years between the USSR and The United States. For all 46 years, there was never direct conflict, but it is still considered to be a war. The two opposing sides battled in other ways such as the Nuclear Arms Race, and The Space Race. Even though the two sides were not physically fighting, it was an ongoing battle for one side to beat the other in any way they could. There does not have to be violence involved for a conflict to be considered a war.

A modern day example is The War on Terrorism. Today, there is controversy as to whether it is actually a war or not. According to my definition of war, it is. This conflict has been going on since September 11, 2001, so it is clearly an extended conflict. There is direct and indirect conflict involved. The direct conflict is the actual troops fighting against terrorists and searching for them. The indirect conflict is the various legal disputes that have come up as of result of the war such as human rights issues between the U.S. military and the treatment of their prisoners of war. I personally do not see how The War on Terrorism couldn’t be considered a war.

I do not think war can only be between state entities. It doesn’t matter whether a side or sides in a conflict is considered a state or not for there to be war between them. War is war regardless of who the opposing sides are. War can even happen between two sides within one state, such as The Civil War. As long as there are two sides against each other in an ongoing conflict, it can be a war.

Unfortunately, I think there will always be war. War is a sad part of the human race that will never go away. I can not see there being a time when everyone in the world gets along well enough for there to not be any ongoing conflicts. All people are unique and will therefore have strong, opposing opinions that will sometimes result in extensive conflicts that will become war.

Works cited:

"War, The Philosophy of [The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy [IEP]. Web. 18 Sept. 2009. http://www.iep.utm.edu/war/#H2.

War is...

The definitions of war, although numerous, are not consistent. Encyclopedia Britannica states that war is a "state of conflict, generally armed, between two or more entities", Merriam-Webster claims that war is " a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations", and West's Encyclopedia of American Law says that it is "a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties." In order to really understand war and not just the definition, we must look back in time as well as thought -- war is derived from violence. Archaeological evidence supports that while civilizations had yet to be built, scores of tribal societies battled each other for food and shelter. Skulls surface that are shattered, punctured, bashed, and mushed together, obviously the affects of violent action. We, along with other animals, have violence as a built-in instinct. As centuries past, chieftains, rulers, emperors, and kings reigned over others because of their "superiority", which stemmed from defeating another with, you guessed it, violent means. Their hate toward other "superior" humans often resulted, and still results, in prolonged violence with agreeing parties. War, as it is called, was merely a way to get back at another ruler, and in a way, it still is. In order to have war, rulers must rise from violence and threaten other rulers with more violence. This is true with every war that has taken place; it is more of an attack on a ruler or a figurehead than it is to any one group of people. For example, all rules and laws that are enacted in a democracy are mostly in the interests of rulers (Congress), otherwise a bill wouldn't even get in the door of the House. The culture of a society is generally based on rules and regulations, and if other societies detest them, they go to war. These rules stem from the rulers themselves.

Often, war is not two-sided; if it was, both would attack each other in tandem. War is a result of an attack on another party and that party's self-defense. For example, before Pearl Harbor, we could have cared less about the "dirty Japs". After they bombed us, however, we abhorred the Japanese with every fiber of our being and attacked them. War, to put it simply, is a physical attack on culture.

An alternate definition for war could be "an all-pervasive phenomenon of the universe", in which it is in human nature to be belligerent. Immanual Kant theorized that war was not just an extended battle and kings screaming "We detest thee!" at each other across wheat fields, but as a means to a more perfect end. Nature uses man's antagonism as a means of discovering a state of calm and security. Eventually, there will be so many wars that a permanent peace would be erected, or so he said at the time. Georg Wilhelm Frederic Hegel, more of a realistic philosopher, believed that war would always exist because it is human nature. Whatever the case may be, war, for the moment, is something that is inevitable. There are too many greedy and power-hungry people in this world to even begin to think about peace.

Bibliography

"Commentary: Kant, Hegel and Deleuze on War." Why War? Web. 18 Sept. 2009. http://www.why-war.com/commentary/2004/12/kant_hegel_deleuze_war.html

"Human Stabbed a Neanderthal, Evidence Suggests | LiveScience." LiveScience | Science, Technology, Health & Environmental News. Web. 18 Sept. 2009. http://www.livescience.com/history/090721-neanderthal-murder.html

"War -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia." Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Web. 18 Sept. 2009. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/635532/war

"War, The Philosophy of [The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy [IEP]. Web. 18 Sept. 2009. http://www.iep.utm.edu/war/

"War: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com." Answers.com - Online Dictionary, Encyclopedia and much more. Web. 18 Sept. 2009. http://www.answers.com/topic/war

"Winning the ultimate battle: How humans could end war - science-in-society - 07 July 2009 - New Scientist." Science news and science jobs from New Scientist - New Scientist. Web. 18 Sept. 2009. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327151.500-winning-the-ultimate-battle-how-humans-could-end-war.html?full=true#bx271515B1

War, yo.

To begin to define precisely what war actually is, one has to consider the many different components that make up a war. For one thing, there has to be armed conflict for a situation to be considered war. This does not mean that the armed conflict has to involve the international community; war can be internal as well. Two groups disagreeing on something like a particular plot of land, however, does not amount to a war unless a distinct level of violence has been reached. Aggression between two people is not war, and neither is a brutal fight between two neighborhoods. Organized violence at a larger scale, on the other hand, like between the Chadian government and rebel groups in the nation, is regarded as a true war. As Brian Orend from Stanford University said, “The conflict of arms must be actual, and not merely latent, for it to count as war. Further, the actual armed conflict must be both intentional and widespread: isolated clashes between rogue officers, or border patrols, do not count as actions of war. The onset of war requires a conscious commitment, and a significant mobilization, on the part of the belligerents in question. There's no real war, so to speak, until the fighters intend to go to war and until they do so with a heavy quantum of force”. In my opinion, something like the Cold War does not truly fall under the definition of term because there was never a violent clash between the military forces of the USSR and the US. If the two nations had actually used warfare against each other instead of just engaging in an arms race then the Cold War would have been quite appropriately named this.
Another part of the definition of war that is often debated is whether or not fighting against an idea constitutes as war. This has lead to the overuse of the term to describe issues that are not actually wars. To my knowledge, a war cannot just be fought against an idea; there has to be at least two opposing sides engaged in armed conflict. One example of the term being misused was when Lyndon Johnson coined the phrase “the War on Poverty” during his State of the Union address. Though poverty was a major issue that Johnson wanted to conquer, this was not, under any circumstances, a war. Proclaiming the struggle to solve the issue of poverty in the US a war puts it on the same level as a conflict where actual warfare is used and people are brutally killed by the hundreds, sometimes thousands. Fighting against an idea, especially without the use of force, should not be considered war in the first place. War does not have to be fought between two states, but it does have to be between two separate groups of people at the least.

Sources:
http://lawofwar.org/introduction.htm#Distinctions
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/