This semester has made me think about all sorts of things. One topic that I have really started to think about that combines techno-science and ecology is the GMO argument. Before this semester I did not know very much about the pros and cons of GMOs. I knew the basics but not much more than that. However, in this course I have see the pluses and minuses when we combine technology and ecology. I have been interested in issues with food and farming for a little while now and how the process of making food impacts our environment and health but GMOs were something that I was actually in support of. I thought that they were a good idea. I mean, if we can produce crops that are drought or flood or pest resistant wouldn't that be great? Drought or flood resistant would be fairly good but in order to make a crop pest resistant we would have to constantly be making new crops because the pests would adapt to the genes in the crops. Also, if we produce crops that grow well on their own than people will throw the traditional method of growing to the side. This would be a big problem because, generally, in traditional methods, there are multiple crops going in one place so if one crop fails then there are still other options for food. This way of farming doesn't just serve as a safety net incase a crop fails but it also provides a more balanced diet. These are things that I have begun to think about this semester and thoughts that have evolved through reading, discussing and writing this semester.

Both the bear and the Creature were changed from their original shapes. Both of them also killed an innocent by grabbing them and squeezing them and then they ran off until they realized that they were alone. Also they both ran to the mountains after the kill. They both then found a home that had a burrow that they could fit into and they both stayed in their individual burrows for multiple weeks. Neither of these homes were empty. However, "The Heart of a Bear" is based in common time while Frankenstein is base many years in the past. The people in the house in "Heart of a Bear" were happy as well and instead of a grandfather they had a baby. The bear and the Creature both found themselves and began to think of themselves as human. The bear even tried to walk and talk. Both the creature and the bear found solace in the families. They both also tried to talk and explain themselves to the "weakest" of the family. The bear tried to talk to the woman and the creature tried to talk to the blind man. In both cases the creatures were rejected. The bear ate the woman and killed the man when he was rejected while the Creature just ran away. The bear, unlike the creature, found compassion for the baby that was still alive. The bear was also able to change himself enough to look more human and was even able to take care of the baby. The bear also was able to stay in society for a longer amount of time than the Creature. However, in the end he ended up running back through the forest just like the creature. Both, in the end, did not succeed as humans.

When it comes to stem cell research I believe that scientists should be able to do research to see if this is a viable option for helping people in the future. I think that if we can take eggs that would have otherwise been disposed of and use them in productive ways we should. I know that some people are very weary about using fertilized eggs for a process that will make the fertilized egg no longer viable. This is a very valid concern which is why I think that there should also be clearly outlined regulations on any research that is done. The eggs need to be treated with respect and the scientists should know what they are going to do before they start working on the egg. We should restrict where the eggs come from as well. They should be eggs that are either donated to the research or they should be eggs that were going to be disposed of. For example, eggs that were going to be used for in vitro fertilization that were never implanted would be a viable option for research. All of the research must also be very carefully monitored to make sure that the eggs are being put to good use.

Some core principles that I think should be included if we decide to colonize Mars are That we should only terraform small areas under tents where human are going to live. I think this is a good idea because then the local atmosphere will not be harmed and therefore humans will not be harmed by the changing landscape. I also think that there should be a 10 year rotation (10% of the group each year or 20% every five years) of who is on the planet that way it can stay a science station that will only be in one place and there will not be a problem of over population because people will be constantly coming and going. There also needs to be a limited number of people. We can't keep sending people. The only way new people can go up is if some people come down. I also believe that there needs to be some kind of law enforcement. It will not have to be very much because there will not be that many people but there still needs to be some kind of law and order. Along that thought I think there needs to be some kind of constitution that the first group writes. I think it should be the first group and not people on earth because we, on Earth, do not know what the issues are going to be up there. The final core principle is that if a group wants to go out and build a temporary living tent they need to have justification and the colony has to vote on  whether or not there is enough evidence to support the need for the temporary tent. 

Here is an interesting article about creationism in Indiana schools

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christianity/indianas-dirty-little-secret-creationism-schools

Frankenstein

I think that the novel Frankenstein says a major statement about techno-science. Frankenstein felt that the knowledge that he was seeking to learn in order to create the creature was extremely important. In fact on page 28, he said, "One man's life or death were but a small price to pay for the acquirement of the knowledge which I sought". The fact that he says that one life or death would be just a small price to pay is very telling. It shows that he was willing to do anything, even kill, in order to learn what he needed to create his piece of techno-science. 


However, as the book moves on Mary Shelley makes sure that the readers know that we need to be careful about what we do with techno-science because the consequences can be dire. Many people have never read Mary Shelley's Frankenstein so they do not realize that, while Dr. Frankenstein's creature did kill people, the creature could have been good if he had been nurtured and cared for. I believe this is Shelley telling us that if we want to mess with nature we need to make sure that we follow through with what ever we started otherwise we will regret our creations and efforts. The creature says to Frankenstein that if someone would have shown him love and affection he would not have killed and he would have been happy with who he was. I think that this is also a statement about life. I feel as though when people feel loved and needed they are generally much nicer and happier than people who feel no connection to anyone, but that is a whole different topic. I believe that Mary Shelley is fine with techno-science as long as we are careful with our choices and actions when we are working in that field because both good and bad things can come out of techno-science.

Today, I watched Mr. Green in a class that I am taking. It is a short movie where the main character works for the climate change department in the government. After giving a presentation about how some of the major cities in the world are underwater and how it is in the 80 degree range in the winter, "Mr. Green" was approached by a woman that he knew. He eventually was "poisoned" with some kind of pollen that made him part plant. He needed more water than normal, more sunlight, and he was told that he was exhaling oxygen rather than carbon dioxide but he looked almost the same except for green roots in his hair. The woman who did this to him claimed that she did it in order to help him understand how important climate change and plants are to our world. The man then realized what she was saying and went back to have a meeting with the President and some other people. He then spread the pollen to the others around him and as the movie closes the President is seen standing next to the window taking in the sun just like "Mr. Green" did after he first changed.

I realized while watching this video that in the opening scene they are suggesting that the government is not prioritizing ecological issues the way that they should be. They show how the world could end up if we do not change our ways and if the government does not change. The main character said that if we wanted the government to do something we would have to make them do it. This is talking about the way our government works. In order for the government to change we have to make them do what we want by writing letters, calling, and voting for people that we agree with. I did think that the way that the film included techno-scientific solutions was very clever. They suggested that techno-scientific solutions might be the best way to wake people up and make them change our government's prioritization of ecological issues. Whether or not that is the right way to do it will be a mystery until solutions are put into place.