19 Die Antwoord is cray

"The historian's task is to understand the past; the human scientist, by contrast, is looking to change the future." To what extent is this true in these areas of knowledge?
This quote is true to a large extent. The historian needs to understand the past through every perspective to know the truth. Then they must take the knowledge of the past and sort out how to change or prevent certain negative events of the past. Once they have all of this, their job is to share or teach this information.

Scientists look to change and improve or at least change the future. They find new technologies in which cure or improve civilized life. However, they also find technology of the past to learn from such as CSI stuff. In a sense both historian and scientist learn from the past and teach for the future.

Blog 18 - Stem Cell

Is stem cell research ethical?



The picture above is one argument against stem cell research. It is saying that the embryo died, yet still didn't find a cure for the person needing stem cell research results. However, the more ethical argument is that an embryo is a person and ESCR (Embryonic stem cell research) is killing people. That or at least killing the potential for brilliant life. Someone who is dying may die, but is it worth ending the life or potential life of a successful healthy person?



The picture above is one argument for the counter.  An embryo isn't a person. If an embryo can save lives or even improve human lives, why be against it? Some can argue that a stem cell doesn't really have potential for life until it becomes a mature cell. That brings up the question of when does it become non-ethical? ESCR could cure many things like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and even cancer and end up saving millions of lives.

Overall, is it ethical to risk killing millions of potential human beings to potentially save millions of people already alive?

Week IDK Been a Long Time- Blog 17

Is it ethical to test on animals for human cures?

The picture above is sending the message that animal testing is not ethical. It states that testing on animals is like testing on humans and that a life is a life no matter whose it is.  Animals are grown in solitary and isolated cages for their whole life, while being prodded and experimented on constantly. PETA is a well known program against animal experimentation. Even if an animal is already dying, without a home or a danger to others in its community it is unethical.

This picture above is the counter to the first argument. Animal testing has saved human lives. It can be successful and as the ad states above, would you rather have an animal live instead of your daughter or another human? Yes, it may be cruel to animals if they are caged and tested, but it is better than letting loved ones die, because the value of animals are greater.  Animals are raised to be slaughtered and eaten all around the world. The only difference between this and experimentation is that it can produce cures. 

The big question is if you have the potential to find cures to diseases that kill humans, is it worth the cruel treatment of animals?

Week 6 - Blog 1 Gee Tee Aye fiVe

Some people believe that video games cause violence. This is because the violence in them are extremely graphic and unacceptable in real life. They believe that playing video games directly relates to the players actions in society. However, video games are just another form of entertainment. Entertainment similar to movies, sports or anything else. Entertainment does not define who a person is or what they do. If people want to blame entertainment, then why don't we also blame TV shows, movies, sports, books, or any other things that contain violence. I believe that games are used to relieve stress or anger. They are what people use to prevent violence in real life.