I am going to cover the topic of Gattaca. I dont think we should do the embryo selection that is present in the movie. I think because it is very selfish of a parent to conceive what is best for their child without ever meeting them. To me, this will just result in every generation not having its own identity, but rather the identity of those before it.
Also, many people have broken the expectations set on them by society. Albert Einstein may have had a form of autism, but that is what allowed him to be so smart. If that was taken away, who knows what he may have become and where we would be as people. Defects are what make us human, and what makes us unique. One does not need to be perfect, or a genius, or and athlete to have meaning to the rest of the world, one simply needs to apply themselves to the best of their ability. I feel that this very much so ties into the notion of the gift by Sandel. Naturality is what makes us, US.
One does not need to meet requirements to exist, is what I am saying.
Also, I have turned in my 5th post as well.
Here is my third Mini Project, examining the idea of the gift from Sandels writing.
Here is the link to my second mini-project.
I am working off the 4th prompt. The reason to care/hope/fight about more than the costs of production is the effort and the care that goes into the production and presentation of said item. This is because value has commonly been tied to the effort it takes to acquire something. In the past, the most valuable things on earth were not the things that were commonly around, but the ones that took the most time to get, like silk from China, and spices from the spice islands. When something is so commonly made and so easy to obtain, it becomes a common case of “if everyone is special then no one is”. For example, we have the technology to make reprints of every painting in existence, yet we choose not to, not because the painting itself is super special, but because those who painted were, and we feel that they deserve recognition. If everything is available for everyone, everything is the same. It is why there is desire for supercars or expensive watches or fancy jewelry. It is not because these things do anything better than any other product, a koenigsegg car will do the same as a cheap Hyundai, and a Rolex works as good as a Casio, it is because we recognize the work that is required to obtain them.
Race is a technology because certain people use all of the races on earth as means to an end. Whether they are positive or negative, throughout history people have pitted one race against each other because of the color of their skin. It is also a positive technology in the absence of using it. The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr wanted to use everyone as a technology so that we could come together, and not use it as a technology, wherein we see each other for our merits rather than our skin. I agree with his point, in that it shouldn’t be used as a technology, and that any judgement placed on anyone should be because of their excess or lack of merit, rather than their skin. However, some people decide that they can marginalize groups and put them into categories for political gain. As we have talked about in class, people are not thought of today for their opinions, but by what group they fit in to. I’m not Taylor Dunn to a pollster, I’m a young white college aged male. This shows that both sides really use everyone’s race as a technology without regard for who you actually are, but rather what statistics you make up.
In Foucault’s writings he claims that discipline can be applied by any political institution. This includes democracy, which we would like to think would be exempt from harsh discipline as all power lies in the hands of the people. However, this is not the case. Democracy does not prevent the exercise of discipline in all forms. It simply reroutes the discipline from a top down pyramid to a horizontal level in society. Instead of state agents performing random sweeps and instilling a state of fear. Discipline is exercised in a democratic society through the use of social paranoia. Everyone having an equal voice in society means that everyone can equally contribute to the criticization of any action that anyone takes. This means that instead of fearing about the secret police coming to your door to take you and your family away, you have an angry neighbor coming to complain that the grass in your yard is too long. The discipline comes not from stringent laws, but the freedom to criticize those who do not follow the norms of society. We see this on twitter and all over social media when people get cancelled for having storied pasts. We have so much freedom in democracy, we challenge all those who are different to us, where in authoritarianism no one speaks up for fear of being a thorn in the side of the beast that is the dictatorship.
Hi! Please click on this link, and watch on YouTube, as you will need to access the description box down below the video.
DO NOT READ BELOW UNTIL YOU HAVE WATCHED THE VIDEO! Thanks!
If my video was not clear enough, my point is that being enframed or enframing others is simply subjective, not objective, and can be both very positive, neutral, or very negative based on the person, so the person who is being enframed or enframing should be the judge. This little question was enframing, yet it was not negative, and it is my hope that it will actually help us all understand more about enframing, therefore being a positive use of enframing.
The question of technology and progress came up in this weeks discussion. Some believe that technology drives progress, while others believe that progress drives technology. I think that both sides in this are both at least partially correct. I also think that technology is a part of progress. I will break down why I think the way I do on this topic. I think that both sides of this argument are intertwined because the relationship of technology and progress is a circle. This is because we as humans are never satisfied with what we have. No matter our situation, we will always try to make what we have better, whether it be upgrading one’s car or buying a bigger, better house. Because of this desire to upgrade, we use our technology to “progress” our lives and make it better, which goes along that side of the argument. However, we would not have this desire to progress if we could not, in at least some form, imagine the technology required to get us there. If the technology is not in person, it makes us as humans strive to get what we want, which shows that 1, the very idea of technology is making us progress, and 2, this attempt to seek out the new technology will inevitably lead to some failures that show the inventor other forms of technology they were not anticipating. I believe that this ties into the other side of the argument, and completes the circle, and the wants of society combined with technology that already exist turn this circle into a metaphorical “wheel” that drives society forward, because without progress we are nothing. So in that way, both sides push against each other trying to gain an edge, but since they are a wheel, all they can do is unknowingly spin the wheel of society and drive us forward to tomorrow.