Armageddon Science

The book about how Armageddon could occur was interesting because I was surprised the author broke the science down into such specific topics. I was surprised by this because I don’t believe Armageddon would occur from one specific weapon. Yes a nuclear bomb could cause mass destruction in specific areas but they would not cause the end of the world. If the internet and our utilities went down, the world would panic and would have to change drastically but the world would not end. It would take the combination of several weapons to take out the world. I also don’t believe humans would actually be ok with using so many weapons of mass destruction that the world would be destroyed. Humans would stop those actions in an attempt to save themselves once it got to a certain point. If you take a look around your local area you will see groups who try to help others, such as: food banks, the Boys and Girls Club, UNICEF, and other groups. If groups like that exist and are going strong, I don’t believe humans would allow Armageddon to happen.

There are times when weapons should be used, such as in war, there are instances when these weapons should be the absolute last resort. Some of these weapons started as positive improvements meant to help humanity. For example, dynamite was originally meant to help humanity stay safe but was later turned into something destructive. I agree with Clegg that this is a Pandora’s Box and we need to be careful what we do with all of this.

After reading this book, what do you think is the most plausible way for the world to end?

While I talked about this earlier in my post, I don’t believe there is one weapon that could cause the end of the world. If there was one weapon that could end the world, terrorists would have found a way to use it. I believe it would take several weapons used at the same time or within a very short amount of time to truly end the world. If biological weapons were released at the same time the internet and utilities were down, the world could end because there would be no way to save those who were infected and no one would know it was coming because there would be no warning from the news or the internet. I believe a combination of weapons would be the only way to plausibly end the world.

Celebrity

Using this book in class could be an interesting experience depending on the age of the students you might be teaching. It might be difficult to have younger students such as 6 or 7^th graders but if you used the book with older students like 8^th grade or high school could be a great addition to a social studies class. When students try to be like certain celebrities such as “The Situation” from Jersey Shore, it is a bad idea because students then believe they should be rude and treat women poorly. If they idolize an athlete, they may like how that athlete plays but they need to understand they shouldn’t idolize what that athlete does in their private life. This book can be used to teach students that the people we learn about in history classes were often celebrities in their own time and you must recognize that while learning about them. For modern day celebrities it is important for students to see the impact activities can have in both positive and negative ways. One way to do this is to assign students different celebrities where they can research the positives and negatives their celebrity has done. Some celebrities use their fame for good and others do not. If students see this, they can see how much celebrities affect them on a day to day basis.

As a result of the industry, can we ignore celebrity?

I don’t believe we can ignore celebrity. Celebrity runs over into what we eat, what clothes we wear, what television we watch, what music we listen to, and more. With so many parts of our lives being influenced, I believe it is impossible to get away from celebrity completely. While we must teach our kids there are positives and negatives to celebrity, it is important to realize that almost all our students are going to be impacted by it in some way or another. Teachers can try to stay away from it but we need to realize our students are going to be impacted by it.

What Technology Wants

This book was very interesting as someone who grew up with technology. It’s difficult to think of life without technology when the definition of technology is relative. Technology could be defined as almost anything made or thought of by humans or another machine. A hammer or screwdriver could be seen as technology, not just a computer or the internet. Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, argued “The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. (pg. 198)” He believed technology is no longer controlled by humans and instead humans are being controlled by technology. This is why he moved to a shack with no electricity, water, or a toilet. Kelly’s term the technium incorporates all technology and how it interacts with humans and the biological world. He tries to say the technological world and the biological world are similar. The technium seems to incorporate everything since almost anything could be considered technology.

What is the technium? Do we have power over it? Does it have power over us?

The technium incorporates everything made by a mind, whether that means a human mind or a technological mind. I believe it has power over us but we have power over it too. We have power over it because we can pull the plug if we ever needed to. However technology controls us because almost anything could be seen as technology depending on your definition. We will always need tools such as a hammer or screw driver. We could unplug from television and the internet but given our current society this would be incredibly difficult. E-mail is one of the most popular forms of communication so not having it would make jobs and daily life difficult. The same is true with a cell phone. People expect to be able to get in touch with others quickly and not having a cell phone would make this nearly impossible. Therefore I believe there is a mutual control.

Peculiar Institution

This book was very interesting. I learned a great deal about the death penalty during my time as a debate captain in high school however I had never looked at it from this point of view. I agreed most with what Garland says at the very end of the book:

“The system of capital punishment that exists in America today is primarily a communication system. For the most part the system is not about executions, which, outside of Texas and a few Southern states, are relatively rare- more people are killed each year by lightning. It is about mounting campaigns, taking polls, passing laws, bringing charges, bargaining pleas, imposing sentences, and rehearing cases.” (Pg. 312)

While I personally am in favor of the death penalty in certain circumstances, I believe his opinion that much of the death penalty is political for most of the country is correct. He also states that “individuals are regarded as sacred” (pg. 306) showing how contradicting having the death penalty is. The demand for revenge is often part of why criminals are sentenced to death. However, how can the death penalty be considered a deterrent when those sentenced to death are on death row for years on end? If the criminal is old enough they will die of natural causes before they finish appeals. The book shows the issues behind the question of the death penalty without venturing into the moral aspect; it looks at the issue from the factual perspective.

*Essential Question Response: Who should decide the issue of capital punishment?

I’m not sure I’m the one to decide who is able to make the decision of who dies and who lives. Whether or not a crime is bad enough to deserve death is a subjective decision. I do not believe it should be decided only by one judge. If I had to decide, I believe it should be suggested by the jury and confirmed by a separate panel after examining the evidence and court transcripts.

All The Devils Are Here

First let me say I have never been overly great at economics which made this book more than a bit confusing. Because my father works in the financial world this book hit close to home for me. It’s terrifying that so many people tried to speak up and tell everyone that problems were coming. How could they have been ignored?

As I continued to read the book, I noted there were quite a few occasions where the entire financial crisis could have been stopped. For example, Robert Gnzizda started meeting with Alan Greenspan in the early 1990’s saying “Let’s look at the unregulated lenders.” (pg. 86) Edward Gramlich, was asked by Greenspan to head up the Fed’s committee on consumer and community affairs. After learning about the subprime mortgage problem, he wrote the book Subprime Mortgages: America’s Latest Boom and Bust. The book was published over a decade before the economy fell. These are just two of the people who tried to warn the government and the people about what was going on. But for this to all happen it required a perfect storm in that each party and event played its part in creating the crisis. It was not only the mortgages that were such a problem. There was bundling the mortgages, lowering the interest rate, changing legislation, and much more. If this is possible, what else are we not listening to?

Hopefully the financial crisis will make Americans look at things differently. If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.

Discussion Question Response:

What are your views on homeownership? Do you think that every American should be able to own a home, is it a sign of success, do you own a home?

I believe that if someone has the financial ability to own a home, they should have that option. However, if they do not have the financial stability to be able to handle that type of debt and responsibility then no I don’t believe they have an absolute right to own a home. While it is seen as the American dream to own a home, I think the American dream needs to change given the current economic situation. In a place like New York it is not looked down upon to rent your home. Why is it ok in a place like that but looked at differently in other areas of the country? I don’t see why it should be looked at any differently.