'Technology: Sociology and James Stacey Taylor\r'

'Kenneth hunting watch Dr. Carpenter PL401 13 November 2012 James Stacey Taylor â€Å"In applause of Big Brother” This essay will deal the locate on why we should learn to hang on worrying and love ( some(prenominal)) organisation surveillance. James Stacey Taylor’s idea ab come to the fore government surveillance monitor severally state will blow you out-of-door or open your eyes. I will haulage attention to some good points, bad points, and my beliefs and why I think this way about his view. By the give notice of this essay I promise to sacrifice answered your entire question on this topic of interest. Which is government surveillance could be a positive or negative problem for deal?The first dubiousness to be address is how Dyson explained his hopeless doubts that technological innovations ofttimes serve to increase social oppression and inequality. I will answer this in a ii part answers, in which I will say you how Dyson experience at engineering science was used and who benefited from the changes. Dyson started addressing his pessimistic doubts with examples from history and his own bread and butter. He talked about how engineering started out in the fourteenth century with printing process becoming the first applied science transformation in europium.With this red-hot invention, people all through Europe had the able to have books to read and educate themselves as well as their fellow countrymen by educating themselves. The technology of printing gave power to the reproduction of the Bible which conduct directly to the Protestant Reformation in blue Europe. By using the technology the Protestant ethical code carried it with perpetual striving for social repairness a vision that was seldom achieved. The next things Dyson begin pointing out was the sensibleness of technology which led the way for social justice during the next two centuries.Dyson talked about how public ope lay out such as clean water, sewage trea tment, antibiotics and vaccines helped with train the gap between profuse and poor closer. The moderateness for this as he pointed out was these technologies were effective in protecting the rich from contagion and sickness if overly available to poor. So, with being said in some countries where public health technologies be in obligate by law there is no astronomical gaps. He also talked about how technologies starting qualification synthetic materials to bridge the gaps by introduced fake furs, superb colors and silk.By doing this everyone was able to open clothes of sozzleds and no was able to tell a individual social class by the clothes they wore. So where does the social oppression exactly begin for people? Will I believe it start with upstart technology and gadgets introduce to social as new a purify way to something done. What I mean by this statement for example the IPhone or some(prenominal) smart scream. While everyone has a cellphone to communicate with s upporter and family a simple function so we think. so technology comes along a change the bouncy with apps, internet, and built-in cameras all in a phone that cost about $600 in the beginning.Only people that could afford this new slack technology were the people with bullion and then newer one hit the social innovation pushing the older version to be affordable for everyone. So, point is like a new act we get at Christmas time that you didn’t exigency your friends to touch because we have to keep it for self. Until we atomic number 18 bored and no longer wanting to play with it and the newest has wears off, we are more apt to allow others to enjoy it, as long as there is something better or newer to replace the old one. So, gaps are made with each turn of new technology pushing the way.In demonstration, Dyson hope technology is used to every bit by everyone rich and poor. I believe he pointed out everything that would equally shared by all people no matter their soc ial status. Technology and Social arbitrator will always have some typesetters grounds of gaps between people because money is driving compel behind new technology. Dyson never pointed this out exclusively know these gaps were between rich and poor. At the end of his essay said there was no persecute to hope. I can see your point on this because Kurzweil took you on ride on many things.From a computer storage stand point look at what we start with 250mb and now we are at 3Tb for storing information. We are growing at a rate that could way out of control or in our control that is the question? We have to understand what counselor these things are taking us because it will be a limit to our growth. Kurzweil know that with growth in time bad things would follow and would have to be ready to protect our self. While reading the case against perfection by Michael Sandel he pointed out a lot of thing we do as public to modify ourselves by technology. Things like muscles in nhanceme nt to improve our muscle loss from old age exactly when technology is used for performance enhancement, running, weight lifting, and lieu slugger are just to name a few. The able to change person genes before charge being born is wrong on so many levels. The ethics surrounding this theory wouldn’t allow humans to humans anymore. Everyone is born unlike for a reason and everyone is given their on pose at birth. By using this type of technology to change who we are would cause more snake pit then good. Like Sandel pointed with the cloned sheep Dolly which died prematurely with abnormalities was unsafe.The worrisome truth behind all this type of technology is no matter how we try to change or improve it the cycle death in the end. Sandel point I believe is we have a right to choose our own path in life and should only everything to change our unique able to be different. In â€Å"Preventing a Brave New humanness” (pp. 317-329), Leon Kass concludes that reproductive and therapeutic cloning of human embryos is unethical. What are the exact steps in Kasss argument for this conclusion? What is your assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this argument?\r\n'