nl1234

Overall I think the ethics of biotechnology can be quite invasive in learning everything scientist can about humans and life in general. Although the ultimate goal behind the biotechnology will be the preservation of human life on this planet such as survival of the fittest with the biobanks, stem cell and cloning research. Unless something deadly came out of this I don't really have any concerns other than us as human being we are not letting nature take its course. We are altering the timeline of our existence unlike other animals such as sharks that have evolved over hundreds of millions of years and still thrive in our oceans today. After reading the article though my opinion hasn't changed I see the merit behind these programs to ensure that we will be on this Earth for a long time but there does come a point were nature really needs to take its course otherwise we wouldn't have evolved in what we are now today.

Discussion Question: Do you think the world will come to a point that we need the genetically modified food in order to sustain our population?

I think for companies like Pixar's and other, their depiction and development of their masculine characters is more a way to connect with the younger male. Some examples would be, like the book states, Buzz and Woody, Mr. Incredible, Steve McQueen and even characters like Harry Potter or Peeta from the Hunger Games. For girls, at a young age, they connect and find their role model quite easily in the numerous princess stories out there. Although, for boys, most of them, find it in today's violent society of what is depicted in video games or violent shows since that all looks "cool" but for Pixar to target that younger audience first it gives that young boy a more a more socially acceptable and a "right path to follow" role modal to follow and learn from whether it be inspired on how to handle things emotionally or even becoming that alpha-male and learning the leadership role.

Discussion Question: With Disney's captivating powers do you think it does enough to steer/teach many kids the social acceptances of life such as violence is not always the answer or don't do something wrong because you think it's "cool"?

Food security should be a leading voting matter in government platforms. As the world population grows food supplies will be more and more scarce especially in developing countries where there are lower yields due to technical or development constraints. As stated in the text, "One study of 286 agricultural sustainability projects in developing countries, involving 12.6 million chiefly small-holder farmers on 37 million hectares, found an average yield of 79% .... One-quarter of the projects reported a doubling of yield. Research on the ability of these and related programs to be scaled up to country and regional levels should be a priority." This study that promotes sustainability should be a voting matter for everyone to be aware of and how the protections of our food should be on the same thought level as protection of our homes, income or kids.

Discussion Question: Will world leaders let our food supply run so low before they do anything to fix it?

In the article "Tarmageddon" author Andrew Nikiforuk states that the oil sands is like "economic engine" and a "Dutch disease" for Canada's economy which can be perceived as ultimately true. This is manly because you imagine a engine moving you forward but a disease is what holds you back so in a way that is what the oil sands are doing to Canada's economy, they provide a huge source of revenue by selling the oil on the world market at high prices with high margins but by doing so drowns out the other markets like what happened in the Netherlands as mentioned in the text book, more and more resources going and developing the oil sands and less going to other industries.

Discussion Question: Which is the better outcome, being a rich country because of and environmentally damaging industry or to be a poorer country and not have as big of an environmental damage?