In the News - Voting for Obama

In Lisa Wikner's presentation today, she drew on an article about the recent election looking at the number of people who voted for Obama. It's clear that an increased number of minority voters voted in this election, many of them having voted for Obama. The article doesn't doesn't cover the fact that an increased percentage of white males voted for Obama (compared to the percentage that voted for Bush and Kerry in 2004). So, while there was an increase in minority voters, as the article suggests, there was an increase across all groups, which I think speaks to Obama's broad appeal.

Obama never positioned himself as the "African-American candidate," which was probably a good idea. He didn't need to do so to win minority votes, and doing so could have alienated some white voters. I'm surprised, however, that we continue to think of someone who has parents of different racial backgrounds as either black or white. This smacks of blood quotas and other racist ideas that claimed that one drop of African-American blood meant that you were no longer white.

In the News - Animal Aggression

In Lauren's In the News presentation today, she contrasted the violence to humans by animals, and the vilence to humans by animals. At the hear tof this is a question of ethics--do we view other living beings, such as animals, as equal to humans at a moral level. At the surface, it seems obvious that we can treat animals differently and still consider themselves moral beings. Although they feel pain, they don't have the intellectual capacity to know that what is happening to them is a moral question, so one could say that this obviates any kind of moral issue.

But one could also argue that ethics is precisely about how we act when we are not required to do so by the reciprocity of effecting another human being. The recent issues of food safety in China is an obvious moral issue becuase the melanine added to the baby food caused kidney stones and even death among infants. And when we make decisions about our environment or our laws, it is easy to see how such decisions will affect other human beings. But perhaps our greatest mroalchallenge is when there is no obvious moral trade-off--when we do good, not because we have to, but because we choose to. To treat animals with the dignity and respect we offer to other human beings would elminate the extreme abuses of animals, but it might make us all a bit more human as well. Who's to say that curbing violence toward animals wouldn't also curb violence toward other humans?

In the News - Dangers of Technology

The presentation today by Xiance drew our attention to the ways that technology has potentially fatal side effects. In this case, people texting while attempting to do other things like walk or drive has led them to be involved in accidents.

The dangers and benefits of technologies deserve attention, but it will always be the case that technology will both hurt and help, it's not an either/or situation. It will encourage some behaviors and discourage others. It will enhance some skills and make others obsolete. This is related to the idea of "affordances" we discussed in class, that everytechnology is good for some things and not as good for others.

this reminds me of an article I read this morning that talks about how the internet has changed students' reading habits. Attention spans are shortening, students reduce complex texts down to sources of information, and the skills of close readnig and prolonged reflection go unpracticed. I don't think anyone laments the skills we've lost by not having to wash our clothes by hand, but every technology we use means we are giving up a set of experiences in which knowledge, values, and social relations were once situated. It's a good question to ask what we gain and lose every time we adopt a technology.

In the News #1

There’s been a lot of talk about how fair the Olympics were. China was accused of faking the ages of some of its gymnasts. Performance aids have also been scrutinized for their effect on the fairness. In swimming, Michael Phelps took home eight gold medals with the aid of a high-tech swimsuit designed by Speedo with the help of NASA and the Australian Institute of Sport. In the first four months of this suit's use, swimmers wearing it broke 38 world records, and that was before the Olympics even started.

While you’ve probably heard of the new high-tech swimsuits, you may not have heard of some athletes’ use of another performance aid: beta-blockers. Beta blockers are a legal drug that mutes some of the sympathetic nervous system—such as adrenaline—and are widely used to treat high blood pressure and heart aryhythmia. They are generally safe and effective, and are widely and legally used by classical musicians to ensure quality performances. Basically, they temporarily block the things that make you so nervous that your hands shake. Preventing this is very important in some sports, such as archery and pistol shooting, where slight shaking can ruin your performance. At the recent Olympics, two North Korean pistol shooters tested positive for beta blockers, which are banned from this competition. Shooters are allowed to use, however, specialized clothing such as blinders and stiff shooting jackets to minimize movement.

What is the effect of all these technologies on our sense of fairness, and the spirit of competition? In a recent article in The Atlantic, Carl Elliot, argues that the use of beta blockers in Olympic sports would actually make them more fair because “there is another way to see beta blockers—not as improving someone’s skills, but as preventing the effects of anxiety from interfering with their skills.” What ther areas could these drugs be used for positive effect? What about politicians preparing to give speeches? What about a neurosurgeon preparing to operate? If we accept them in these situations, why not in olympic competition? What types of performance enahncers are acceptable in human activities, either in competitive sports or elsewhere? When does unequal access to technology become unacceptable?