 |
| Armato, John. "Assume". 18 June 2008 via flickr Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic |
What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do we share with the society or culture in which the text was written? Why have they endured?
Many people in some sort of way have ethics. Whether it is respect for people or simply not causing violence, most people have morals. The text separates different topics in which the ethics of de-extinction is studied. The idea of de-extinction itself would have many people not favor it due to the nature of such an act simply not being ethical. Most people who have morals do not want to destroy human life and destroy the Earth and environment we live in. The text provides information in which de-extinction challenges the morals that we as people have and does not provide many ways to show how such a process would prove to benefit society more than it would hurt it. Regardless of religious beliefs or the idea that people have different viewpoints, everyone can agree that placing species on this planet that would most likely destroy human life, is a belief shared by practically every human being on this planet. These ideas have endured thus far and will most likely endure throughout human existence because the idea bringing anything back to life, in this case species that would mostly cause harm, is an idea many people disagree with.
What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do we not share? Why not?
One idea addressed in this text was the ability for the DNA of extinct species to be almost identically cloned to the actual species in order to re-create the species themselves. The idea of using science in a way to affect lives, whether they are alive or deceased, can be an belief that has certain people wholeheartedly disagree with. I myself am not an expert in why certain people do not believe in science, but that is their opinion and belief, and they have every right to believe in that. The idea of resurrecting anything back to life, may have many people be on the fence about that issue. Most people do not like associating themselves with death, and would rather let the deceased rest in peace. For this reason, the idea of de-extinction would most likely be unfavorable for many people.
If the text is written in a culture distant or different from our own, what social values, beliefs, etc., connect to or reflect our own culture? What social values, beliefs, etc., can we not see in our own culture?
I believe the text is written only to inform readers of the benefits and dangers of de-extinction, rather than completely being written in a culture different from our own beliefs. The way this text connects to reflect our culture is by showing the way of how people show respect for life. Generally speaking, most people do not want to harm life, and for that matter the world we live in, just to accomplish something that would likely result in even more destruction than thinking about the idea on its own. What we cannot see in our culture is the majority of people that do not care for the life and safety of people and would rather benefit themselves. Though these types of people exist in this world, many of them do not affect the world in a negative way, thank goodness for this.
If the text is written in our culture but in a different historical time, how have the social values, beliefs, etc., developed or changed over time?
This text was written for a time period that did occur long ago. Since it involves cloning and being able to use recombinant DNA technology, these ideas alone signify that this text is written for an audience that "lives" in the current world of information. This being said, the social values and beliefs are different from roughly 15-20 years ago to present day compared to 50+ years back. I believe more people are conscious about the Earth and the respect for human life than the morals and beliefs people had back in previous time period.
Reflection from my peers' blog posts
After reading the blog posts of Jason Wittler and Mark Mellott, I have learned that we all have passion for the topic we are writing about. It is easy for us to be over-engaged in what we are talking about that we accidentally state our own bias/opinions about the topic. Instead, we all stayed on task and provided the best brief analysis of the issue surrounding the topic that we could have. A good lesson I learned is, keep the bias to yourself and use that urge of wanting to use it in your paper to instead provide readers with an even better and more informative paper that allows readers to understand the message of the paper without seeing any sort of support for one side throughout the paper. Regardless of the topic that we are writing about, the goal is the same for all of us. We want to give way to the fact that there are two, maybe more, sides to the issue, and explaining the different positions and how they can affect other people's opinions is one of the best we can do when writing our second project.
I thought your analysis of your assumptions was high quality. However, at one point you made the assumption that most people with morals (so pretty much everyone) would disagree with de-extinction of harmful species. This statement is logical and likely a true statement; however, it is an assumption that you have made about the general population. This assumption is a reflection of your bias on the issue and as such, you should remember and consider it as you cover your chosen subject.
ReplyDeleteI do not see you including any of your own bias into your analysis. I attempted to determine your personal beliefs/values from what was writing and could not. Kudos on that! The only thing I can comment on is ensuring you are not including your own bias when you state what people were thinking in the past. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying you have done that here; however, unless you know for a fact what people were thinking (from papers written, documented ideology, etc.) when you make a statement it is your opinion of what they were thinking.
ReplyDeleteExcellent analysis! Completely unbiased and pure information.
My morals may be different than your morals. The whole concept of morals is that everyone has their own, but the general construct of 'morality' has come to have its own definition. You might want to be conscious of your phrasing when you're talking about morals because that can be touchy sometimes. Also, I didn't see any sort of analysis of your own morals or biases, which is the main point of this exercise because you need to be cognizant of the way that your own biases affect your reading of the text.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete