Genetic Engineering: Overview

I decided to research genetic engineering for the Marketplace of Ideas project. I am not entirely sure of where I stand on the issue, so I want to get a better understanding of its multiple perspectives. When I first came across this topic, I really only saw one side of the controversy. GE clearly affects the natural properties of plants, food, and animals. I could not see how it could be considered a positive contribution to society-- it brought on so many issues. Another problem I saw in it was the fact that one day, it will be possible for parents to selective certain traits and characteristics for their children to have. What would the world be like if parents were making their kids incredibly tall or specifically with brown eyes. There is definitely an ethical dilemma here. But, what I did not realize before, is that there are many positive components to GE. Simply by reading the short page that gives an overview of GE on the website, Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society, I was able to broaden my knowledge on the subject. Where there is a moral reason not to use GE, there is also a moral reason to use it. According to the World Health Organization, for example, 250,000 to 500,000 children in developing countries go blind every year because their diet lacks sufficient levels of vitamin A. But, scientists can genetically engineer plants or rice, for example, to give these children the nutrients they need to survive. The moral dilemma is simple: If you genetically engineer something, you remove the naturalness of a process. But if you do not genetically engineer that something, you would be withholding useful produce from people who would desperately benefit from it. Genetic engineering is a complex issue that is becoming more and more pressing with the advancement of technology and desperation for resources. I look forward to pursuing this issue.

What's Going On In The World?

One of the most prominent issues in the world today is the revolt that is going on in Libya. I read a couple articles and blogs on The New York Times's website about the situation. It seems like Africa has always had the reputation of being poor and underdeveloped, but its problems have also seemed to be out of our hands. For example, how can you really eliminate poverty even in one African country? The protests in Egypt, Tunisia, and other countries appeared to give Libyan citizens the courage to stand up to their government. But, Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi is firmly holding his ground. Ruling for longer than Egyptians former president, Mubarak, Qaddafi is an unpredictable and harsh ruler. He has no problem commencing a civil war in his country. So, what should the U.S. do? One point of view is that America needs to intervene by supplying Libya's rebel army. Some believe we should pressure other countries to intervene but watch from afar. Others think that by getting involved yet again in a foreign affair, we could end up in another undesirable situation like Afghanistan. I am under the impression that if we do not intervene, we are not only disregarding an opportunity to promote democracy, but we are also letting Gaddafi's troops kill innocent civilians. He has proved to be a relentless and very unreasonable leader. I don't think that just giving the Libyan rebels arms is enough, though. I believe we need to direct Libyans to the most efficient way to remove Gaddafi from power. I think the advantages of intervening outweigh the disadvantages.  

State of the Union Address

I always look forward to the State of the Union address because it is a time when the president is supposed to tell the country what is going on, not the media. I was especially looking forward to this year's address because I had heard that the members of Congress and guests that were attending the speech were going to be sitting amongst each other instead of divided by party. I thought this was a really smart idea because it always appeared childish to me when the each side would stand up and clap (for, in my opinion, unreasonably long periods of time) when they agreed with something that the president said. Although there was some obvious division amongst avid clappers, the speech seemed to have a different atmosphere. It felt like there was a little less tension and everyone seemed more civilized.

There were a couple of things about Obama's address that I liked, and there were a couple things about it that I didn't like. To begin, I thought he did a good job on saying things that were appealing to everyone. I believe that it was smart to not say anything extremely controversial (or declare a fixed opinion on sensitive issues) because it definitely did not create such a tense atmosphere. The only things he gave the impression that he was absolutely passionate and adamant about were issues that most everyone agreed with, such as rebuilding our country's economy. This was smooth on Obama's part, but I was also disappointed that he gave such vague solutions to certain problems. It definitely lightened the blow about some issues that require in-depth solutions, but I did not feel a heap of reassurance that he knew exactly what measures need to be taken to find reasonable solutions. He sort of danced around the tough topics by playing up his exceptional speaking skills and saying inspirational things about education and winning the future. He did a good job at pleasing the majority by not taking a contentious stance on certain issues, but I don't think he did not give a deliver enough specifics on the state of our union.

Abortion

After viewing both websites, I think that the NARAL website has a better argument than the National Right to Life (NRL) side. I liked the NARAL website because it discussed the issues surrounding abortion in a problem/solution way. They listed the possible (and probable) problems with certain aspects of abortion, such as healthy pregnancies, sex education, birth control, etc., and followed them with a list of solutions. While this is a civilized manner in presenting their information and discrediting the other side, it also realistically looks at this controversial debate. The NRL website does trigger strong emotions, especially after seeing some pictures, they never say what a supporter could DO about it. Their biggest focus is about changing people's minds and morals, not about preventing the problem in the first place. The NARAL website is an advocate of sex education so that more people will be more safe. If sex is what is causing all of these problems, why not eliminate the problems that come out of it? It's a simple, attainable solution. Also, I was looking at the fact sheet on the NRL's website and I came across some grammatical errors. Some of the information was extremely hard to believe and like nothing I had ever heard of before. This made me question whether their information was reliable. The only source that was listed was themselves, the NRL. There is a small section on their website that gives alternatives to abortion. They suggest counseling, pregnancy tests, and help with the baby's finances. While these are reasonable alternatives for some people, they are not applicable to everyone who wants an abortion. Everyone has a different financial and personal situation. Many people will simply not want to try to be talked out of an abortion.

I believe that parents should have a right to know if their daughter is receiving an abortion is she is a minor. Because it is a medical procedure and there are risks, parents should be notified of what is going on. I do not, however, believe that the daughter needs parental consent to get an abortion. The family may talk it over all they want, but in the end, this is the girl's body. She is the only person who should be allowed to say what is going to be done to her body.

I believe that the notification process should be the same with the father. After all, he is the baby's other half and should be notified of the woman's decision. If the mother and father disagree on what to do with the baby, I think that they should be required to go to counseling until they are in agreement. If they cannot reach an agreement after a while (because the pregnancy cannot be put on hold,) it should be the woman's decision. Like I stated before, she should be the only one who decides what happens to her body.

I agreed with most of the Illinois Abortion Laws, even the anti-choice laws. Although, I do not agree that the spouse's consent is required (explained in the paragraph above) or that more oppressive restrictions should be placed on abortion providers that aren't applied to other medical procedures. I think that it is okay to only allow abortion specialists to perform abortions to ensure safety, but I think that limiting the places that women can receive an abortion is just another way of making it less accessible.

#6: Final Reflection

I am so glad that I read this book because I loved exploring a different perspective like Foer's. Today, the people that share their opinions are usually the burn-down-a-building-of-humans-to-save-a-cow group or the people who love meat so much that they support the mistreatment of animals. It's refreshing to know that there's a person that exists who values animals but can still understand the opposing side. Foer talked about his grandmother who survived the Holocaust a couple of times. He shared how much she valued food, health, and tradition. The way we are raised is usually the lifestyle we will adapt in our younger years. One could reasonably conclude that it would be hard for a child whose family has endorsed hunting and leather coat wearing to question his values at a young age. I like and respect Foer's opinion because he establishes his values, but he pursues them in a realistic manner. He comes to terms with the fact that in the next 10 or 20 years, people will still be eating animals. There is nothing (besides the apocalypse) that would completely halt the human consumption of animals. So, why try to change everyone's point of view when you can change what you don't like about animal agriculture (which is MUCH easier.) Sentimentality can only be shared to a certain extent by polar opposites. You can't tell people what their morals should be. You have to be realistic. I think that Foer's message was to define your values in the most idealistic way and then sensibly pursue them.

#5: Anthropocentrism, Anthropodenial, & Other Big Words

Going along with the theory of relativity (Foer's not Einstein's), it's interesting to observe the extent to which humans either accept the relation with animals or refuse to accept it. After all, we are all animals. It's true that we have opposable thumbs and we do things that the average lion cannot, but we are very similar.

Foer first discusses the meaning of anthropocentrism. He says that it's the conviction that humans are the center of evolution. We can measure the "rightful" owners of every living organism and the lives of other animals in terms of human evolution. To me, this seems reasonable that the only living species on the planet capable of this kind of thinking should get to decide how to measure other living things. But what happens when humans believe they have the right to rule animals in all aspects, not just how to measure their lives. Then, I believe, problems arise. Religion, values, and truth are all things that make animal agriculture so complex and controversial.

Another term that Foer talks about is anthropodenial. Literally, it's the denial that anthropoids share similar experiences to humans. The denial that animals are similar to humans and other animals in terms of experience. Foer uses the example of how his son asks if their dog, George, will be lonely when they leave the house without her. His answer of, "George doesn't get lonely," is the epitome of anthropodenial. I believe that this state of denial is what allows some humans to be apathetic and merciless when it comes to animals. It is obvious that we are different from most animals, but it is not obvious and ignorant to assume that animals are not like us.

Another big word that Foer explores is anthropomorphism. It's the urge to project human experiences onto other animals (like the time Foer's son asked if their dog would be lonely.) An Italian psychologist, Emanuela Cenami Spada, wrote about anthropomorphism and how humans must do it to truly understand their own human existence and experiences. He writes, "The only available 'cure' [for anthropomorphism] is the continuous critique of our working definitions, and to that embarrassing problem that animals present to us." We need to keep questioning ourselves and keep evaluating our evolving relationship with animals. They are not who they were 100 years ago they won't be in another 100 years. The key, I believe, is to understand that neither are we. I think the "embarrassing problem" that Spada touches on is how animals depict human nature and human tendencies. Occasionally, other animals bring out compassion and empathy in humans. Other times, they bring out brutality and oppression. To make us feel comfortable with the creatures that we are forever here with, we must accept them and relate to them. This is the only way that we will be able to live harmoniously.

#4: Humans and Animals - It's All Relative

Foer writes, "Humans are the only animals that have children on purpose, keep in touch (or don't), care about birthdays, waste and lose time, brush their teeth, feel nostalgia, scrub stains, have religions and political parties and laws, wear keepsakes, apologize years after an offense, whisper, fear themselves, interpret dreams, hide their genitalia, shave, bury time capsules, and choose not to eat something for reasons of conscience." We eat animals because we're different than them, yet we refrain from eating them because we're different from them. Is it legal to justify the same thing in two different ways? I guess it is, but it's comical how two extremes can use the same reasoning to justify why they do something (or don't do something.) This idea reminds me of another issue: abortion. If the pro-choice side and the pro-life side both claim that they believe in what they do because they value life, then you know that the issue must be complex. I think that one way complexity is illustrated is when two polar opposites defend their side with the same reasoning. When this happens, you know that the debates will go past the rights and wrongs. Animal agriculture is not just about morality. It's about the environment, tradition, the future, and desire. Humans are animals but animals aren't humans. (?) It's all relative . . .