The Power of Prayer

This is an article about how 85 percent of physicians polled believed that religion and spirituality can have a positive influence on health and recovery. I find it interesting because I want to become a physician someday and ever since I can remember I have been watching medical documentaries about how physicians mentioned that their patients miraculous recovered from an incurable disease without any logical explanations. I feel that this is relevant to our course by how we discussed the topic of "Neurotheology" a few lectures ago.

Can Prayer Heal the Sick?

Juliet Schor, A Plenitude Economy, and Ecology

This is a short piece about the relationship between our economy, consumption, and ecology. I thought you might find it interesting.

Would the world be better off without religion?

This is the title of an Intelligence Square U.S. debate on November 15th. NPR has a short introduction to the debaters as well as the full audio of the debate. I have not had a chance to listen to this yet, but I thought that you might find it interesting.

It's not official until it's Facebook official.

Hey Everyone,

I used the filter bubble on youtube to find this video about the social media giant in which we all call "Facebook." I thought this video would be relevant to our class discussion this morning because how we mentioned how relationships and friendships on Facebook has gotten to a point in which it can sometimes spew over into the "real world," or how we can see emotions when someone choose to friend (de-friend) us on Facebook. ENJOY! 

Artifical intellegence.

First off, for clever bot, I had huge expectations and was disappointed. We don’t have to worry about the terminators any time soon. Sometimes when I was talking to clever bot he would say the most random things, or just not make any sense grammatically. For the article, Liking is for Cowards. Go for What Hurts. By Jonathan Franzen, he spoke about techno consumerism, and its relation to Christmas and the other holidays. Each add can be interpreted as if you love someone you have to buy them things. How do you feel about that message? He then moved onto Facebook and the like button. What’s your opinion on the like button, like it, love it, or hate it?
--Nathan Chan

Is Civilization a Bad Idea?

I just read this article from NPR on our exact topic from class today. Here is what I mean:

"We became self-conscious, creating art, culture and tools of far greater complexity than anything that had come before. When the ice pulled back yet again, we eventually took a step of even greater consequence. We domesticated ourselves and put the Earth to the plow.

With agriculture came surplus and with surplus came new social arrangements. Eventually, we built cities and far-ranging empires to support them. Human beings began building civilization. In doing so we set ourselves and the entire planet onto a new trajectory.

But did anyone ever stop to ask if it was a good idea?"

This reminds quite a bit of Postman's argument and Bryan's comments in class. Here is the rest of the article, if you feel like reading the whole thing.

More on Technology

First, thanks for a lively conversation today and good discussion. We'll keep going with technology on Thursday when we discuss AI. In the meantime, here are a few things that I talked about in class:

You can see the scene I was discussing from 2001: A Space Odyssey here.

And you can see the book I mentioned, World Made by Hand here.

I also wanted to add these few paragraphs from the International Committee of the Red Cross. As they speak about nuclear weapons, they make the point that I was trying to make in class: this particular piece of technology is not morally neutral, which means that some forms of technology are not morally neutral. Also, notice that they cite an advisory opinion from 1996 in which the International Court of Justice declared the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons to be illegal.

"In 1996 the ICRC welcomed the fact that the International Court of Justice, in its Advisory Opinion on nuclear weapons, confirmed that the principles of distinction and proportionality found in international humanitarian law are " intransgressible " and apply also to nuclear weapons. In applying those principles to nuclear weapons the Court concluded that " the use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the principles and rules of international humanitarian law " . It was unable to decide whether, even in the extreme circumstance of a threat to the very survival of the State, the use of nuclear weapons would be legitimate.

Some have cited specific, narrowly defined scenarios to support the view that nuclear weapons could be used legally in some circumstances. However, the Court found that " ...The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or tim e (...). The radiation released by a nuclear explosion would affect health, agriculture, natural resources and demography over a very wide area. Further, the use of nuclear weapons would be a serious danger to future generations... " . In the light of this finding, the ICRC finds it difficult to envisage how any use of nuclear weapons could be compatible with the rules of international humanitarian law.

The position of the ICRC, as a humanitarian organization, goes – and must go – beyond a purely legal analysis. Nuclear weapons are unique in their destructive power, in the unspeakable human suffering they cause, in the impossibility of controlling their effects in space and time, in the risks of escalation they create, and in the threat they pose to the environment, to future generations, and indeed to the survival of humanity. The ICRC therefore appeals today to all States to ensure that such weapons are never used again, regardless of their views on the legality of such use."