Demonstration Speech Response

                 Upon viewing the video of my speech, I noticed some things I can improve on for next time.  Overall, I think I effectively taught the class how to draw three dimensional objects while connecting the importance of this skill to their own lives.  One thing I forgot to do was introduce the steps I was going to take to get to the final drawing; but I successfully explained each step and repeated them at the end.  From the outside, the content seemed to be clear and understandable.

                In terms of dialogue and body language, there were also positive and negative points to be noted.  At large I think I showed a relaxed, confident presentation.  Although, I repeated the hesitations “so” and “um” fairly consistently throughout my explanations.  More practice in front of an audience could make me more comfortable with public speaking and more familiar with my material.  I feel good about my body language and use of visual aids.  I referred back to the ball I was drawing at each step and quickly yet effectively drew it on the board.  Unfortunately my back had to be to my audience while I was drawing on the board.  Maybe bringing in a white board to hold in front of me to draw on would have been more effective.  Or instead of drawing each step, showing pictures of each step.  Lastly, I could have made a little more eye contact with the audience to further convey my message.

               Overall, I was relatively pleased with my speech; I think it was clear and relatable.  With a little correction in body language and use of materials, I can form an even more effective speech.

Response: Dialogue on Climate Stifled by Political Two-Step

http://lsc100fall2010.blogspot.com/

             Mr. Spartz describes how recently political figures, such as Dick Cheney and other Republicans, have denied that climate change is occurring despite the enormity of scientific evidence that it is occurring.  By stating that fact is false, these leaders sway a debate in the public eye “toward head-in-the-sand-willful-ignorance”.

Recently in my Environmental Studies class, we have discussed this political denial of reality and how it has largely swayed Americans.  There is no doubt that a climate change beyond natural variability is occurring.  99.9% of scientists believe that it is and have uncovered countless pieces of evidence to prove it.  Mr. Spartz asks, if the question of whether it exists or not (which it does) has already been answered, “why would political figures find it beneficial to perpetuate such views?”  I think the motives behind these highly oppositional views are purely profit driven.  There is a whole industry behind denying proven science to make money.  This is called the denial industry.  The public begins to believe a fact is false through such open denial.  Debate grows and eventually government slows regulation and resists change.  Industries then have more time to make money by manufacturing their products despite environmental harm it may cause.

It is unfortunate that individuals would put the future health of our planet at harm for their own economical benefits, but it is even more unfortunate that the American public is so easily swayed by denial of science.  Does science need to be more widely known to the public or does the public need to reevaluate their priorities?  I believe the later is true.  Americans have lived a very comfortable lifestyle so far without the threat of climate change.  Now that it is eminent, many don’t want to abandon that lifestyle they have grown to know and love.  To persist in the face of climate change Americans must not abandon these lifestyles but adapt to the possible changes before resiliency is not an option.

Solar Homes Sold 20% Faster, and for 17% More, NREL Study Finds

http://cleantechnica.com/

CleanTechnica created this blog regarding renewable energy application to homes. The blog has been active for almost three years, and the authors submit posts quite consistently.  There are at least 2 posts every day.  The authors use hyperlinks to link back to articles that support a point with scientific evidence such as environmental maps or statistical analysis.  Hyperlinks are also used to provide the reader with background information on the article’s topic.  Throughout the posts, many pictures and graphs are used.  The graphs are mostly to provide support for an author’s explanation of a topic, while pictures show the reader what green technologies are being described and how they affect the environment.

http://cleantechnica.com/2010/10/23/solar-homes-sold-20-faster-and-for-17-more-nrel-study-finds/

                The author of this blog post is Susan Kraemer and it came from the CleanTechnica blog site.  It was written very recently on October 23, 2010.  The tone was fairly similar to the tone I was aiming for in my research paper.  It was non-biased and clearly stated the facts and pros and cons of each point, although it is a little more informal.  It is set up in more of an experiment type format.  This style more effectively describes the results of selling a solar versus non-solar powered home.  Also, rather than stating numbers and statistics to show results as I did in my research paper, the author links back to other articles or graphs that show the statistical analysis of the green home market.  This is probably an easier method to provide evidence on an online blog.

Response to Facebook High Res Photos

Travis Balinas:  Facebook is already a popular way to share photo with your 'friends,' but the quality leaves a little something to be desired, to say the least. Well, that's all about to change, as the company has announced that it'll be rolling out high resolution photo uploading to all of its users over the coming weeks. Users will be able to upload and store photos that are eight times larger than what the service now allows (720 pixels). At the same time, the photo viewer will be upgraded to have a lightbox feel -- black background -- for better viewing. Great news, no doubt, for those of us who just couldn't stand another low res shot of someone's baby doing something silly

Response:

I agree that facebook has made great leaps in giving society the opportunity to stay connected with "friends" that you might have normally forgotten about.  It is an opportunity to send more than just a yearly holiday card or a phone call.  But in many ways facebook has made society that much less connected with each other.  There is something more meaningful behind a post card or phone call. It means that someone who cared took the time out of their day to think about you and make contact, rather than quickly commenting on an unnecessary picture of you.  I suppose facebook’s usefulness depends on the user’s intentions; to stay connected with distant family and friends, or to show all your friends the pictures you took together last night.  With the new application of high resolution photos, that even more contact is lost.  Why go out of your way to check up on your friends and family when you can see for yourself through high resolution facebook photos?  For most, it is only a picture of someone’s baby doing something silly anyway.  The avid user might enjoy this more precise way to stay updated, but the user who relies on facebook to maintain relationships loses an obligation to reach out and contact that “friend” in the real world.  I for one don’t want to see the internet world, completely replace the real world.  It may be only high resolution photos now, but who knows what will be next.

Organs for sale?

                I do not believe an individual has the right to sell his or her organs due to a moral obligation to donate organs if they are needed by another person.  A person should have the right to say what will happen to their body after the die, or even what happens to removed organs if they are still alive.  This means one should have the right to say if they want their organs donated or not.  In regards to someone selling their organs, this right should not be granted.  If someone has the opportunity to give an organ to another person in need and has no moral obligations against sharing organs, then the organ should be donated not sold.  All humans have a moral obligation to help others in need, and if someone is willing to help another, they should do it at no cost.  If people were to start charging each other for acts of kindness they were already willing to do, life would be boiled down to quantitative terms.  There are some things that cannot be priced.  I can only hope that the organ recipient would feel the need to thank or repay the donor in other terms than an official agreement to buy the organ.  The act of giving is much more powerful than that of buying.

"Sell Organs to Save Lives"- Martin Wilkinson

The demand for organ donors far outstrips the supply.

In this week's Scrubbing Up, Martin Wilkinson, a visiting professor at Keele University and former chairman of the New Zealand Bioethics Council, argues that selling organs is the way forward.

                After reading Martin Wilkinson’s article on organ sale, I realize that organs are in much higher demand than supply.  Using money as an incentive would possibly meet demand and surpass it, like what happened in Iran.  This doesn’t change my answer but it does make me consider some kind of balance between having the right to sell ones organs.  I am afraid that allowing this right will, as Wilkinson said, “replace altruism with commerce,” but I would not want to deny patients the opportunity to get an organ.  Government or insurance buying the organ could maybe provide a middle ground, or maybe allowing the sale of an organ within certain requirements.  Either way, I believe that it is essential that the act of doing a good deed is not replaced with money driven motives.