Esteban Orozco Yachay Tech University July 24, 2016
Dear portfolio reader: First, thanks to all who reading my portfolio. When I entered to English class level 6, I have a lot of expectations and questions. I expect my teacher to help me with my growth in this level also he expected to learn more about how to make good essays and more. Over time my teacher met all my expectations and he taught me tree important strategies for create more easily essays. The first strategy was work in groups, when I work with my classmates I feel like in family and my classmates help to me in different aspects like: pronunciation, grammars and development. The second strategy was take notes in class and the third was accept advices of your teacher and classmates. In this level we work in four essays and one final research project. The first essay was the response essay, in this essay we had to write about one video or article and write about the feelings about this paper or video. The second essays was about investigation and exploration, in this essay I need to search a lot of information about my topic. I like this essay because I learned a lot of things about ethics that was my topic for this essay. The third essay was about interpretation, in this occasion I worked with friends and that was hard because each member of this group had their own interpretation and was difficult choose the best interpretencion. The fourth essay was about argumentation and the special of this essay was that I write in class, in my opinion this essays was the most difficult
because I didn’t have any tool that help me with the grammar. Finally, my last work was the final research project, for this paper I worked really hard because I needed to practice all things that I learn in English class. I read so much and find a lot information that help me to realize this work. The work was hard but eventually improved my English and create five good essays, but the most important for me was learning more English and try to understand the importance of learning English. I think that a lot of students learning English of obligation and in the beginning for my, that is true, but when you understand that English can be open a lot of opportunities for communicate with other persons in the world. You begin to love English. Finally, I learn so much about English and write essays, with help to my teacher and classmates. I feel ready to advance to the next level of English in Yachay and I feel ready for have classes in English. Everything that I learned in this course is thanks to the work and the help of several people, so I thank them a lot. I hope you enjoy my essays and learn something about my growth at this level.
Fondly,
Esteban Alejandro Orozco Sanchez.
The capitalism minimize the ethics
What is your dream? Maybe be millionaire or maybe live in world, where do not exist crimes and all people is ethical. Maybe the most popular is the number one but you feel that the correctly is the number two. In this essay I trying to show how the capitalism minimize the ethics. Martin Shkreli is good example for my thesis. He think in money and himself, regardless of anything else. He buy the permissions for fabricate the drug DARAPRIM, and this drug cost only 13,50 dollars, when Martin buy the patent the drug cost 750,50 dollars. Obviously with this action he make a lot of money and be a good capitalism but he minimize ethical. (Shkreli, 2016) The people do not see I have done a lot of research and I thinking in others. Martin said that he are not the evil and he trying to help to the people with VIH. When I saw the video I think that Martin is insane and he do not have any sense of ethics. Because he do not had good reasons for increment the price of the drug. We can see that the unique reason for increment the price is that Martin only think in money and himself. I think the video is really good for the viewer can make an opinion about Martin and him actions. But at the same time when I saw the video I have time to reflect about what if I had the same opportunities of Martin?. Probably in my case I buy the patent and do not increase the cost, but if I know that can be rich only if I increase the cost?
Maybe the capitalism can be more ethical than Martin, but is impossible deny that it minimize the ethics in the human. The money is a poison that makes us selfish, but all people wants and need money. In this video we can hate Martin but in the same time we can ask to ourselves: Why Martin realize this actions? I think because he unknown the meaning and sense of ethics. Martin is a good capitalism, but in the same time is a bad person because the society believe in ethics. The society do not think in personals interests, thinking more in all people who compose and ethics are the base for the society that think in all. Now when you reflect and analyze the video, you can understand that the ethics can be an obstacle for the money. You can see in the world that the people most rich probably forgot the ethics for earn money. If you thinking that Martin is the evil and complete ass, I need that put yourself in the shoes of Martin and ask yourself: Can you forgot or minimize the ethics in your life for be rich? I thinks the most common answer is no like Martin, because actually we know that capitalism think more in money and Martin do not have good ethics. Have a lot of money are the dream of much people and the most probably is that this people minimize yours ethics for be rich. Because is impossible thinking more in others and not in our-self. Martin expose this situation very good but if you hates Martin possible can will hates yourself if you wants money and minimize ethics. Remember that the capitalism thinking more in money than ethics.
Ethics loses strength in the scientific world “A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this world.” –Albert Camus Science is always related to ethics, but this does not mean they are always in same proportion. The ethics in the science try to regularize the actions that happen in laboratories, but currently the science minimize ethics for the science advance. For this reason, the human could suffer several adverse consequences, for example: do not have privacy, the machines control the human, etc. The human being must be aware of ethics for responsible technological progress. (Leonhard, 2014) “Everything will depend on our ethics”. The human need to have a good sense of ethics, because how we will decide if the human resurrection is correct, why google know your location all time, how Facebook using your information, etc. The companies and the science say that everything is useful and thinking for the human. A lot of people thinking in the same way, but in the other hand we also have those who believe that this is unethical. (Leonhard, 2014) Is frightening to think what will happen when technology exceeds the human, because the technology does not have ethics. We think that we knowing the ethics and therefore should not have any problem with the rapid scientific progress, because we think that we have the control of technology, internet and advance. But actually we do not have complete control and we do not know who really has control.
The problem the technology do not have ethics and lose strength in the scientific world. How we can solve this problem? I think the information is limited and the majority of people that use technology, internet, etc. He does not know the problems
and dangers that the exclusion of the Ethics in science can cause. For this reason we need more information about what the Internet companies do with our information and they need that information. A good example of unethical technology is the privacy policies in internet. What happen when we see the privacy policies in any document, I think the majority do not read and go to the final of the page and press the accept button. One solution is take ten minutes and read the privacy policies, because currently the internet is the owner of our privacy and have powerful weapon that protects. This weapon are the privacy policies that we accept without read. Another solution is further reforms so that the work ethic is stronger in the world of science. If we begin to act we not get to a world where machines rule us and do not fulfill their true purpose which is to help and be useful for us. The world loses its values, the world loses its ethics, loses everything makes him human and everything is the ambition of rapid scientific progress. We must begin to value our human part and as Gerd Leonhard said: We cannot thinking in ethics when the ethics not think in all. First we need to improve our ethics and latter thinking in technology. Finally in conclude that, human do not understand the dangerous of unethical advance in technology. Exist some solutions for this problem, but the most important is to improve our ethical and ask about actions that companies that manage the internet and technology.
BibliografĂa Albert Camus. (n.d.). BrainyQuote.com. Retrieved May 16, 2016, from BrainyQuote.com Web site: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/albertcamu118026.html Leonhard, G. (06 de Dicienbre de 2014). Digital ethics and the future of humans in a connected world. Brussels, Belgica.
Interpretation of: The Road not Taken
Have you ever asked yourself what should have happened if you would have taken another decision? Life sometimes puts us in hard situations, and the actions that we choose to deal with such problems, defines our destiny. Sometimes we spend more time worried about our problems, then trying to solve it easy and faster. In this poem we can see how the author use some literary figures for explain his main point. Robert Frost tells us in the poem, “The Road Not Taken” that the decisions we make define our destiny and shape our future.
In the first paragraph uses words like "forest" to show that life is a path not defined and asymmetrical, not as a road that is symmetrical and has a fixed final destination; also shows us that we are alone when making our decisions, especially those that will define our future as what career follow or what work accept, because no one will decide for us. In the second line explains that we only have one chance to choose because we can´t choose two paths at the same time, so in the end, using the "And Looked down one as far as I could. To where it bent in the undergrowth ", it shows that a person analyzes each decision which can more, since we can never know exactly what will happen to take one or another decision, all decisions have hidden and unexpected things we fail to see.
The poem through metaphors tries to explain how humans confronted in your life difficult decisions. From the first line Robert Frost used metaphors like a: “Two roads diverged in a yellow wood “, with this metaphor we can relate the two roads with difficult
decisions and the yellow forest with our life. Maybe the author chose a forest, because it
is easier for the reader to relate life with a natural space instead of an artificial one. Other metaphor that we can analyze is: (Frost, 1920) “Because it was grassy and wanted wear” With this metaphor the author shows, how the decision that we choose can be have a lot of obstacles, but we can't come back.
In the life you must not have to look back and turn around. “And both roads, that morning equally lay” said Robert Frost. With this statement, he is explaining that when you take the hardest way to solve the problems, you maybe can be tented to go back and go for the easy way. “In leaves no step had trodden black” in this verse we can understand that one of the road was never taken, because there was no signs of steps. We you took the less easy road, you maybe can realize that almost anyone has passed through the things that you are experiencing. “Yet knowing how way leads on to way”, said the author to explain the courage you must have to take the difficult road despite of knowing it is going to put harder in the future. And finally “I doubted if I should ever come back”, author explain that you must not retire in your life, because when you doubt, you are doubting about yourself capacity.
Your decisions in life can have a considerable change to your life. Robert tries to say and compare about the two different ways, that in any part of your, life have to choose. When you chose the “a” option, and after that you see what was the results, you think and say “What should have happened if I chose the ‘b’ option?” This is an issue that everyone has to deal with in his life. The consequence of each way maybe is very different to the other, but you never know how should have been the other results. When you see the
results that you have after a case, maybe you have bad results, so then you think the other option would be better.
With a variety of literary figures the author presents how humans always is facing different decisions that will build your future. In each paragraph Robert Frost shows clearly the different factors that exist in the moment to choose a decision. For example when to take one road to can´t come back. This poem helps to emphasize how important decisions make differences in the life.
BibliografĂa Frost, R. (s.f.). The road not taken. The road not taken.
Should censorship be praticed in schools?
What happen if your soon read a book with violence and sexual things? Censorship in schooles try to regularate the media that students can see. But, is correct manipulate the media in schools? The debate about censorship in the school is really peer, because we can understand that teachers and parents try to help to srudetns in everithing, nut on the other hand, we need understand that students students need to learn about everything and the must important the students need to learn about wathever tht they want. Censorship is a phenomenon thatthat teahers use incorrectly and limit the material in the school. The hight problem with the censorship that it depend on the person and how they thing. For example, teachers in Germany think different for teacher in Israel. For this reason censorship have a incorrectly use because everypeople can interprate how they want. In this point we need ask ourselves who control censorship and how he use censorchip? Teachers, parerents, judges and school oficials try to take the best decicion about censorship, but school actions like censorship needs control for “experts”. But, who is expert in this topic? In general when an school needs taje decicions about censorship, “one group approves a book and then latter another group disaproves the same book”, (Petress, 2015). Later the problem pass to schoole oficials but thus frequenly have defensive decicions. Fr this reasons the censorship do not be practiced in the schools, because do not exist who can take decisions about this. School censors believe the censorship help, to students for they do not be agresive, insiting, rasist, etc. They say that currently exist a lot of media that have sexual scenas, violence , raial attack and more anti-values. When the clildrens can see all this things,
they are incited to be bad people. The censorship erase this factor and analize the media that students can see acording their age. When we hae books and media with racial slurs, violence and sexual senes, we need to understading that all this thing exist in the real life. Students need to learned about the real world. What is the correct form to teaching with censorship? The correct form is that the teacher helps the student to understand the meaning of this things and how the media can help to the student to be better person, not only because one book have violence meaning that the book is bad and promove the violence in the student. Censorship is dangerous for the student because limited their minds and not exist who contrl the censorship. When we talk abot censorship we enter in debate and for realize it we need understand who, why and how appply censorship. In the life exist bad and good things and we need to lear about both, for we can erase in the most part the bad things and improve the good. Censorship is used for not showing the life to the students.
Ethics in the world of nuclear weapons
On July 16, 1945, the first atomic bomb was tested in New Mexico. When Robert Oppenheimer, the scientist who had directed the scientific work on the bomb, saw the power and destruction of the weapon, he said: “I am become death, the shattered of worlds.” (Granof, 2000). Currently in the world there exists more than 15,000 nuclear weapons, possessed by eight nations containing 5,000 megatons of destructive energy (Federation of American Scientists 2016, 2016). The only thing that has kept these weapons inactive is the ethics of the humanity. Ethics is to regularize the actions of the humans and trying to maintain peace and order. The gradual and ultimate neglect of ethics will most likely lead to a nuclear war between nations and probably the extinction of humanity.
The appreciation of the life and the duty of states and individuals to protect life is a fundamental characteristic of human ethics and values. “The fact remains that the existence of nuclear weapons threatens the whole of civilization”. (Granof, 2000). It is the big difference with nuclear weapons. It cannot ethical that the human allows that nuclear weapons exist, if the nuclear bombs threatens with the very survival of humanity. The fear that the world experiences about nuclear weapons, is itself an evil, as much as nuclear war itself. The fear and the constant threat posed by the existence of nuclear weapons cause an imbalance in the world, because the countries that possessing nuclear weapons cause fear to other countries. For these reasons and others, the possession and creation of nuclear weapons are unethical.
The race to have the power of the atomic bomb never ends. In the beginning the atomic bomb was created to prevent the invasion of the Nazis (Njølstad, 2003). When the Nazis surrendered, U.S.A and the Soviet Union declared that they were in favor of putting the atomic bomb under the foolproof international control. At the end of 1946 it was clear to everybody that the effort to prevent a nuclear arms race had failed (Njølstad, 2003). But not only this countries entered to the race for create nuclear weapons. According with the treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), there are five countries that have nuclear weapons: United States, Russia. United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, the French Republic and the People's Republic of China.
Is unethical put first the survival of the states that human survival. The countries that accepted the NPT have refused to destroy its nuclear weapons under the pretext of nuclear weapons will be used to protect the states, maintain peace and order (Granof, 2000). This makes us understand that possession of bombs is a strategic and political issue. (Granof, 2000) The world of politics has been imposed to the importance of ethics. The nuclear weapons currently form part of the politics, but ethics gradually disappears in the politic world. In this point we can understand that nuclear weapons living with us in a lot of aspects, but ethics is becoming a topic to forget or leave as secondary to our lives. The human has ceded control fear and politics. The human needs to start getting control and with the help of their ethical eliminate nuclear weapons and not to themselves. Remember that the destructive power of these weapons is enough to destroy our society and themselves.
The destructive power of nuclear bombs is have the potential to destroy the entire eco system of the planet, but exist the fear factor that can be more destructive for societies. The judge of the international court of Justice Gregory Weeramantry emphasized that, the magnitude of destructive power is only one of the features of nuclear bomb. The nuclear bomb is unique weapon that threatens the future of humanity. It is unique as a source of continuing danger to human health, even long after its use. Its infringement of humanitarian law goes beyond its being a weapon of mass destruction, to reasons which penetrate far deeper into the core of humanitarian law (Granof, 2000).
Legal, moral and ethical questions engendered by the threat of massive destruction and wound to the innocent, the environment, and future generations continue to loom before us (Granof, 2000). NPS treaty does not talk about removing the bombs, burying them or leave them in the bottom of the sea. Current policies of nuclear bombs try to persuade the world about the horrific destruction of vast numbers of innocent people and the destruction of the environment, rendering the world hostile to generations yet to be blessed with life. The world seems to forget what happened in Hiroshima, New Mexico and Nagasaki. The future of the world begins to rely on nuclear bombs, because no longer will exist wars where millions of people die but will exist wars where countries are completely annihilated. Nuclear weapons still created and fear of losing control due to lack of ethics continues to grow. Is impossible think how some persons have the control of nuclear weapons and when this person going to use them. If the world improves their ethics, this context change considerable.
Bong Wie, an Iowa State University scientist said in the meeting of 2014 NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts that nuclear bombs could be used against space rocks and asteroids which head towards Earth. Wie shared that he and his team are studying a concept spacecraft labeled Hypervelocity Asteroid Intercept Vehicle (HAIV) which would be exploded into space to destroy the asteroid. When a space rock or an asteroid is heading towards the earth with less time to spare, nuclear bombs are the best solutions. The nuclear weapons are not unethical if can help to preserve the human life. Is useful and protect the earth of asteroid collision. Also the countries that have nuclear weapons have said: “the nuclear weapons can help for defend the states”.
The history and this paper shows how the nuclear bombs can´t be using for anything good, only for kill people, for this reason the argument of Bong Wie opposes my thesis. I think the argument of Bong We is wrong because, the impact of nuclear bomb and asteroid can will be devastating and cause collateral damage. Maybe exist other options for destroy an asteroid and this options can be safer. Not only because a nuclear bomb can destroy an asteroid the nuclear weapons are ethical or all damage and negative effects disappear. Currently the nuclear weapons only cause fear and ethics problems.
NPT treaty has been practically invalidated, because only the nations respects some points. The treaty specifies that the creation of nuclear weapons is unethical and a risk for the world, but in the same treaty protect the nations that have nuclear bombs. The treaty was never specific and was based more on the own benefits. Without a coherent treaty no obligation to delete or create penalties for nuclear weapons.
Finally, the best way to prevent the nuclear holocaust is analyzing and improving global ethics. When the human saw the destructive power of nuclear weapons, they understood that was needed to regulate the creation and investigation of nuclear weapons. For this reasons in 1968 the vast majority of sovereign states came together and created the NPT (treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) (Delegation of United States , 1970). But this treaty was not enough to stop the creation of nuclear weapons. Because in the treaty they protected the countries with nuclear weapons and put ethics as main factor for not detonate any nuclear bomb. 4
References
Delegation of United States . (5 de March de 1970). Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Wapons. Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Wapons. Federation of American Scientists 2016. (2016). Ican. Obtenido de Ican: http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals/ Granof, J. (12 de September de 2000). Nuclear Weapons, Ethics, Morals, and Law. Obtenido de nuclearfiles: http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/keyissues/ethics/issues/political/weapons_ethics.pdf Njølstad, O. (19 de June de 2003). Nobelprize.org. Obtenido de Nobelprize.org: https://www.nobelprize.org/educational/peace/nuclear_weapons/readmore.html