Genetic Modification

The basic building blocks for an inanimate objects are atoms, it's shape, form and characteristics all depends on the atoms that it composes of, which in term can easily determine if the object is a liquid, solid or gas substances. The string of life in a living thing is the DNA, every DNA can determine what would a human look like, the shape of one's nose, the color of one's eye and so on, DNA also carries crucial information about a person, telling if oneself is prone to sickness due to a heritage gene that weakens ones immunity system. What if we can control the genes that a human being can have?, altering it which in turn making it a more superior being, blocking genes that causes chronic diseases and applying genes that strengthen the person. Alot of people are highly against such thing since they think by genetically modifying living organism we are trying to play as God, they also think it can be highly risky and cause plenty of problems. Others are for genetic modification believing that it is one of the main key towards the advancement of mankind, entering a new era of a world with a major reduction to casualties caused by illnesses. I'm going to state the reasons why people support genetic modification on humans.

Genetic modification can be used to alter the genes of babies that are in the embryo, that have a really high risk of getting a chronic birth disease,the mitochondrial disease that prevents mitochondria to convert food to energy, this disease causes different problem that varies from one person to another, depending on where the defect mitochondria is located; this will result on  poor growth, loss of muscle coordination, muscle weakness, visual problems, hearing problems, learning disabilities, heart disease etc, seriously harmful if it is presented in the cerebrum, muscle or nerves since these organ/tissue requires the most amount of energy. We can as well modify humans to be better athletes by using gene doping, it takes advantage of the cutting edge technology of gene therapy increasing the amount of protein and hormones a person have resulting in increase of strength. Have you ever undergo the lose of a loved one due to cancer, well with genetic modification cancer could be cure since cancer are mutated cells this approach is called T-cell immunotherapy, However, it has been limited by the ability to isolate and expand T cells restricted to tumour-associated antigens. Using ex vivo gene transfer, T cells from patients can be genetically engineered to express a novel T cell receptor or chimeric antigen receptor to specifically recognize a tumour-associated antigen and thereby selectively kill tumour cell. Even with all its potential it is still a risky practice.

There are plenty of reasons why people are highly against such practice. There was an experiment made to extend a living things life, the experiment was conducted on a lab rat, by fixing the telomeres which ensure that the cells keep dividing keeping a living thing to last longer, so as they fix it the rat became more active and healthier as if it was renew though after a few days it directly developed cancer cells which cause its death, these kind of results are unexpected  making it hazardous to conduct it on human beings especially as the person who got genetically modified produced a child it will go to the child and that child's child so on,
causing a new line of generations with heretic diseases that could be fetal. Biological weapon is horrible as it is, spreading illnesses through viruses and bacteria, through genetic modification this type of weapon becomes alot stronger manipulating the pathogen increasing its survivability, infectivity,virulence, and drug resistances; making it really hard to actually cure especially how contagious it could be, even with a huge possibility of resulting in a large bio outbreak ending up with alot of causalities, these types of weapons could be really frightening.

In my opinion the advancement of genetics is crucial for advancement of mankind even if horrible weapons could be made, most technology leaping advancement have been made into a weapon, firstly with metal smiting comes swords and guns, chemistry resulted in bomb, electronics created smart bombs, and nuclear physics resulted in atomic bombs, with every technology there is a huge probability to be turned into a weapon, so we most look at the pros and cons and in genetics obviously the pros outweigh the cons.       

Alternative source of energy

Nowadays talks about energy are more vital than ever, especially as the abundances of oil are coming to an end; rumour has it that it might last for another 20 or 30 years. We should act now before it will be a little too late. Many consider nuclear and solar energy are great alternatives as sources of energy but even they have their flaws. The thing with solar energy seems to have more cons than pros.

Solar energy is considered as the purest form of power, since its source is the sun, making it one of the cleanest sources of energy, so technically as sunlight hits the solar panel, it absorbs the light which in turns excites the electron which creates energy. Solar panels have alot of flaws; the first thing is that its efficiency is too low to actually replace the leading energy source which causes alot of dislike toward solar energy; as well it happens to be really expensive as well as taking almost 80 years for its return value.  The great thing from harvesting energy from the sun, is that the sun is capable of 274 gigawatt per year which is 20,000 times more than what humanity consumes, meaning that the potential of solar energy is limitless and could sustain mankind's needs of energy now and for evermore; we just need to advance the way we harvest solar energy; lots of people talk about nuclear being a better replacement.

Nuclear energy is as well a cleaner method of generating electricity than petroleum; nuclear can as well generate a huge amount of energy making it really efficient as well as the resource which lasts a lot longer than fossil fuel energy; it doesn't even produce any pollution while generating electricity; even if it sounds really promising, it does have its flaws. First the people who works in the power plants are prone to mutation to their genes so they usually can just work in a nuclear plant for about 10 year or less in their entire life time; nuclear wastes as well comes to mind. The radiation that it produces is so high that containing it seems to be a huge challenge; because of the properties of nuclear wastes it can easily change the chemical and physical properties of other materials, so it must be stored in a place that isn't harmful to the environment; even if that is the case accidentally going near to that area can actually kill you by causing cancer. It takes a millennium for nuclear wastes to finally decompose which can pose  a huge problem if we mainly depend on nuclear power.

In my opinion we should switch to nuclear energy while also investing a lot of money and time in solar energy research till it becomes a viable replacement for both nuclear and fossil fuel energy.

Capital Punishment

Capital punishment has been in the justice system for a long time; just recently most western countries have abolished such laws because of cruelty. Some people believe that blood for blood is necessary in order to ease the pain of losing a loved one while others beg to differ and think that nothing good will come out of fighting fire with fire; it will just create a bigger pile of fire; though I can see that each side has valid points I'll firstly discuss points why people are in favor of vengeance.

Have you ever wondered what it feels like if a person who murdered your loved one just ends up being alive with a chance of being freed? Never being able to see those that you hold dear to you smiling, if they hadn't gotten murdered, all the time that you could have spent with a loved one, the shared experience and feelings that you could cherish as a lifetime memory; those dreams just turns into dust and fantasy right in front of your eyes, while the murderer just keeps living. In Norway a mass murder was committed by Anders Breivik; he killed 77 people, and the majority of the victims were teenagers; in the end his verdict was just 21 years of imprisonment with a chance of extension. After all that he has done he still thinks he has the rights to complain about how life in prison is torture, having around 12 demands and as well threatening to go on hunger strike. All of the victims' families would have prefered if he got executed. For now I will discuss those against capital punishment.

In some cases you can never really find out the true story about murder, whether it was framing a person or self defense. Lots of innocents have suffered being wrongly accused of a murder. At least they end up in prison with still a chance to prove their innocence, instead of being hanged since in a courtroom during a trial all it takes is a good lawyer to make a defendant to be found guilty, which is unfair if the defendant would just be hanged for being wrongfully accused.

In my opinion I am mostly for capital punishment but I don't think its 100% the right form of justice, since there is a chance that they accused the wrong person, only to find their mistake when it is too late; so in conclusion I mostly support capital punishment 

Fair and False Analogy

The CPU of a computer function like a brain where it collects data, organize it, compute and calculate the necessary data through data buses.

It is a false argument to completely believe that advancement in nuclear field will just bring misery and destruction, nuclear energy have been proven to be a much more efficient and cleaner way to generate electricity than oil, imagine the stuff we can accomplish once nuclear technology have properly advances.

Critical Thinking

Definition of critical thinking: The act of critical thinking is to analyse a certain problem, condition, thought, article or story and to question it is it really what it states to be, are they some sort of hidden agenda that were kept away from the reader and why is that, trying to find a most possible logical solution there is and seeing where the story doesn't hold up together and became just all together flawed.

Barriers of Critical Thinking

1- Lack of Confidence
2-Idolism
3- Environment
4- being in a consensus society
5- Avoiding to hurt the feelings of others
6- Being cautions not to contradict your superior (teacher,manager,boss etc) since it may cause a problem in the work area
7- Being new to a certain place
8- Stage fright
9- Arrogance, ignorant and pride
10-Scared of giving a misleading information

Global Warming

Global Warming Solutions?
Global warming is the process when solar rays are trapped within the environment due to gases that floats just around the environment,  big question is how to prevent or reduce such phenomenon? Recently there have been a lot of research in order to reduce the effects of global warming since it causes a worldwide climate change and dangerous natural disasters, so the film of Al Gore the documentary Inconvenient Truth it listed most possible solution.

Al Gore have shown pictures of what was happening to all the icy areas in the world which was really terrifying how you see all the glaciers beginning to melt and just fade away as if it never existed, icy mountain turning into a barren mountain, huge ice lands like in the north pool are starting to shrink more and more as we produce more pollution, if nothing will be done eventually the North pole icy land will completely melt away which will result in a huge increase in the sea level might cause lands and cities to be completely filled with water, solutions have been made in the movie but not all of it are logical or possible.

Al Gore stated in order to reduce pollution we should recycle more which was an obvious point but in order to do such possible thing everyone should take part in it, but that won't be possible even with increase awareness,  in the end it all depends on the consciousness of oneself so a stricter law should be made to enable recycling to the fullest. Al Gore as well suggested that everyone should invest in a cleaner but a greener equipment usually cost a lot more so people who are financially troubled, in my opinion i think huge companies should invest in a more efficient machine which will result in a cheaper and cleaner product.

Overall the documentary was really informative and gave us many evidence about how horrible is global warming, Al Gore have provided have made a great presentation which was really entertaining and knowledgeable.