In Rosenblum's Horizons, she sets up a futuristic world where there are many similarities and differences to the world we live in today. Some of the new things that Roseblum introduces are more plausible than others.
I believe that one possible future invention that was seen is the idea of microchips. In the book, microchips are used to allow states to keep track of their citizens. While I think that the use in the future will not be as widespread as the book makes it seem, I feel people will be willing to use these chips as a means of protecting themselves. Although the government will be able to track where you are, this can be good in the sense of protecting their own. Parents would feel safer knowing that their kids had microchips in case they went missing. It would not be mandatory, but after time of seeing the benefits I think it that more people would be willing to put their skepticism aside in order to achieve a higher level of safety.
One of the aspects of Rosenbaum's futuristic world that I do not believe will happen is the idea of the World Council. In the book, the WC serves as the primary governing body of the world. I do not think that it would be realistic to think that a WC would be created, because each area of the world values their sovereignty so much. We have discussed in class how difficult it is for the UN to get tasks done on a large scale. Without any changes to the world stage, I do not see the WC being any different. I think that it would take a major world catastrophe (i.e. major natural disaster) for countries to give aside their power toward an over arching WC. Because I think this is extremely unlikely, I feel that the closest we can get to a WC is a stronger UN.
Friday, April 24, 2015
Plausibility of Horizons
After reading Horizon's by Mary Rosenblum there are a few things that I have to admit could end up actually happening in the future. One thing that I think could definitely occur would be territorial jurisdictions of certain regions. Some would argue and say that this would not happen because states would not want to give up their sovereignty however I think it is already beginning a little. The European Union in a sense is a territorial jurisdiction of that region. Though states still have their own governments within the EU many of their policies and actions are dictated by the EU. However, in the future, as Rosenblum, explains it these territorial jurisdictions would be a little different from how the EU is. I think it would take a lot for a regional jurisdiction to occur. I think if it would resemble anything it would resemble the US in way. With small states within the territory, all answering to a federal government with smaller state level governments. Those small state level governments are the family and corporation super powers that run the different territories.
Aside from many of the things that could possibly happen one day, there are a few that I definitely think would not. One example would be genetic modifications to human beings and clones. I understand that there are scientists who are attempting to clone animals and see if it is possible. However, I don't think as a society we are there and I don't think we will ever be there. Individuals have so much pride being who they are, there are movements now meant to empower individuals to accept who they are and to be proud that they are one of a kind. Being able to clone people or even genetically modify them would completely turn away from the mentality that many are accepting and moving towards now. Additionally, genetic modification of foods and vegetables are beginning to be largely frowned upon. There is a think green movement inspiring more people to go to farmers markets and stores that provide them with more organic options. To go from that mentality to allowing the government to genetically modify human beings and clones is just something I do not foresee happening.
Aside from many of the things that could possibly happen one day, there are a few that I definitely think would not. One example would be genetic modifications to human beings and clones. I understand that there are scientists who are attempting to clone animals and see if it is possible. However, I don't think as a society we are there and I don't think we will ever be there. Individuals have so much pride being who they are, there are movements now meant to empower individuals to accept who they are and to be proud that they are one of a kind. Being able to clone people or even genetically modify them would completely turn away from the mentality that many are accepting and moving towards now. Additionally, genetic modification of foods and vegetables are beginning to be largely frowned upon. There is a think green movement inspiring more people to go to farmers markets and stores that provide them with more organic options. To go from that mentality to allowing the government to genetically modify human beings and clones is just something I do not foresee happening.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Plausibility of Horizons
I think that one of the things that is very plausible in the future is the platforms on which people live that orbit around the earth. I think that as populations expand and people become more adventurous, it will be a natural progression for people to at least consider a move to platforms or even colonizing the Moon and eventually Mars. Even today we have things like the International Space Station which, while being on a small scale, does house people for long periods of time in orbit. I don’t necessarily think that platforms will come out of a terror war. Rather, I think they might just naturally develop as states initially look into building them (again like the ISS) before private companies take over and build larger structures to house more people. There is already a fascination with space travel and space life and I think if this builds it is at least plausible that humans could one day inhabit platforms orbiting the Earth.
I find the microchipping of everyone to be implausible, largely because I think people would eventually not like this and figure out a way to take the microchips out even if they allowed states to insert them to begin with. If some people have microchips and others do not, the system breaks down and is virtually useless if states are trying to track each citizen or person in the world. It may be that microchips are placed in people who commit violent crimes, however I do not feasibly see how citizens would be willing to allow state governments to track them and their every move through a piece of technology inserted into their body. I think the microchipping of cars or things like that could happen because people may not be aware of it, however I do not see a world, even if citizens feel their security is at great risk, in which people are willing to be tracked and analyzed as if they were subjects in an experiment.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Cultural Homogeneity in the Future
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/11/111115-12.html
Though the website title may imply otherwise, the above article is written in English. It outlines the perils of cultural homogeneity. The author makes the case for "cultural diversity", but not just superficial cultural diversity in terms of characteristics like race, ethnic, or religion. The author argues that cultural diversity must also include and focus on a diversity of ways of thinking, ways of life, personalities, and so on - a "diversity of substance".
The author's first argument against cultural homogeneity echoes one made by Akande, in that "cultural homogeneity is dictated by the leaders, not embraced voluntarily by the people in the culture". Essentially it is the desire by an elite few (countries, people, or non-state actors) to impose their way of life upon others who are not living said way of life. I agree with this sentiment, especially since many of the cited examples of 'cultural homogeneity' are superficial and do not really indicate an intrinsic/substantive cultural homogenization. People often cite the fact that English is becoming more and more ubiquitous in the world today as evidence of cultural homogeneity. This, however, is merely a result of the utility of the english language in the world today. Even if a French businessman speaks English in his daily business dealings, for example, he in all likelihood still goes back home to a French-speaking family, eating French food, watching French TV shows and living a French life. It seems that, in my opinion, a lot of the "evidence" of cultural homogeneity really does not indicate a homogenization but rather is indicative of just things and practices that Western nations demand of others in order to participate in their economic and political system. Western business attire has become the dress code in international arenas and capitalism/democracy are spreading across the globe.
This does not indicate cultural homogeneity - cultural diversity will continue to thrive even in the face of globalization because globalization is not doing anything to change the intrinsic properties of cultures that make them diverse.
Though the website title may imply otherwise, the above article is written in English. It outlines the perils of cultural homogeneity. The author makes the case for "cultural diversity", but not just superficial cultural diversity in terms of characteristics like race, ethnic, or religion. The author argues that cultural diversity must also include and focus on a diversity of ways of thinking, ways of life, personalities, and so on - a "diversity of substance".
The author's first argument against cultural homogeneity echoes one made by Akande, in that "cultural homogeneity is dictated by the leaders, not embraced voluntarily by the people in the culture". Essentially it is the desire by an elite few (countries, people, or non-state actors) to impose their way of life upon others who are not living said way of life. I agree with this sentiment, especially since many of the cited examples of 'cultural homogeneity' are superficial and do not really indicate an intrinsic/substantive cultural homogenization. People often cite the fact that English is becoming more and more ubiquitous in the world today as evidence of cultural homogeneity. This, however, is merely a result of the utility of the english language in the world today. Even if a French businessman speaks English in his daily business dealings, for example, he in all likelihood still goes back home to a French-speaking family, eating French food, watching French TV shows and living a French life. It seems that, in my opinion, a lot of the "evidence" of cultural homogeneity really does not indicate a homogenization but rather is indicative of just things and practices that Western nations demand of others in order to participate in their economic and political system. Western business attire has become the dress code in international arenas and capitalism/democracy are spreading across the globe.
This does not indicate cultural homogeneity - cultural diversity will continue to thrive even in the face of globalization because globalization is not doing anything to change the intrinsic properties of cultures that make them diverse.
Friday, April 10, 2015
John Oliver on Government Surveillance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M
John Oliver is a comedian and political satirist. If you look past the humor, Oliver brings up important aspects of government surveillance. This episode he takes on the NSA and government surveillance. The Patriot Act and the controversial provisions need to be reauthorized or they will expire on June 1, 2015. Previously the Patriot act has been extended easily, Oliver mocks how easily it passed in 2011 and the media barely cared to give it attention. But now that Edward Snowden has leaked information about the NSA and surveillance. People are now paying more attention to Patriot Act and the NSA's actions. He also discusses the nature of section 215 which gives the government the right to collect "any tangible things for an investigation to protect against international terrorism. The government says there is security laws effecting what they're allowed to do. They have to answer to the FISA court. But the FISA court has approved 35,434 applications for survelliance orders and only rejected 12. Despite of these facts around 46% of American's say they are not very or not all concerned about the government surveillance programs. Oliver interviews Snowden and discusses the difficulties in understanding this program and the invisible actors. The people need to decide what the balance between privacy and security.
The increasing presence of the internet in daily life has created a challenge for the state. As we discussed in class there are no real political boundaries in cyberspace. Even though the NSA claims they are subject to an approval by FISA it has been shown that it is not too hard to get approval. Therefore there are no real borders or checkpoints for the government and surveillance at this point. The development and growth of cyberspace is furthering globalization and can cause good effects (like deterrence and perception) but there still needs to be a system of restrictions. Even though most American's do not seem to be concerned it doesn't mean they aren't. People may not know to the full extent the programs of the NSA. People may also have a hard time drawing the line between what is needed for safety and what is considered too much. States need to adopt laws that protect people in cyber space. For example, it is against federal law to read someone else's mail if we extended this to emails as well then we are offering more cyber security. I'm not sure exactly what system needs to be put into place but the qualifications for something being a "threat to national security" need to more narrow and well defined to ensure governments aren't infringing on people's rights. It is natural for the state to expand into cyberspace but if left unchecked this could be a dangerous power.
John Oliver is a comedian and political satirist. If you look past the humor, Oliver brings up important aspects of government surveillance. This episode he takes on the NSA and government surveillance. The Patriot Act and the controversial provisions need to be reauthorized or they will expire on June 1, 2015. Previously the Patriot act has been extended easily, Oliver mocks how easily it passed in 2011 and the media barely cared to give it attention. But now that Edward Snowden has leaked information about the NSA and surveillance. People are now paying more attention to Patriot Act and the NSA's actions. He also discusses the nature of section 215 which gives the government the right to collect "any tangible things for an investigation to protect against international terrorism. The government says there is security laws effecting what they're allowed to do. They have to answer to the FISA court. But the FISA court has approved 35,434 applications for survelliance orders and only rejected 12. Despite of these facts around 46% of American's say they are not very or not all concerned about the government surveillance programs. Oliver interviews Snowden and discusses the difficulties in understanding this program and the invisible actors. The people need to decide what the balance between privacy and security.
The increasing presence of the internet in daily life has created a challenge for the state. As we discussed in class there are no real political boundaries in cyberspace. Even though the NSA claims they are subject to an approval by FISA it has been shown that it is not too hard to get approval. Therefore there are no real borders or checkpoints for the government and surveillance at this point. The development and growth of cyberspace is furthering globalization and can cause good effects (like deterrence and perception) but there still needs to be a system of restrictions. Even though most American's do not seem to be concerned it doesn't mean they aren't. People may not know to the full extent the programs of the NSA. People may also have a hard time drawing the line between what is needed for safety and what is considered too much. States need to adopt laws that protect people in cyber space. For example, it is against federal law to read someone else's mail if we extended this to emails as well then we are offering more cyber security. I'm not sure exactly what system needs to be put into place but the qualifications for something being a "threat to national security" need to more narrow and well defined to ensure governments aren't infringing on people's rights. It is natural for the state to expand into cyberspace but if left unchecked this could be a dangerous power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)