The final project of the term asks you to learn more about a current question derived from the news of the day and/or the lives of students. Students will investigate their own subjects, forming a specific question to guide research. In this enterprise, writers are expected to encounter a range of texts and sources outside the course. Students will integrate these sources into their own writing, ultimately coming to a (perhaps tentative) conclusion or claim (thesis) from their research and learning.
11 thoughts on “Researched argument essay”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Mohammad Jahangir
Professor Christopher Moore
English 2100
May 7th, 2020
For centuries, women have been considered as part of the human species whose roles are limited to household chores and just as mothers. Access to education, civil rights, responsibilities, equality of resources, job opportunities, roles in power, and representation in scholarly works are some of the masculine privileges that women have had to struggle to break into. Humans are meant to be the same, and the issues of masculinity and femininity are just excuses to create a discriminatory society where the man has more importance and roles tagged to him as compared to the women. We all have the same body systems and thus should have equal opportunities and platforms to express our skills, ideas, talents, gifts, and intellectual property regardless of our gender. However, according to an article in the New York Times, women seem to be far from equal liberation in the world of art.
For years, women have been making and creating art of all kinds, yet their work receives no recognition or equal representation as those of men. The article’s findings are crucial as it shows how women are into every kind of art, ranging from photography, paintings, up to textiles (McShane, 2020). Their work is nevertheless attractive and even more appealing than you would say of men. Their art could be used to generate history, advance fashion, be a source of income, and promote the social and economic status of women artists. Women’s work of art should get more recognition, representation, and exhibition to achieve an equal society.
In as much as there has been a critical liberation in recent years concerning gender equality in the society, a lot of areas to receive equal representation have been left out. Forgetting essential areas such as art only calls for more immediate cry and protest for women to be recognized in the world of art. Most galleries’ exhibitions in the United States contain artworks primarily dominated by men. The artwork of women-only makes up for 3% of all the art galleries exhibited in the United States (McShane, 2020). Such a small percentage only suggests that women have little or no recognition in the world of paintings, textiles, and photography. Thus, equality is yet to be achieved in such a world. The list of great women artists almost ends up nil, not because there aren’t any but because those who are there have no platform to expose their work (Meskimmon, 2003).
Through art, we get to understand a lot about the image captured or drawn. Men have always been on the frontline to use art as a way to represent their deep emotions, feelings, experiences, and ambitions. A picture is worth a thousand words. Women have the right to use art as a platform to tell the world of their feelings, experiences, and visions. Men have, for generations, made many scholarly articles and paintings explaining and discussing men. This should not always be the case as women have the primary role of telling the world what they go through and not through the lens of a man who does not fully understand all the realms of a woman. Understanding the true nature of a person helps in designing the rightful ways to contain that person comfortably and bring the best out of them. Researchers, scientists, politicians, lawmakers, and the public should, therefore, allow women to express their ideologies through all facets of life, including art. Women’s contributions to society through art should be recognized to capture it all about women. Women’s approach to making art has a different formality and qualities of expressions to that of men. Therefore, women have a different level of greatness, which forms the basis to recognize the distinctive and feminine style (Nochlin, 1971).
Even though the world keeps on learning about equal gender representation through common questions of why women are not in this or that, there exist valuable arguments to neutralize the concerns. In the world of art, there exist great men artists like Picasso and Michelangelo who are way above limits in comparison to recognized women artists. Generally, this may be the only real reason why artworks by women do not fare equally in contrast to those of men. This fact, however, could be make-believe as there exists no particular history concerning women artists and their works in the past. Indeed, a lot of efforts should be engaged in tracing artworks by women and bringing them to life, and maybe in the future, they will bear much recognition, importance, and greatness as compared to those by men. The potential that women have has been captured in the New York Times article, which shows the impressive efforts that the state of Boston has in exhibiting artworks of women. An exhibition exclusively for women is what the world needs right now as a pro in gender equality warfare. Such exhibitions are a gesture to women out there who have great art ideas that they now can do their work, and it gets recognition in society, unlike the past decades (Adler, 2010).
Using artwork to redefine feminism is giving women a position in the future. In a world growing so fast technologically and where one’s set of skills, talents, gifts, and education defines their success and social status, the future of artistic women could be guaranteed only if their works matters. By having something acceptable and one that could earn you social and economic value serves to encourage the inferior to have the will power to strive on. Feminist women fighting for equal representation in the society must take up the efforts of Boston a level higher by calling for the same recognition across all states. In life, the more exposure, the better the chances of improvement. Exposure is what women of art need to help them improve their work. Exposure could be achieved if more women related exhibitions become the order of the day or at least a 50% recognition made in the exhibition rooms (Adler, 2010).
Recognition, representation, and exhibition of artworks by women could revolutionize the world of art. Women have a story to tell through art in ways and styles that men cannot. Creating an equal society has been the modern cold war getting definitions day in day out. Existing normalcy rooted to history and man’s self-interests have been the major cause of a masculine society. Giving women the right platform to expose their work as done in Boston is the beginning of providing gender the equality we so much cry for in the world. Women, too, can do art that can attract an audience and billings that men do, as evidenced in Boston. We are living in a world where we have been made to believe that men dominate everything and that it has been shaped through masculinity. However, for the sake of our future, equal representation today will be recognized in the future that the world had great men and women in all fields of life that shaped it to be as it will be. Humans in the future will not only be able to identify with Picasso as great artists but also women’s names will rank among great men of art and their art pieces forever cherished. The belief that men are better than women in the art could be leveled by giving women the right opportunities they deserve to represent their greatness of art.
Reference:
Adler, E. (2010). Modern women: Women artists at the Museum of Modern Art. C. H. Butler, & A. Schwartz (Eds.). New York: Museum of Modern Art.
McShane, J. (2020). Women’s Art Is Every Kind of Art. Nytimes.com. Retrieved 5 May 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/arts/design/mfa-boston-women.html.
Meskimmon, M. (2003). Women making art: History, subjectivity, aesthetics. Psychology Press.
Nochlin, L. (1971). Why have there been no great women artists?. The feminism and visual culture reader, 229-233.
Karla Sandoval
English 2100
Professor Moore
04 May 2020
Research Based Argument
DACA has provided hope for the hopeless. The DACA program has relived financial burdens for families across the United States by granting work authorization legally. According to the New American Economy Research Fund, DACA is short for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. In 2012, President Barack Obama launched the DACA, giving illegal immigrants the ability to apply for conditional immigration protection. The policy does not award immigrants legal status, nor does it place them on a path towards citizenship or legalization, but the protection helps them to gain permission to work lawfully in the US and to register for driver’s licenses in some states. As of 2020, there are around 640,000 active DACA recipients in the United States. If we want to get technical, that’s about 7.6 percent of the New York population. That’s a big chunk considering there’s 8.4 million New Yorkers. Unsurprisingly, Dreamers contribute to the economy greatly. In terms of consumer spending power, entrepreneurship, and tax contribution.
Before we jump into the statistics of how dreamers affect the economy, let’s dabble in some stories. The following story hits close to home. Isabelle Muhlbauer is a Paralegal from Jackson Heights, New York. As a young girl, she was frightened as to what her future held but the DACA program helped ease her thoughts. She studied political science at Baruch College but then ran into the obstacle of uncertain work authorization. Muhlbauer expresses her gratitude for the DACA program by saying “Thankfully, the DACA program was announced a few semesters before her graduation. I now work as a paralegal in the Veterans’ Assistance Project at NYLAG. I have the opportunity to work with a team that is committed to helping the low-income veteran population in NYC get access to the benefits they earned through their service.” Evidently, Dreamers make it their sole goal to thrive in the country they’ve known since they were children.
DACA recipients contribute greatly to our society. These individuals are tirelessly striving to educate themselves and support themselves and their families. Obviously, Dreamers have an immense amount of consumer spending power. Consumer purchasing power measures the value of money at which customers will purchase products or services. The degree to which inflation influences the willingness of consumers’ ability to buy is indicated by consumer purchasing power. According to Nydia M. Velazquez, a ranking member of the democrats of the committee on small business “About 24 percent of DACA recipients over the age 25 have bought their first home. Also, in 26 states, DACA eligible spending power is at least 100 million dollars.” Not only that but the New American Economy Research Fund mentions that in 2017, “The DACA-eligible population held $19.4 billion in spending power.” It is apparent that dreamers hold power of the U.S. economy.
Entrepreneurship is a grand part of the American Dream. Dreamers are a part of that unsurprisingly. Entrepreneurship is the practice of creating a business or businesses, taking on financial risks in the expectation of profit. DACA applicants are not only young people seeking education or workers, they are entrepreneurs and economic growth creators. Immigrants are among the most successful small business developers and businessmen in our nation and are introducing innovative projects and goods that build opportunities for all Americans. As stated by Nydia M. Velazquez, “More than 5 percent of DACA recipients under the age 25 have started a small business and 8 percent of Dreamers over 25 years old are entrepreneurs and employing workers. With an average entrepreneurship rate of 3.1 percent among Americans.” DACA recipients significantly outweigh native-born Americans in the areas of business ownership and origin.
DACA beneficiaries make a major contribution to the local, state, and federal tax base. Dreamers and their families pay 5.6 billion in federal taxes and $3.1 billion in state and local taxes annually, according to CAP research. That funding comes in addition to the contributions DACA beneficiaries make from their payroll tax contributions to the health of the Social Security and Medicare funds. Additionally, DACA participants own 56,000 homes, making mortgage payments worth $566.9 million a year. Many DACA holders are paying $2.3 billion annually in rental fees. Dreamers pay roughly 9 percent of their income in state and local taxes, which is higher than that paid by taxpayers in the top 1 percent (CAP research). It should come as no surprise when statistics display the hard work of Dreamers.
On the other hand, there are people who strongly oppose the DACA program. The Trump administration has long claimed that DACA applicants are taking positions that other unemployed Americans would otherwise fill. The decision to revoke DACA was made in September 2017. However, The CATO Institute, a libertarian think tank, has predicted that if DACA applicants are deported the federal government will lose $60 billion and U.S. economic growth will decline by $280 billion. “DACA has proven itself to be a really beneficial program at every level, for individuals…our economy and society overall,” said Allison Davenport, a staff attorney at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. More than 90 percent of DACA beneficiaries are working in sectors such as restaurants, manufacturing and hospitals, mostly filling vacancies in competitive labor market states such as California, New York and Texas. Many economists, industry leaders and corporate groups have been calling on the administration to rethink the rescission and take steps to protect DACA recipients. They claim that the elimination would further hinder the economy by lowering the gross domestic product (GDP) by more than $400 billion over a decade, decreasing tax revenue and other contributions to public services, and contributing to a loss of jobs and business owners (CATO Institute). It would be extremely unwise to dissolve the DACA program and hurt the American economy like never before.
In conclusion, DACA is a gateway towards higher education, endless job opportunities, and a better life for countless immigrants. It is crystal clear that Dreamers alone make the economy thrive. Considering all that DACA-eligible individuals are already contributing to our economy as taxpayers, company owners and customers, our country stands to take advantage of solutions that allow them to remain and achieve their full potential. Passing one of the bills that protect these critical groups should be not just an aim but an economic necessity. DACA recipients and immigrants make America great again. DACA beneficiaries provide growth in the economy in terms of consumer purchasing power, entrepreneurship, and tax contribution. Within this discourse there are statistics for a lifetime. The DACA recipients contribute in many ways to the U.S. economy. They establish businesses at a high rate, expand some of the world’s biggest industries, boost economic growth through consumer purchasing, and add greatly to local, state, and federal taxation. These 800,000 young men and women have become a part of communities across the country. Dreamers come to the land where anything is possible searching for a better life. Recipients have been able to go back to school in the almost eight years since DACA began; get new and higher-paying jobs; purchase homes and cars; and launch companies, providing employment and greater growth for all Americans. Nonetheless, even in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, more than 200,000 DACA recipients are working on the front lines of the response to support their communities and the health of this great nation.
Reekha Shahid
Professor Moore
English 2100
Researched Argument Essay
In 2019, John Mulaney released a Netflix special that appealed to both children and adults, John Mulaney and the Sack Lunch Bunch. Of the many various sketches, one caught my attention. It featured John Mulaney, a producer of a made-up animated film called “Bamboo 2: Bamboozled,” interviewing a group of kids on their opinions for the film. Mulaney questions the kids on who voiced what character and almost every time the kids quickly respond with the right celebrity. For example, when asked who voiced “Benji the Cockatiel” the kids responded with Mark Ruffalo in a “that was obvious” tone (0:13:17). Mulaney then confirms their answers and lists a couple of other shows and films that Mark Ruffalo appeared in, the kids nod knowingly in response, but the irony is that the films and shows mentioned were targeted towards adults. Mulaney then asks whether “knowing that Mark Ruffalo is doing the voice of the cockatiel enhanced your experience of the movie?” (0:13:27) and all of the kids raise their hands. This sketch brings the choice of animated filmmakers casting of well-known celebrities rather than professional voice actors to light. Featuring celebrity voices in animated films instead of voice actors does not guarantee more viewers.
As seen in the sketch, having a celebrity voice a character in an animated film, whose target audience is children, would not affect the children’s experience of the film because they most likely will not know or care. For example, a movie reviewer from Medium.com, Delia, had this to say about her favorite animated film, Beauty and the Beast, “I loved Belle before I was old enough to care who voiced her (…) What kept me attached to Belle and the Beast all these years isn’t the voice of Lennie Briscoe. It’s the story” (Reel Late Reviews). Children do not find interest in films because they might have an all-star cast, but rather because it has a story worth watching. This is why using celebrity’s voices does not guarantee the success of a film. Many films in the past have done poorly even with an all-star cast, and other films without an all-star cast have been very successful. What does matter is the plot. For example, in the case of The Incredibles, which casted actors but not those that are well known, was successful nonetheless, “It took in $70 million its opening weekend–$2 million more than Meltdown. With a current worldwide gross at a historic $631 million and an Oscar for best animated feature, it seems the movie did just fine without marquee credits. (…) adults don’t necessarily come to feature animated films to hear the familiar voices of TV personalities and comedians. In the case of The Incredibles, we came for an absorbing plot, “fleshed out” characters, dazzling visuals, and good storytelling. Above all, we come for good acting, which isn’t guaranteed by how high-profile the person in the booth may be,” (Back Stage West). The Incredibles was successful because it showcased more than just celebrities, it showed dynamic characters, game-changing animation, and a captivating plot, which is why it made more than its competitor Ice Age: The Meltdown which did feature well-known celebrities in its cast, and even received an Oscar. What draws viewers to animated films is not the cast, but rather films that move past the generic algorithm, and present something new.
Animated film makers hire celebrities to voice their characters for marketing purposes. By featuring celebrities in their movies instead of professional voice actors, animated film makers hope to generate awareness for the film, and to get people to want to come to see the film. In 2004, an animated film called Shark Tale was released. It was marketed as a film meant for kids and featured an all-star cast with Will Smith, Robert De Niro, Renee Zellweger, Jack Black, Angelina Jolie, and even Martin Scorsese. The film marketers heavily marketed the film as “DreamWorks Consumer Products has lined up partners in support of its computer-animated feature film Shark Tale, including Burger King, General Mills, Hewlett-Packard, Coca-Cola, Krispy Kreme and Great Clips,” (Chief Marketer). However, no matter how much you market a film, it is ultimately the plot that will make or break a film. Shark Tales did go on to win an Oscar, but it received a mostly negative response from critics and viewers. On Rotten Tomatoes the film received only 36%. Critics weren’t impressed, one critic, Scott Nash from Three Movie Buffs, states, “With all the talent involved, Shark Tale should have been so much better than this,” (Rotten Tomatoes) and another critic, Jackie K. Cooper, states, “Too many stars as the vocal talent sink this soggy saga,” (Rotten Tomatoes). In the case of this film and many others, using celebrity voices did not guarantee that the film would have more viewers.
It is widely believed that animated films feature celebrities in order to bring in adults, as they are the ones who have to bring the kids to the theater. This can be seen with Shark Tale, the film was marketed as a film for kids, but the story, the jokes, and even the personality of the actors made it seem like the film was trying to appeal to adults. A. O. Scott, a film reviewer from The New York Times, said that she was “I’m relieved (and maybe just a tiny bit disappointed) to report that when Sykes, a fast-talking blowfish with bushy eyebrows, appeared on screen, my daughter, who is 5, did not lean over and whisper, “Hey, isn’t that Martin Scorsese? “But of course Mr. Scorsese was not there for her benefit. Like the “Shrek” pictures, also from DreamWorks, “Shark Tale” lobs a barrage of movie and television references over the heads of the children in the audience and into the faces of their parents.” However, without a captivating story, Scott’s ultimate review was that the film was “not really very interesting.” Matching the voice of a character to a person is not as easy as it seems, regardless of the status of the person. If you hadn’t known who was part of the cast, you would not be able to identify who voiced the character. For example, Marla Kirban “a New York voiceover coach and former L.A. agent at ICM, says often it isn’t. “Sometimes they want that identifiable sound, but honestly, and I’ve been doing this a long time, I don’t recognize those guys,” says the coach, who’s been in the voiceover field for 20 years. “I wouldn’t know, and I have an ear for it.” (Back Stage West). Adults who view films with kids would not be able to match the voice with a celebrity if they had no knowledge of the cast beforehand.
In the sketch from John Mulaney and the Sack Lunch Bunch, one of the kids says that it’s her “favorite movie of all time,” (0:12:00), Mulaney mentions that she had said the same thing for the previous movie. The same child later says that the movie will be her “Halloween costume,” “birthday theme,” and “thermos,” (0:12:17). Another child describes the plot of the made-up film as “The koala, Kimmy, has to go find her mojo so she goes to the jungle, and then they fall in the mud, and at the end there’s a song. One part I forgot was when the kangaroo falls on his butt,” (0:12:52). This brings light to the pattern, or algorithm, animated films began to follow. They have talking animals, a lacking plot, and an all-star cast. Animated films have forgotten that they are targeting their films towards children, but that children do not always find interest in the same things. This is why films with celebrities do not always bring in the most viewers. Companies like Pixar have been making widely appreciated films that often feature newcomers to the voice field, have well thought out plots, and stories with lessons that appeal to both kids and adults. Other animation companies should look to Pixar as an example to create a new algorithm that focuses on the characters more than whoever voices them.
Britney Allen
English 2100
Christopher Moore
Humans display a variety of behaviors and characteristics each day, of which some can, and some cannot be explained. But these behaviors may be determined by what type of person you are, whether you are good or evil. People can be so cruel sometimes it makes you wonder if it is normal to be like that. This leads to the question “Are people good or evil by nature?” I believe that at some point in time we have all asked or thought about this question, as it is a very controversial and intriguing topic.
Who is a good person? Who is an evil person? Whether you are you are a good or an evil person can be determined by how you treat people, not only that but how you treat your others in your surroundings and how you treat your environment. With that being said, I believe that a good person is one who cares for life and tries their best to not harm lives in any way, while an evil person cares for themselves and disregards anything that isn’t beneficial to them. It may seem like an awfully specific definition, but I think everything that happens in the world revolves around this.
In my opinion, people are good by nature, it is a characteristic that can be learned; however, this is not always the case because without societal and any form of influence, we are more likely to do the right thing. Evil is a quality we all possess nevertheless the characteristic of being evil is developed based on societal factors and what takes place around us overall. Not only so but you must have a sense of morality to be labelled as evil.
According to the book “Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil” by Paul Bloom, human nature is inherently good. This idea is supported by an experiment carried out at Yale University among a group of one-year old babies. The babies watched a cartoon, the cartoon involved three shapes as the main characters, the first shape was trying to climb a hill, the second shape helped the first shape to climb the hill while the third shape was trying to stop the first one from climbing the shape. After they have watched the show, the babies were asked to choose a character. It was stated that the infants were more likely to choose that character that was helping. The babies then watched a second scene of the cartoon. In this scene, the shape that was climbing decided to move towards either the shape that was helping or the shape that was hindering. They determined what the babies were thinking according to how long they looked at whichever character the climbing shape moved towards. As reported by the experimenters, the babies stared for a longer time if the climbing shape moved towards the hindering shape than if it moved towards the helping shapes. They assumed that the babies were expecting the shape to move towards the helping shape and that they were surprised that the shape moved towards the hinderer. The article “Humans are wired to be good in nature-cooperation outweighs selfishness” by Tibi puiu also agrees with the idea that humans are good in nature. In line with the article, a few experiments were conducted by a group of scientists from Yale and Harvard University, they gathered a variety of people to play a public goods game, the people had ten seconds to make a decision and then they had a long time to make their decision. Regardless of the conditions of the game, the players gave more money to the common good. Hence, it is presumed that helping others is our first instinct, therefore it can be concluded that we are generally good by nature.
Many argue that man is evil by nature but there is not much truth to this theory. Determinists have concluded that there isn’t much we can do about being evil because we naturally are. By saying this, it is insinuated that evil is not influenced by any other factors besides natural existence. Their first claimed proof to this statement is to allude to World War one and two. It is said that World War one was planned, directed and justified given a rationale. The war was fought because of years of tension among countries and the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. And World War two happened because Hilter was threatened by other nations, he wanted his country and people to be superior to all the other countries; hence, Germany invaded Poland. This does not prove that humans are inherently evil because babies don’t commit these cruel acts, they show anger, sadness, contentment etc. but they do not act negatively on such emotions. We were not born with knowledge nor intelligence nor consciousness, these are things that develop as we learn and are able to understand things. As a result of having understanding, humans make a choice on how to act on their emotions. So in the situation with Hilter, he might have been angry that he felt threatened by other countries but he consciously made a decision, he could have done the right or the wrong thing but he chose to do the wrong thing so it is not a matter of human beings not being able to do anything about being evil. Another evidence asserted stated is how humans treat nature. They talked about humans cutting down trees to make toilet paper being a proof of us being inherently evil. Once again this doesn’t give prove of that statement because of two reasons: 1- As I stated previously, we were not born with knowledge, 2- Humans depend on natural resources for survival. Like all living things humans instinctively act on survival and this doesn’t make them evil. It is just like epiphytes growing on other plants for support and food or a lion hunting a zebra for food. Are epiphytes and lions evil for trying to survive? So to say that humans are evil for trying to survive is wrong, on the other if they do these things out of intention to gain power or wealth this is where evil comes into play; however, this is still not a natural tendency since we can make a choice. Another thing I suppose people would claim to be an evidence are those people who are mentally challenged. They may argue that persons with mental disorder such as schizophrenia and Bipolar disorder may commit evil acts and they were born that way. But the truth is that people who are mentally challenged don’t normally have a sense of morality or consciousness, in other words, they are not aware of what they are doing so that doesn’t make them evil. Some believe that humans are neither inherently bad nor good, which is arguable, but that relates only to the minority. So since, majority of the babies show proof that we are inherently good, it is safe to say that we are.
Taking everything into account, humans are naturally good. It may seem like we are not but that is only because our existence is strongly dependent on societal factors and without these factors most, if not all of us would show kind and compassionate characteristics.
The simple “like” of a post on any social media platform may seem inconsequential to the person who merely pressed the plain heart-shaped button but to the user who put together the post, it paints a more unnerving picture.
Using an example from my personal experience, I have had an old friend of mine who I no longer keep in touch with be completely infatuated with Instagram. They would always reach out to me through iMessage whenever they uploaded a picture to ensure that I “like” their “recent” (post) and “leave a comment.” If I had failed to “like” and comment said pictures, I would be seen as the object of scorn in their eyes and I would be labeled as “fake” among other nonsensical phrases. These texts then took a turn for the worst as they kept on posting more and more heavily face tuned images onto Instagram. I was now receiving threatening messages such as “like my recent or ur ugly” and even “like my pic or ur fat.” The sheer act of pleading for likes is already an apparent indicator of desperation but when they began to include derogatory remarks with these messages, it had turned frightening. Why was my “like” ever so crucial to this person, what is one less “like” on their picture going to mean for them in the long run. This all begins to beg the question of, what even is the significance of a “like” in today’s age of social media.
Neuroeconomist researcher Paul Zak uncovered that spending ten minutes of time alone on internet communities can have the potential to raise oxytocin levels, a hormone that is released in the pituitary gland when people hug, kiss, or bond socially, as much as 13% which has been found equivalent to the hormone spike to some on their wedding day. This only highlights the concerning level of disconnect that our society goes through on a day to day basis. Therefore this fortifies the shocking power of the number of redundant likes on an individual. Moreover, lowered levels of stress and an increase in feelings of trust, love, empathy, and generosity have also been accredited to the secretion of oxytocin. Further, the pleasure hormone dopamine has also been connected with spending time on social media. So much so that recent studies done by researchers at Chicago University’s Booth Business School have demonstrated that using twitter is harder for people to resist than alcohol and cigarettes as dopamine creates sensations of desire. Thus even the simple act of dedicating minutes of your day to social media has been shown to send ripples of pleasure and stress relief across your body through hormones produced in the brain.
Since the implementation of the “like” button on Facebook, a platform with over 2 billion monthly active users, it has been clicked on more than 1.13 trillion times in counting, growing with each passing hour. Critically acclaimed writer Courtney Seiter claims that liking someone’s post is a favorable method in which to maintain relationships as well as adding value and reinforcing that closeness. She then goes on to further elaborate on how it creates a reciprocity effect where we feel obliged to give back to those who have given to us, even if it is in such a small way such as liking a picture on any social media platform. For instance, old friends of mine have said that they would be more willing to open up to an acquaintance if they had liked their previous posts on Instagram. Although likes may be given out of reciprocity, at times when there has not been a post from one side it starts to create an unbalanced relationship where one friend has more to benefit than the other altering the dynamics of their online friendship.
In other cases, some may even fork over their hard-earned money in order to purchase likes on Instagram through third-party websites such as Buzzoid who boast prices scoring from $1.47 for “50 likes” to $88.99 for “10,000 likes” guaranteeing “Instant Delivery” to the consumer. Buzzoid’s reasoning behind this in the first place is “Having a good number of likes on Instagram is as important as having a good follower count. The likes your Instagram photo has reflects its popularity: it is like a review in a sense.” Simply put, buying likes on social media revolves around the highly coveted idea of being seen as “popular” amongst those around you. Which, in return would inflict a false sense of superiority within that person solely. Surprisingly, this infamous scheme is not exclusive to those with a low following as major celebrities have been caught and exposed for doing the very same thing. Usually, when confronted with the claim of faking likes online, celebrities would either deny or ignore the allegations despite the mounting evidence proving otherwise. This demonstrates how even celebrities among common folk often disregard arguments exposing them as they do not want people to believe that they actually went through with it.
The first couple of minutes after a picture is posted are life and death to some. If they notice that the post is not performing as well as they projected it to, they commonly delete the image in embarrassment. This is because it did not reach their “like” threshold whose number generally differs from person to person based on their following. These individuals typically place a soaring high value on the importance of their likes, often associating it with their self-esteem and worth, blaming themselves for publishing a supposed “bad picture.” This has the potential to lead to issues down the road as these individuals live for constant gratification from strangers online. To their dismay, they do not always get the gratification that they hoped for, leaving them in a state of deep despair and unrelenting agony.
To remedy this, some social media platforms such as Instagram want to put an end to the widespread controversy surrounding the elementary system of liking a picture. They unveiled a new update in which the number of likes would only be made visible to the person who made the post. They did this in order to “help people’s well-being and health” with the overall theme to “create a less pressurized environment where people feel comfortable expressing themselves.”(Mary Meisenzahl, 2019) This new update however applied to those who downloaded the new version of the app from the App Store found on most smartphones. This left those who did not update Instagram to still be able to access the number of likes any picture has, rendering it a partial success.
The horrifying reality behind what an effortless tap on a simple smartphone could mean for some people is unsettling. Certain individuals have given this inessential system of likes excessive control over their lives to the point where they live and breathe by the amount of likes that they receive for each post online. Plastering on a smile and being face tuned beyond recognition just for validation from strangers is a silent plea for help. These flawless pictures are seemingly just a public facade that masks inner sorrow and insecurities for their so-called friends to leave superficial compliments along with a “like.”
Max Kops
Professor Christopher Moore
English 2100
7 May 2020
Societal Pressure
All people have the capability to decide who they want to be and how they want to live their lives. Yet, the process one goes through of choosing which path they want to take is altered due to societal creed. The principles society sets in place serve as firm guidelines on how citizens go out about their lives. In Roxane Gay’s “My Body is Wildly Undisciplined And I Deny Myself Nearly Everything I Desire” she explains that it is society whom creates the molds of what all people should look like. Additionally, citizens, and women in particular, are pushed to constantly keep up with the latest cremes, lotions and oils to ensure their skin “glows” because that is what society demands. No matter the amount of money these products cost or the pain they may inflict all those wanting to fit in in this environment have to comply. Krithika Varagur speaks about this idea in her text “The Skincare Con,” as she bashes the industry for obliging people, women in particular, to adhere to these vicious regimens. The sovereignty of consumers is jeopardized due to the pressure placed upon them to conform to societal ideologies put in place by figures and corporations of power.
When one attempts to be unique and separate themselves from the pack, they are immediately scorned for trying. In this day and age in order to truly fit in one has to blend in. Roxane Gay talks about how the show “The biggest loser,” where people are filmed live attempting to lose weight, is entirely predicated on alienating the “unruly bodies that must be disciplined by any means necessary, and through that discipline, the obese might become more acceptable members of society” (Gay 2). This immensely popular show depicted that as a society we choose to go to the utmost extremes in order to just be overlooked as being normal. People cannot stand the fact that they stand out and look different from those around them. While for most head starting a trend is unattainable and if done would be looked at as a freak, there are those who have the power to initiate vogue. Consumers are not the ones who come up with the newest clothing style, or ideal body shape, it is the Instagram models with millions of followers and companies with ads everywhere you turn who do so. If one lacks influence it is almost impossible for he/she to originate new style options that take the fashion world by storm. This cycle of those with power dictating what a person should look like when they go outside all boils down to money. By forging what all aspects of one’s exterior appearance should look like, these powerful businesses and people get to sell everything they deem necessary in order to match that look. Varagur talks about how “skincare is really just a waste of money” (4) and “of course, anything that’s in style goes out of style: looking fresh and dewy, the ubiquitous glow of today’s woman, is a phase like everything else. Being dewy will age exactly the same way that blue eyeshadow and dark lipliner did” (4). Large corporations are always looking for the next big thing, not to make people feel better about themselves, rather to take away their self-governing power and replace it with their ideals. These businesses understand that in order for them to make the most money possible they have to convince society that what they are pitching is the ideal way to look and live. Although, all people are victims of what these corporations conduct, there is more of an emphasis on one gender over the other.
It is obvious after watching television or scrolling though social media that brands and companies target certain demographics with their advertisements. Furthermore, what they are advertising to the different groups have significantly different effects. For instance, woman are constantly presented with advertisement regarding beauty and appearance, resulting in them feeling self-conscious about the way they look and ultimately doing whatever the person on the screen tells them. By continuously placing images of what the ideal female should look like in front of women, they will start to believe that they have to look like that. Gay writes that “If you watch enough daytime television, particularly on “women’s networks,” you are treated to an endless parade of commercials about weight loss products and diet foods—means of disciplining the body that will also fatten the coffers of one corporation or another” (Gay 3). Women are bombarded with these messages instructing them to follow rigorous diets and workout plans, and they do it, not because they enjoy it, but because they feel as if they do not they will not be considered a “normal” societal member. Varagur gives an example of a commonly sought-after characteristic, she articulates “that perfect skin has become the thinking woman’s quest” (Varagur 1). Many women look to figures like Kim Kardashian and Jennifer Lopez for the glowy, dewy skin, and are told that they acquired their beauty through the products they happen to be promoting for. This lie companies feed to their consumers is actually what gets many people to invest in their product. Female consumers see famous, beautiful women and feel that if they do what the celebrity tells them to do they will end up looking like them. Yet, it is easily apparent that these people have spent endless amounts of money paying for surgery and specialized treatment to look the way they do. A women’s appearance is hard enough for them to internalize and accept, and what makes it even more difficult is how their bodies are site for public discourse. If a girl is overweight, or her skin has acne people speak about a lot more frequently than if it were a guy. Men, when slightly overweight, are viewed as having a “dad bod,” which now is an attractive thing for men to have. The double standard when it comes to external appearance is not something people do not know exists. Correspondingly, that is why large corporations exert so much time and effort into providing their audience with the appropriate visuals.
Will this idea of corporations occupying the self-governing aspect of our minds see no end? Will all of society soon end up acting and looking entirely the way people of power want us to? People will always look to those of fame for style and beauty advice, but this does not mean people have to become them. Alternatively, this is exactly the plan business have though, they create the facade that in order for someone to be like the model they have to do all which he/she does with no exceptions. Their tactics of pinpointing the perfect candidates for certain products and making sure that after they see these products they feel like they need to get them is what makes it so hard to avoid. Notably females have an even harder time with this area of life because of their vulnerability towards what people think of them. In order for change in this realm to be accomplished all people have to stop following everything they are told by influencers and start following their own intuitions and beliefs.
Modern-day America is very complex. Formed more than two hundred years ago, this nation has managed to overcome many challenges to become what it is now. Throughout its history, the US was adamantly expanding, and starting from the second half of the 20th century the country became one of the most powerful and prosperous countries in the entire world. While there are a lot of factors that all-together make the States an incredibly unique, there’s one that accounts for most of the country’s success and prosperity.
The American economy is undoubtedly the strongest and the most stable one in the entire world. The US defines capitalism and most of the nation’s economical success should be credited to the well functioning free markets with almost no government intervention. However, with the social welfare and inequality problems causing heated discussions in American society, economists are now evaluating the new levels of the government’s presence in the markets. To better understand the arguments politicians are making, we would need to dive into the very basics of how our economy works.
As Jon Gruber, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, claims, “Economics is fundamentally a right-wing science”. It essentially means no matter of your political affiliation, the market always knows better. When there’re no obstacles from the government’s side that interfere and change the supply and demand in the market, the economy achieves its full efficiency. There are a few examples that, although they were meant to benefit the general public, turned out to come with the significant drawbacks:
In some places, where a cost of living is too high and sometimes even unaffordable for an average resident, the local authorities have enacted the rent control laws that are designed to protect the renters and limit the rent growth. Being quite a sound idea, this legislation has turned out to be harmful to most of the landlords and even some renters, the ones it meant to protect. Limiting the price results in less housing supply available, making it both harder to find a new home and more expensive to rent a place in non-regulated buildings, which are usually newer and therefore offer better living conditions. Sometimes, the rents are valued way below the fair market rent so landlords decide to live in their property instead of putting a house on the market. Another problem is that the landlords have less incentive to renovate their houses and provide better living conditions for tenants because they will not receive any extra profit from doing so. If it wasn’t enough, there are some extreme examples of how people abuse by holding to a ridiculously priced place without even physically living there, making the housing even less affordable for those who actually need it. Even if this policy was functioning well, it would still lead to a reduction in the market’s efficiency, thus being bad for the overall economy and society.
When the people make more money, they can afford to spend more, which means the businesses are getting their profits, the economy is growing and, at the end of the day, everyone is happier. Meanwhile, some people are left behind this prosperity, being compensated unfairly low and not being able to afford some essentials. The policymakers came up with a sound idea to both ease the poverty problem and help the economy grow so they introduced minimum wages. However, the extra money cannot just come from thin air and someone has to pay for an increase in pay. Businesses now have to either increase their prices, which is bad for everyone or to employ fewer people, which will result in unemployment. Moreover, those who were already making more than a new minimum wage level are less likely to receive an increase in pay but are now in an increased danger of being fired or have to pay more for the same goods because the labor costs increased. As can be seen, this example of the government’s interference is also bad for the market and the economy’s well-being.
However, sometimes the government’s presence is required to ensure our health and well-being. Those are some examples that have proven to be overall good for us:
The USDA is a federal agency that oversees the production of consumable products, protecting us from becoming sick because of faulty ones. It does so by setting certain quality standards and imposing fines or other types of punishment for those manufacturers who do not comply. However, it still leads to an increase in the cost of products we buy as businesses have to spend more money on their production and various inspections to get certified by USDA.
Some environmental regulations limit the air and water pollution from manufacturing, thus making our future more “green” and us healthier. On top of that, the government sets certain standards for cars, limiting their CO2 emissions or incentivizing the consumers to switch to “ECO-friendly” vehicles. But those also come with an additional cost, which we, as regular consumers, have to carry on.
So after summarizing the above examples, it is now clear that the government’s presence in the economy is always bad and, therefore, there should be no intervention, right? Not necessarily. While the market’s efficiency is extremely crucial, some things cannot be sacrificed to achieve it. It’s important not to forget about humanity while trying to maintain the title of the most prosperous nation. Like with the USDA quality control example, there are some cases when we just need a government to come and protect us because the market can’t. However, we should always thoroughly evaluate the hidden cost we’d have to carry if politicians pass another piece of legislature, like the example of rent control.
The modern-day economy is all about finding a thin balance between the efficiency of the markets and being humane. While success offers some huge benefits to most of the people, we should not forget about those who were less fortunate and make sure they can enjoy the prosperity just as we do.
Black skin comes in various shades from the deepest black to the lightest brown. In this wide range there’s a particular complexion that painfully contrast with the others. Those who are endowed with this skin color stand out as they are easily recognizable by their pale skin, light hair and eyes. Being different in today’s society is respected and empowered, however the lack of melanin due to a disorder is still a major issue for People with Albinism (PWA) in Tanzania. They yearn to fit in a society that is constantly rejecting them. In order to alleviate this difficulty, the government has put in place several strategies, but to no avail. Part of my goal in writing this article is to bring awareness to the hardships of PWAs, the lack of efficiency and willingness from the government to protect PWAs and hopefully bring solutions to the table.
In Tanzania, PWAs are in danger for various causes. Like in many other parts of Africa, legends surrounding albinos have been around for ages. Nobody really knows the origin of those myths, since documentation in Africa is not common other than trough oral tradition. They believe that being in contact with a PWA can bring you fortune or could bring you bad luck. A charm made with body parts of a PWA has magical powers: it could bring its owner success and wealth. Those practices have been encouraged by witch-doctors known as “mlagusi” in Tanzania, according to a report from the U.N. Human Rights Council. In rural places, witch-doctors are widely consulted and hold an important status.
The never ending speculations about albinism have put PWAs in great danger. Tanzania has the highest number of recorded attacks globally on PAWs. Since 2006, more than 170 attacks and killings have been recorded against PWAs as reported by Under The Same Sun, a charity for people with albinism. Even their graves attract grave robbers, seeking buried limbs and bodies. It is hard to keep track since missing people and unreported murders aren’t taken into account, so chances are the toll is likely to be higher. The illegal trade in the body parts of PWAs is a booming business. The price can range from $2,000 for a limb to $75,000 for a full set of body parts. As a result, a large number of people have flee to take refuge in Dar Er-Salaam, as they feel safer in the capital, often separated from their friends and families.
Moreover, many PWAs share similar stories. Name called, beaten and avoided, they all face bias judgment and discrimination from their community. In an interview directed by Human Rights Watch in 2017, Josefina, a seven-year-old living in the Shinyanga region said other children call her “Mbuliwmelu,” which means “white goat”. They either live in fear or they hide away in their houses making it hard for them to socialize.
There’s a much more deadlier threat to PWAs than the attacks. PWAs are more vulnerable to skin cancer due to the lack of pigment in their skin. To make matters worst, Tanzania is located near the equator where ultraviolet radiation is the highest. A study led by Claudia Henschke, professor of radiology, amongst PWAs in Tanzania revealed that 100% showed signs of skin damage by the first year of life and advanced symptomatic cancers were noticed in 50% of those between 20 and 30 years of age. To prevent skin cancer due to the sun it is recommended for albinos to wear SPF 30+ twice a day. But this task seems impossible in Tanzania where 49.1% of the population live with less than 57$ a month, as showed by statistics from the World Bank in 2017. A bottle of sunscreen is between $10 to $15, the more efficient ones that albinos use can go up to $20.
Furthermore, PWAs have to drop out of school for safety reasons but also because facilities aren’t adapted for their lower vision. These obstacles place albino students at a disadvantage, since many can’t afford visual aids. A study has been conducted by Dr Samson Kiprono on 149 individuals with albinism at the Regional Dermatology Training Centre-Albino outreach clinics. 59.7% of the participants reported that albinism affected their school performance and 85.9% were eligible for employment of which 53.1% were unemployed. Half of the employed had many challenges in their work associated with sun exposure and eyesight. Visual impairments and poverty result in poor educational outcomes and lower chances of employment. Therefore, they are forced to do manual outdoor labor jobs thus increasing the risk of skin cancer.
The Tanzanian government is trying to put an end to this vicious cycle. In 2008, President Jakaya Kikwete declared it a capital offense to kill PWAs. Since then, 155 individuals have been accused of murdering or attacking PWAs. Prosecutors opened at least 15 cases against suspects, four of which were resolved. But those proceeding have now stalled because of lack of funds, according to Under The Same Sun, an NGO working to combat discrimination against people with albinism. Dealing with the challenges of eliminating witchcraft through legal means is insufficient. Tanzanian President Kikwete has promised to eradicate those “stupid beliefs” as he stated during his speech in 2008. Ritual murdered of PWA are related to witchcraft, a practice deeply rooted in their culture, so denigrating those beliefs isn’t the way he will influence people. Thankfully, the government has pursued a campaign providing PWAs with 350 cellphones in 2009, to contact authorities more easily. However, BBC News reported that there may be up to 17000 undocumented PWAs. The federal government needs to conduct a census to better understand the extent of the problem, because right now they are working with no single clue about the number of PWAs in need of assistance.
Moreover, the non-governmental organization Under the Same Sun is distributing education materials in schools to eradicate the myths surrounding albinism. In a study assessing albinos attitudes and beliefs, led by dermatologist Sandy McBride showed that 59 participants with albinism had an albino relative, however 46 of them stated incorrect causes or had no knowledge about how they had albinism and only 13 believed that the condition was inherited. President Kikwete should take example from this association instead of calling their beliefs “stupid”. What we should do is lay out scientific facts opposing their superstitions. We need to bring more awareness to this problem, mainly by hosting educational events. Also, they need to be more on-screen representation of PAWs to help normalize their existence.
Other non-profit organization are trying to make a change. Kilisun Care produce protection sunscreens in Tanzania that employs PWAs and give them away for free across Tanzania through community dermatologists, mobile clinics, schools, international NGOs and other local platforms. Many albinos in Tanzania are turning to the non-profit organization for help. But the nonprofit advocacy group operates on less than $15,000 a year. That’s not enough for the sunscreen, hats and protective clothing that could save lives. To remedy to the lack of financial support, a smart idea would be to launch a crowdfunding campaign to provide the funds needed.
Finally, there’s also refuge centers that receive PWAs refugees. The Tanzanian Albinism Society has registered around 10,000 PWAs who fled from their homes because of their fear. Resettlement is not the most helpful solution to PWAs in Tanzania because the reason for their initial displacement has not been resolved. To escape persecution, some PWAs have sought safety in other countries, however few PWAs have sought asylum abroad since it can be difficult. First, seeking asylum in other countries is an expensive process. Additionally, according to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees a person must not be present in his or her home country when filing for either asylum or refugee status. Tanzanian PWAs do not qualify as refugees and therefore cannot be afforded any more protection than what the Tanzanian government has already offered. Therefore, under current laws, PWAs seeking asylum protection are required to leave Tanzania and this is nearly impossible for them. The solution to this is to make a change in the definition of refugee to ensure that Tanzanian PWAs could also benefit of more legal protection.
There is still much work to do to dispel the myths around albinism and address the discrimination faced by those with the condition in Tanzania.
Professor Christopher Moore
Researched argument essay: the modification of memory
5/01/2020
The evolution of medicine has expanded and the desire to use biological advancements for human enhancement has increased. One notable drug is propranolol–a protein synthesis inhibitor which is an excellent treatment for fear, anxiety, distress, and phobias. It has now been increasingly used for treatment for victims with traumatic and unpleasant memories. And in response, The United States President’s Council on Bioethics released a 2003 paper in regards to medicinal modification of memory in an effort to warn society of its dire consequences. “As the power to transform our natural powers increases both in magnitude and refinement, so does the possibility for ‘self-alienation’ — for losing, confounding or abandoning our identity” the Council stated.
The neurological modification of memories can disrupt our personal identity, diminish people’s abilities to learn from significant life experiences, and alter our neurological, and consequently our cognitive brain sequencing and therefore should only be used in extreme cases of mental impairment.
There is no debate that propranolol and other memory modification treatments are justified — and, in a sense, the only option. For individuals who’ve suffered extremely traumatic events or time periods, that may lead to forceful emotions, sensations, perceptions associated with those memories, a drug to counter those emotions would be most beneficial. Similarly, victims of any type of disturbing experience may suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Susan J. Brison, Professor of Ethics at Dartmouth College, described what these victims endure as “extreme emotional recollections and memories from their trauma, known as somatic memories” in her book Aftermath: Violence and the remaking of self. (Brison, 2016). In these memories, victims feel the trauma within their body as if they were enduring the same traumatic experience again; it is uncontrollable and very intrusive. In this case, where one’s mental state is disillusioned due to severe emotional and traumatic memories, propranolol would be a decent solution.
Though the application of propranolol is justified in instances of extreme psychological distress, it should rarely be used for enhancement. Using propranolol or other memory-modifying medicine for unpleasant memories — memories that do not cause extreme emotional distress which hinders your ability to properly function — is unnecessary and unjustified. Walter Glannon, Professor of philosophy at the University of Calgary, explained in his book The Neuroethics of Memory, unpleasant memories do not cause the same degree of cognitive and emotional impairment as traumatic memories, thus, there would be no need for propranolol (Glannon, 2019). As humans we all must endure emotions, feelings, the reactions of our mind and body. It’s what makes us unique–how we respond and react towards different experiences. Of course traumatic events are unlucky ones, and should be avoided; however, no human can evade life’s inevitable: tragedies, heartbreaks, embarrassment, regret, shame. It’s these feelings — no matter how unbearable — that shape us into who we are, how we compose ourselves, what we say, who we become.
That is why removing the emotional content out of episodic memories could possibly be detrimental to our personal identity. How we experience memories is elemental to how we form and retain those same memories. Critical components of these memories are the contexts (natural, social) and content (Glannon, 2019). These components intersect to form different parts of our autobiographical memory (a collective account every human has of their personal experiences, general knowledge and life story). When the emotional content and memory trace of these experiences are removed, it can be disruptful to our narrative unity and psychological continuity.
Personal identity is greatly associated with psychological connectedness and continuity.
Our unique experiences, developments, milestones in life — which are contained in episodic memories — are vital to our personal development. When reminiscing our past times and specific events, we are able to “re-experience the past and anticipate the future” (Glannon, 2019). These capacities are essential to our existence as individuals on a temporal basis. Presumably, by clearing one or more episodic memories it could distort psychological connectedness and therefore identity.
Of course an individual could remove multiple episodic memories from their mind and not alter their persona. However, if someone is so adamant and vehemently wants to modify their memory, it must be a significant enough memory to be a transformative portion of their personal identity (Glannon, 2019). But by removing the emotional content – and as a result the memory itself – they would remove a piece of themselves. This takes the individual further from their actual selves and closer to a neurochemically emotionless version of themselves.
On a cognitive basis, using propranolol could be very harmful. Expelling episodic memories from our minds can prevent us from maintaining rationale and moral agency (Glannon, 2019). Essentially, neuromodulation may intrude on a frontal-limbic circuit including our orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), which is brain tissue involved in cognitive processes of decision-making, maintenance of emotions and memory consolidation. If the OFC is meddled with, our moral and prudential reasoning may be affected. Meaning, capacities like foreseeing the future and planning ahead for your social-, work-, and academic-life may be manipulated with.
Propranolol is also involved with the distortion of identity and the self. In Aftermath: Violence and the remaking of self, Brison explains how the undoing of self after a traumatic event can be realigned significantly through therapeutic self-narratives. This means that the victim takes control of their life again and rewrites the story in a more powerful, personalized way. Rather than talking in third-person when recounting the trauma, victims would speak in first-person. By dealing with their emotions associated with the memory and being able to speak of the experience, they take control over the memory.
Similarly, propranolol works to reconsolidate memories in a new way by removing the emotional content. Meaning, both therapeutic self-narratives and propranolol have a purpose of reconsolidating memories. However, with self-narratives the individual is reforming the same version of themselves. On the other hand, propranolol directly just eliminates the emotional content out of memories; whereas, self-narratives aim to work with those same emotions and refurbish the memories to help the individual move on. But with propranolol, the individual removes a piece of them — arguably, a piece of their soul — without working out their emotions. This definitely disrupts mental continuity, as memories, especially significant episodic memories, come together to form our autobiographies.
Rachel Fischell, research neurologist at Duke University, explored the support for propranolol treatment for Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) and trauma surgeons in her article Ethics of Memory Dampening Using Propranolol as a Treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in the Field of Emergency Medicine. EMTs usage of propranolol would be a grace concern; propranolol impairs a subject’s ability to make “sound, moral judgments” Fischell explained. Decisions made without emotions are found to be often ethically wrong (Fischell, 2014). EMTs are faced with many severe, traumatic scenes every day and how they are able to make ethical decisions is related to how they deal with their emotions. By using propranolol, EMTs would lose their ability to feel — mentally — for their patient, and perhaps themselves. Experiencing your own organic emotions is healthy and transformative for individuals like EMTs. They need to learn how to deal with their emotions regardless as their job entails a great amount of trauma. If EMTs, and individuals alike who don’t have legitimate traumatic memories that hinders them from fully functioning, began using propranolol, they’re chances of making immoral judgments would increase and their application of learned experiences to their future could possibly decrease.
Another concern of erasing emotional content of memories is the risk of the faulty factual memory capabilities (Fischell, 2014). It is well known to neuroscientists that increased emotional states allow for better memory consolidation and retention. This was proved in a 1994 study by a Professor of Psychology, Larry Cahill. In the experiment, propranolol was found to substantially impair memory for the emotional story, but did not impair the memory of the emotionally neutral story (Fischell, 2014). If we applied this finding in an EMT scenario, the EMTs could begin misremembering information and encoding memories incorrectly. This would directly conflict with their duties to accurately report the events that occurred in the field to the doctors and surgeons in the emergency room. Consequently, not only will doctors be receiving false accounts and patients be receiving less than optimal care, the EMT will have no idea of their wrongdoing. In sum, an EMT or any type of medical professional in the presence of trauma under the influence of propranolol could severely increase their chances of making grave errors.
In zoology, when a mother lion sees her baby cub being eaten and killed by an alligator she sheds real tears and feels genuine emotions–despair, regret, anxiety. But what the mother lion will learn from that point on is to be more cautious of her babies. This behavior modification ensues from her learning experience which is associated with strong, maternal emotions. In effect, the memory is consolidated in a significant way and will be an asset to the mother lion for the future. Similarly, humans use emotions and past memories to alter their future behavior, adapt to social environments, empathize and care for others, maintain their moral agency and make rational decisions. These emotions aren’t just a byproduct of our minds but rather a biological tool, an evolutionary trait, giving us the ability to reconcile on past lessons, reflect on our experiences and deal with our place in the world. Modifying one of the most imperative phenomenons of the mind–emotion–could potentially strip us of our humanity.
References
Bal, M., Crewe, J. V., & Spitzer, L. (1999). Acts of memory: cultural recall in the present. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College.
Brison, S. J. (2003). Aftermath: Violence and the remaking of a self. Princeton, NJ, Woodstock, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Fischell, R. (2014). Ethics of Memory Dampening Using Propranolol as a Treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in the Field of Emergency Medicine. Duke University.
Glannon, W. (2019). The neuroethics of memory from total recall to oblivion. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
The definition of “freedom” that we had is completely changed and for having back the normal life that we used to live it will take an undefined amount of time. Coronavirus has infected everyone’s life and all of us are experiencing a new way to live. In order to describe the consequences that the virus has brought in society, we should focus on how it was created. The coronavirus outbreak was documented in Wuhan, China in December 2019. It is commonly known as COVID-19 and it is the most pronounced word in the world nowadays. At first sight, it seemed something that could not affect the other parts of the world and only China was concerned at the beginning. The spread of this virus was underestimated. In less than a month from its outbreak, it was spreading very quickly until it became a pandemic because nowadays we can travel the world way more easily than we could many years ago.
This is not the first epidemic in history but the main difference with the past “viruses” is that it is concerning all the world and not just a part of it. It can also be defined as a form of World War 3 where all the nations are fighting against a common enemy that came from nowhere. All of this was previously predicted by one of the most influent person in society: Bill Gates. He predicted, five years ago, during an interview about ebola , that in the future we will have to fight against viruses and that the system has invested too much in other resources instead of preventing an epidemic that would kill tons of millions of people. He was sure that If something would kill many people, it would be more likely to be a virus instead of a war in its definition. This virus is considered to be like a flu and it has the same symptoms but it is also considered to be more lethal. Coronaviruses are a large family of zoonotic viruses that cause illness ranging from the common cold to severe respiratory diseases. Zoonotic means these viruses are able to be transmitted from animals to humans. There are several coronaviruses known to be circulating in different animal populations that have not yet infected humans. COVID-19 is the most recent to make the jump to human infection. Common signs of COVID-19 infection are similar to the common cold and include respiratory symptoms such as dry cough, fever, shortness of breath, and breathing difficulties. In more severe cases, infection can cause pneumonia, severe acute respiratory syndrome, kidney failure, and death. The symptoms can not be seen immediately because they could occur after 14 days.
This is the main reason why quarantine is suggested ,but unfortunately the danger of this virus is not well comprehended by many people that continue to live their life normally and act like nothing is happening. This virus had a huge impact on everyday life for many people in different countries in the world. In many countries, especially the most infected ones, quarantine had become mandatory and all the activities are suspended until the situation will get better. Unfortunately it is sad to know that all of this could have been prevented by taking this restrictive measures before the virus could spread all over the world. This social issue is different from any other social issue because it concerns all the people besides their social position and their race. Due to the suspension of many activities, many people have lost their work and the ones that were living with economic problems before, are finding themselves in a worst situation because they do not have the resources to buy the essentials for their family. Social distancing is more complicated when you have to live in small apartments with your family. “The pandemic is a reminder that privacy is at a premium among the poor — hard to find and extremely valuable,” said Stefanie DeLuca, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University. A 20 years old student has been interviewed and declared that he is currently living with nine people in a small apartment. He confessed how hard it is in sleeping on the floor and sharing a single shower in these tough times, he is suffering of anxiety due to the fear of getting the virus. This guy is a student who started college in Pennsylvania and he was constricted in leaving the dorms and asked for help to a friend. These ten people that are living in the same house are more at risk due to the life that they live individually during the day. This guy is experiencing the same situation of many Americans and it let the people to shift their focus on other problems instead of thinking exclusively in how to prevent a possible infection from the virus. The incarcerated people are also more at risk and many cases have been reported, This is a systemic fault that should be adjusted immediately in order to let everyone to fight against something that is destroying the world that we live in.
After seven weeks of quarantine, I personally think that many countries are doing a great job in reopening the main activities in order to establish once again a common sense of normalcy. It seems that the world is learning how to live with the virus and many scientists suggest that all of us should forget the normality that we were living and continue to live as all of this has always existed. Restaurants will have tables that should be spaced at least five inches apart and customers will have bags to store their face masks during dining. Wearing masks in public has become mandatory and it is suggested to always wear gloves. Many countries decided to lift the restrictions previously given and on the other hand they are criticized by the other countries who think that lifting the restrictions too soon could have terrible consequences.
Many attempts have been made in order to find a cure that could contrast the virus but the results have been poor and meaningless. Doctors and scientists are trying to speed up a process that normally takes years in few months. The creation of a vaccine is the only possibility that would take us back to a normal life and it will save millions of people. The question that is among the people and difficult to be answered is how fast a vaccine could be created and made available to everyone. National leaders are trying to immunize their population first, Mr. Trump is in charge of “Operation Warp Speed” in order to get 300 million doses to Americans by January 2021. The approach taken by the leaders of the world has been already criticized. George Q. Daley, the dean of Harvard Medical School, said that it “would involve squandering the early doses of vaccine on a large number of individuals at low risk, rather than covering as many high-risk individuals globally”. My biggest concern is a possible conflict that could emerge from the creation of the vaccine. By speeding up the process safety measures are underestimated and the possibilities of a not-working vaccine would be higher. The best thing that we can do as the human species is to be patient and to adapt in this new reality. Who better than us is able to adapt in different situations? We are the leaders of the world that we live in and Im sure that we will come back stronger than ever.
Jade Li
Professor Moore
ENG-2100
May 7th, 2020
A Call of Despair for Universal Healthcare
The United States of America is notoriously the most developed country in the world. Unalienable human rights are the core values of our country, and because of this, Americans can enjoy a life filled with comfort and joy. The root of all this lies one of the most intersectional and crucial factors in maintaining this goal: healthcare. Healthcare dictates the mental and physical welfare of people. However, there are millions of individuals who are uninsured or cannot get coverage. The United States spends more than any other country in the world to support a failing healthcare system, that has only been further exploited during a critical time of the COVID-19 pandemic. As billions of dollars every year are being spent on an ineffective and unhelpful health care system, it begs the question of what we can do to not only fix our healthcare but also improve the lives of our people. It’s quite obvious, yet simple. The United States has to develop a universal and comprehensive public healthcare system.
Universal access to healthcare has been a highly controversial topic, well-rooted in the early 1900s when the Great Depression called for dire attention to medical care. By the 1960s, there was no formal control over the cost of healthcare. Affording proper medical attention was too expensive for many families to afford; thus, rendering welfare programs to be implemented. Former President of the United States, Barack Obama, passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010. This broadened American citizens’ access to healthcare, especially those in poverty, while simultaneously not burdening people with the increasing cost of healthcare. Obama was trying to gradually introduce universal healthcare into our society. However, with the inauguration of Donald Trump as the current President, there has been a strong push to replace the Affordable Care Act with a new conservative health care program: a block-grant system that promotes privatized healthcare. However, private health plans have shown to deliberately under provide services and treatment to people who get sick, which is enabled by the lack of government regulation. It is also expensive and not tangible for everybody in the country to get. This has attention to the need for universal healthcare.
Universal health coverage sustains the idea that healthcare is a right for all and not just a privilege for the wealthy. The most obvious advantage of universal healthcare is that everyone including young, low-income, self-employed workers, and those who don’t have health insurance at all, have health insurance and access to medical services. Roughly 23 million Americans between the ages of 19 and 64 are uninsured, and another 64 million are underinsured. Universal healthcare lowers costs for the national economy because the government controls the price of medication and medical services through regulation and negotiation. The government has the bargaining power to negotiate lower prices around 4-31% of current drug prices, making medication more affordable and tangible to all people. This corresponds with services themselves because medical practitioners such as doctors or dentists can reduce administrative costs and hire less staff since they are not forced to work with a myriad of health care companies. With a universal healthcare system, these administrative costs can be cut up to 6%, and businesses will also be benefitting because they can offer affordable services without losing money.
Universal healthcare also equalizes service, which means it is blind to racism and wealth. Doctors or hospitals will be unable to target and cater to only wealthy clients or people of a certain race. That means everyone will get the same level of care. People of color are significantly more likely to be uninsured than Whites. In 2016, 22% of Blacks and 19% of Hispanics were uninsured compared to 12% of Whites being uninsured. The current programs such as the Affordable Care Act and Medicare, are still allowing people of color to fall through the coverage gap. This leaves them uninsured and the underlying racial prejudices make it even difficult to receive any services. We need to close the gap between races when it comes to healthcare. Under universal healthcare, people of color will experience large gains in coverage that not only narrows longstanding racial disparities but will help also eradicate them.
As a victim of COVID-19, I’ve witnessed families writhe in pain because they had to exchange their financial security for the welfare of their loved ones. Hospitals are being underfunded and not properly taken care of. The government is not providing sufficient resources or taking enough action to help relieve people during this pandemic because the United States healthcare system is inevitably a business. The current crisis has highlighted the incredible weakness and dysfunctionality of our system. Getting the proper help is complicated by the fact that public health agencies, rather than our federally funded medical care institutes, serve as the front line of defense against this crisis. The horrifying pandemic has demonstrated the advantage of universal health coverage. The economic collapse has brought sudden mass unemployment for millions and only in the United States, have they allowed job losses to threaten the status of individual healthcare. Many people are afraid to seek proper medical treatment for the virus because of how expensive treatment is. Instead, they choose to remain in their own homes, allowing the disease to spread even more rapidly. In contrast to the United States, countries with already universal healthcare implemented such as Taiwan, Japan, and Germany, are handling the crisis much better. These countries’ death rates have been contained more efficiently and effectively. Their centralized planning has become even more of an undeniable asset. Universal healthcare enables people to better manage chronic conditions, which in turn makes the population less vulnerable to infectious diseases. Because of a lack of access to primary care and high costs to receive regular treatment, this has actually driven hospitalizations that could have been preventable otherwise. This means that our hospitals are already taking in patients they wouldn’t have initially if the system functioned better, and now have to further accommodate an influx of COVID-19 patients. With everybody having access to healthcare, it will be easier to treat diseases and viruses that spread quickly. In this sense, universal healthcare can only benefit the collective good.
One of the most common questions that plague whether or not the United States should switch to a universal healthcare system is if it is economically viable. With the government’s national looming debt being over 24.7 trillion dollars, Americans feel that the national spending will grow immensely once Universal Healthcare is enacted. The cost of medical care in the United States is one of the highest in the world and people are afraid that they will be further burdened with taxes to compensate for the cost of healthcare. Most of the people who oppose Universal Healthcare are also worried that it will damage the state of the economy. However, universal healthcare poses an opportunity to promote economic growth. There will be better functioning in the labor market in many areas. Universal access encourages higher wages and salaries by reducing employers’ costs for health insurance, which frees up fiscal space to invest in their employees’ wages instead. Job quality would also increase because each job guarantees undeniable access to healthcare. Many individuals decide on a job from the healthcare benefits that it provides, so with universal healthcare, there will be less mental and economic stress of losing or transitioning between jobs by eliminating the loss of health care. Also, if there is undeniable access to healthcare, people will inevitably be healthier and not miss work. A healthier population creates more productive workers, which in turn increases economic output.
Pursuing a universal healthcare system will not happen overnight, but change is nonetheless needed. Universal healthcare is an inevitable right of every individual in the United States regardless of race or wealth. The healthcare system should be treated as a commitment to serve and guarantee the long-lasting welfare of our people. The global pandemic is a wakeup call for the United States to urge universal access. People will die because the country refuses to treat healthcare as a universal right and a public good. In fact, this has already been happening in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and in astronomical rates. For the future of the United States’ welfare, we must consider the switch to universal healthcare.