Every way in which I "win" involves, in some sense, an abandonment of the game, as we intuitively understand. (I can also, of course, openly abandon the game-refuse to play. This paperless is what most adults.). The class of "No technical solution problems" has members. My thesis is that the "population problem as conventionally conceived, is a member of this class. How it is conventionally conceived needs some comment. It is fair to say that most people who anguish over the population problem are trying to find a way to avoid the evils of overpopulation without relinquishing any of the privileges they now enjoy. They think that farming the seas or developing new strains of wheat will solve the problem-technologically.
Because of previous failures in prophecy, it takes courage to assert that a desired technical solution is not possible. Wiesner and York exhibited this courage; publishing in a science journal, they insisted that the solution to the problem was not to be found in the natural sciences. They cautiously qualified their statement with the phrase, "It is our considered professional judgment." Whether they were right or not is not the concern of the present article. Rather, the concern here is with the important concept of a class of human problems which can be called "no technical solution problems and, more specifically, with the identification and discussion of one of these. It is easy to show that the class is not a null class. Recall the game of tick-tack-toe. Consider the problem, "How can I win the game of tick-tack-toe?" It is well known that I cannot, if i assume (in keeping with the conventions of game theory) that my opponent understands the game perfectly. Put another way, there is no "technical solution" to the problem. I can win only by giving a radical meaning to the word "win." I can hit my opponent over the head; or I can drug him; or I can falsify the records.
Essay, writing Service - assessment 2, M1, D1 Nature
The Tragedy of the commons by garrett Hardin, 1968, published in, science, december 13, 1968. For copyright permission, click here. The author is professor of biology, university of California, santa barbara. This article is based on a presidential address presented before the meeting of the pacific division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at Utah State University, logan, At the end of a thoughtful article on the future of nuclear war, wiesner and. Confronted by the dilemma of steadily increasing military power and steadily decreasing national security.
It is our considered professional judgment that this dilemma has no technical solution. If the great powers continue to look for solutions in the area of science and technology only, the result will be to worsen the situation.". I would like to focus your attention not on the subject of the article (national security in a nuclear world) but on the kind baseball of conclusion they reached, namely that there is no technical solution to the problem. An pollution implicit and almost universal assumption of discussions published in professional and semipopular scientific journals is that the problem under discussion has a technical solution. A technical solution may be defined as one that requires a change only in the techniques of the natural sciences, demanding little or nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality. In our day (though not in earlier times) technical solutions are always welcome.
Does a woman's "innate right to control her own body" encompass the right to kill a near-term fetus who is, for all intents and purposes, identical to a newborn child? We believe that many supporters of reproductive freedom are troubled at least occasionally by this question. But they are reluctant to raise it because it is the beginning of a slippery slope. If it is impermissible to abort a pregnancy in the ninth month, what about the eighth, seventh, sixth? Once we acknowledge that the state can interfere at any time in the pregnancy, doesn't it follow that the state can interfere at all times? This conjures up the specter of predominantly male, predominantly affluent legislators telling poor women they must bear and raise alone children they cannot afford to bring up; forcing teenagers to bear children they are not emotionally prepared to deal with; saying to women who wish.
Legislative prohibitions on abortion arouse the suspicion that their real intent is to control the independence and sexuality of women. And yet, by consensus, all of us think it proper that there be prohibitions against, and penalties exacted for, murder. It would be a flimsy defense if the murderer pleads that this is just between him and his victim and none of the government's business. If killing a fetus is truly killing a human being, is it not the duty of the state to prevent it? Indeed, one of the chief functions of government is to protect the weak from the strong. If we do not oppose abortion at some stage of pregnancy, is there not a danger of dismissing an entire category of human beings as unworthy of our protection and respect? And isn't that dismissal the hallmark of sexism, racism, nationalism, and religious fanaticism? Shouldn't those dedicated to fighting such injustices be scrupulously careful not to embrace another? Continue on to part 2, best Baby Products an error occurred while processing this directive.
Nature vs nurture essay outline
Occasionally, it generates adult brain-wave patterns. Some people claim to remember being born, or even the uterine environment. Perhaps there is thought in the womb. It's hard to maintain that a transformation to full personhood happens abruptly at the moment of birth. Why, then, should it be murder to kill an infant the day after it was born but not the day before? As a practical matter, this isn't report very important: Less than 1 percent of all tabulated abortions in the United States are listed in the last three months of pregnancy (and, on closer investigation, most such reports turn out to be due to miscarriage or miscalculation). But third-trimester abortions provide a test of the limits of the pro-choice point of view.
And a pro-lifer would hold that, from the moment of conception, the embryo or fetus is alive; wrinkle that this life imposes on us a moral obligation to preserve it; and that abortion is tantamount to murder. Both names-pro-choice and pro-life-were picked with an eye toward influencing those whose minds are not yet made up: Few people wish to be counted either as being against freedom of choice or as opposed to life. Indeed, freedom and life are two of our most cherished values, and here they seem to be in fundamental conflict. Let's consider these two absolutist positions in turn. A newborn baby is surely the same being it was just before birth. There 's good evidence that a late-term fetus responds to sound-including music, but especially its mother's voice. It can suck its thumb or do a somersault.
patient with us-we're trying to stress the various positions to the breaking point to see their weaknesses and where they fail. In contemplative moments, nearly everyone recognizes that the issue is not wholly one-sided. Many partisans of differing views, we find, feel some disquiet, some unease when confronting what's behind the opposing arguments. (This is partly why such confrontations are avoided.) And the issue surely touches on deep questions: What are our responses to one another? Should we permit the state to intrude into the most intimate and personal aspects of our lives? Where are the boundaries of freedom? What does it mean to be human? Of the many actual points of view, it is widely held-especially in the media, which rarely have the time or the inclination to make fine distinctions-that there are only two: "pro-choice" and "pro-life." This is what the two principal warring camps like to call themselves. In the simplest characterization, a pro-choicer would hold that the decision to abort a pregnancy is to be made only by the woman; the state has no right to interfere.
The contending factions call on science to bolster their positions. Families are divided, husbands and wives agree not to discuss it, old friends are no longer speaking. Politicians check the latest polls to discover the dictates of their consciences. Amid all the shouting, it dissertation is hard for the adversaries to hear one another. Is it wrong to abort a pregnancy? How do we decide? We wrote this article to understand better what the contending views are and to see if we ourselves could find a position that would satisfy us both. Is there no middle ground?
473 words essay on my favorite, leader - mahatma gandhi
The abortion debate - carl Sagan an error occurred while processing this directive excerpts from or, the question of Abortion: a search for Answers by, carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, for the complete resume text, including illustrations, introductory", footnotes, and commentary on the reaction. The issue had been decided years ago. The court had chosen the middle ground. You'd think the fight was over. Instead, there are mass rallies, bombings and intimidation, murders of workers at abortion clinics, arrests, intense lobbying, legislative drama, congressional hearings, supreme court decisions, major political parties almost defining themselves on the issue, and clerics threatening politicians with perdition. Partisans fling accusations of hypocrisy and murder. The intent of the constitution and the will of God are equally invoked. Doubtful arguments are trotted out as certitudes.