What does science mean for humanity?

Ashley wrote an aritcle on her blog about a new advance in science. A group of scientists won the Nobel Prize for the discovery of a substance called telomere. Its this stuf at the tips of our DNA (like the plastic tip of a shoelace). Ashley says, “These caps (telomeres), when duplicated tend to fray and shrink. When this happens the DNA tends to change slightly, which could possibly be the cause of some age related illnesses such as heart disease and some cancers. Although, they don’t yet know if the telomeres have anything to do with a person’s appearance.”


Ashley believes that this could be a big advancement in science. She says that this is a stepping stone to advancements in curing diseases related to age. She even went as far as to say that humans might live forever, which makes sense. If we don’t age then we don’t die. I agree with her opinion to some extent.

This is pretty cool stuff. I found it really interesting and it would be awesome if we could cure diseases that kill us… but at the same time…

I’m worried about what this means for humanity. If science brings us to a point where we no longer age, then what is the point in living? If we don't die, then we won’t actually live either. There should be some sort of restrictions put on the advances of science... How restricted?

I think that we should keep this an open topic before we jump into “advances in science.” We shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves.



Article Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/12/07/nobel.prize.mom.telomeres/index.html?iref=allsearch

http://ashleymariemoore.blogspot.com/2010/02/scientists-get-closer-to-understanding.html#comments



Picture Source:

http://openpit.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/immortality/

The News Station That Cried Wolf

Katie Iverson wrote an article for her blog about a fake invasion of the country Georgia. Russia invaded Georgia in August 2008. A news station in Georgia decided that they were going to ‘test’ out a simulation to see what would happen if Georgia was invaded again. However, civilians in Georgia were not informed that the broadcast was fake and they assumed that Russia really had invaded their country and shot their president and who knows what else. One witness reported that people were “running around in the streets saying ‘what happened? What happened?’” This false broadcast sent people into a panic.

Katie then said that they should not have broadcast the story if it wasn’t real because it caused people to panic. “This was very cruel, misleading, and not smart to put on TV.” I agree with Katie and would also like to add… What was the point of the broadcast? What good did it do to air something like this?

I think that educating the people of Georgia about what to do if their country is invaded is a very smart idea. News people could talk to experts and ask them something like “If Georgia is invaded by Russia what should we do?” They should not, should not air a fake broadcast. It does not accomplish anything but cause people to panic. I guess I just don’t understand why this technique was used because it doesn’t make any sense.

News broadcasts should always, always, always tell the truth about a situation or be punished for misleading the public. This sort of thing should not happen because if Georgia actually was invaded now, I’m not sure if the people would believe the new reporters. They cried wolf and now no one will listen.



Article Sources:

http://katieireneiverson.blogspot.com/

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/03/14/watson.georgia.invasion.hoax.cnn?iref=allsearch



Picture Source:

http://www.timeoutsingapore.com/competitions/the-boy-who-cried-wolf

He was HOW old when he shot his dad’s girlfriend?

A boy in Pennsylvania is charged with the murder of his dad’s girlfriend. He was 11 years old. She was eight months pregnant. He used a shotgun “designed for use by children” and now he is being tried as an adult (because in Pennsylvania anyone over 10 charged with murder is tried as an adult) and is facing life in prison.
"It's heinous, the whole situation," Lawrence County District Attorney John Bongivengo said.

I agree. This totally blows my mind. How? How could an 11 year old murder someone? I can think of two reasons. He didn’t know what kind of life he would be living after he shot someone. And he had his very own shotgun.

Children often do not understand the concept of permenant consequences. They haven’t learned from making mistakes that one should weigh options before acting on impulse. They haven’t completely grasped the concept of thinking things through because they don’t understand that mistakes can ruin their lives.

This is a major reason why shotguns should never ever be “designed for use by children.” Children shouldn’t be in charge of their own weapon. If it is a parent’s decision to allow their children to use a gun or weapon of some kind then they should supervise the kid, not leave them to their own devices with a weapon that can kill someone.

Now I realize that if he is guilty, then he actually murdered two people and that’s awful. But so is the fact that he had a gun available to him when he wasn’t old enough to be in charge of his own decisions. He should be tried as a jouvenille because he is only 12 years old and a 12 year old should not be put in jail for the rest of his life. The above facts have to be taken into account. He was too young to make clear decisions based on consequences and he was handed the weapon that he used.

Article Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/29/boy.homicide/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

Picture Source:

http://www.faqs.org/photo-dict/phrase/1937/target.html

Priest Not Charged for Sexual Abuse

“’The tragic case of Father Lawrence Murphy, a priest of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, involved particularly vulnerable victims who suffered terribly," [Vatican spokesman Father Federico] Lombardi said in the statement. "By sexually abusing children who were hearing-impaired, Father Murphy violated the law and, more importantly, the sacred trust that his victims had placed in him.’

.....It involved abuse at confession, which is a violation of the Sacrament of Penance.”

The Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which is responsible for dealing the decision to “defrock” a priest for sexual abuse was informed of Murphy’s case by multiple bishops. However, the charges were dropped and the Vatican let him go free. There may have been up to 200 victims at t. John's School for the Deaf in St. Francis, Wisconsin.

I would like to know why the police dropped the charges. Was there proof of his innocence? Why wasn’t he legally punished for breaking such an important social code?

Twenty years later, he died with a clean record, still a priest. Some would like to put the blame on the Vatican, they say that he should have been denounced as a priest and it’s the Vatican’s fault that he wasn’t. But the Vatican couldn’t take away his priesthood if he wasn’t actually convicted of sexual abuse.

If he was guilty, then why did the police give up on the case? What about all of those victims? Where’s their say in all this? Why did Wisconsin police overlook this case?

Article Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/25/church.abuse/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

Picture Source:

http://godwithus1.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/a-heavenly-valentines-gift/an-old-wooden-cross-photographic-print-c12040086/