Planet Venus Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Planet Venus - Essay Example Venus is the closest planet to earth both in distance and radius and this proximity has meant that we know more about it than any other planet. As shown below a lost has been discovered regarding the planets formation, composition, and visibility. Picture of Venus Venus was formed approximately 4.6 billion years ago together with the rest of the solar system when our sun was formed in a cloud nebula referred to as the solar nebula (Cain). The cloud nebula must have been destabilized by a strong external force such as a nearby supernova as it began to deteriorate and with its crumbling down many stars were formed including our sun which due to its gravity attracted residue from the nebula that rotated in the form of hot rocks. The rocks would join together to form the planets of our solar system and one of them was Venus. It is believed that Venus must have collided with another huge object that affected its rotation as it the only planet to rotate in a clockwise manner. Proof of this is also seen in the fact that Venus has the longest day in the solar system the equivalent of 243 which is longer than the time it takes to revolve around the sun. In spite of this collision, Venus would still remain the biggest region within its location and it is believed it might have even absorbed the object that collided with it. While Venus is similar to earth in size being 95 % the size of our planet and given their close proximity it is likely that they formed during the same time. Venus does however have some stark differences that have made it be nicknamed earth’s evil twin by scientists. Comparative photo of Venus and Earth by NASA The lower atmosphere of Venus is filled with Carbon Dioxide and nitrogen while the upper atmosphere has a strong presence of sulphur dioxide which makes the temperatures of Venus extremely high due to a Greenhouse effect. With recordings of over 460? Centigrade the temperature on Venus are the hottest recorded on any planet even surpass ing Mercury which is the closest to the sun and the sulfur fumes make the environment acidic as it rains sulfuric acid in the upper atmosphere. These factors make Venus a lifeless planet as the places are highly inhospitable for terrestrial life as we know. The surface of Venus unlike other planets does not have craters due to meteorites and two theories have arisen to explain this: either the gases are so thick that any object that enters the atmosphere will burn up due to the air pressure with the exception of the largest of meteorites, or the planets volcanoes have been erupting frequently and so cover any asteroid collisions that have occurred (Redd). The planet does not have any water on the surface due to the high temperatures but it does have two huge continents that have mainly volcanic plains. Venus also lacks a magnetic field like that of the earth and it is thought that the main cause of this is that the core has cooled down significantly thus lacks many ionized particles . Several projects have been initiated to send probes to Venus so as to explore the planet a significant number of which were done by the USSR during the cold war era where it was competing with USA in the space race. The first successful landing was done in 1970 by the Venera -7 space probes however, several fly by missions had been done before it. The Venera successfully transmitted date from the planet’s surface regarding its composition and in 1975 the Venera – 9 sent the first images from the planet. From then other probes have been sent as well as fly by missions conducted with the European Union sending its own orbiters to study the planet (Anatoly). Photo of surface of Venus from Nasa 2005 Venus is a highly inhospitab

Enlightenment virtue Essay Example for Free

Enlightenment virtue Essay The advances in robotics have also been staggering. Todays robots, in addition to doing the menial tasks once performed by unskilled laborers, are considered vital contributing participants in such diverse environments as hospitals, factories, universities, offices, and banking institutions. The level of artificial intelligence attained is not quite at human levels, but is approaching those levels at an unprecedented pace. Machines already are in charge of making complicated decisions for the government and military; its only a matter of time before these types of robots are also helping direct the economy and aspects of private life. Despite fears that robotic technology would displace their human counterpart workers and cause massive unemployment, that has not yet been the case, with the employment rate actually increasing, albeit in areas that require highly skilled personnel. The mass-production of household robotic technology has made it possible for many consumers to purchase machines that take care of domestic tasks like preparing food and cleaning, allowing parents to have more leisure time, or to spend time with their children. In fact, the amount of newly available leisure time has been a dominant factor in the recent recreational activity and entertainment industry boom. (Last Name) 4 There is still a large measure of economic disparity between society in the post-industrial West verses the industrializing countries of Africa, Asia, and South America. While the AIDS virus was pronounced curable by doctors at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine two years ago, there are still people who are dying of the disease in the world simply because the medicine needed to cure people is being given to wealthy countries very disproportionately. Biotechnology has impacted both of our lives in a very significant way. The Human Genome Project, made it possible to unravel hereditary genetic disorders like Alzheimers and Huntingtons disease which have devastated families like ours for centuries. Despite your acquisition of Huntingtons at birth, scientists were able to identify the damaged genes in your DNA and correct them accordingly. Similarly, other diseases once thought incurable (e. g. AIDS, cancer) have been remedied by biotechnology and reputable scientists are seriously proposing that practical immortality could be possible. Progress in biotechnology has also come to help economically disadvantaged countries cultivate previously barren regions with genetically enhanced crops that thrive despite hostile conditions. War among nations still exists. Ian Buruma said that â€Å"Koran itself was the source violent abuse†. (p. 5) I agree with this statement. While it is undoubtedly true that Muslims like Bouyeri with their fundamentalist, misogynistic and murderous interpretation of religious text surely represent a threat to the Enlightenment virtues of freedom and reason, do public personas like Theo Van Gogh indeed represent a personification of those same Enlightenment virtues. This persistent refrain that echoes through the book forces the reader to question the illiberal and often intolerant practices of the Dutch Muslims amid whom Bouyeri was reared as well as the Dutch (Last Name) 5 who have managed to delude themselves into believing that hatred is somehow an Enlightenment virtue. Our global impact is finally receiving the scientific attention it deserves. The outcome will largely determine the future course of evolution. Human-modified ecosystems are shaped by our activities and their side effects. They share a common set of traits including simplified food webs, landscape homogenization, and high nutrient and energy inputs. Ecosystem simplification is the ecological hallmark of humanity and the reason for our evolutionary success. However, the side effects of our profligacy and poor resource practices are now so pervasive as to threaten our future no less than that of biological diversity itself. This looks at human impact on ecosystems and the consequences for evolution. It concludes that future evolution will be shaped by our awareness of the global threats, our willingness to take action, and our ability to do so. Our ability is presently hampered by several factors, including the poor state of ecosystem and planetary knowledge, ignorance of human impact, lack of guidelines for sustainability, and a paucity of good policies, practices, and incentives for adopting those guidelines in daily life. Conservation philosophy, science, and practice must be framed against the reality of human-dominated ecosystems, rather than the separation of humanity and nature underlying the modern conservation movement. The steps scientists can take to imbed science in conservation and conservation in the societal process affecting the future of ecosystems and human well-being are discussed. Assessing the implications for our own future is no simpler than it is for ecosystems. The future can be gauged from several points of view from human carrying capacity, capacity for a given standard of living, or for the diversity of future options, for example. Should (Last Name) 6 our horizon be measured in ecological or evolutionary time in decades and centuries, or in millennia and millions of years? One could well argue that our very success evolutionarily is proof of our ability to modify ecosystems to our advantage and that we can take care of the environment in due course, when we can afford it. The challenge for ecology and environmental studies is to gauge the outcome of human action on ecosystem processes and on our own future. If there is no link between biodiversity and human well-being, then the future may be bleak for diversity but not necessarily for humanity. If that is the case, the fate of diversity will depend on human compassion, esthetics, and emotions rather than on human welfare. How do I see myself fit into it? Because of my knowledge and faith in God, I am well fit to the future. Future means reality and reality is not independently given but is contingent upon our decisions. (George Soros p. 4) Future is just like today that if we neglect and forget will just become nonsense past. â€Å"To see the earth as it truly is, small and blue and beautiful in that eternal silence where it floats, is to see ourselves as riders on the earth together†¦, written by Archibald Macleish. (Al Gore p. 12) The earth is truly a masterpiece so let’s protect our endangered environment. (Last Name) Bibliography Buruma, Ian. Murder in Amsterdam: The Death of Theo Van Gogh and the Limits of Tolerance. New York: Penguin Press, 2006 Gore, Al. An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It . Rodale, 2006 Soros, George. The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror. Public Affairs, 2006.

Digital Technology And Manipulation Media Essay

Digital Technology And Manipulation Media Essay The first device invented that could digitise or make analog photographs available in a digital format was a scanner made by Russell Kirsh in 1957 (Terras, 2008). The scanner functioned by looking at the variations in tone within photographs and assigning a digital value to represent a tone band. Instead of creating a new photograph this scanner copied an existing photograph and recorded it digitally. Because photographs can be scanned to a digital format, the initial analog negative can now be manipulated digitally and the truth value held by analog photographs can now be challenged. During the 1960s digital imaging technologies was still only used by large institutions such as NASA and the American government. It was not until the 1980s that the media began to use digital imaging technologies. Digital technology could be employed to enhance the clearness of television broadcasts and speed up the time in which photojournalists were able to send pictures to the media. In 1982, National Geographic published a photograph of the pyramids at Giza on the front cover of the magazine, see Figure 6. The photograph has been manipulated to fit a horizontal photograph of the pyramids onto the portrait cover of the magazine to make the front cover more captivating (Terras, 2008). It is important to note that this instance of manipulation was one of the first by a recognised organisation. National Geographics editor, Fred Ritchen who decided to compress the pyramids felt he had achieved a new point of view by the retroactive repositioning of the photographer a few feet to one side (White, 1999). Ritchens defence to accusations of manipulating the photograph was that if the photographer had moved and taken the photograph at a different time of the day then the photograph would be the same. However the fact remains that this photograph was not the one that was made. The fact that the photograph was manipulated was not broadcast. It was admitted to have been mani pulated when other journalists questioned the photograph. Howard Chapnick (1982) argued that the words Credibility and Responsibility allow photographers to call photography a profession due to ethical considerations rather than a business (p.40). Chapnick goes on to argue that not maintaining these ethics will damage journalistic impact and photography as a language. Lastly, he maintains the threat to credibility is permanent if people begin to disbelieve the news photograph (p.41). In 1985 digital cameras became widely used by professional photographers. Companies also marketed digital imaging camera to the public for domestic use. During this time the processing capabilities of computers was also advancing and provided a way for individuals to load image manipulation software and manipulate photographs. In 1991 the American government and the media used digital photography as a technology for the first time in a war environment. Not only was digital photography used to photograph the war but was used in weapon systems by America (Floridi, 1999). A much more recent current use of digital imaging technology is live electronic manipulation. Manipulating a live feed allows the editing of satellite image feeds. On the fly image editing may be used in sports programming to show lines on pitches or by governments to hide classified buildings from satellite imagery that is available to the public such as Google Maps. News television channels and can also employ technology to sow text feeds beneath news anchors. Delta Tre supply FIFA with sports data services and on screen graphics (Bevir, 2012). In 2012, the union of European Football Associations placed recorded footage of a fan crying at the opening of the game and played it after one of the teams had won the game to make for more compelling television. Amato (2000) argues that as this technology becomes more widespread and available the credibility of video media will be damaged permanently. In some ways this is similar to National Geographics manipulated Pyramid in that both rep resentations existed but were manipulated to give heightened sensation. The abilities that digital imaging technology have provided have been used by Walt Disney Imagineering Studio to take existing photographs and film of aged or dead celebrities made in the past to be used in new programmes or films (Amato, 2000). This use of technology to manipulate media evidences how analog photographs and films are susceptible to these processes and also asks the question of what is the final product? Is it simply a manipulated piece of video footage or a new creation entirely? Mitchell (1992 p.192) argues that it is a new creation entirely. Mitchell (1992 p.192) also argues that photography in recent times has entered a phase which he terms pseudophotography meaning that digital photography is not photography. Though the two methods are comparable, they possess different manipulation potentials which are examined in the next section. Manipulation Since Digital photography Savedoff (1997, p.19) argues that technologies alter rather than simply add to the resources of art. This means that photography as an art form has been altered by added manipulation potential. This new digital imaging practice should possess ethical consideration for the manipulation of photographs. However, this has not happened due to the inability to differentiate between the digital or analog photograph when printed creating difficulty for imposing a different standard for each method. Photographys relationship with reality as previously outlined is apparent in a digital photograph that has been printed, however the relationship created by the light reaction will not be present in a digital photograph. In an analog photograph created through a chemical process there is room for argument that the relationship with light remains intact. Although this trace looks to be evident in a photograph created by digital means, the trace is not a chemical reaction but a digital representatio n of reality. Additionally, digital photography is limitless in the number of alterations or manipulations that can be applied. These manipulations leave little or no evidence of themselves. Modern digital camera allow the photographer to review the image made and thus allows them such benefits of changing the composition until they are satisfied with the result. Images are manipulated by using computers and image editing software such as Adobe Photoshop, along with scanners to digitise analog images. Therefore, photographs made before digital photography are vulnerable to manipulation just like the aforementioned case of Disney outlined earlier (Bouse, 2002). The presence of digital imaging technology has changed photography and its relationship with veracity permanently. This lends evidence to Bouses argument that old photographs may be more widely trusted and that digital photography makes readers of images aware not only of current manipulations but of those in the past also. The reader of a photograph, although aware that the photograph was made before the invention of digital technologies is aware that the photograph might have been manipulated and nonetheless chan ges the way the reader interprets all photographs, manipulated or not (Savedoff, 1997). This means that digital technology has decreased the veracity of photography due to readers now questions all photographs. Lastly, it is very difficult for the average reader to distinguish between manipulated and non-manipulated photographs. Michelle Henning (2007) argues that digital imaging technologies have enabled limited new ways of manipulating a photograph. Henning continues that digital technologies have only made the manipulation of photographs more available. Henning also argues that the public was previously unaware of image manipulation techniques before the invention of digital imaging technology. Digital manipulation has made the public more aware of photo manipulation and maybe even increased how often images are manipulated. Digital vs Analog Photography has been changing since its birth in the 1800s and many of the changes have been driven by technology but were always based on chemical reactions to light. In the 1820s Joseph Niepce found a method to permanently fix a photograph using lavender oil and bitumen. Niepce swiftly developed this method further into heliographs made by using silver nitrate. Eduard Daguerre was also looking for a way to photographically record subjects and contacted Niepce to work with each other. After Niepce died, Daguerre found that mercury could fix images much more permanently and created the Daguerreotype which Daguerre believed at the time serves to draw nature and gives nature the power to reproduce herself (Hirsh 2000). Since photographys invention the idea of a device that could create unmediated representations of reality was widely believed yet now we begin to see photography may not deserve the verisimilitude it has been ascribed. At the same time Henry Fox Talbot worked on a photog raphic method using paper print. Like the creation of photography and the creation of digital photography these changes and advances were driven simultaneously by several individuals at once. The daguerreotype became the most popular and was widely used to make very simple portraits. Later though, interest was given to the Calotype created by Talbot. The Calotype was less reliable but allowed for prints to be reproduced much more easily and allowed greater detail with the print at least initially. During the mid-1800s negatives were made from glass and coated with albumen paper. These proved much more reproducible and gave more detailed and sharper results than earlier methods. With regard to digital methods, has digital photography made reproducing images easier due to the fact that digital images when stored on a computer can be duplicated instantly and without cost? Being able to reproduce a photograph has always been desirable and this is shown by the demand for the Calotype. Be aring in mind that digital imaging technology has helped progress the abilities of cameras, it has done this in a way that has divided the two types of photography causing great debates among them. Mark Amerika, digital artist and writer, in an interview talks about the differences between digital and analog photography. Amerika claims that images and how they are read is influenced by the way they are captured, meaning that as technology changes so does out interpretation of photographs (Jacobs 2006). Because photography is much more easily manipulated with digital photography the objectivity of the photograph is lost and it is futile to pursue objectivity (Jacobs 2006). It would seem true that manipulation is more common since the advent of digital photography, which could argue that the making of an image is only a small portion of the final product like in the aforementioned case of Rejalnder. Both Mitchell and Savedoff claim that digital photography and the manipulation of it cannot be compared to analog photography because it is a new medium (Savedoff, 1997). Both continue to argue that because with digital photographs the image is created with a digital sensor digital capture is a separate process to analog capture. Digital photographs receive their authority because they are almost identical to analog photographs and this authority is passed to the digital photograph. However, if this passing of authority is stopped, digital photography may be criticised for its lack of authority. News reporting currently accomplished by digital photography may no longer be an acceptable medium for those purposes. Oddly, as already outlined, if digital photographs obtains its authority from its similarity to analog photographs, analog photographs may lose its authority because of this relationship. It is important to note that photo manipulation was possible before digital technologies; it took place much less and needed much more time, effort and dexterity (Savedoff, 1997). Savedoff and Mitchell contend that the increase in frequency of digital manipulations is enough to show the conceptualisation of digital photography as a new medium. When an analog photograph was manipulated evidence of this procedure could be found on the negative and would more than likely mean the negative would be permanently modified. Yet with digital photography this does not apply (Savedoff, 1997). The digital file makes it very difficult to ascertain whether the file has been manipulated and also difficult to determine which file is the original, if one exists. Because analog manipulations needed expertise and dexterity it means that they were the exception to the norm as they were costly to accomplish. The refined abilities of digital technology that allow image manipulation to be completed with ease have made manipulated photographs become the ordinary. Savedoff (1997) claims that the power of the reportage photograph has lessened. Savedoff (1997) also contends that before digital photography there were well known standards regarding what was and what was not acceptable manipulation of an image. However, with digital technologies these standards have become irrelevant. This new trend of manipulation gives much less regard to what it means to manipulate an image. Amerika (XXX) furthers Savedoffs claims and he believes that instead of digital photography being a new entity it simply does not exist (Jacobs). Amerika argues that digital photography is just the processing of information and to print a digital image is no different to printing a text document from a computer. Amerika believes digital photography is not about photography but about binary code or manipulation ones and zeroes (Jacobs). However, if this school of thought is accepted then surely analog photographs are about chemistry and the reaction of light to a light sensitive medium. A third argument exists which opposes both Amerika and Savedoff. Michelle Henning (2007) makes the case that digital photography has changed or remediated the landscape of photography. Keeping in mind that digital photography is used somewhat differently to analog photography, but to greater extent is experienced and interpreted in similar ways. The design of digital cameras imitate analog cameras and feature the same vocabulary such as ASA/ISO standards which relate to film speed and are not necessary for digital cameras (Amerika/Jacobs). Maybe these imitations create a bridge between the two technologies that allows the inherent veracity of analog photography to be inherited by digital cameras (Henning, 2007). Henning (2007) asks why digital cameras try to imitate analog cameras when the potential of digital imaging is greater than analog capabilities. It is important to state that although many companies manufacture cameras it is the larger companies such as Canon and Nikon and So ny that market digital cameras aggressively. Hennings idea that digital photography has remediated analog forms of photo making is not because of the abilities afforded by digital photography but because of the way it has been aggressively marketed by the companies that manufacture them (2007). Henning (2007, p.59) summarises in saying that digital imaging is not less photographic than chemical analog is and that it is a different process but ends up as the same result. The final analysis of the differences between digital photography and analog photography outlined by Mitchell (1992) is to see digital and analog photography as similar to painting. Rather than painting no longer being used as many feared it would with the birth of photography, its purpose simply changed. A change similar to this may also be experienced by analog photography, finding its niche somewhere between analog photography and painting. Digital photography however possesses the realism of analog photography but is more easily manipulated, putting it next to the two art forms (Mitchell, 1992).

Technologies Impact on the Legal Profession Essay -- Law Lawyer Techno

Technologies Impact on the Legal Profession Law is a profession that has been important to the culture of our world since its beginning. Societies across the globe are each governed by a unique fabric of ethics and laws. Therefore, each culture has its own system formed to enforce those designated codes and standards. As early as 1792 B.C., the Babylonians had a written code of law. Known as the Hammurabi, this set of articles was designed to set up an orderly society. [1]Our government is formed by the Constitution laid out by our fore fathers in the early eighteenth century. This document lays out the form of our three branched government system, consisting of the legislative, executive, and judiciary braches. The judiciary branch is shaped as a system of courts to judge citizens that have broken the rules that are set by the legislative branch. In the majority of these courtroom scenarios, lawyers are used to argue for both the defense and the prosecution. The law professional, because of this, is one profession that has re mained interminable throughout history. Although law has always been with us, it does adapt to the present culture, and its effectiveness is based on the technologies of the day and the ability to best utilized them and grow with them. The men that formed the government of the United States realized that they had to form a system that would not only provide fairness and legal equality for its citizens, but also be able to adjust to the changing culture to endure that it remains fair for all generations. They understood that as society evolved over time, there would need to be new laws created to govern new crimes. In the years that our country was founded, modern technologies did not exist. Therefor... ...m a computer. These forms of research are important for business cases and can even be useful in the identity theft crimes that have become so widespread. There will of course have to be standards set regarding what information is allowable in the courtroom, and how far a lawyer may go to get the research. Technology however has opened many windows of possibility that at one time were not available. The legal profession may have been a profession practiced and embossed on our culture by our forefathers, but with today’s use of technology, it has evolved in many ways. It now utilizes forms of scientific research and the latest forms of researching tools, to help keep a society in order and to give peace to every citizen. A lawyer’s job is an important one, and the technological progressions in our culture have done much to advance its strength and effectiveness.

Globalization or Cultural Imperialism Essay

The concept of cultural imperialism is not a new one. The idea of winning the hearts and minds of another society via exporting values and cultural tendencies dates back to at least the Roman Empire (Rothkop 1). The basic concept of cultural imperialism is that a stronger, usually larger and with more military might, has forced its culture on another nation, usually a smaller and less politically powerful nation. Cultural imperialism can be either deliberate, as a conscious effort of the more powerful society, or as an unintended consequence of the larger society’s actions. Generally, those who use the term cultural imperialism use it as insult against the larger nation. The claim is that cultural imperialism, sometimes also referred to globalization, is detrimental to smaller cultures around the world, including the destruction of the indigenous cultures, languages, foods and art forms. This paper will examine the claim that this is a detrimental effect and determine if globalization is a negative force on the world or an acceptable part of an internationally aware world. â€Å"Cultural imperialism involves much more than simple consumer goods; it involves the dissemination of ostensibly American principles, such as freedom and democracy. Though this process might sound appealing on the surface, it masks a frightening truth: many cultures around the world are gradually disappearing due to the overwhelming influence of corporate and cultural America. The motivations behind American cultural imperialism parallel the justifications for U. S. imperialism throughout history: the desire for access to foreign markets and the belief in the superiority of American culture. † (Galeota 1) The first discussion of cultural imperialism in the mainstream discussion of political science began in the 1970s in relation to Latin America (Tomlinson 36). â€Å"The definitions of cultural imperialism appear to range along a continuum. On the one side, there are quite narrow and polemic definitions of cultural imperialism as ‘the domination of other cultures by products of the U. S. culture industry. ’ On the other hand, there are more formal and abstract definitions like Shiller’s which states that cultural imperialism is ‘the sum of the processes by which a culture is brought into the modern world system†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Hamm 3). But then what does it actually mean? The short version is that the United States’ exports of everything from movies to McDonald’s are destroying native cultures around the world. The longer argument is that cultural imperialism is part of the growing process, a natural aspect of development. Determining which of these theories is the actual reality of the process is a sociological debate that has been raged for nearly forty years. The first question is whether the exportation of American culture is responsible for the destruction of native cultures around the world. To determine this, we must first look at the track record of history and use it as a measuring stick. When the term cultural imperialism began to take root in the 1970s it was universally applied to mean the impact, primarily by American media, on the remainder of the world. While it was initially applied primarily to Latin America and other regions where the United States displayed a colonial type relationship with the emerging nations, it would later be applied to the American media domination worldwide and credited/blamed for everything from the downfall of Soviet communism to the rise of English as the primary language of business worldwide. (Dunch 302). But this argument needs to be placed in a historical context. â€Å"The Soviet Union fell in part because a closed society cannot compete in the Information Age. These countries will fare no better. They need look no further than their own elites to know this. † (Rothkop 4). While American media is popular worldwide, many of the countries which have adopted English as an official language in conjunction with their native culture are former British colonies, part of the great empire. It may be, then, that people who were once citizens, reluctant or otherwise, of the British Empire have assimilated that portion of their history into their national identity and the loss of historical culture has more to do with the history of conquering nations than the worldwide media. (Dunch 304). And, as Rothkop points out, it is the Information Age that is making the difference. Further complicating the question is the discussion of what â€Å"lost cultures† are under consideration. Certainly, traditional values have changed worldwide, but nowhere more so than in the United States itself. The country was founded largely by religious, agrarian people seeking to be free from state-sponsored religion and the only one of those things that is still representative of American society is the desire to avoid state-sponsored religion (Dunch 308). Who then is to be blame for the deterioration/changes in American society? The possibility exists of course, that American media has even influenced its own culture, drawing it away from its Puritanical roots, but another explanation would be that this is the natural progression of civilization. No longer are we the nomadic hunters and gatherers of prehistory or even the agrarian societies that we once were (Chilcote 81). Perhaps, the destruction of these â€Å"indigenous cultures† is in fact a move away from prehistory to a modernization. That is not to say that there are not things being lost and that this loss does not profoundly affect society, it does. However, evidence that the blame should be placed on the prevalence of American-based fast food chains worldwide or an international love affair with â€Å"Grey’s Anatomy† seems weak, at best. Likewise, the discussion and blame of the American culture for the loss of indigenous languages also seems far-fetched. Americans cannot even agree on a single language of their own. While countries around the world often have standards adopting a native language as one of their official languages, the United States as a whole does not recognize a national language. In New Zealand, Maori is recognized as an official language as is Welsh in the United Kingdom, protecting the indigenous languages. According to the U. S. Census Bureau, there are major portions of several states where as much as 25 percent of the population does not speak English in the home and in some parts of Alaska, Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and Florida more than 50 percent of the population is non-English speaking (Census 2000). It would then seem off to hold the United States responsible for the decline of native languages around the world when the country does not even enforce English-speaking within its own borders. Another oft thrown brick in the debate about cultural imperialism is the concept that the proliferation of American fast food around the world is leading to a decline in the native foods of some regions. The concepts centers on the idea that somehow the existence of McDonald’s means that people have stopped eating whatever their native cuisine is in favor of a quarter pounder and fries. But despite their prevalence worldwide, McDonald’s is by no means homogenous everywhere. In India, for example, where the great majority of the population is Hindu, the traditional Big Mac has been replaced by a lamb and chicken â€Å"and there is a vegetarian burger, the McAloo Tiki† (Adams 1). If American fast food were the demise of national cuisines, why would the menu ever vary from one country to the next? But here are just a few variations on the traditional American McDonald’s menu served worldwide† †¢ In fish-loving Norway, they have the McLaks, a sandwich made of grilled salmon and dill sauce. †¢ In parts of Canada, have a lobster dinner with the McLobster lobster roll. Pardon me – â€Å"McHomard† (in French). †¢ Japan totally reinvents McDonald’s with its Ebi Filet-O (shrimp burgers), Koroke Burger (mashed potato, cabbage and katsu sauce, all in a sandwich), Ebi-Chiki (shrimp nuggets) and Green Tea-flavored milkshake! †¢ In Israel, McDonald’s has 3 kosher restaurants where cheeseburger and dairy products are not served because Jewish Law forbids serving â€Å"the child [cow/beef] in its mother’s milk [dairy]. † They have McShawarma, meat in a pita bread roll (Adams 1) The accusation then that America is destroying international cuisine with the exportation of American fast food companies is a bit like saying that Chinese food as made in China is the same as Chinese food made in America. Food, lie civilization, evolves and adapts. As more things become available around the world, local cuisine adapts. Oftentimes, the cuisine was dictates by a local prevalence of certain foods, spices, etc. and now with refrigeration and shipping techniques evolving, so can the local foods. Another criticism some scholars have of globalization is that it destroys local art forms, but again, the international community has taken action to protect international indigenous art. Furthermore, the globalization of the world environment has meant that there are more markets for international art, giving greater exposure to the traditional arts and artists. To argue that globalization is destructive to the artistic community is a broad statement with no real basis (Winslow 711). Ultimately all the critics of globalization, who use loaded terms like cultural imperialism to describe what might be a natural process, point to factors that may be just part of the natural development process. Globalization may be a nature function of the move forward into the information age. â€Å"Globalization has economic roots and political consequences, but it also has brought into focus the power of culture in this global environment – the power to bind and to divide in a time when the tensions between integration and separation tug at every issue that is relevant to international relations. The impact of globalization on culture and the impact of culture on globalization merit discussion. The homogenizing influences of globalization that are most often condemned by the new nationalists and by cultural romanticists are actually positive; globalization promotes integration and the removal not only of cultural barriers but of many of the negative dimensions of culture. Globalization is a vital step toward both a more stable world and better lives for the people in it† (Rothkop 1) The problem is that people are not willing to understand that the economic power of the United States is going to mean that it plays an important role in globalization. That the economic development of globalization has to revolve around the economic powerhouses. Instead of blaming the changing world culture on the economic domination of the United States, countries need to look at the valuable consequences of the process. The best potential affect of globalization is a new understanding of other cultures and their interrelatedness to our own. â€Å"Language, religion, political and legal systems, and social customs are the legacies of victors and marketers and reflect the judgment of the marketplace of ideas throughout popular history. They might also rightly be seen as living artifacts, bits and pieces carried forward through the years on currents of indoctrination, popular acceptance, and unthinking adherence to old ways. Culture is used by the organizers of society – politicians, theologians, academics, and families – to impose and ensure order, the rudiments of which change over time as need dictates. It is less often acknowledged as the means of justifying inhumanity and warfare† (Rothkop 2) The question becomes is the decision to move to a world culture a bad thing? And, if the answer is that it helps do away with potential sources of conflict then it might be a good thing. The easiest way to make the argument in favor of globalization is to look at the cost of culture in the 20th century. Before we even discuss the individuals who lost their lives because of cultural conflicts, let’s talk about the entire groups lost. â€Å"As a reminder of the toll that such conflicts take, one need only look at the 20th century’s genocides. In each one, leaders used culture to fuel the passions of their armies and other minions and to justify their actions among their people. One million Armenians; tens of millions of Russians; 10 million Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals; 3 million Cambodians; and hundreds of thousands of Bosnians, Rwandans, and Timorese all were the victims of â€Å"culture† – whether it was ethnic, religious, ideological, tribal, or nationalistic in its origins. † (Rothkop 3). The hope then is that as the Information Age leads to international globalization that culture as point of contention leading to war can be avoided. â€Å"Inevitably, the United States has taken the lead in this transformation; it is the â€Å"indispensable nation† in the management of global affairs and the leading producer of information products and services in these, the early years of the Information Age. † (Rothkop 4). While some people fear this will lead to a homogenous world, sociologists assure that it will not happen with 6 billion people on the planet. The key though will be to allow globalization to bring people together instead of simply creating a new reason for warfare: economics. â€Å"Though the United States does boast the world’s largest, most powerful economy, no business is completely satisfied with controlling only the American market; American corporations want to control the other 95 percent of the world’s consumers as well† (Galeota 2) As the formerly Third World countries emerge and become a larger part of the global market place, the question will be whether the United States can maintain its economic superiority. â€Å"It is in the general interest of the United States to encourage the development of a world in which the fault lines separating nations are bridged by shared interests†. (Rothkop 5) The fear becomes that economic development will be the next issue to create international incident. Indeed, just as the United States is the world’s sole remaining military superpower, so is it the world’s only information superpower. While Japan has become quite competitive in the manufacture of components integral to information systems, it has had a negligible impact as a manufacturer of software or as a force behind the technological revolution. Europe has failed on both fronts. Consequently, the United States holds a position of advantage at the moment and for the foreseeable future. (Rothkop 5) The United States clearly wants to maintain this position of economic superiority and other countries will attempt to take it over. However, if the world’s nations can learn a form of economic interdependence that goes beyond the borders, then the world may be able to find a way to continue to evolve and to improve conditions for all citizens. As the world’s economies go beyond national borders, the wealth of the world can be more evenly distributed and all people can live happily. The reality of cultural imperialism or globalization is that it is a fact of life, not something that can be hidden from or condemned. Civilization is progressing and globalization is part of that progress. Is it destroying indigenous societies, via their art, culture, language and cuisine? Probably not. Are those cultures adapting to the world of the 21st century? Yes, they are. The world is completely different that it was and to be a part of it, cultures must adapt with it. Those who chose not to can attempt to close their borders and minds to the progress that is going on elsewhere, but the reality is that they are cursing themselves and their people to life less rich. While it is possible that shutting out the world can preserve outmoded traditions and cultures, it also restricts the natural processes of life. When life is not allowed to grow, it begins to die. The same with culture. If it is not allowed to grow and develop into a new world order, it will regress and lose the benefits of technology and modern science. WORKS CITED Adams, Beatrice. â€Å"McDonald’s Strange Menu Around the World† July 19, 2007. Census Data, (2000) December 2, 2007. Chilcote, Ronald H. â€Å"Globalization or Imperialism? † Latin American Perspectives > Vol. 29, No. 6, Globalization and Globalism in Latin America and the Caribbean (Nov. , 2002), pp. 80-84 December 2, 2007 Dunch, Ryan. â€Å"Beyond Cultural Imperialism: Cultural Theory, Christian Missions, and Global Modernity†. History and Theory , Vol. 41, No. 3 (Oct. , 2002), pp. 301-325 , December 2, 2007. Galeota, Julia. â€Å"Cultural Imperialism: An American Tradition† May 3, 2004. Hamm, Bernd and Russell Charles Smandych. â€Å"Cultural Imperialism: Essays on the Political Economy of Cultural Domination. † Broadview Press: USA, 2005. Rothkop, David. â€Å"In Praise of Cultural Imperialism? Effects of Globalization on Culture† Foreign Policy, June 22, 1997, , December 2, 2007. Tomlinson, John â€Å"Cultural Imperialism† Continuum International: USA, 2001. Winslow, E. M. â€Å"Marxian, Liberal, and Sociological Theories of Imperialism† The Journal of Political Economy , Vol. 39, No. 6 (Dec. , 1931), pp. 713-758 , December 2, 2007. .

How Penicillin Changed the World Essay

Life before September 1928 proved to be a difficult time for many. The quality of life across the world was poor, and humans had a considerably shorter lifespan than today. Bacterial infections ranked as a leading cause of death. These infections spread easily, and diseases such as pneumonia, syphilis, gonorrhea, diphtheria, and scarlet fever as well as wounds and childbirth infections killed thousands every year. Surgical infections were also a major killer, and doctors had no protection from any of these infections. The discovery of the first antibiotic, penicillin, in 1928 changed the lives of people forever. Penicillin provided a cure for many deadly infections, and its discovery led to the discovery of many other antibiotics, such as streptomycin, which are used to treat everyday infections for countless ailments, saving and improving lives throughout the world. Before the discovery of penicillin, medicine was not very reliable for curing diseases or infections. Many people in t he late 1800’s- 1920s were dying from the common cold (Tames 12). The Center for Disease Control and Prevention states,â€Å"Diseases such as pneumonia, tuberculosis (TB), and diarrhea and enteritis, which (together with diphtheria) caused one third of all deaths in the late 1800’s to early 1900’s†. 1918 proved to be an especially devastating time with 20 million lives lost due to a wide spread of influenza that no known medication could cure. During this time vaccinations were the most helpful medication but even with their help, thousands still died from many diseases and infection (CDC). The discovery of penicillin is described as being miraculous. Penicillin is responsible for curing thousands of diseases and infections since the 1940’s. It saves hundreds of thousands of lives that would otherwise be lost due to these infections. Treating everything from cuts and scrapes to major diseases such as syphilis, penicillin is used for just about everything in today’s world (Wong). Wong stated, â€Å"Without the discovery of this antibiotic thousands of people would still be dying from the same diseases that killed hundreds of years ago†. Despite the success of the drug, penicillin, discovered by Dr. Alexander Fleming, was an accidental finding. Fogel commented in his article, â€Å"Fleming was known as being an unorganized and messy scientist†. He was researching a culture of staphylococcus aureus , a pathogenic bacteria,  and left for a two week vacation. When he returned he observed that the specimen was contaminated by a species of penicillium and the penicillium prohibited the growth of the staphylococcus aureus (Wong). Fleming decided to further his research and discovered that this mold was capable of killing a wide range of harmful bacteria. He published his findings in the British Journal of Experimental Pathology, where other scientists observed them and decided to turn penicillin into something more than just a laboratory finding (â€Å"Discovery and Development of Penicillin†). In the early days of penicillin production, only small amounts of the drug were produced, which caused major issues for doctors and surgeons testing the antibiotic. Once penicillin was developed enough for testing, it became high in demand. Producers of the drug could only fermentate small amounts at a time, growing the penicillium bacteria in bedpans, milk churns, and food tins (â€Å"Discovery and Development of Penicillin†). Endocrine Today states, â€Å"It took seven months to grow enough of the bacteria to cure 6 patients†. This caused many issues for doctors and surgeons testing the drug, since they couldn’t complete their trials with the limited resource. Many patients who received penicillin died from relapse of diseases since doctors did not have the amount of the drug needed to completely eradicate the disease. It wasn’t until the late 1930’s that increased production of the drug occurred with the development of customized fermentation tanks that would allow 500 liters of penicillin to be produced per week (â€Å"Penicillin: An Accidental Discovery Changed the Course of Medicine†). Although penicillin was limited in resource, tests on the new drug proved to be successful. Performing the first test with penicillin were Howard Florey and Ernst Chain, who injected 50 mice first with harmful Streptococci then with penicillin. The test proved to be successful in eradicating the disease from the mice. According to Tames, â€Å"The first human test of penicillin was Albert Alexander, a 43 year old police officer that suffered a small cut from a rose thorn that turned into a life-threatening infection with huge abscesses affecting his eyes, face, and lungs† (24). Alexander was injected with penicillin and within days he made a miraculous recovery. Unfortunately, the limited amount of penicillin ran out, and he died three days later. Another test was performed on a four year old boy with a fatal  infection, and he was cured completely. Scientists who worked for major pharmaceutical companies wanted to purify the drug even more for widespread use all over the wo rld (â€Å"Discovery and Development of Penicillin†). Accordingly, penicillin’s use in World War II decreased the amount of soldier deaths that were the result of diseases and infections. In World War I, 200,000 soldiers died from disease and infection. The Center for Disease Control states, â€Å"The most common diseases for both world wars were pneumonia ,strep throat, scarlet fever, diphtheria, syphilis, gonorrhea, meningitis, tonsillitis,and rheumatic fever†. With the help of penicillin, in World War II the number of soldier casualties dropped significantly to around 9000. Death rate from pneumonia was 18% in WWI; and in WWII it was less than 1% (â€Å"Penicillin the Wonder Drug†). In addition to its benefits in World War II, penicillin also dropped the death rate from amputation. Amputations were extremely risky in the late 1800s to early 1900’s because of the inadequacy of medication and sanitation in hospitals. Thousands of soldiers came home from the war needing amputations from sustained injuries. Tames states, â€Å"Before the induction of penicillin 75% of amputations resulted in death† (45). Penicillin’s use in these procedures reduced that number to 30% (68). Antibiotics made it safe to operate on limbs without the fear of infection for thousands of people. Furthermore, the discovery of penicillin paved the way to the discovery of other antibiotics. Penicillins success inspired many scientists and pharmacists to research other products that could be helpful in medicine. Many scientists tested bacterias and natural fruits for harmful bacteria fighting properties (â€Å"The fungus that changed history†). Endocrine Today states, â€Å"A number of pharmaceutical industries began to screen other natural products for antibacterial activity, which led to new antibiotics such as aminoglycosides and tetracycline† (â€Å"Penicillin: An Accidental Discovery Changed the Course of History†). These new antibiotics, just like penicillin, were successful in the treatment and eradication of many infections and diseases. As a result from the discovery of new antibiotics along with penicillin, many diseases and infections that killed thousands finally had a cure. Krebs states in his article, â€Å"Before penicillin,  tuberculosis, scarlet fever, diphtheria, syphilis, anthrax, strep, and staph often resulted in death†. Doctors and surgeons didn’t have the medication to cure many of the diseases that were major killers at the time. With the discovery and induction of penicillin, most if not all those diseases and infections are now curable (â€Å"The Fungus that Changed H istory†). Today, less than 10% of the worlds population die from the same diseases that killed in the late 1800’s-early 1900’s (Wong). Subsequently, penicillin is still as popular as it was in the 1930’s, despite the growing number of allergies and antibiotic resistance against it. The overuse and misuse of penicillin has caused many to develop antibacterial resistance against the drug. Allergies caused by penicillin are the most common of all drug allergies. Some scientists claim that penicillin allergies are caused by a person’s immune system genetic makeup that is designed to fight all bacteria. Despite this, â€Å"Penicillin is the most widely used antibiotic in the world†, and it continues to be effective in curing deadly diseases (â€Å"Penicillin: An Accidental Discovery Changed the Course of Medicine†). Penicillin has changed the world in an extremely positive way. It has provided the means for treating and curing deadly diseases and infections, as well as lead to the discovery of other disease killing antibiotics. Millions of lives have been saved and improved a result of this discovery. Without the â€Å"mistake† Alexander Fleming supposedly made the world would still be one with meager medical treatments; and thousands would still be dying from the fatal diseases that took so many lives in the 1800’s. Penicillin has truly fabricated the world of medicine into what it is today.