Hollywood Science Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Hollywood Science - Research Paper Example The film presents the scenario of doing a spacewalk extremely well. Notably, the visual impact of the astronauts to possess only the glass of their helmet between them and the Earth is legitimate in scientific terms. Similarly, the director renders the physicality and movement during the spacewalk in an accurate manner. Many scenes reveal the challenging attempt of the astronauts to start a motion and stop it in the vacuum place. It is scientifically correct that stopping motion in the vacuum is difficult. Although the execution of realism by detailing the real danger of the space travel is evident in the film, the closer examination of Gravity shows minor scientific flaws. Largely, the film Gravity violates the laws of physics. Notably, it is difficult for the astronauts to hop from a particular spacecraft to another easily. The shift from one station to the other demands tremendous energy, as well as, careful planning in order to change the orbits. The capturing of the simplicity to navigate in the space evokes questions about the plausibility of the application of the laws of physics. Hence, the film makes a notable error in presenting the shifting as an easy endeavor in the space. Similarly, the film fails to utilize the fundamental facts of science when the director presents a character struggling out in a vacuum. It is a mystery for Clooney to release Bullock’s tether, and the attempt makes the two characters to drift away from each other. In reality, the space has zero gravity. Thus, the scientific laws should dictate that a single tug would automatically bring bodies together instead of separating them. Efthimbiou and Ralph contend that a failure to incorporate fundamental scientific facts render sci-fiction films less informing. In essence, the film recreates the shuttle, the spacesuits, and space station perhaps to add drama or extend the plot. Arguably, overemphasis of the simulation of the physics about thrusts and counter-spin is noticeable in

Pfizer Case study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Pfizer - Case Study Example In this way, without a lineup of potential breakthroughs in the pipes, the level to which the firm can continue to rely on cash cows that are soon to go off patent is severely constrained. As yet another example of the focus that the firm had on the development and introduction of runaway successes such as Lipitor, the firm had positioned itself as primarily a research and development organization that was hopefully able to introduce profitable drugs into the market on a regular basis as a means of ensuring that the profitability and cash flow of the company stayed intact. However, this positioning strategy was out of sync with market demands due to the fact that the rapidly evolving nature of other competitors meant that lower cost research and development was being performed by a host of competitors; thereby greatly reducing the profit margin and potential profit margins that such a runaway discovery such as Lipitor could yield. As a way to formulate strategy, the firm sought to integrate OTC markets and generic branding to its repertoire; however, the main money supply for the firm was still tasked towards developing new drug lines. This of course did not support t he strategic vision that leadership espoused. Though the strategic vision was sound, the lack of funding meant that it was not fully able to respond to the markets and the completive environment in which it hoped to

Native Son Theme Analysis Essay Example for Free

Native Son Theme Analysis Essay In his novel, Native Son, Richard Wright reveals his major theme of the Black population in America in the 1930’s. In the opening scene of the novel, Wright introduces his condemning message towards the ugliness of American racism and the social oppression of Blacks in his time. The opening scene of Native Son functions by foreshadowing future events that occur throughout the novel involving major symbols that are introduced in the scene to represent other elements in the novel. The scene also establishes an atmosphere of hopelessness and despair as it presents the Thomas apartment setting and its contrasting image of the Dalton mansion. The function of the scene is established by three major elements which is the alarm clock, the rat-catching, and the apartment setting. The first element that is introduced is the ambiguous alarm clock. The alarm clock that awakens Bigger Thomas and his family at the opening of the novel is a major symbol that Wright uses to attack American racism. The loud ring the alarm clock gives off serves as a wake-up call Wright wants his audience to hear. Wright uses the alarm to represent his assertive message to the American public of the destructive effects of racism and oppression American society has accepted. His call for change is like a prophetic warning such as Elisha gives, in Biblical context, demanding the need for social change before it is too late for the nation of ancient Israel. Similar to Elisha’s warning, Wright predicts revolutionary violence and social upheaval if racism and oppression is not stopped in American society. Another function of the alarm clock is its foreshadowing of Bigger’s symbolic awakening in the course of the novel. The clock in the opening scene represents Bigger as a powder keg, both of which are waiting to go off at any moment. Bigger’s climactic point of his explosive act of killing Mary serves the same function as the alarm given off from the clock whereas both wake and opens the eyes of those who hear it or see it. The alarm clock symbolizes Bigger’s new realization that he should not feel guilty for the killing of Mary because of the living conditions White society forced him to live into, which made him into what he is. Another important element in the opening scene that Wright uses to attack racism and oppression is the rat-catching. In the commencement of the novel, Bigger discovers a huge black rat and his mother and sister jump in hysteria. Bigger then corners the rat, and as the rat attacks back, he strikes it with a skillet; then smashes it superfluously until it became a bloody pulp and showed it to Vera. The rat-catching scene is significant because it foreshadows Bigger being tracked down and caught in the course of the novel. In the scene, Wright portrays the black rat as Bigger Thomas. Wright makes them resemble like each other because of their color and their unwanted presence. Like rats, the Black population are viewed as vermin and unwanted pests by White society. With this perspective, the public oppresses and controls the Black population to prevent them from getting near towards Whites in American society. Both Vera and Mother Thomas’ hysteria towards the rat resembles White society’s hysteria toward Bigger’s murder and assumed rape of a White woman. Vera and Mother Thomas’ reaction towards the huge black rat is that of disgust and fear of what it may do. In comparison, when the public found the truth behind the killing of Mary, they panicked and feared of what a Black murderer and rapist is capable of doing. Wright uses this episode to reveal the intense hate the racist American society has towards the Black population. He also uses it to call attention to the excessive paranoia the public exhibits which is a link to the intensity and depth of American racism. Another foreshadowing in the novel would be the representation of Bigger’s capture through Bigger’s cornering of the rat. In the beginning of the novel, Bigger blocks the exit of the rat such as how the police block the exit on Bigger later on in the novel. The foreshadowing extends also at how the rat attacks viciously at Bigger’s pant leg such as how Bigger shoots back at his capturers to prevent being caught. These aggressive scenes between survival and fear points out the result and effects of American society’s strong racist views as Wright describes the capturers drive to capture what seems dangerous and fearsome to them. The last and final foreshadowing in the opening scene would be Bigger’s superfluous bashing of the rat and his act of showing the bloody rat to Vera. The scene is used to portray Bigger’s excessive beating at the time of capture and Buckley’s exhibition of Bigger’s capture and death. The excessive beating of both the rat and Bigger relate the abuser’s need for their thirst witnessing pain being inflicted upon their subject. They are also similar because their unnecessary abuse is a signal of the intense hate the abuser had towards them. Also, the exhibition of Bigger by Buckley presents the similar racist connotations as the beating does. In the novel, Buckley holds Bigger as a political advantage, stressing a racist message to Blacks to show them what happens to the unwanted Blacks when they break the law in Richard Wright’s time which consists of strict and racist laws. One last important element of the opening scene is the setting of the dilapidated Thomas apartment. One function of this apartment setting is to set the atmosphere for the novel as a whole. The run-down and squalid apartment gives a sense of hopelessness and despair. The gloomy aspect of the setting describes the victimization of the Thomas family done by the society in which they are living in. Another function of the apartment setting is that it is a microcosm for how Blacks live throughout the city of Chicago. The apartment is a small, congested room fixed with a kitchen and no walls to separate the men from the women. The inappropriateness of their apartment is exemplified when both Buddy and Bigger have to turn their heads away while Mother Thomas and Vera dress. These unacceptable living conditions are created by an oppressive society and creates an unstable Black society which produces people such as Bigger who turn out to be exactly what White society believes they are like. The apartment setting is also part of a geographical contrast with the Dalton mansion. The apartment shows the unfair distribution of wealth as the Dalton mansion exhibits aristocratic characteristics with its multiple rooms and white columned porch; while the Thomas apartment has a mere single room, which occupies an entire family, and consists of a rat infestation. The contrast helps enforce the sense of the inequality and injustice while it also presents a divided Black and White society made possible by a racist country. Altogether, the opening scene functions to attack American society and its oppressive standpoint towards Blacks in Richard Wrights time. Wright establishes the scene’s function by using these three major elements: the alarm clock, the rat-catching, and the apartment setting. Richard Wright central theme of change is produced by the opening scene to correspond with the rest of the novel as it stresses the warning of a possible revolution and social upheaval if conditions do not change in American society.

Aspects Of A Vehicle Clutch System

Aspects Of A Vehicle Clutch System P1 P2: Demonstrate the knowledge understanding of the fundamental aspects of a vehicle clutch system. A clutch connects disconnects one rotating mechanical component from another: a clutch transmits torque from the engine to transmission. Most light vehicle use a single plate clutch to transmit torque from the engine to the transmission input shaft, the fly wheel is the clutch driving member. The clutch unit consists of a friction type disc with two friction facings a central splined hub. A pressure plate assembly consists of pressed steel cover with a segmented diaphragm spring a release bearing with a selector fork. The amount of torque a clutch can transmit depends on the co-efficient of the friction between the friction facings their mating surface, thus increasing the diameter of the clutch increases it torque capacity as does increasing the spring force. The transmission input shaft passes through the centre of the pressure plate. Its parallel spleens engage with the internal splines of the central hub, on the friction disc allowing torque to be transmitted from the flywheel, through the friction disc to the central hub to the transmission. When the clutch pedal is depressed, the movement is transferred though the operating mechanism (this being cable, hydraulic or electronic system), to the operating fork release bearing, the depressing movement acts on the releasing bearing moving it forward pushes the centre of the diaphragm spring towards the flywheel, the pressure plate disengages, thus drive is no longer transmitted. Releasing the pedal allows the diaphragm to re-apply it clamping force thus engaging the clutch thus restoring drive. This control is necessary when placing the transmission into gear; the transmission input shaft must be disconnected from the engine. Types Of Clutches: Single Plate Transmission Most modern vehicles use single plate clutch system to transmit torque from the engine to the transmission input shaft, the clutch unit is mounted on the flywheel, allowing the unit to rotate with the flywheel. A single plate clutch unit usually consists of a friction plate with 2 friction facing a central splined hub, a pressure plate assembly which consists of a pressed steel cover, a pressure plate with a machined flat face, a diaphragm spring, release bearing release fork. Pressure Plate: It mounts on the flywheel. It consists of four main parts is more correctly called a clutch cover assembly. These parts are the pressure plate itself, the springs (or spring, if a diaphragm type), the clutch cover, the release arms. There are two basic designs of clutches usually referred to by the spring type. This diaphragm is located inside the clutch cover on 2 fulcrum rings, held by a number of rivets passing through the diaphragm. The diaphragm type clutch works well in lightweight, low geared vehicles. It is not the best clutch for high RPM use as the diaphragm spring will stay flat or released from the centrifugal force generated by the RPM. Clutch Disc/Friction Plate: This is the driven part of the clutch. It has a friction material riveted to each side of a wavy spring. This is attached to a splined hub that the transmission input gear protrudes into. There are basically two common types of friction material used for clutch lining. These are organic metallic. The organic is best for all around use. The metallic is preferred by some for severe duty applications but requires high spring pressures is hard on the flywheel pressure plate friction surfaces. Clutch Release Bearing: As its name implies, this is the bearing that releases the clutch. Because the release bearing only works when the clutch is being released it usually lasts quite a long time. However, improper linkage adjustment can wear the bearing prematurely. Normally there should be a minimum clearance of 1/16à ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ã‚  between the face of the bearing the three release fingers or diaphragm spring of the pressure plate when the clutch is engaged. Clutch Release Fork: This is the arm or lever that the linkage operates that moves the release bearing. There are several different styles of release arm. The most common type the can be found in a vehicle is the fork type. Bell housing: This provides a mounting place for the transmission, as well as a means of aligning the transmission to the engine. In some applications it also has a structural mounting function. Operating Mechanism: The movement at the pedal is transferred through an operating mechanism to the clutch assembly; the mechanism may be mechanical or hydraulic. Mechanical system uses a combination of levers cables thus offering more flexibility, thus making this system very common. The cable operated control (Image) for a front wheel drive vehicle; the outer cable is fixed to the pedal to the pedal box inside the vehicle to the clutch housing in the engine compartment, the inner cable connects between the upper end of the clutch pedal an external lever on top of the clutch housing. This lever is connected to a vertical shaft, supported in the housing attached internally to a release fork, which carries the release bearing. In hydraulic clutch control, the pedal acts on a master cylinder, connected by a hydraulic pipe and flexible hose, to a slave cylinder, mounted on the clutch housing. The slave cylinder operates the clutch release fork. This vehicle uses a centre valve master cylinder. With the pedal in the off position, the centre valve is clear of the inlet port and fluid can flow to or from the reservoir, into the cylinder. Dual Clutch Transmission There are two basic types of transmissions, manuals which require a driver to change gears by depressing a clutch pedal, automatics which do the shifting work for drivers using clutches, torque converter sets of planetary gears. But the dual clutch transmission brings the best of manual automatic transmission. A dual clutch transmission offers the function of two manual gearboxes in one, a dual clutch gearbox, uses two clutches but has no clutch pedal, instead electronics hydraulics controls the clutches. Has in result one clutch controls the odd gears (First, Third, Fifth Reverse), which the other controls the even gears (Second, Fourth Sixth), although the gear controls may vary from designs to manufacturers. Gears can be changed without interrupting the power flow from the engine to the transmission. A dual clutch unit usually consists of a friction plate with 2 friction facing a central splined hub, a dual clutch case, pressure plate assembly which consists of a pressed steel cover, a pressure plate with a machined flat face, a diaphragm spring, release bearing release fork. Wet Clutch: Like torque converters, wet clutches use hydraulic pressure to drive the gears. The fluid does its work inside the clutch piston. When the clutch is engaged, hydraulic pressure inside the piston forces a set of coil springs part, which pushes a series of stacked clutch plates and friction discs against a fixed pressure plate. Single Plate Clutch Vs. Dual Clutch Transmission: Single plate clutch offers many advantages drawback over its counterpart dual clutch transmission: Advantages: Low manufacturing costs Lightweight Spare part easily accessible Easy maintenance comparing to dual clutch transmission Reliable due to few components Disadvantages: Unreliable in heavy duty vehicles High clutch wear (requires more slip to pull away from a dead stop) Drop of RPMà ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚ ¢s during quicker up shifts Dual clutch transmission offers many advantages drawback over its counterpart single plate, as listed: Advantages: Very reliable in heavy duty vehicles. Robust system compared to the rack pinion Quick precise gear change without loss of RPMs Improved MPG (miles per gallon) range Disadvantages: Heavier in weight compared to single plate transmission Large amount of components High manufacturing costs Complex in fitting in a vehicle Maintenance required frequently When comparing the two both systems, each system has its advantages drawbacks, but in the end each system has certain properties which are suitable for the vehicle is intended for, but when putting in real world application dual clutch does have some advantages over single plate transmission, due to its ability to improve MPG range, which could be a big factor for manufacturers to opt with dual clutch system over single plate over for high end to sport car, but due to its high manufacturing costs components weight , dual clutch system may take time to take over single plate system has the most common system, so in conclusion the single plate may be good system for possible next five years, but dual clutch may become common after, due to its single highest factor of improved MPG range.

Should We Establish A Market For Human Organs?

Should We Establish A Market For Human Organs? There are a number of arguments with regards to organ commodification, which is the subject of hot debate. I will purposefully be limiting the scope of the argument to kidneys, as kidneys are paired organs that can be safely removed with minimal impact to the health of the donor. Although this topic is heavily related to philosophical and ethical issues, I would first like to discuss certain relevant aspects of background information with regards to a few simple and basic economic concepts, specifically related to supply and demand as it relates to the buying and selling of organs in an economic forum. The fact is that there are sick people who will die without transplants, and the number of organs available through donation, whether live donations from friends, relatives, or anonymous persons or donations through the harvest of organs from people who die, fall far short of the required number. This raises the question whether it is justifiable to provide financial incentives for org an donors to donate their kidneys in order to help narrow the gap between excess demand and shortage in supply. A variety of concerns and arguments have been raised regarding whether a legal market permitting the commodification of kidneys should exist. Many countries, including Singapore, still prohibit the sale of human organs. In the United States, the National Organ Transplant Act officially bans the selling of human organs. Would such a legal market encourage an increase in black market activities, as some individuals in dire need of organs might not be able to afford the price on the legal market? I will discuss the reasons why a legal market permitting the commodification of kidneys should exist. Some contend that allowing kidneys to be commodified would cheapen our humanity. I believe, however, that the intrinsic value of our humanity would not be cheapened even if we were to put a price tag on our organs, as such a price would only signify that we are trading kidneys at a s pecific rate. Finally, I will address some of the concerns that have been raised regarding commodifying other human organs and body parts, such as the heart, hair, and blood. I will conclude with the assertion that a legal market could mitigate the large number of black market activities that already exist, and that commodification would in no way devalue our humanity or our culture of liberty, but would rather place a greater value on freedom by demonstrating a respect for individuals rational choices regarding kidney donation. Introduction Before getting into the heart of the argument about whether there should be a legal system established for allowing commodification of organs, I would first like to draw on literature from Gill and Sade in order to address a few preliminary points. The pro-market argument we will be considering is a prima facie argument which, unless rebutted, would be sufficient to support the permissibility of the practice. On the other hand, the reason Im purposefully limiting the scope of the argument to kidneys is because the kidney is paired organ that can be safely removed with the minimal impact of the health of the donor. Here is a quick background behind the argument: It is that there are sick people who will die without a transplant and that the number that becomes available through donation either live or cadaveric fall far short of the numbers that are required. In many countries, thousands of candidates on organ transplant waiting lists die each year due to the lack of donor availability. According to the U.S. Department of Health Human Services, there are currently 86,445 people waiting for kidney transplantation, while only 7,000 people are available as kidney donors. This huge shortage of organs has led to a thriving black market trade in human organs, especially kidneys. People who advocate legalization believe that selling their organs might create a solution to the shortage; additionally, sellers make generous financial gains from the sale of organs. Therefore, a market solution, one where people are given a financial incentive to part with their organs, would procure more of them than a d onation-only scheme and narrow the gap between supply and demand. Because black market trade has become so widespread, some concerns and hot debates have been raised regarding whether there should be a legal market permitting the commodification of kidneys. Many countries, including Singapore, still prohibit the sale of human organs. In United States, the National Organ Transplant Act officially bans the selling of human organs. This essay will discuss why there should be a legal market permitting the commodification of kidneys. A legal market could mitigate the black market activities that already exist, and commodification would not devalue our humanity or our culture of liberty; rather, it would place a greater value on freedom by respecting individuals rational choices regarding kidney donation. According to Gill and Sade, the prima facie pro-market argument addresses two points: first, donation is permissible. It is, and ought to be legal for a living person to donate a kidney to someone else who needs one in order to survive. From its point of view, we actually dont just allow people to do this. However, we praise and encourage this. In Singapore, the government makes it harder than other countries not to donate. Citizens are presumed to be organ donors and have to opt out, rather than the reverse. In either case, though, donation is typically taken to be a case of saving a human life and morally unproblematic. It implies that it should be legal for a living person to decide to transfer one of his or her kidneys to someone else. Second, commodification of tissue is permissible, according to Gill and Sade. It is, and ought to be, legal for a living person to buy and/ or sell certain body tissues such as hair, sperm, eggs, blood products, etc. For instance, the Singapore Cord Blood Bank (SCBB) has facilitated over 40 cord blood transplants according to Cord Blood Bank of Singapore (for the SCBB, cord blood is donated but then sold to recipients, unless the recipient was also a donor). In other countries, though, people who give blood are financially compensated. Of course we would not typically praise people who sell their body tissue as we do people who donate it to save a life, but, at the same time, most people do not brand commercial blood banks as moral abominations, rather than an acceptable means of procuring a resource that is needed to save lives. It implies that it should be legal for a living person to decide to transfer part of his or her body to someone else for money. As a result, it thus seems i nitially plausible to hold that the two claims together imply that it should be legal for a living person to decide to transfer one of his or her kidneys to someone else for money. There are some responses, according to Gill and Sades literature, to the prima facie argument. First of all, the argument attempts to establish a moral difference between selling and donating. One thinks that commodification of body parts is wrong in itself because if one commodify oneself by selling oneself or part of oneself as a mere means which is as an object to be used, bought and sold for a price. It is thus disrespectful of ones humanity to treat oneself as a mere means as it cheapens us and takes away from the meaning and significance of humanity. Therefore, commodifying oneself violates a duty one has to oneself to respect what makes us morally significant creatures. Secondly, commodification of body parts leads to undesirable social consequences, according to Julia Mahoney. We would view others as commodities rather than as persons, according to Kass. We dont have to say that this is intrinsically wrong, but it would definitely affect the quality of social life. One may ar gue that legalizing kidney sales would promote an everything-is-for-sale mentality that will lead to the degeneration of civil society. It may make it more likely that we would legalize live-donor heart sales in the future, or it may promote a mindset where people are more commercial minded, and less generous, loving or friendly to each other. Thirdly, commodification of body parts unjustifiably infringes upon the freedom of certain people. As a result, some suggest that prohibiting commodification is necessary to protect certain liberties, according to Wolf. Criminalizing kidney sales infringes upon the freedom of potential buyers and sellers, but it protects the freedom of donors who have an interest in making pure gifts which to give something that cannot be bought (Lomasky, p. 252-255). The latter freedom is the more important one and infringing upon the freedom to buy and sell is necessary to protect it. However, according to Lomasky on sex, his argument is a reduction ad absur dum of the Titmuss-inspired argument against kidney sales. If prohibiting kidney [human tissue] sales is necessary to protect the freedom of someone who wants to make her kidney a pure gift, then prohibiting marriage is necessary to protect the freedom of someone who wants to engage in sex outside the context of any contractual format. However, this is a terrible reason to prohibit marriage obviously, so it must also be a terrible reason to prohibit a market in kidneys or even human tissues. Therefore, it evokes my deeper curiosity to take somewhat in-depth analysis about what justifies legalization for commodifying body parts, especially kidneys in this essay. Many people claim that the growth of black market activity is induced by financial incentives of kidney transplantation, but I would argue that an equal force driving the expansion of the black market is the lack of a legitimate market. Clearly, the current donation system is unable to meet overall demand. The countries with a huge shortage of kidneys that have outlawed commodification have inadvertently stimulated the growth of black market activities because there are always wealthy people who will strive to preserve their own lives even if it means exploiting the poor. For example, one recent headlined article from Singapore reads, Two Indonesian men who agreed to sell their kidneys for more than S$20,000 ($14,814 U.S. dollars) each were given light prison terms and fines after a judge blamed syndicates for exploiting them (Earth Times News). If a legal market were to be established, law enforcement would be better able to protect the poor from such exploitation. Kidney transplant ation would also be formally and properly regulated within a legitimate market, thereby protecting the sellers and guaranteeing the quality of the organs for the recipients. On the other hand, one of the most prominent concerns about legalizing the commodification of kidneys is that it would, in effect, evoke financial incentives. Thus there are some anti-market rebuttals that try to address why commodification of organs is not allowed. First of all, people argue that with the differences between the motive of the individual in selling a kidney and donating one. Sellers are motivated by financial incentives, self-interest, or the interests of their families if they sell in order to provide for their families. Donors are motivated by benevolence or altruism. However, I would argue that if self-interest was so bad then the commodification of, for instance, blood products would be ruled out. As a result, the self-interested motive does not rule commodification of other body parts. On the other hand, parting with a kidney is different than parting with blood. The latter is simple and quick while the former requires the risks of major surgery and living the r est of ones life with just one kidney. However, if kidney transplant was so dangerous because of its invasiveness, then donating them would be ruled out. Thus, these risks are not judged great enough to justify prohibiting donating kidneys. So, there are arguments about these differences which dont suggest the market for commodification of organs. However, these differences do not make any moral difference. If we oppose the sale of kidneys because we think it is too dangerous, then we should also oppose live kidney donations. On the contrary, we do not oppose live kidney donations because we realize that the risks are acceptably low and worth taking in order to save lives. So, it is inconsistent to oppose selling kidneys because of the possible dangers while at the same time endorsing donating kidneys is permissible. Similarly, if we oppose kidney sales because we think people should not commodify body parts, then we should also oppose commercial blood banks which I mentioned before. However, most people would not oppose the existence of commercial blood banks because they realize that these blood banks play an extraordinary role in saving lives. Therefore, it is also inconsistent to oppose selling kidneys since it involves payment while at the same time endorsing commodification of tissue is a permissible act. It seems that if people would ban the market for commodification of organs, they should also oppose the ideas either the donation of kidneys isnt permissible due to the risk attached to the surgery or commodification of other tissues isnt permissible. I think both of them are neither plausible nor have very wide support. Indeed, most nations are trying to encourage more donation as well as more supply in order to save more people. The failure to generate adequate supply is why market solutions are beginning to get more traction in certain countries including Singapore. In addition, it might still be fine to sell hair. One might argue that there is a moral difference to be made between hair on one hand and kidneys are blood products on the other hand. Obviously, people need blood and kidneys in order to live due to physical necessities, so one might say that it is only impermissible to sell human tissue that arent physical necessities. I, however, think that theres something wrong wit h the claim about commodifying stuff like that. In fact, legalizing commodification could itself convince people to participate in kidney transplantation. Because communitarians emphasize that individual rights and interests should be compatible with those of the community as a whole, they believe this could change societys moral sense. Thus, setting up a law to allow the commodification of kidney transplantation could lead people to believe that giving a kidney to others is not only moral but expected. Setting aside the communitarian perspective, poor people risk their own lives by giving up their kidneys in order to save anothers life, which is justified by their altruism, according to our class discussion. They are all rational people who are self-governed and able to weigh the risks of kidney donation against their own propensity toward altruism. Some poor people may attempt to receive compensation for their organ donation, thus blaming their decision on the financial incentives. However, they still had the option to make money in other ways. Even the current system of organ donation may contain a form of coercion in that a prospective donor may feel extremely uncomfortable refusing to donate his or her kidney to someone who is in such desperate need due to the vast shortage of donors. In the end, we should respect the decisions of individuals who make rational choices about kidney donation regardless of whether these choices are made with consideration of the financial incentiv es. Also, anti-commodification about kidneys cant be just a knee-jerk antipathy towards markets. We shouldnt spurn markets without stopping to think of how much markets in goods do for our general welfare. In other words, it would be improper to be anti-commodification about everything. Moreover, we should not spurn markets in the name of the poor and oppressed without stopping to think of how getting rid of these markets would affect the poor and oppressed. People do not sell spare kidneys or turn to prostitution for fun. They make such choices only when their alternatives are even worse. Therefore, it seems to me that rejecting commodification may be a luxury that not everyone can afford. There are also some arguments that claim that the commodification of kidneys would cheapen our humanity. I, however, think that the intrinsic value of our humanity would not be cheapened even if we put a price tag on our organs, for the price only signifies that we are trading kidneys at a specific rate. A price tag does not indicate the total value of a commodity. Rather, a price tag should be seen as an attempt to quantify some aspects of [the] usage (de Castro, 2003, p. 145) of somethings infinite value à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ No one would ever say that this method capture[s] the full value that we ascribe to human life (de Castro, 2003, p. 145). Such a method never aims to capture that infinite value (Julia Joseph). Thus, creating financial incentives to encourage people to sell their organs to the needy does not devalue humanity. Moreover, as I mentioned in the class discussion, we accept donors giving up their kidneys on the basis of altruistic motivations, so we should likewise not rule out the possibility that donors would like to give up their kidneys for financial incentives, especially when we strongly believe that such motivations could save a significantly greater number of lives. Thus, commodification should be permissible, as it would neither devalue the intrinsic worth of humanity nor be limited by the boundary of altruism. Even in a commodified system, each individual can give his or her kidney on the basis of pure altruism; the financial reward would merely be a secondary benefit to altruists. A legal commodified system would ultimately save more lives, as people would be donating for altruistic as well as financial reasons, and the system would be stringently regulated by law. This essay focused on arguments regarding a legitimate market for the commodification of kidneys as well as misconceptions about the consequences of permitting this commodification. Above, I discussed three rebuttals to anti-market arguments, all of which demonstrate that black market activities are thriving due to the lack of legitimate market regulation of human organ procurement. Fortunately, our culture of liberty places great value on individuals rational decisions; in this sense, people should be allowed to weigh the potential risks against their own propensity toward altruism. Commodification encourages such deliberation by respecting peoples decisions to seek money for their available organs, in addition to seeking spiritual reward, on the basis of rationality. Moreover, a legal financial incentive would encourage more people to donate. Saving more lives through allowing the selling of kidneys does not devalue a humans dignity any more than does our current practice of sellin g other medical services. The key to the safe and effective commodification of kidneys may ultimately depend on proper regulation of the system by law enforcement. In order to more quickly start saving more lives, we should prioritize the creation of a legal market of properly regulated commodification of kidneys instead of arguing over the possible undesirable consequences of such a market.

Bio-diesel: Alternative Fuel Source Essay -- Petroleum Environment Eco

Bio-diesel: Alternative Fuel Source Introduction Currently today more than 99% of all fuel consumed is petroleum (3). In the year 2025 the world’s reserves of petroleum will be a dry source (7). Other than the shortage of petroleum, the burning of petroleum also causes many problems such as global warming. In this case, engineers and scientists need to come up with an alternative energy source for gasoline not only because of the shortage, but because of the environmental problems gasoline and other fossil fuels cause for the environment. Out of all forms of alternative fuels for vehicles bio-diesel seems to be the next alternative source of fuel, but more research needs to prove this assumption. In this report bio-diesel will be studied in more depth. The history of other sources of fuel will be looked at, along with the history of research being accomplished. The research stating the benefits of bio-diesel will be compared to the research on the negatives of this new fuel source. After the report one will be able to conclude if they believe that bio-diesel is the answer to the shortage of gasoline and the next choice as an alternative fuel. History of Fuels Engineers have been doing research for years on alternative fuels for gasoline. Research has included hydrogen cells, gas-to-liquid diesel fuel, and ethanol among many other different fuels. One of the most recent discoveries for an alternative fuel is bio-diesel. At this current time, Bio-diesel is considered one of the most promising new technologies for an alternative fuel source to gasoline. Bio-diesel may be defined as a group of esterified vegetable oils produced from different oil-containing crops. These crops include but at not limi... ...I 1999, no 76 pp1-88. (3) Understanding Biodiesel Fuel Quality and Performances. Weiksner JM Sr P.E, Crump Stephen L. PhD, and White Thomas L. PhD. 2003 December 12 #5 Journal Article Savannah River Site pp 1-6. (4) National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Evaluation of Biodiesel Fuel in an EMD GP38-2 Locomotive. Fritz S.G. Report# DOE/GO-102004-1872. 2004 May. pp 1-21. (5) National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Impacts of Biodiesel Fuels on Air Quality and Human Health: Task 2 Report; The Impact of Biodiesel Fuels on Ozone Concentrations. Morris R.E., Mansell G.E., Jia Y. and Wilson G. Report # DOE NREL/SR-540-33795. 2003 May. pp 1-150. (6) Hofman Vern, Extension Agriculture Engineer. North Dakota University. Biodiesel Fuel. 2003 Feburary. pp 1-4. (7) Rifkin, Jeremy. The Hydrogen Economy. New York: Jeremy Tarcher/Penguin. 2002.

Kripkenstein: Rule and Indeterminacy :: Philosophy Philosophical Papers

Kripkenstein: Rule and Indeterminacy ABSTRACT: Indeterminacy theories, such as Wittgenstein's and Kripke's indeterminacy principle on rules and language and Quine's indeterminacy of radical translation, raise some fundamental questions on our knowledge and understanding. In this paper we try to outline and interpret Wittgenstein's and Kripke's indeterminacy, and then compare it to some other related theories on indeterminacy of human thinking, such as raised by Hume, Quine, and Goodman. Quine's indeterminacy differs from Wittgenstein's in several aspects. First, Wittgenstein and Kripke's indeterminacy applies to a single individual in isolation and this indeterminacy disappears when the single person is brought into a wider community. Thus, this indeterminacy is only logically possible or hypothetical. Second, in Quine's problem, two translation manuals are distinguishable; while Wittgenstein's hypotheses, such as 'plus' and 'quus' and many others, are indistinguishable for the subject's past and the subject would never aware of the distinctions. Third, in Wittgenstein's view, whether a member follows the rules or not can be determined by 'outward criterion'. Quine's indeterminacy denies the existence of such 'outward criterion' for his two translation manuals. Goodman's hypothesis of 'grue' is quite different from the above two indeterminacy in terms of both objective of introducing the concept and the usage of it. Goodman's issue is to search for the rules in screening out 'bad' assumptions in induction. This induction issue is not indeterminacy of Wittgenstein's skeptic arguments or Quine's radical translation. Wittgenstein and Kripke's conclusion that that rules are brute facts seems to be questionable. Form of life is one of Wittgenstein's key concepts in his theory on rules and is linked to rules in some crucial ways. A community cannot agree on arbitrary rules and rules other than some highly selected ones cannot bind a community together. What a community agree or disagree is not an arbitrary game. Kripke presents Wittgenstein's theory on rules in his book Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. The topic is difficult and the presentation seems to inherit some characteristics of the original work, which "is not presented in the form of a deductive argument with definitive theses as conclusions,..." (Kripke, 1982, p.3). Kripke tells the reader: "The point to be made here is that, at the same time the second part is important for an ultimate understanding of the first.'' (1982, p.84) "In this way the relation ship between the first and the second portions... is reciprocal." (1982, p.85). We find that a reciprocal reading helps me to understand and absorb the main points and arguments.