how many people define humans

People can be defined in many words a cheater, a liar, and a honest person well there is more but I want the reader to be entertained. There could be many definitions for humans but never just one definition. See and the reason for all these definitions is because one of these people do some of these good or bad actions like bad people would cheat and good people would tell the truth. Some people like Obama and Romney they both are good people but to some Romney is a bad person and a liar and for Obama too. There is only one person to me that is horrible and that is hitler ( I should have not put his name ). The things he did to the Jews was just shellfish and what right. Now all the people with that last name have a bad reputation ( but I am sure that they changed their last name ). Finally if someone in the future were to do good and only good then the definition of humans would be good .just like in this article enrichmentjournal.ag.org/.../201002_134...

Corruption Follows Power

Power is a big thing in the world and it is important for it to be balanced. If it is not balanced then corruption will find its way to it. One example is the Constitution, in the Constitution it is written for the government to be split into three branches that are separate yet equal in power (Separation of Power). In order to make sure that they were equal they a able to check upon each other in different ways. Prince Prospero from the story written by Edgar Allen Poe is another example of corruption with power. He abandons his entire kingdom to die in the outside world while him and his friends had a party to distract them from the fact that people are dieing just out side the walls. But why is it that leaders with a large amount of power become corrupt? The answer is in the article "How Power Corrupts Leaders" by Ronald E. Riggio.One of the reasons is they get "intoxicated with power" and do bad and selfish things just because they can and they can get away with it. As it says in the article power is and isn't good for leaders. The positive side is that it makes them more assertive and confident. The negative side is that the more power they have the more they focus on their own "egocentric desires."

 In conclusion power is a big thing in the world and it is important for it to be balanced. If it isn't corruption is bound to work its way into it.

Photo Credit

Power and Coruption

                Power corrupts the best of us, even our own mayor of Upland John Pomierski ,who used his power to strong-arm businesses making them pay to continue business as usual. Abraham Lincoln said “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power." Lincoln said that because not all men are strong enough to resist the overwhelming temptation of abusing their power. Power causes people to wonder what they could do. Thought leads to action and releases the worst possible thing that could have only become because of power.

               An article by Time magazine begs to difer, it says that individuals who are cast in the limelight are more cautious and tend to make less mistakes. On the flip side people who are told that they are of low class make more errors. I don't believe this would apply to a person of leadership because of the different approaches power.  

Actions= Who Are You?

Cloning is like being a copycat. You try to be exactly how the other person is. That's like Matteo Alacran in the novel The House of the Scorpion. Your actions determine what kind of person you are.

To me, human cloning is dangerous and sad. First of all, human cloning is very expensive. It can cost $1.7 million to $2.0 million, and these prices are just the beginning. For whatever reason, some people don't want to fund the money or the cause. Some people can't even afford the treatments. SOME PEOPLE DON'T EVEN BELIEVE IN HUMAN CLONING!

Second, human cloning is sad. It's sad because you are just using a unique human being for a science experiment. Some of the doctors and scientists don't even care about you! They just care about making money off of you! For example, in the book Flowers for Algernon, the doctors and scientists were having an argument about Charlie's operation. They didn't care if Charlie was ok. They just debated about who should be the "chairman" of the project.

Although human cloning is bad, there are some good sides to it. You find out new things. Let's say someone made fun of you. You really don't notice at first what they mean. Later on, you start to think about it. You might say,"Wow. I didn't know that's what it meant." That's how bad human cloning can feel.


  Photo Credit

Morality and Science Should Be Separated, But To a Certain Extent

I feel that science and morals should be separated, but not to much as to where they harm living beings very badly. I feel that morality and beliefs should not be introduced in science experiments because it may make a person dismay certain facts that do not agree with their beliefs or it may cause them to change the outcome to please the public and have more people that hear of this information to believe in what they believe in.

One thing that has been a big part of science that has had many morals intrude on it's study is cloning. A lot of people may say that cloning is unethical because it violates the value of life and makes people act like god since they have the power to create life. First of all, that is a personal opinion about how it makes them act as though they are God. Second of all, if scientists are able to continue their research on cloning and put their own morals out of their way it may be able to save and continue many lives later in the future.

Many arguments have been made for and against cloning. But overall the benefits seem to outweigh the cons. As stated in the article earlier said, if a person clones their own heart at a young age they could use it later on in life if they suffer a heart disease. But there are many arguments against it, which are mostly based on peoples morals, one being that it violates life and makes it worthless. But this can save many lives, and create new beings as well for those who cannot create any longer. These are just a few reasons why I feel morals should be separated from science.

Photo Credit

Animal Testing

The more I hear about animal testing the more that I don't like it. What they do to these animals is cruel. One example is the beagle that was mentioned in the article,"Reasons We Should Protect Our Animals." This animal's lungs were infected with a mold in order to test new human drugs in it.this is just one of the horrible things that they have done to animals at these labs. Not only was was it cruel, it was also costly. one example for that is the minks that were mentioned in the article. They were $10 a piece and they need a large amount for there testing and for students.

There are alternatives to animal testing. One of these is cadavers which can be reused and would save a lot of money. Another alternative is corrositex. This is a type of artificial skin that measures corrosiveness of an applied product. Computer modeling is an other option. This software would cut costs "substantially" and it is infinitely reusable. These alternatives are far less cruel and way cheaper than using animals.

These are just a couple of examples of the things done to animals in these labs and the alternatives to it. It is horrible what they do to these animals and we shouldn't stand for it.

Photo Credit

Why America Should Ban Animal Testing(Reflection)

I totally agree with this article. Products shouldn't be tested on animals! I think they should be tested on humans that have donated their bodies to science and education.

When I went to the L.A County Fair last year, I went to the Human Body Exhibit. I asked if they used the bodies for product testing. They said that they rarely use bodies because the bodies really don't project the results that the scientists need. I asked them," Why do they use animals instead?" The guide explained that animals are more economical, they're "alive", and they project more and better results of the effect of the product. They also showed us a demonstration of how they test their products.

In the article, it states that there are many alternatives to animal testing. They're more economical than animals! Southern Adventist University of Collegedale, Tennessee uses minks in its biology labs. The minks used cost around $10 a piece, and they're reusable. This to me is more sufficent than animals. This animal testing is killing so many animals around the world. This is causing certain animals to become endangered, and even extinct.

       Photo Credit

The Horrible Epidemic That Is Animal Experimentation

This article really enraged me. It angered me very severely and hurt my mood for the rest of the day. I feel very strongly about being con towards animal harm in any way. This article brought out severe “hateful” emotions towards animal experimentation and anyone that harms animals purposefully. This article also strengthened this feeling because there are other things that can be done besides testing on animals. Like in this article it said that there were many things that could be used besides animal testing, like fake corrosive skin which scientists could test on besides animals. 

Another argument that was made in the article said that instead of animal experimentation they could just use computer imaging to find out if something is harmful to humans or not. Sure some may say that computer imaging is not always accurate, but isn't that an extreme? These computer imaging are fairly accurate, and scientists use more than one computer to get an accurate example of their products safety or toxins. 

Lastly, this reason does not matter to me, animal experimentation is very costly. To keep animals well fed and groomed in there laboratories it costs over half a million dollars for a small group of animals over a 1-2 year period. One reason that the article gave us was that in colleges minks are commonly tested on, which is very costly, because even though they are dead they are ten dollars each, and can only be used once. So please save these animals, they do not have a voice to stand up against horrible and cruel human beings and the human beings that can talk for these helpless creatures should help stop the cruelty.

Photo Credit 

Animal Testing and Patenting

           Animal testing and animal patenting are considered by some wrong and inhumane while others say its a necessary and life saving process, but no one believes that its completely right in all aspects. An article written by Glenn Gordon called "Why America Should Ban Animal Testing " outlines many reasons and facts against it like it's expense and alternatives such as Corrositex ,a substitute  artificial skin. 
           In the same article Glenn brings up a point about how corrositex is cheaper and more humane than testing on mink carcasses that cost around 10 dollars a sample. Glenn's "cheaper" corrositex costs around 100 dollars per use! Donated cadavers pose a more practical venue. 
          The real judgement of if its right or not is in the amount of lives that are saved by this procedure, around 1.5 to 1.6 million people a year! imagine what it would be like without it .
          It is hard to say without bias what is more costly ,the lives of so many animals or the lives of so many humans.