Social Value of Scientific and Technological Enterprises Essay - 1

Social Value of Scientific and Technological Enterprises - Essay Example There are many types of social value associated with research. International Business Machines, for instance, has stated that â€Å"Our research needs not only to attract the attention of academia but also to have an impact on a wide range of sectors in society. Fortunately, IBM has various systems to utilize research results for the benefit of society† (Research Value to Society, 2008: n.p.). First, IBM intends to convert its research into products. This creates social value in the form of employment, increased tax revenues for social services, business stability and expansion, and a better standard of living. Second, though the research is protected by intellectual property rules, it does become disseminated in many ways as public knowledge. Although others may not violate the research protected the intellectual property laws, they may learn how to build on the newly discovered knowledge. Finally, research enterprises tend to be rather collaborative in modern times and this means that knowledge is being shared commercially and socially; as an illustration, IBM has stated that â€Å"IBM supports the promotion of open systems that optimize open standards and open sources with the goal of realizing collaborative innovations. TRL is working with governments and corporations to conduct research in open technologies, including open document formats (ODF)† (Research Value to Society, 2008: n.p.). The significance of the research is fundamentally the dissemination of knowledge which is most often commercially-oriented but which is increasingly being used to promote social values such as public health and safety and other social objectives.

The Preservation of Free

The Preservation of Freedom Essay This paper, using work from JP Sartre and Nikolai Berdyaev, will attempt a detailed explanation of existentialism relative to the formula, â€Å"existence before essence,† the defining creed, so to speak, of the existentialist movement. With Sartre, the central idea is freedom leads to torture and pain. For Berdyaev, creativity is the antidote to this pain. Creativity is to Berdyaev what Marxism became to Sartre, a way out. It seems only rational to treat these two famous existentialists as complimentary to each other. The purpose behind existentialism, in its widest meaning, is to preserve freedom in the 20th century, a century saturated with totalist movements that sought to make the human person a mere cog in a larger machine: capitalism, Leninism, Hitlerism and even globalism seek ends and goals outside the person, in the name of abstract historical forces that the individual person will help bring about (Flynn, 2006, 1-11ff). Existentialism is a rebellion against the 20th century for that reason. Philosophy should concern itself with the individual, not with â€Å"social forces† or â€Å"historical destiny. † 1. In the work of JP Sartre, freedom is not a destiny, but the fundamental fact of mankind. This fact cannot be denied. Ideology, theology, metaphysics and even psychology are means of denying this freedom, blaming other people, structures and social life or even history for the problems deriving from the choices that individuals make. This is the essence of Sartre: freedom is a curse, but a worse curse is denying that freedom in the name of some other end, some end dictated by â€Å"historical forces. † In the 21st century, such problems have not been solved, and the ego is as under siege as it has always been (Flynn, 2006, 67-69). For Sartre, freedom, ego and consciousness are one in the same object. What typifies all of these three is instability. What typifies bad faith is the desire to end this instability by attaching one’s ego to ideological objects that purport to â€Å"solve† the problem of human, historical existence. Instability and a lack of both satisfaction and community are the two hallmarks of freedom and the human condition. It is absurd precisely in that there is no solution. But if ego, consciousness and freedom are all one object, what does that mean for human behavior? It means that man is the choices he makes. Man is self created. But in this creation, man is fully responsible for what he has become in this struggle. There are no excuses. The specific argument from Sartre looks like this: a. Man is absolutely free. This means that consciousness can abstract from any object in space, or any object that exists in the consciousness of the individual itself. These are also one and the same thing. b. This means that objects exist only for consciousness. It matters not if some objects exist in themselves or not (a concept dealt with more below), but rather only that they exist for the person in question. Objects exist, then, only to the extent they are objects of consciousness, not whether or not they exist in themselves. But this further means that man creates himself, and that he creates the objects in consciousness. c. So if man is freedom, and objects exist only to the extent they exist for consciousness (and hence derive from the person, not from the outside world), then man not only creates himself, but also the world outside the self. What this leads to is torture. This is because, as man is responsible for what she becomes, and can make no excuses for this, there are no real guides, and hence, there is 100% responsibility with 0% knowledge of what is right and wrong. This is another reason life is absurd (McCulloch, 1994, 17. ) But the human person is aware that there are objects that come into consciousness, but sometimes, objects appear to be â€Å"outside† the ego’s control. In other words, that objects seem to be â€Å"brute givens,† objects in space that harm the person’s freedom in that they seem to control themselves. This is another form of torture, in that the ego is aware of its complete freedom, and yet is confronted with other objects (especially other egos) that seem to resist our control. But, like Hegel, this slowly begins to develop into some inchoate idea of community, but this is far into the future. In our case, this confrontation only really has two choices, neither of which is really pleasant: first, love. Love is unpleasant in that it is the appropriation of the other, the absorption of the other into one’s world. This is similar to Hegel’s slave/master dialectic that eventually leads to the consciousness of some form of primitive community. But for Sartre, while community is possible, it can only be reached through pain and torture. But the second way of dealing with other egos is sadism: domination, the master/slave dialectic of Hegel. In this latter option, the other ego is not seen as manifesting pure freedom, but rather being a mere object. But given the epistemology above, the object is space is what consciousness/freedom makes it, and hence, objectification or love has no moral basis, it is merely two ways of dealing with â€Å"facticity. † Both are consistent with existentialism and the idea that freedom exists prior to objects. This is another and more accurate way of saying â€Å"existence before essence. † (Sartre, 2007, 22) But the phrase â€Å"existence before essence,† by now, should be clear that both words of this couplet are misnomers. There is really no stable existence in that existence is pure freedom. The ego is free in a radical sense of being determined by nothing (including internal reasons), but, given this, there is no essence either. Freedom is not a thing that can be analyzed. It is a state, the state of all human existence (or at least, of mine). From this, one can conclude that there is no â€Å"creation,† no real external world, and hence, no god to create it (Jones, 1980, 235-236). What I am confronted by in the world are objects that seem to restrict my freedom, and I am to dominate them one way or another, either through love or though objectification. It seems that both of these are one and the same thing: both are objectified, the beloved object and the objectified object. Both of these options are about objectification and absorption: the beloved is taken into the world of the lover without regard to the beloved’s ideas of the matter, and the victim of the sadist is also an object, an object through which the ego expresses its domination over all objects presented to it. Putting it more directly, man has only an adversarial and alien existence on earth. There is no intrinsic purpose to human life and what is worse, that postulating kinds of purposes are always the best examples of bad faith and intellectual dishonesty (Levy, 2003, 166ff).

Nepal Essay -- Nepal Economy Culture Essays

Nepal Despite nine development plans spanning five decades, Nepal remains one of the world’s poorest countries. Nepal’s underdevelopment is a result of the historical effects of unequal distribution of assets and social and economic status among different groups, and effects of recent development efforts that have generated further iniquitous income and assets distribution. Understanding Nepal’s underdevelopment has become particularly pressing in light of the Maoist insurgency that began in 1996. In addition to the deaths of more than 6,000 civilians, instability has caused economic stagnation, discouraged foreign investment, and prevented the expansion of the hydropower and tourism industries. Nepal’s future depends on an understanding of how its institutions have created inequity, and how it will respond to the need for institutional reform. Culturally, Nepal is a patriarchal and hierarchical society. Caste is important in the world’s only Hindu nation. Gender, ethnicity, land ownership, and location are also historically important social determinants. Nepal’s history and geography have contributed to the perpetuation of these cultural values. Historically, Nepal has been very isolated. Situated between China and India, it is bisected by the Himalayas. The country is divided into three bands running from east to west – the Himalayas furthest north, the flat and dry Terai in the South, and the middle hills sandwiched in between. Extreme differences in topography, and a lack of roadways and efficient transportation, have meant that communities tended to remain isolated and distinct, closely linked to traditional cultural practices and norms. Industry has been slow to change this, as most Nepalese depend upo... ...astern Nepal, respondents reported that â€Å"society does not recognize the merit of physical work in agriculture; it encourages people to prefer leisure over work, and sees working people as belonging to the lower classes. So far, foreign aided projects have not been able to alter people’s attitudes towards physical work by providing alternate examples† (Shrestha, 41). Even as development efforts increase, rural people mistrustful of exploitation, and depressed by development failures, are growing harder to reach. Nepal’s political crisis is a response to social inequalities increased and hardened by recent development. Future development will require radical reform: redistribution of resources and increased rural development, weakening of traditional power structures, increased access to and transparency in government, and independence from foreign interests.

Peoples and Civilizations of the Americas

Name: John Kindley| Class: GH AP Y (Even)| Date: November 3rd, 2012| Chapter 12, Peoples and Civilizations of the Americas, 200 – 1500| Pages 306 – 331| | Classic-Era Culture and Society in Mesoamerica, 200 – 900:| | * Remarkable civilization created| | * Different language + politics, but unified by material culture, religious beliefs + practices, and social structure| Classic Period| * Classic period (built upon Olmec and other civilizations)| | * Social classes with distinct roles| * Hereditary politics + religious elites controlled towns + villages| | Teotihuacan:| | * Powerful city-state in central Mexico (100 B. C. E. – 750 C. E. )| Religion| * Religion = worshipped many gods + lesser spirits, Sun + Moon| | * Human sacrifice = viewed as sacred duty to the gods and essential| | to the well-being of society| Farming| * Chinampas = raised fields along lakeshores to increase agriculture| Politics| * No evidence for single ruler; alliances between elite f amilies| | The Maya:|Location| * Maya = civilization concentrated in the Yucatan Peninsula, | | Guatemala, and Honduras, but never unified| | * Contributed mainly in math, astronomy, and the calendar| | * High pyramids + palaces = meant to awe the masses that came| Decoration| * Maya = loved decoration| | * Infused warfare with religious meaning| | * Society = patrilineal| Contributions| * Devised elaborate calendar system, concept of 0, and writing| End of Classic Era| * Maya cities declined due to struggle for resources, which lead to| | class conflict and warfare| | | | | | | | | | * Connection with the Mesoamerican societies due to learning about the Aztecs in grade 8| * Have visited Mayan cities in Mexico, and have seen temples in real life| * Question: didn’t the Arabs develop the concept of 0? | | | | The Postclassic Period in Mesoamerica, 900 – 1500:| | * No single explanation for fall of Teotihuacan and Mayan centers| | The Toltecs:| | * Powerful postclassic e mpire in central Mexico (900 – 1175 C. E. )| Origins| * Origins = unknown (either satellite or migrant populations)| | * Used military conquest to create powerful empire|Reason for decline| * Fell by internal power struggles and military threat from the north| | The Aztecs:| | * Altepetl = ethnic state in ancient Mesoamerica that was the | | common political building block of that region| Society + Politics| * Calpolli = group of up to hundred families that served as a building| | block of an altepetl (controlled land allocation + taxes + local religious life)| | * Tenochtitlan = capital of Aztec Empire; in an island in lake Texcoco| | Mexico City created on ruins of Tenochtitlan| * Aztecs = AKA Mexica, created empire (1325 – 1521 C. E. )| | * Aztecs forced defeated peoples to provide goods + labor as tax| Aztec Women| * Women = held lots of power; held in high esteem; held positions| | like teachers and priestesses; seen as founders of lineages, including| | the royal line| | * Merchants become rich, but cannot become high nobility| Economic systems| * Tribute system = system in which defeated peoples were forced to| | pay tax in forms of goods and labor; help development of large ities | | * Did not use money; used barter instead| | * Aztec religion = demanded increasing numbers of human sacrifice| * Connection to Aztecs as I learned about them in grade 8| * Noted the familiarities between the Mesoamerican societies, which also had distinct| differences as well| | | | Northern Peoples:| | * Classic period ends around 900 C. E. | | * Transfer of irrigation and corn agriculture -> stimulated development in Hohokam and Anasazi society| | Southwestern Desert Cultures:| | * Anasazi = important culture in southwest US (700 – 1300 C.E. )| | * Anasazi built multistory residences, and worshipped in | | subterranean buildings (called kivas)| Anasazi women| * Women = shared agricultural tasks, specialists in many crafts, | | responsible for food preparation and childcare| Anasazi region| * Anasazi = concentrate in Four Corners region| | Mound Builders: The Hopewell and Mississippian Cultures:| Political structure| * Chiefdom = form of political organization; ruled by hereditary leader| (Chiefdom)| who had control over collection of villages + towns; based on gift giving | | and commercial links| * Political organization + trade + mound building continued by the| | Mississippian culture (largest city = Cahokia)| Ansazi +| * Environmental changes caused destruction of Anasazi +| Mississippian| Mississippian cultures| Decline| | | | | Andean Civilizations, 200 – 1500| | * Environment = sucks for creating civilization| | * Amerindian peoples of Andean = produced some of the most| | socially complex + politically advanced societies in Western Hemisphere | | Cultural Response to Environmental Challenge|How they adapted| * Domestication of llamas and alpacas| | * Farmed at different altitudes to reduce risks from frosts| S ocial + political | * Ayllu = Andean lineage group or kin-based community| groups| * Ayllu = foundation for Andean achievement; members = obligated| | to help fellow members (thought as brothers and sisters)| | * Mit’a = Andean labor system based on shared obligations to help| | kinsmen and work on behalf of the ruler and religious organizations | Gender distinction| * Men = hunting, military service, government| | * Women = textile production, agriculture, home| Harsh climates of Andean civilizations = similar to harsh environment of North American| settlers | * Anasazi + Mississippian culture = one of few civilizations that did not fall due to outside| pressures| | | Moche:| | * Moche = civilization of north coast of Peru (200 – 700 C. E. )| | * Built extensive irrigation networks + impressive urban centers| | dominated by brick temples| Political + social| * Did not establish formal empire nor unified political structure| structure| * Moche society = theocratic + st ratified; priests + military leaders | | had concentrated wealth + power|Decline of Moche| * Moche centers declined due to long-term climate changes| | * Wari = new military power, culturally linked to Tiwanaku| | * Wari contributed to the disappearance of the Moche| | Tiwanaku and Wari:| | * Tiwanaku = name of capital city and empire centered on the region| | near Lake Titicaca in modern Bolivia (375 – 1000 C. E. )| | * Llamas = crucial for maintenance of long-distance trade relations| | * High quality of stone masonry| * Stratified society ruled by a hereditary elite| | * Used military to extend their power over large religions | | The Inca:| | * Largest and most powerful Andean empire (Cuzco = capital)| | * Initially a chiefdom -> turned in to military expansion in 1430s| | * Inca prosperity depended on vast herds of llamas + alpacas| | * Hereditary chiefs of ayllus included women| | * Had hostage taking system for politics| * Each new ruler began his reign with conques t (legitimize authority)| | * Khipus = system of knotted colored cords used by preliterate| | Andean peoples to transmit information| | * Did not produce new technologies; increased economic output| | * Civil war weakened the Inca on the eve of European arrival| | | | | | | | | | | | | * Noticed that primary gods for many societies were Sun gods and agricultural gods| * Pressures from inside took out the Inca society; similar to other societies| * Khipus = similar to the one that Aztecs used| | |

The Yellow-Wallpaper Analysis

The Yellow Wall-Paper Literary Analysis Charlotte Perkins Gilman uses her short story â€Å"The Yellow Wall-Paper† to show how women undergo oppression by gender roles. Gilman does so by taking the reader through the terrors of one woman’s changes in mental state. The narrator in this story becomes so oppressed by her husband that she actually goes insane. The act of oppression is very obvious within the story â€Å"The Yellow Wall-Paper† and shows how it changes one’s life forever. The story begins with the narrator’s use of dramatic irony which already tells the reader that something is suspicious about her. John laughs at me, of course, but one expects that in marriage† (508 Gilman). The narrator, which is unknown, states her husband, John, laughs at her but she expects it. In a good marriage, one does not expect their spouse to laugh at them. Even from the first paragraphs, it is obvious the narrator allows herself to be inferior to men. S he minimizes herself several more times throughout the story. â€Å"So I take my phosphates or phosphites – whichever it is – and tonics, and journeys, and air, and exercise, and am absolutely forbidden to ‘work’ until I am well again† (508 Gilman).The narrator’s husband is a high standing physician and gives her drugs that will supposedly help her get well. The section â€Å"phosphates or phosphites† gets my attention. A first read of these lines might cause the reader to think she is just a normal woman being prescribed drugs. However, the narrator does not know exactly what type of drugs she is taking. John sees his wife as another patient and nothing else. You see, she takes them simply because her husband is a physician and says they will help her. John is clearly in control of her. Also, the narrator states she is forbidden to work until she is well.John is making sure she does not try to do any type of work at all. He has strict orders for her, one of them being to stay in bed. There are signs of oppression on the first page and more will come. The next quote explains to the reader what types of items are located in the room John chose for the narrator. â€Å"It was a nursery first and then a playroom and gymnasium, I should judge; for the windows are barred for little children, and there are rings and things in the walls† (509 Gilman). Here, the narrator explains to the reader that there are bars on the windows and chained rings coming from the walls.The narrator’s use of the words â€Å"barred† and â€Å"rings† make it very clear that this room was never made for children; it was made to control and isolate a mentally ill person. Convincingly, John told her the nursery was the most ideal place for her to rest and get well. Being lesser than John, the narrator has no authority over him. She has no choice. He controls what she does no matter how she is feeing. From the first gla nce, the reader can understand that this room was not designed for children. Furthermore into the story, the narrator states she enjoys writing.She feels better when she writes, as if it is healthy for her. She writes, â€Å"There comes John, and I must put this away – he hates to have me write a word† (509 Gilman). The most important part regarding this statement is John has told her to discontinue her writing all together because it is unhealthy for her. John has shattered her self-confidence by controlling her; therefore she does not say a word regarding the relief writing brings her. The reader must recognize the phrase â€Å"he hates me to write a word† to understand the full emphasis of how John feels about his wife writing.She is becoming awfully depressed because of his oppression. More so, John says everything he is doing is helping her get well. She is his main concern. Again, because of John’s utmost control, the narrator does not tell him she is not feeling any better. She cannot share her feelings with him for he will laugh at her. In this quote, John says, â€Å"and really dear, I don’t care to renovate the house just for three months’ rental† (510 Gilman). Here, John states he is not going to change the wallpaper because they will only be in the house for three months. The key words in this line are â€Å"three months†.These words mean the narrator has to stay in the room with the barred windows and hideous, yellow wallpaper for a total of three months. These keywords might be missed if read over too quickly. The quote needs to be read slowly to realize what is happening. The reason they are only there for three months is because the treatment John has given her is going to take three months. The narrator does not realize this. Under his rule, she cannot stop the treatment. With the ending near, the narrator gradually descends into madness. While examining the wallpaper closely at night she narrates, â€Å"The woman behind it shakes it! she writes, â€Å"and she crawls around fast and her crawling shakes it all over. † â€Å"And in the very shady spots she just takes hold of the bars and shakes them hard† (Gilman 516). The woman that the narrator sees is actually herself. It is a projection of her because she cannot escape John’s control just how the woman cannot escape the wallpaper. Her illness has become so great she thinks a woman is shaking the wallpaper around the entire room. The problem here is John’s treatment. It has caused her to believe in ghostly objects that do not exist. The phrase, â€Å"her crawling shakes it all over† shows how John’s treatment has affected her.The narrator crawls and creeps around the room. She goes around in circles over and over again with no hesitation. Another phrase, â€Å"she just takes hold of the bars and shakes them hard. † This is the narrator shaking the barred windows try ing to escape the room. The narrator knows you cannot escape because â€Å"nobody could climb through that pattern – it strangles so;† (517 Gilman). This compares to John’s control. He â€Å"strangles† her with his treatment. The narrator is trying to express her feelings but she cannot because the wallpaper consumers her every minute. Her feelings cannot escape the room; they are within the yellow wall-paper.Finally, the woman completely loses all sense of stability and becomes mentally deranged. The narrator has had enough. Her feelings are finally able to escape. â€Å"I’ve gotten out at last, in spite of you and Jane! And I’ve pulled off most of the paper, so you can’t put me back† (Gilman 519)! John’s treatment and oppression have made the narrator completely insane. She has finally â€Å"gotten out† from John’s control. A new name emerges, Jane, which is the narrator. The narrator has pulled the wallp aper off and she cannot be put back up. The narrator believes it is a separate person but in fact, it is her. Jane† escaped the wallpaper just like the narrator escaped the control of John. In the final analysis, John comes home to see what has happened to his wife. The narrator writes; â€Å"Now why should that man have fainted? But he did, and right across my path by the wall, so that I had to creep over him every time† (519 Gilman)! This is by far the creepiest and most mysterious part of the story. John sees what she is doing and faints right into the path of her â€Å"creeping. † The narrator had to â€Å"creep† around the entire room, crawling against the wall over John’s lifeless body. And now, the narrator was in control.John could do absolutely nothing to stop her. She could do as she pleases. If you look closely, the words â€Å"every time† emphasize that John never awoke. He was dead as the psychotic narrator crept over him. He cou ld no longer control her ever again. As a final point, this text leaves the reader with many predictions and questions that cannot be completely answered. Gilman’s short story proves how a man’s control can affect one’s life forever. The oppression and mental abuse show the narrator’s difficulty living within this unequal climate. This story can put a little â€Å"creep† into anyone as it did with myself.