Is privacy important even if it's not related to any form of harm or injustice? Imagine a person enjoys looking through people's windows (or internal cameras) without their knowledge or consent. Would anything be wrong with this? If so, why? If not, why do you think people still find it objectionable?

            Topic:Summary and Analysis of Van Den Hoven's"Nanotechnology and Privacy"

Effect of Technology on Private Life

Technology is widely used nowadays. There is a very small place to affect the development process of technology. Hoven says a new technological product could change the direction of technology development. The technological tools we use now can become very obsolete after a few years. It is not possible to reach the speed of technology. In a few seconds, a higher model of each product is produced. Hoven mentions about the advantages of technology and offers us the opportunity to monitor and follow every kind of technological products, from the technological devices in our house to the tools we own. In other words, we can reach all our technological devices which are connected with technological devices. This technology is a great advantage for people.  Hoven discusses this because there is also somebody else the possibility of accessing and monitoring this technological device. Hoven says that this can be a great disadvantage for us and that it will jeopardize our privacy. Hoven argues about the possibility that the personal lives and personal information of people can be seized by cyber hackers, increasing as the technology advances.

Privacy is a very important part of human life. Today, we see that we have reached the level of nanotechnology in technological development. In our time, nanotechnology is perhaps the highest level of technology. Nano technology, integrated circuits, logistics, stores, non-staining dresses, hidden cameras, listening instruments, security systems have started to show activity in many different fields. However, the confidentiality of personal data is in danger. Nanotechnology, sub-micron and nano electronics has the privacy field. In other words, nano-technological devices store people's personal data in a confidential database and this informations don’t disappear anytime. However, the design of nano technology is not done by taking into consideration the privacy of the personal data of the people. It is designed and manufactured considering the technological purpose. However, the fact that people have personal data on someone else brings serious disadvantages to individuals. This is the main point of Hoven's article. For example, the protection of personal information reduces the likelihood of people being harmed in a manner similar to restricting access to fire, rather than in the open. Similarly, weapons reduce the likelihood of people being struck in the street. If we do not establish a legal regime that restricts citizens' access to weapons, we know that there is a chance that innocent people might be hit. So we have to close the road where danger is reached.

We share our personal information most of the time in internet. A person who can access this information can market it to someone else like a vendor. This can lead to our bank information, our personal information, our health security number, and many other confidential information. One who has our knowledge can create a very negative situation for us. Today, people sign confidentiality agreements in many areas. However, since they do not read the contents of the contracts much, they do not know what their personal data is. Therefore, data protection laws should take more rigid implications in terms of equality and protection of personal data. In addition, this situation requires marketing companies to use the personal data of other persons as a means of marketing, and require personal data to be addressed in a situation where more protection is required. Hoven says, Technology is both our friend and your enemy and that knowing this, Hoven says that we should act accordingly. People are very interested in technological advances. They want to have a newly produced technological product immediately. But this technological curiosity jeopardizes the safety of their personal information. There is a risk that the confidential information they have will be stolen. Without taking these risks and dangers, people continue to share their personal data on technological devices. We do not know who uses the personal data and for what purpose. Hoven states that laws must be more deterrent for the protection of personal and private information, and that the privacy of people is in need of further protection. Hoven mentions that organizations, individuals or companies that have information must be more protective and careful in the event that personal information may fall into the hands of bad intention people.

 I think privacy is very important for people. The information that people only have on their own is the special information. Knowing this particular information by someone else can put a person's private life in danger. If someone likes to examine people's windows, it is a very objectionable situation for their knowledge of the person examined. They can have bank information, social security number and many personal information about the person being examined. If this information is used, that person may have many problems, both material and spiritual. Therefore, the examination and investigation of a person's secret life without showing any respect, I think according to the law must be a big crime. I think it is wrong to examine their private life and knowledge of other people personal data. I believe that respect for people's private lives should be respected.

                                                                             Written by Erdogan Akbiyik


http://erdoganakbiyik.blogspot.com/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDsUnmBfVdEPkcC8FlzPKcg

What is the problem of personal identity as it relates to posthumanism? Do you find Bostrom's answer to this problem persuasive? Why or why not?

     Topic:Summary and Analysis of Bostrom's"Why I want to be Posthuman When Grow Up"

The Reality of Posthumanism

Bostrom “posthuman” evaluated in certain categories. I will summarize these categories with a single narration. First of all, I start with the definition of posthuman concept. The Posthuman is described in different ways by many different authors. According to Bostrom,Posthuman; defined as an entity with posthuman capacity. Bostrom mentions that there are three general central capacities of people. These are health span, cognition and emotion. In other words, people's development of these concepts and extreme human development, which is at a different point than the people in the lives of these people, can lead to posthuman forms of existence. As a posthuman capacity, I would like to say that a general centralized capacity exceeds the maximum value that can be reached by any existing human being without exceeding the new technological means. However, Bostrom claims that there are 5 levels of objection against posthumanism. These are the appeal levels: It can not be done, Too difficult / expensive, It would be too bad for the community, Postthuman lives would be worse than human lives, Not benefited.

 Bortrom states that all of these levels are negative and impossible for posthuman views. People's lives are happy or unhappy, tragic or entertaining in every way, no matter how people live in the last moments of people are trying to live more. As the problems that the human body cannot fight, slow down of metabolism, like weakening and aging of the body structure, people realize that they are approaching death. Therefore, the hope of living a little more in the last days of their lives to be able to compensate for a lot of things and begin to appreciate every moment of their lives. The most important reason for people's desire to be a posthuman indicates that the health period is due to their desire to live a longer and healthier life. People want to live without health problems at almost any age. Bostrom forms prima facie support for claiming that extended life is not entirely healthy. Bostrom mentions that this is an option worth having. It is a known fact that people always seek to develop cognition. Every person wants to have high cognitive capacity. Bostrom mentions that people who have high cognitive capacity want to develop their cognitive capacity and want to come to posthuman point more than people with low cognitive capacity.

Bostrom also argues that the level of cognitive abilities at the posthuman level will be perfect, and that the development of emotional development will become more complex. Bostrom mentions about how broad and comprehensive a person's emotional capacity can reach the highest level of cognitive capacity. According to Bostrom, the fact that a person has any of the 3 general capacities (health span, cognition and emotion) seems to be reasonable to be able to question one's self, life and everything more, and determine the most important goals that she/he can reach and move forward towards that purpose. Bostrom also mentions the importance of one's personal identity. The person's status as Posthuman is different in a significant way. Bostrom explained this with an example. For example, suppose one born as a posthuman. Imagine his/her life, his/her cognitive abilities are perfect. We try and be like him/her. But our innate talents, emotions and everything we have says that there will be no posthuman. So here is what Bostrom is talking about that each person has his/her own personal identity and that we cannot know whether we will be good or bad according to the posthuman.

There is always a good concept of living by the nature of people. This concept of life can be counted under many different titles such as social status, necessities, habits, love, feelings, dreams, psychological process. However, people always forget to live some of these concepts because they are in the effort to reach the most perfect, or they may not understand these concepts. As a result, Bostrom claims that some people are extremely helpful and should not die. The development of 3 central capacities, such as cognition, healthspan, and emotional, suggests that posthuman levels may be achieved and may be applicable to some concept. But he argues that people aren't posthuman now. When people understand what the human concept means, the view defended by Bostrom will prove his justification for the fact that the human species is a very valuable species.

 I think that personal identity cannot be the same with posthumanism. Because even if a person develops all 3 central capacities he / she has, I still think that a very small part of one's memories, goals, skills and psychological characteristics can change. In general, however, I think that the person will continue to have many of her/his memories, desires, tendencies, personal relationships and social connections that he/she possesses his personal identity. Bostrom's statements on this subject were convincing for me. Because when a person has a personal identity, it is not easy to change her/him. For example, someone who lost mother or father. Let them think that you love and imagine them every day. Let us assume later that this person has reached the Posthuman level. After the posthuman, Can we say that the same person can stop thinking and loving them? I say absolutely that “no”. I mean, it is a very difficult and profound process to change our personal identity. I don't think even a person who has reached the posthuman level can easily change it.

                                                     Written by Erdogan Akbiyik
http://erdoganakbiyik.blogspot.com/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDsUnmBfVdEPkcC8FlzPKcg

Do you agree with Kass's feeling of disgust and his proposed ban of all therapeutic and reproductive cloning? He provides four reasons for his position -- which do you find the most persuasive and which do you find the weakest?

                       Topic:Summary and Analysis of Kass's"Preventing a Brave New World"

              The Future of Humanity

All contemporary societies have almost the same utopia. They all want to continue in the light of modern science. The purpose of all is that people want to live in a more prosperous and better environment. However, humanity wants to live in better conditions and always harms the nature and the environment. From the treatment of very serious diseases to human cloning, the production of a lost organ as a prosthesis to stem cell transplant, we can understand that it has reached very high points in our modern day. In the future, researchers and industrial companies have begun to focus more on human cloning and human embryo selection. In the near future we will hear and see many developments about human cloning, embryo preferences, human genetic structure.

Huxley described humanity in the 7th century. In Huxley's description, Huxley mentions that thanks to high medical technology, people will have more success in getting rid of illness, lacking emotional suffering, war-free life and human science. According to Huxley, as a result of these achievements, the disappearance of natural and pure life means that people will return to more soulless and senseless. Isn't it like our new world is talking about Huxley? Due to advancing technology, we now use more technological tools. We can see this everywhere: at work, at school, at home, at the subway or on the road, we can see that each of us is surrounded by technological means, and that people miss the old sincerity and love. Although this does not seem to be very good for most people, this is very good for companies in the economic environment.

In the new world, we are now at the point of human clone production. Previously, they tried this with the sheep Dolly on the animal. But Dolly could live 6 years. It was just the first test. The main goal was to produce a human clone, and this was the first attempt to create a human clone through media. Maybe there have been more clone trials that we don't know about. Who knows!! This will be soon. I don't know if the clones to be used can live for 6 years like Sheep Dolly, but we will see human clones in the near future.

Anyone who wants will also have the chance to create the child they want with the human embryo. It's a bit like mixing God's work, but unfortunately, we will soon see these situations. However, there is a discussion of human cloning. It is discussed that this is not moral and has many big risks. On the one hand, it is mentioned that there may be technological developments that may usher in a new epoch the history of humanity. In addition, there is a possibility that information on unknowns about human genetics and treatment of serious diseases can be learned. However, these human clones and other embryonic investigations will allow experiments to be performed for different purposes. This will lead to the creation of a secret research that the government cannot follow. In this respect, it is a little risky. The person will have a chosen child and there will be something like breeding freedom. So parents will have a child without a sex. They will have the embryo of another person they will have children. In other words, they will have a child who does not have the genetic structure of the parents. As the child grows up, it turns out that their mother and father do not have their genes, and perhaps this will create a great problem between the family or a better situation. This means that we will see the families who grew up the children who do not carry the genes of their parents. Human clone production and human embryos are not accepted in countries around the world. For example, five states in the US forbade it. This is the same in European countries, so it is not seen as an acceptable situation on the world at this time. However, the production of stem cell and tissue needed for the treatment of people is allowed. Human clone production is not possible for the moment. For the moment, we have people and children of our own genes. I don't know what happens to the future. I wish a world to have our own children, not someone else's embryo.

 I agree with Kass's disgust. According to the summary of Kass's article above, I found Kass's suggested 4 reasons against cloning ban of all therapeutic and reproductive. These are: It is an unethical experimentation, it threatens the identity and individuality, it turns into procreation, it means despotism over children and perversion of parenthood. The most convincing of these reasons is that it will be very cruel for animals and people who will die as a result of unethical experiments. The threat of identity and individuality is also a good reason for convincing. To have a child whose genetic structure belongs to someone else. For example, Imagine that a mother chicken is a mother to a duckling. As a result, ducks and chickens are a genus of birds. But their genetic structure is completely different from each other. Living and learning are two genera that are completely different from each other. In this example, the two species that belong to the same bird family but have different genetic differences. This is likewise similar to parenting to another child with different genes and characteristics in the human family. Our children, who have our own genes, will be our own product, which we have our own genetic structure and properties. The weakest of the reasons for Kass is for me to be against human clone production. I think a human clone should be produced. However, strict inspections and controls must be in their surroundings and should be completely moral. If this is done in this way, it may allow us to reach great conclusions in finding treatment for serious diseases.

                                                                   Written by Erdogan Akbiyik

http://erdoganakbiyik.blogspot.com/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDsUnmBfVdEPkcC8FlzPKcg

Consider social media like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. What values do you think are embedded in the technology or are expressed in the pursuit, development, and use of the technology?

Topic:Summary and Analysis of Pacey's"Technology and Practice"

NEW WORLD CREATED by TECHNOLOGY

            In this chapter, Pacey explains the definitions of technology and tells us that there are different levels in the definition of technology and that these levels need to be consistent. Pacey says the technology has political, cultural and moral implications. Pacey reminds that people have the strongest potential to invent and argue that they shouldn't decide on their own when they make technology inventions. Therefore, Pacey reminds about the need to use technology to positively influence and change developments in particular cultures and contexts.

Pacey argues that technology is not worthless and technology has affected the positive changes in the industry's progress. Technological necessity, in part, is an expression of personal values ​​and experiences, and argues that technology is not just tools, machines and tools. Pacey suggests that education is very important in the technological environment and that people should be educated more. Pacey thinks that the main purpose of the technology is to benefit from solving the problems that really cause problems and proposes educational approaches. It explains that education can decrease birth rates, slow down population growth and more qualitative developments in living standards. In other words, by establishing a great connection between education and technology, Pacey is argued that inventions should be made according to the needs of people and society. What Pacey wants to say is that we need to focus on the cultural aspect of technology. Pacey objected to the idea that technology is worthless. It demonstrates that technology development and use are conditioned by many economic and scientific as well as political and cultural factors. This chapter also presents many examples from various cultures. Pacey reminds that the impact of snow engines in North America, the use of water pumps in rural India, and homemade toys in Africa, and the power generation in Africa, have led to many cultural and environmental changes along with new technological developments in many communities.

Pacey argues that many technologies have positive advantages as well as disadvantages. However, he argues that environmental pollution has increased considerably due to excessive consumption of people. Pacey argues that people are giving great environmental damages to the environment with the technological tools they invented. This directly intervenes in the environment and the order of nature. As a result, all these technological developments and inventions are dragging us towards a great environmental, social and cultural disaster, unless they are produced and used for the right purpose.

Nowadays, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc. There are a lot of social media sites. What do these social media sites do? I think they're completely time-consuming. Maybe these sites are really necessary? I think yes sometimes I think they are necessary. It allows us to find a friend, a relative we never saw, or to see their pictures, to communicate. Or these sites Is now the time passing by huge wasted in our lives? I think they spend a lot of time in our lives in general. I think we should focus on more important things that are important to our lives.

As technology advanced, the world was a tiny place for us. Where we are, we can access a facebook account of Australia or other personal information. Is social media danger for us? I think yes it is a danger because our personal information, our bank accounts, our social security number, etc. there is a risk of theft. I also think that in our lives, we have to postpone our work and cause us to become more lazy individuals. Most of the young people at any time, his eyes and hands on his phone, sometimes twitter, someone reads the message, sometimes on Facebook, watching a live broadcast or someone in Instagram is looking at photos. It also brings a lot of health problems.

I think that the value of technology should facilitate the challenges we face in our lives. We can do what we dreamed 20 years ago. Technology is progressing progressively. As Pacey said, technology is not worthless. I just think that technology shouldn't take more time in people's lives, they should give more time to their lives.

                                                                       Written by Erdogan Akbiyik                                                                                 

http://erdoganakbiyik.blogspot.com/
http://izlenmesigerekenvideolar.blogspot.com/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDsUnmBfVdEPkcC8FlzPKcg