Catalysts and Corrosions

Agriculture

1. What are the catalysts of the technology or science in support of the state?

Agriculture brings everyone together under a governments soverignity, because citizens eligible receives a block of land, and then they must grow and cultivate it in order to feed their families as well as make a profit to pay for other necessities. This in turn supports the state, and any taxes imposed because the citizens of the state who received the land to use how they see fit are indebted to the governing body.

Agriculture allowed for a creation of a surplus, which in turn created a class of people of the state who controlled and protected these agricultural areas and thus didn’t have to farm for themselves. This created a government who protected the producers, because they receive the produce in exchange for their defense of the state. Because of the surplus, people are eligible to break out from the agriculture profession, and some argue that this has been a crucial factor in socio-economic change.

Agriculture created many different techniques and methods to properly harvest their land, and through the many hundreds of years several techniques have been developed and are still in use today. Flooding the fields in order to harvest more rice, spreading manure to keep the soil healthy, irrigation techniques to flow water in certain directions through the land- all of these are methods that came about by way of agriculture in support of the state. In ancient Spain for example, an irrigation system was in place where water would flow from the top of the hill to the bottom in a maze-like fashion through the separate lands, and there would be someone who would monitor how much water was allocated to each cultivators land- this example shows that agriculture and its methods for growth were in support of the state, because they're were no major problems with this system of irrigation while it lasted.

2. What are the corrosions of the technology or science that undermine the support of the state?

Many governments have subsidized agriculture in order to ensure an adequate food supply. These tactics, according to Science Academy Recommends Resumption of Natural Farming from the New York Times in 1986, are inefficient, and environmentally damaging. This undermines the state in that governments are sacrificing something extremely important (the environment) in the favor of food conservation, which is a poor method to begin with.

In order for people to cultivate their land, the state first had to obtain it, many times by force. The classic example is forcing the native Americans farther and farther away from the land that was rightfully theirs, all in the name of the sovereignty of the state. Agriculture created the need for land to cultivate and make a surplus, violence is unfortunately a byproduct.

Agriculture created a multitude of jobs for people throughout human history, but this of course came with a price- inhibiting growth on other job occupations that can push society father and make living better in the long run. America employed over 80% of workers in agriculture for over a hundred years, which inhibited on industrialization- everyone was working their own farmland! The state claimed a monopoly over the land from the native Americans, and it wasn’t until the majority of the land passed down to these workers from the state started to fill up did people branch out into other occupations, thus leading America finally into Industrial Revolutions to make use of the abundance of natural resources.

Stem Cells and Politics

A technology that immediantly comes to mind that is directly affected by politics is stem cell research. Stem cell research have yielded incredible breakthroughs in terms of creating cells that can combat cancer cells and other uncurable diseases, but research in our country has been undercut by our very own president, despite congress approving H.R. 810 in 2006 (Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.) Society is on both sides of the issue when addressed with the question on how society is arranged around stem cell research. There are supporters and protesters, almost completely down the line with democrats supporting the plan and republicans against (with a few exceptions, of course.) Obviously there are several medical instances where stem cell research can play an enormous role in our future. On the other end of the spectrum, anti- stem cell proponents argue it can lead to human cloning which would devalue human life. Another anti stance is that an human embryo required to start the line of stem cells is a human life, and should be given protection. In terms of institutional support, the medical profession and those in need of a miracle to save them are in undying support to anything that can make a breakthrough, or save a life. A certain few in Washington think otherwise, which makes this technology extremely political in nature- when it is getting discussed into bills in congress, and in turn lying on the president's desk for a decision to keep it or scrap it- all about a new technology.

Why Science is a social enterprise

There are three prominent figures in history who study the social dimension of science, specifically in explaining why science is a social enterprise and focusing their paper on why it is important to understand it as such. These three experts on the issue are John Stuart Mill, Charles Sanders Peirce, and Karl Popper. Mill lays his claim to the history of the social science with his well-known political essay of 1859, On Liberty. Mill argues that knowledge is the critical discussions of beliefs of a society and its conception of right or wrong- essentially he states that knowledge is the achievement of the social group, not of the individual.
Peirce's contribution to the matter lies in several passages from his paper completed in 1878. Taken directly from the text, "The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate is what we mean by truth, and the object represented is the real." This correlates to Mill's views on knowledge being the opinion of the masses rather than the few, what separates Peirce from Mill is that he instigates doubt and critical interaction into the society, as a means of obtaining knowledge.
Popper is related to Peirce in that he greatly emphazises criticism in the development of scientific knowledge. Where he differs from the other two is his belief that science only progresses when past theories and experiments prove statements made before the test or statement wrong. Everything should be tested, even laws that stood for hundreds of years (Newton's Laws of gravity, for instance.)
These three did have one major common ground- big science, which is the organization of large numbers of scientists bringing their different expertises to a project that combines the separate experts on the subject. The Manhattan project is a prime example of this, bringing together scientists with expertise in nuclear bombs, others in radio transmission on how and when to detonate the bomb, other scientists who control the blast radius and how far the effects of the radiation will reach, etc. The obvious question on the relation between science and society is with morals- is what I'm doing right or wrong? Even though there are breakthroughs in science, should we as a society pay a price for what can come out of it or fight through it to find out what advancements in science can be made. Stem-Cell research is another obvious example. Despite all the great findings coming out of the early findings into the research, George Bush put a stop to it because he thought it was morally wrong- a perfect example of science being a social enterprise, having to bypass society before it can be properly worked on for the benefit of society. As time goes on and more and more complicated issues arise, it will be incredibly important to cross between science and society, and discovering how to properly unite the two for generations to come.

The socialogy of God

Blog a critical paragraph (150-200 words) on the common basis of religion. What is it? What does it produce?

What is the common basis of religion? From the reading, specifically page 33, I have two answers- certain beliefs held by the users of the religion, and that all the users perform all the necessary rituals collectively perform. In the reading, it breaks the two certain beliefs into two things- sacred and profane. The difference between sacred and profane is that you as the religious user must approach the sacred item (crosses, altars, mecca, etc) with respect. All other items (profane) in the world are in their own division, just regular items and locations in the world. For the rituals of religion, the common basis is that the process of doing it the same every time, whether it be the making the cross with your hands, saying the correct words of a prayer to the same pentatonic, etc. Saying a prayer with different words every time defeats the purpose, in the sake of rituals- the journey is what matters, not just obtaining the end result by any way necessary. Answering what does the common basis of religion produce is a very complication answer. Religion produces a group to belong to, a group to adhere to the rules and regulations of the group all towards a common goal. Religion produces an identity, something that can be fought for to the death if it comes to that. People are palpable to becoming martyrs, dying for what religion produces. Religion produces social rituals, rites of acceptance that boost the confidence of the user. Most of all, you only get as much as you get out of religion of what you put in, so it can produce a reason for living for some. Religion and having something to believe in will go on forever, a feeling that someone or something is judging our every move and then writing it down for when we die and then talk to our higher power- religion produces a lifestyle, something that lives and breathes in all of us.