Analyzing My Own Assumptions

To go along with my previous post, I will be analyzing my own assumptions with reference to the article I've found on The Washington Post, written by Brad Plumer, via an interview with David Keith. The following questions tie with the questions answered in my previous post in that these answers will reflect my own personal values and beliefs on the topic at hand.

Greg Edwards. "Matt Diffee presenting at the Cusp Conference, Chicago IL September 2011."
10/12/2011 via Wikipedia. Public Domain Dedication.

1. What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do we share with the society or culture in which the text was written? Why have they endured?

The methods used in geoengineering are not entirely relatable between society and the people that advocate for it. Some people not educated in the methods used may draw positive or negative views from the opinions of others or from incorrect source gathering. These people may endure a large deficit of knowledge on the topic, while also utilizing that false knowledge to relay to others unknowingly.


2. What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do we not share? Why not?


Drawing from sources besides the article, I have found that the topics within geoengineering is very controversial. Especially the method of "fracking," the process of drilling into the earth and injecting a high-pressure water mixture to release natural gases. People are finding this method unethical on the basis that the process has been proved to harm the earth's upper crust layer. Nevertheless, some companies continue to use this method to retrieve the "profits" they desire.

All in all, climate scientist David Keith is an advocate for, what many believe, geoengineering as a whole, while he himself only talks about the process of solar management.


3. If the text is written in a culture distant or different from our own, what social values, beliefs, etc., connect to or reflect our own culture? What social values, beliefs, etc., can we not see in our own culture?

The article was not written in a different culture. It addresses the questions and issues that people within this culture have with the processes of geoengineering.

4. If the text is written in our culture but in a different historical time, how have the social values, beliefs, etc., developed or changed over time?

The article was published to The Washington Post on October 30, 2013. Since then, the views have yet to change much other than a stronger discontent in the main population with the increased knowledge of the risks that geoengineering has on the environment and on people as well. Not to say that the risks always greater than the rewards, scientists have also been continuing to study such experimentations and are becoming more successful. For the most part, both sides of support and opposition seem to be moving simultaneously in an upward slope.



Reflection: My controversy surround geoengineering, while Savannah's controversy revolves around genetic engineering. I enjoyed readying about her own assumptions of her article on gene replacement in babies. It makes me happy to know that another engineering major is in my english class. Reading through Isabel's controversy, I had no idea that there was a debate over the costly use of electrical stimulation for use in physical therapy. I myself have used electrical stimulation for the goal of effective muscular movement in weight training. This is no where near the amount of times a person needs the treatment for physical livelihood however, so I cannot even fathom the extent of the debate without further research into the matter.