Euthanasia Essay Example for Free

Euthanasia Essay What is euthanasia? The simplest definition of euthanasia is just a painless death (Euthanasia). The word is most commonly used with when speaking about an animal that is suffering, â€Å"Oh what happened to your dog? † â€Å"He was unbearably ill so we had him euthanized. † However, euthanasia does not always apply to animals; it can be used in regard to any organism, including human beings. When humans put down animals there is never the question of why we should do it. The animal is most likely suffering and has very little to live for, and the decision to euthanize an animal is a much easier decision to make by virtue of it not being a human. But what if it were a human life? What if a fully autonomous individual wished for a painless release from their suffering? Would you let them do it? Would you intervene? How can you say whether or not that their decision is right when you have never experienced what they are? However, the overall arching question to euthanizing humans is, should it be legal? When ether was first used on October 16th, 1846 doctors of that time began to use the pain killer to relieve patients suffering at the ends of their lives (Accidental Inventions). It took only twenty-four years before a man named Samuel Williams proposed using the anesthesia to intentionally end an individual’s life. Williams’s suggestion sparked an argument that would last till the current day. However, a very heated portion of the debate on euthanasia took place in the thirty-five years following Williams’s assertion. The debate reached its peak in 1906 when a bill was pushed in Ohio to legalize euthanasia (the bill was defeated) (Emanuel). After 1906 support for euthanasia waxed and waned depending on the economic and political events of the time (i. . support was high during the great depression but then took a major blow when it was discovered to be used in concentration camps) (http://euthanasia. procon. org/view. resource. php? resourceID=000130). However, the history of euthanasia dates back much farther than just its debate in America. In fact, the issue of euthanasia dates back to the Roman Empire where physicians often preformed ‘mercy killings’ for patients (the doctors that did this were also doing it in violation of their Hippocratic Oath). After the Roman Empire the practice of euthanasia declined as the now dominant religion of Christianity opposed it. The following several hundred years saw a mostly one sided argument on euthanasia, until Samuel Williams began pushing for it in 1870. The following 130 years would see the most turmoil the debate on euthanasia had ever experienced, most of the argument taking place in America. Societies supporting euthanasia were formed, bills were proposed, economic climate changed people’s view of it, war changed their view again, petitions were made, and arguments over patient’s rights were had. After nearly 1900 years of nothing but opposition support for euthanasia picked up and fought back. The debate climaxed during the 1990’s with Dr. Jack Kevorkian starting to euthanize terminally ill patients who requested it of him. Dr. Kevorkian’s first assisted suicide took place on June 4th, 1990 and it wasn’t his last. Over the next eight years Dr. Kevorkian performed many euthanasia procedures the last being in November 1998 where Kevorkian showed the euthanization of a man on national T. V. , resulting in his arrest and his conviction the following year (Dowbiggin). Now, thirteen years after his conviction, Kevorkian is still a well known name, but whenever his name is used it is generally in a negative context. But should a man who helped so many people have his name sullied in such a manner? With Kevorkian’s arrest and conviction the major debate on euthanasia began to die down, leaving thirty-four states with laws that explicitly make euthanasia illegal, nine states with euthanasia governed by common law, five states have unclear laws regarding it, and only two states with legal euthanasia (Oregon and Washington) (Assisted Suicide Laws State by State). But should those be the only two states who allow their citizens the right to a graceful death? Should only 1/25 of the United States be given an option that should be available to all of the country? The lack of a legal euthanasia processes in forty-eight of the fifty states is an infringement upon United States citizens rights as human beings. In addition to completely fulfilling citizen’s civil rights a legal practice of euthanasia would save many people (including the government) money, and performing a euthanization would not even conflict with a doctors Hippocratic Oath as some people claim. The United States Constitution was written with the goal to set up a strong government that guaranteed the individual rights of her citizens. It states that citizens are granted â€Å"†¦certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. †(The Declaration of Independence). Should euthanasia not fall under the right to pursue happiness? When an individual is terminally ill their quality of life generally declines as they come to the nd of their life. A cancer patient who has struggled for years and is now losing their valiant battle will unfortunately not come to a graceful end. As the cancer cell begin to multiply and take over its victims can experience uncontrollable vomiting and voiding of the bowels, relentless pain, excessive bleeding from the smallest of cuts, drowning in their own bodily fluids, or dying from another horrific disease that slipped by the suppressed immune system (Orac). These are all possible deaths that one could experience from cancer, and not one of them is appealing, nor are these deaths limited to cancer alone there are many other types of ailments that can result in just as unpleasant deaths. If a patient is suffering from one of those diseases their last days alive will most likely be some of their most unpleasant. The unfortunate truth is that people suffering in such manners will most likely have little to no happiness left in their lives. There is only one path that can lead to some measure of happiness for those meeting such an unpleasant demise and that path is a graceful death. So if being released from one’s suffering brings happiness shouldn’t it be protected by the U. S. Constitution? In addition to the preamble of the Constitution supporting euthanasia there are two amendments in it that also support euthanasia. The Eighth Amendment states that there will be no â€Å"†¦cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. † (The United States Constitution). That amendment was established in order to prevent any torturing of prisoners; however, torture is defined as â€Å"extreme anguish of the body or mind; agony† and is that not the same denying someone euthanasia and letting them suffer for the remainder of their days (Torture)? The Ninth Amendment can also be considered as a safeguard for the rights of the terminally ill as it protect rights of any people not specifically mentioned in the Constitution (The United States Constitution), this can include the rights of the terminally ill to die. In order to protect the Constitutionality of euthanasia a federal law would have to be established that creates a legal euthanasia process. Such a law would be closely modeled after the laws in Oregon which sets out a specific outline for who can apply for euthanasia. This outline states that the individual must make three requests to die (two verbal and one written), be terminally ill with no more than six months to live, certified by two doctors that it is a serious request, checked to make sure that they aren’t mentally incompetent or epressed, informed of possible alternatives, and finally made to wait fifteen days to think it over (Euthanasia – Oregon’s Euthanasia Law). When a patient has finally gone through all of that the doctor then prescribes a deadly dose of barbiturates which the patient is allowed to pick up at their leisure and have the freedom of deciding whether or not to take it (A New Fight to Legalize Euthanasia). Such a law would limit any abu se as there is currently little to no abuse in Oregon already (Top 10 Pros and Cons). Even with a small amount of abuse the population of Netherland continues to support their euthanasia laws (Zurich Rejects ban on Suicide Tourism). However, even with strong Constitutional support and the experience of both a state and a country there is currently no push for a euthanization law in Congress, even though studies show that over 80% of adult American citizens support euthanasia (A New Fight to Legalize Euthanasia). Euthanasia is not only beneficial in the sense that it should be a civil liberty, but also it is economically beneficial. As cold and callous as that may sound euthanasia is a much cheaper, and much more pleasant, alternative to other treatments. The drugs required to euthanize an individual cost between $35 and $45 (Mathews) whereas the first six months of treatment for cancer range from $2,568 to $24,204 depending on the cancer type and severity (Costs of cancer Treatments). The cost for someone with leukemia is even greater, paying up to $150,000 for the first round of chemotherapy (Benzene and Leukemia). Those aren’t one time costs either, cancer treatments and treatments for other terminal illnesses can last for months or years and can rack up hospital bills in the range of hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. The real question though is who has to foot the bill? Well, for fifty million Americans who don’t have health insurance the answer is themselves, meaning they’re paying out of pocket thousands of dollars that they probably don’t have (Christie). There are also the people who are on Medicare or Medicaid who are now costing the government massive amounts of money for a treatment that may not work and could easily bring about more pain and suffering for a patient and their family. So if there is a family who can’t afford the treatments for a relative, and that relative has decided that there is no more they want to do with their life and that they are at peace and don’t want to spend months or years suffering horrendously, then that relative can choose an option that costs a mere $35 and saves hemselves from suffering and their family for descending into un-escapable debt (or pushing the government further into debt). Some of the opposition of euthanasia springs from the belief that euthanasia would break a doctor’s Hippocratic Oath as the general idea behind the Hippocratic Oath is the preservation of life. It is true that a version of the Hippocratic Oath says â€Å"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Top 10 Pros and Cons). Another version of the oath has a similar statement, â€Å"†¦avoiding the twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism. That same version of the Hippocratic Oath also reminds the doctor to remember the effects a treatment could have on a patients relatives (Tyson). While the Hippocratic Oath may say it that a doctor should avoid ‘over-treating’ a patient it also says that â€Å"I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures that are required†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Tyson). Well if the only benefit left to a dying patient is to do so with poise and dignity s hould euthanasia not be required (only if first requested by the patient of course)? Also, since the oath asks that a doctor keep in mind the effects on a patient’s relatives, shouldn’t a doctor be allowed to euthanize a willing patient to prevent the emotional scarring of watching a loved one die slowly and painfully? As for the preservation of life in the Hippocratic Oath one must ask, at what point is the life really worth living? When a patient reaches a certain degree of agony preserving their life would do more harm than good (Top 10 Pros and Cons). Though technically the Hippocratic Oath would actually be a non-issue, and there are two reasons for this. The first reason is that under the laws in Oregon (that a federal law would be modeled after) a doctor would not technically end the patient’s life; they would merely prescribe a lethal dose of barbiturates which the patient then takes (A New Fight to Legalize Euthanasia). The second reason is that since there are currently multiple versions of the Hippocratic Oath shows that it is an active and malleable document and subject to change at any point. Euthanasia is a touchy topic with many excellent points on both sides of the argument. Some people take issue with it for religious reasons and others condemn it for its use in Nazi death camps (Arendt, 53). But the only question that should be asked about legalization of euthanasia is, can you make that decision for everyone else? Should you make that decision for anyone when you haven’t experienced what they have? Unless everyone goes through the horrendous events that some of the terminally ill go through each day, there is no reason to not give them the freedom of a choice.

Art Therapy: A Necessary Tool for Success Essay -- Art

Art is the self-expression of someone or something that shows the hidden or underlying emotions upon which are found within the unconscious mind (Merriam-Webster). Art can tell stories of past events which were significant to that culture or person. This could include things such as hunts or sacrifices to please the gods. As society and people started to evolve and become more and more like modern day society, so did art and how society viewed it. At the beginning of the renaissance in Europe, many new artists and ways of thinking began emerging which soon became the mainstream way of thinking. Artists from this time period transformed art from what it was to how we view it today. From being a tool to tell stories with, art slowly started to shift to a more abstract way of thinking. As people and their minds started to change, how we view art and the uses of how art became limitless. When someone talks about art, there are many different aspects that they could be talking about. Art could be a simple painting but it could also be an elegant sculpture or sketch. When thinking about art and the uses that art can have the possibilities are endless. Art could be used as self-expression of suppressed feelings that are unknown to the conscious. Art is looked at as a good way to relieve stress and express emotions. It was not until art was seen as something more than decoration that it became a form of therapy that could be used in our everyday lives. Art therapy is a very useful and effective therapy tool while treating kids and young adults with ongoing issues involving both emotional and or psychical damage. Art therapy is a form of expressive therapy that uses art materials such as paints chalk and markers to reveal hidden or ... ...tion, n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2012. . Mueller, Karen, and Margie Whittaker Leidig. â€Å"Women’s Anger and Feminist Therapy.† Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 1 (Winter 1976): 23-30. JSTOR. Web. 5 Mar. 2012. . Wadeson, Harriet. Art Therapy and Art Education. Vol. 33, No. 4 ed. JSTOR . N.p., Apr. 1980. Web. 12 Apr. 2012. Wexler, Alice. â€Å"Painting Their Way out: Profiles of Adolescent Art Practice at the Harlem Hospital Horizon Art Studio.† Studies of Art Education 43 .4 (2002): 339-353. JSTOR. Web. 5 Mar. 2012. .

Evaluation of Evolutionary Theory of Altruism and the Role of Genes-a Modern View Essay

Evolutionary theory holds that organisms with the strongest genes for survival and reproduction do, in fact, survive and reproduce most successfully. They thus multiply their genes most widely, spreading the advantageous genes through whole populations. Ceaseless repetitions of the process can gradually transform species into totally new ones. Such a world seems to have no place for self-sacrificing types, who presumably couldn’t spread their genes very far. Several competing theories attempt to solve the puzzle. One is that groups with cooperative members out compete groups with selfish ones, and thus spread their niceness genes, in a scaled-up version of the process by which genetically favored individuals trump other individuals. Variants of this notion have gained popularity in the past decade, although it fell from favor earlier, as it has some trouble explaining how altruism got a foothold in the first place. The origin of altruism and cooperation is an enigma because evolutionary theory seems to predict such behavior should be rare or nonexistent. Yet some forms of altruism, conscious or not, are widely documented in creatures as humble as insects and bacteria. Evolutionary theory attempts to explain the evolution of aiding others in two general ways: 1. It argues that genes favoring altruism can spread in future generations if their costs to altruists’ personal reproductive success is outweighed by the benefits in reproductive success of altruists’ relatives carrying copies of the same genes (‘kin selection’). The ratio of these indirect benefits through relatives, versus costs to oneself, needs to be greater the less closely the altruist is related to those helped – i. . , the lower the likelihood the altruist will be helping copies of their genes in the other. 2. It proposes that genes favoring altruism could spread if the altruism is sufficiently reciprocated (‘reciprocal altruism’) (Axelrod, R. & Hamilton, 1981). Biological Altruism versus Psychological Altruism Charles Darwin theorized that all species behave in ways that increase their chances for survival. Often, this survival instinct expresses itself as selfish behavior. Humans (and some animals), however, frequently ignore their personal interests and help others—a behavior called altruism. In volutionary biology, an organism is said to behave altruistically when its behavior benefits other organisms, at a cost to itself. The costs and benefits are measured in terms of reproductive fitness, or expected number of offspring. So by behaving altruistically, an organism reduces the number of offspring it is likely to produce itself, but boosts the number that other organisms are likely to produce. This biological notion of altruism is not identical to the everyday concept. In everyday parlance, an action would only be called ‘altruistic’ if it was done with the conscious intention of helping another. But in the biological sense there is no such requirement. Indeed, some of the most interesting examples of biological altruism are found among creatures that are not capable of conscious thought at all, e. g. insects. Altruistic behavior is common throughout the animal kingdom, particularly in species with complex social structures. For example, Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked. In social insect colonies (ants, wasps, bees and termites), sterile workers devote their whole lives to caring for the queen, constructing and protecting the nest, foraging for food, and tending the larvae. Such behavior is maximally altruistic: sterile workers obviously do not leave any offspring of their own — so have personal fitness of zero — but their actions greatly assist the reproductive efforts of the queen. Human altruism goes far beyond that which has been observed in the animal world. Among animals, fitness-reducing acts that confer fitness benefits on other individuals are largely restricted to kin groups (Trivers, 1971)(Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981). Where human behavior is concerned, the distinction between biological altruism, defined in terms of fitness consequences, and ‘real’ altruism, defined in terms of the agent’s conscious intentions to help others, does make sense. (Sometimes the label ‘psychological altruism’ is used instead of ‘real’ altruism. ) What is the relationship between these two concepts? They appear to be independent in both directions ( Sober, 1994). An action performed with the conscious intention of helping another human being may not affect their biological fitness at all, so would not count as altruistic in the biological sense. Most often, evolutionary psychologists explain the presence of social behavior like altruism in humans and other animals by reference to kin selection. Kin selection is the idea that natural selective pressures can favor a gene if it provides a trait that makes one’s relatives more likely to survive because that relative likely carries many of the same ( Dawkins, 1976) . Ultimately, I tend to find arguments for kin selection unconvincing for a whole host of reasons, among them: There’s seldom any consideration of the neural mechanisms that might be responsible, only the assumption that the ‘gene’ will cause altruistic behavior if it is favorable to the gene’s transmission and the most recent findings with the function of neurotransmitters like dopamine, serotonin and norepinepinephrine along with others prove there is no validity to kin selection and giving importance to individual affect and emotions including the feeling of euphoria in being altruist. ) An inability to explain why, if natural selection cares about our close relatives so much, our ‘altruism gene’ couldn’t be much more selective about who we feel altruistic about . ) The kin selection perspective tends to take an adaptationist view of natural selection, assuming that organic variation can easily produce candidate ‘adaptations’ to suit any environment and that all traits of an organism are necessarily adaptive (when, in fact, it’s a whole organism that is selected, not each individual trait, and traits are often connected genetically so that selection might be acting on another trait produced by the same gene) (Haldane , 1955). ) The problem of how closely related we need to be to kin for our altruism to really be a selective advantage if we are in competition with each other is frightening (Goldschmidt, 2006). The evolutionary process can generate behaviors that can be experienced in the evolutionary process but whose meaning can be completely detached from its original biological motivation. Let’s say that the evolutionary process produced a set of prompts in females, say big breast, which at the time were a sign of a woman’s ability to produce more milk for her babies (more kids they can produce and feed, the more genes will propagate, so men instinctively desire to want to mate with these females ). Lets now imagine that these females became sterile and the obsession for big breast had nothing to do with its original motivation. Taking from such observations we can say that a behavior which probably has been natural selection in the evolutionary process as Darwinian view suggests. However the same behavior may develop new motivations and may lose original evolutionary purpose altogether. For instance, it is entirely possible that pleasurable sex originated because organisms that â€Å"felt good† having sex had more of it and thus passed on more genes. Sex today serves entirely different role and in most cases is entirely unrelated to childbearing in humans. To trace altruistic behaviors in humans to evolutionary history based entirely on Darwinian concepts of reproductive success does not grab the trends in its entirety. It is possible that throughout the course of evolution certain nervous systems bound tightly with others for reproductive success reasons. However, it should be kept in mind that altruism is a set of behavioral concepts that originated in the things we can study and use as objects of exploration. True altruism can likely be a rewarding behavior that has little to do with its original biological altruism. Certain behaviors which give a greater chance of propagating our genes are likely to make us feel good so that people who feel good about such actions may have more offsprings. If a mother felt good about saving her kid, it is possible her brain is organized in a way that she feels good saving another kid who is not hers. However, we can say nothing about the question of why it makes us feel good, unless we undertake the task of finding the mechanism of both the biological evolutionary reasons as well as cultural components which caused the changes in the brain. The brain is structured in such a way that the feeling of compassion can be felt within its manifestation (limbic system, prefrontal cortex along with neurotransmitters dopamine, serotonin and norepinephrine)(Moore, 1984). We can say that there are lot of levels of organization between original evolutionary purpose and its eventual expression. Some of the most fundamental questions concerning evolutionary origins of altruism and selfishness need to be dealt with a multifactorial approach. Experimental evidence indicates that human altruism is a powerful force and is unique in the animal world. However, there is much individual heterogeneity among altruists . Current gene-based evolutionary theories cannot explain all important patterns of human altruism, pointing towards the importance of both theories of cultural evolution as well as gene–culture co-evolution. For evolutionary scientists, altruism is one of the great mysteries: it feels good, is linked to better mental and physical health, and is intrinsic to who we are, yet no one can quite explain how it evolved. The Feel-Good Chemicals and Altruism Now a new study suggests that altruism may be partly guided by genes that regulate the neurotransmitter dopamine — the one linked to craving, pleasure, and reward. Dopamine, referred to as a neurotransmitter in the brain’s reward mechanism, can be artificially released at very high levels by drugs such as heroin and cocaine, leading to euphoria. If altruism operates along the same lines, it would mean that the altruist gets the same feeling, albeit at much lower volume, as a cocaine user. The feeling becomes an incentive to help others again. Dopamine is widespread in the brain as well as the rest of the nervous system and plays a very important role in pleasure, love, libido, motivation, salience and integration of thoughts and feelings. This neurotransmitter plays a critical role in the control of movement. It has a stimulating effect on the heart, the circulation, the rate of metabolism, and is able to mobilize many of the body’s energy reserves. It helps to modulate brain activity, control coordination and movement, and regulate the flow of information to different areas of the brain. Dopamine is believed to release chemicals that allow us to feel pleasure (e. g. , endorphins). A massive disturbance of dopamine regulation in the brain can result in a person no longer being able to respond emotionally or express his or her feelings in an appropriate way (e. g. , schizophrenia). Our brains release favorable hits of dopamine when we engage in selfless behavior. Some individuals may be more genetically predisposed to altruism than others and that could be based on individual neurochemistry. This can be explained with the evidence from neuroscience. It’s said that altruism results in elevated serotonin levels as well. Serotonin happens to be the most widely studied neurotransmitter since it helps regulate a vast range of psychological and biological functions. Serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine or 5-HT) was first identified in 1948. The wide extent of psychological functions regulated by serotonin involves mood, anxiety, arousal, aggression, impulse control, and thinking abilities. Other brain chemicals, such as dopamine and norepinephrine, also influence mood and arousal along with serotonin. It is said that altruism results in elevated serotonin levels. Serotonin is a neurotransmitter and also a neuromodulator for dopamine. It can mobilize the energy reserve of the body and aid in maintaining dopamine function in brain circuits of mood and thought; mesocortical and mesolimbic pathways. Dopamine has 5 receptors and subsets of dopamine genes vary in the general population, and the study finds that a specific, common subtype is highly linked to altruistic behavior. The research, conducted at Hebrew University and other centers, was published in the journal Molecular Psychiatry in 2005. Psychologists and geneticists looked at 354 families with more than one child, measuring the individuals’ tendencies to ignore their own needs and serve the needs of others — a trait associated within dopamine genes. They then analyzed the individuals’ dopamine receptors for well-known variations, or genotypes. Their fascinating findings: the most common genetic subtype — known as the D4. 4 — was significantly linked to altruistic behavior, regardless of whether the receiver was a relative. But in general, say the scientists, this gives us the first hard evidence that many of us are indeed â€Å"hardwired† for giving. It may be that generosity feels good because it is rewarded by spikes in dopamine. The scientists even speculate that further research could reveal variations in dopamine genes that favor generosity to kin, and others that favor giving to all and thus these neurotransmitter studies give us latest information regarding both an excellent counter-argument to the ‘selfish gene’ hypothesis as well as a much more persuasive account of the possible evolutionary origins of altruism than the typical explanation like kin selection (Neimark, 2006).

Cell Phone and Anti-Social Behavior Essay

There is a great sense of irony when one comes to the realization that a device originally created to keep people connected has evolved into a device that causes a strong social divergence between one another. The mobile phone, a revolutionary concept of creating the ability to communicate with others casually as well as easily, has not only created a new era of communication, but also a supplementary social standard that has reshaped the process of human interaction between people, or lack there of. This so-called â€Å"social barrier† created by the habitual and constant use of cell phones is obvious now, more than ever. As written by Adam Burgess, modern day author of Cellular Phones, Public Fears, and a Culture of Precaution, the use of mobile telephones has completely stripped modern day culture of the interpersonal connection people once shared, when person to person correspondence was the only option available. Cell phone use has become a second-natured habit to the majority of today’s society. The preponderance of people would view someone as outlandish if he or she is living in todays world without owning a cell phone. One simple device can and does have a considerable influence on the current American culture, but with that being said, an influence such as this does not simply emerge overnight. The purpose of the mobile phone upon its creation is exactly as it sounds, to create a telephone that accessible at any time and any place. This gives people the capability of having phone conversations despite their location. Despite the fact that this is a quite obvious concept in today’s society, that wasn’t the case for consumers living about twenty years ago. How can such an incredible influence occur in such a short period of time? Evolution. As stated in Kirkley Luttman’s scholarly Health & Science article, the mobile phone was created for the single purpose of sending and receiving telephone calls on-the-go. As time goes on, this simple device becomes one that serves multiple purposes for the consumer. The first advancement in the cell phone was the enabling of text messaging; Instead of conversing via phone call, one can simply type out their desired message and send it  instantly via text to their receiver. Now people are capable of having a complete conversation read through a cell phone screen and eliminating almost all intimacy of communication. The next step of evolution is then the creation of social media. Once only intended for computer users by virtue of the world wide web, this was now accessible through a mobile phone. This evolvement also means that cell phones can now access the internet, opening up an entirely new realm of communication from the same device that could once only make a simple phon e call. According to Dr. Emily Murray and her entry in KwikMed: Cell Phones Make Us Socially Oblivious, the additional capabilities with limited time for society to adapt caused a spark of interest as well as excitement in cell phones. With a device that can now send and receive not only phone calls and text messages, but also access the internet, send and receive emails, access websites, and utilize social media, a new culture emerges. All of the new features of a cell phone have one thing in common and that is the fact that they were all created on the premise of making it effortless to communicate with others, whenever and wherever. Growing up in an age where the use of cell phones is second nature, it is obvious that people truly do communicate with one another on a constant basis. It is of high importance to update ones Facebook status, tweet about the latest trend, post a picture of the weather. It is significant to obtain the most â€Å"likes† on a post or picture or the most â€Å"retweets† on a thought. It is also crucial to constantly text message a friend, even when the content of the conversation isn’t crucial at all. Such a strong emphasis has been put on communicating with everyone via every single network and outlet available that people have begun to forget what genuine communication actually stands for. This is where the irony comes into play. Comparable to a domino effect, the use of cell phones within today’s culture has grown into so much more than what is was simply intended for. Much like any innovation, developments are made and in response, adjustments occur. Not only have cell phones created an antisocial stigma within people, but have also caused this behavior to become habitual and â€Å"second-natured.† It is obvious that human interaction has drastically changed, even in a mere  twenty years. One generation ago, owning any sort of mobile phone was a rare privilege. Even with that advantage, these devices still only served a single purpose, differing greatly from today’s cell phones. Today, a cell phone is not longer viewed as a phone, but a form of assistance in planning events, sending messages and emails, video chatting, entertainment, music, and much more. With a single device in the hands of the majority of today’s society, how can one remain as social as before the creations, development, and spread of this technology? Going beyond the more obvious arguments that have previously been addressed, cell phone use has opened up the opportunity to act in a disgraceful way without immediate sanction. According to the article, The Relationship between Technology and Cyber Bullying in The Journal of Student Wellbeing, â€Å"Due to the advent of modern communication, children are now able to harass their peers with mobile phones†¦a behavior known as cyber bullying† (Beran, 2007). Without physical confrontation with one another, brutal actions can easily occur, even anonymously at times. If this sort of behavior has become habitual to the current generation, how can a positive outcome be rationally expected? Cell phone use has not only created an antisocial environment within todays society, but also the allowance of insensitive actions without punishment. It is arguable that person to person, face to face interaction is the most sincere and most intimate form of connection. For the majority of humankind, in-person transmission was one of the few options for humans to communicate. As the way of life has changed, so have the forms of communication, but the new form of disclosure has entirely stripped the affinity of human connection. People are implausibly focused on such an artificial form of interaction. Generations will soon be born into this unnatural habit and it will become the way of life from the beginning unless society understands the importance of intimacy and the cosmetic facade that cell phones have not only created, but promoted. Socialization will forever remain as the message from one person to another, but the channel for them to do so can and will inevitably effect social behavior. The paradox that ties together cell phones and promotion of social behavior will continue to diminish the  gregarious importance of physi cal connection unless society begins to suddenly become alert to the problems cell phones have and will continue to cause.

Nazi Siezure of Power essays

Nazi Siezure of Power essays Frustration with a current administration, or concern with ones present state in society provides a strong foothold for new ideas to develop, grow and be heard. The Nazi Seizure of Power perfectly illustrates the prevailing reasons for Nazi dominance in a complex community of 4,700 inhabitants. It also serves as a relatively sized scale to explain the how Hitler and the NSDAP were able to establish their presence, and impose their dictatorship throughout all of Germany and beyond. One of history's most tragic displays of human nature and interaction was the way in which the Nazi's came to power and how they maintained it for as long as they did. We continually contemplate the psychology of Nazi Anti-Semitism and the murderous intent that arose from its growth. Yet, few question not why the Holocaust took place, but how Hitler and his radical political supporters had the capacity to infiltrate cities and impose a steadfast grip on power. It is hard to believe that ideologies struct ured around such obtrusive evil would have the ability to establish a position in politics or government, let alone maintain dominance. In times of uncertainty and uneasiness, however, people thrive on entertaining the ideals of voices that scream change. Firstly, Northeim's Nazis created their own image by their own initiative, vigor and propaganda. The main concentration in the nazi electoral surge and seizure was on the local level; to accompany this the critical figures were the local Nazi leaders. There were constant parades and meetings, which gave the impression of irresistible enthusiasm and approval. There was the vigor in the economic area which more than anything else seem to justify the dictatorship. No one was killed and very few people were sent to concentration camps from Northeim during the early years of the third Reich. On the one occasion when Ernst Girmann seemed determined to turn, the storm troopers loose on Carl Quefert and ...

Free sample - Social Networking. translation missing

Social Networking. Social NetworkingSocial Networking and How it is Changing The Way Companies Do Business Introduction In the past few years, the term social networking has become a business phenomenon. This is a process of connecting people through their friend, relatives and acquaintances. This social networking enables people to connect with others who are in their social circle for some specific reasons. In the communities, Social networking helps individuals to promote some common interests which are greatly facilitated through knowing each other. On the other hand, the business concept to the social networking is used for reasons of high growth and profitability. Some successive business societies support advertising of their business activities. The main reason why many businesses use social networking is to enable their prospective customers and members to easy connection within an organization. Also it is used to enable the potential customers to identify their matters with their service providers. For example, if a customer is looking for a house sales agent, he or she can have a reassurance that the agent will understand the client’s point of view and provide the services that are expected by the clients. This is an essay on social networking and its impacts to business and the people who uses these networks to conduct their businesses. The essay looks closely at Facebook, Myspace, LinkedIn and Twitter which have many people involved in social networks and it also discusses the advantages and disadvantages of using these social networks. Facebook Facebook is one of the social networks that connect a large number of people in the world. It was initially started and aimed at connecting college and university students with their friends from different colleges and even high schools. It has now extended its networking by incorporating companies and businesses around the world. The inventors of Facebook tend to target more users through making the social network available to the general public. Many people can join Facebook if they have some connections to certain companies or regions. A large number of businesses conducting marketing with their fan pages through advertising to consumers to find them there. It allows businesses to have profiles through which the businesses showcase their photos making Facebook a powerful marketing tool. The businesses can be able to connect to an audience of consumers to find out what they need through Facebook. It has a Group function which allows business owners to find groups of likeminded peop le to create their group to find more consumers. This is beneficial to business people as people are allowed to participate in more than one group (Sandberg S). MySpace MySpace is one of the major social networks that are used by all ages and it acquired more than 60 million people in the first three years of existence. This site is more popular than other networks because it targets teens and it is easy to use the large number of friends to meet online. Through MySpace people can create links with others who have common interests. Many businesses rely on this network because it has large number of members and its immense popularity. They use it as a place of promoting their business on daily basis. The promotion is done in the blog posts and bulletins with links to a landing page. MySpace promotes businesses because the key success of businesses the large friend base, which has many other people who are also aiming to promote some businesses. The main benefit that can be obtained from business promotion on MySpace is the cross promotion. For example, if a businessman is on MySpace and he/she tries to promote a site, a freelance writer may come in to offer his/her services to the businessman (Anderson T Chris D). Twitter Twitter began in the year 2006 as an experiment and it has an ability to instantly communicate during any situation. The Twitter, Inc. was founded in the year 2007 and it is currently a privately owned and funded company based out of San Francisco Twitter has a code for each and every account that may be pasted into the HTML code of the website. This assists in linking two parties together as it is used to gain followers on twitter who finds the website first. It also assists in invite new members from twitter to the website (IPWatchdog). It allows businesspeople to keep in touch with their potential customers. They use it to test and see how the responsive clients are to their listed promotions and compare different businesses’ methods of advertising such as blogging. Through this, they can effectively acquire clients who are interested in their business. The businesspeople can then cater their marketing plans and promotions to their most responsive audience and increase the total sales. This reduces the business costs and saves time spent in marketing audiences that do not respond. Through twitter, one is able to connect to his/her consumer audience and announce his or her sales, special offers and even promotions. Business people using twitter are also being able to connect to others in same fields through which they expand their services base. One example is a graphic and web designer who gets a printing company and a specialist in internet marketing. These three can work together hence offering extra business to each other. Also people are able to see what other people are talking about their businesses by using twitter. One can find out about the market situation and he/she may see if his/her products or services are being discussed by others. The businesspeople can be able to get an inside glimpse into the mind of the customer and they can easily learn about their competitor in the market. Twitter allows businesspeople to educate people about some unique aspects of their business and enroll them into finding you new prospects of the businesses. LinkedIn This is one of the social network sites that are centered on business. It was essentially started as means of connecting with the customers, co-workers, business partners and friends. Recently, LinkedIn network has become the hub for online networking in business. It is more professional than the above social networking sites (MySpace and Facebook). In linkedln, one may get the photos of his/her boss, some employment histories and various areas of professional specialization in business. It enables the users to connect with their business acquaintances and allows them to join fifty groups related with their business activities. The users can then engage in conversations that have legitimate value (Schepp B Schepp D. Pg 59-61). Advantages of using social networks in business The advertising power that a business can achieve is one advantage of using the social networking. The most people who make use of the social networks are the youth hence advertising through the networks is very advantageous. These young people are easily persuaded to buy some products or use some services through this advertisement. Through the advertisement, the marketing of the products that are relevant to age group is what different businesses try to target. It is cheaper to use these social networking sites for business because most of it is absolutely free. Through this networking, the businesspeople can find the potential clients and target markets in few clicks and it enhances the promotional strategies (Social networking). Another significant advantage of using social networking by businesses is the large number of people that use these networks daily. If a business owns one of these networks, it will experience many people who would need to use the site. Since relationships are important in any society, some people may fear confronting others face to face and hence the social networks are the means through which people connects and interacts freely without being scared and they can be able to share about their common business interests. Social networking is a big market for making money which is essential in human life. Disadvantages of using social networks in business A security issue is a disadvantage of using the social networking sites. For example, there are people who put virus and malwares in the sites which affect the computers. For instance, the users of MySpace who do not install the anti-malware programs to in their machines will be vulnerable to the dangerous advert programs that are posted on the site by some ill minded people. This may make the businesses to cease from using the social networks. The second disadvantage is imposters where some people take advantage of others. The networks facilitates the meeting of people and may sometime lead to undesirable acts such as rape and murder because it is not easy to determine whether the person you are communicating with is a criminal or a good person. Also, some people have used the networks to con some businesspeople (Terri L.). Solutions to the problems and recommendation The users of the social networks should install spyware and ant-virus programs on their computers and ensure that these programs are continuously updated to deal with the security threats that are found in the sites. The businesspeople should go an extra mile in determining whether the people they communicate with are legitimate customers or those who intend to con their businesses. This can be achieved by using original identification documents. How social networks make money Some of these networks allow some companies such as Google to post their advertisements and in return the companies pay some fees to these social networks. For instance, MySpace and Facebook generate a lot of dollars in revenue through its advertisements. Others get money or revenue through the payments of membership fees (Daniel G. Pg12-3). Conclusion The social networking is a growing tool and it gives the businesses and people the means to associate with others. Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and Twitter are the extensive networks which contribute to main source social networking. The use of social networking is booming and it will continue to unite different business associates. References Anderson T Chris D. (2003). MySpace. Retrieved from; Daniel G. (2006). $1 billion for facebook? Retrieved from; IPWatchdog. The importance using social networking for business; Part II-Twitter. Retrieved from; Sandberg S. (2010). Role of Advertising on Facebook. Retrieved from;   Schepp B Schepp D. (2009). How to Find a Job on LinkedIn, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter,   and Other Social Networks. McGraw-Hill Professional. Social networking. (2006). Meaning. ExplanationGuide Encycloepdia. Retrieved from; Terri L. (2006). MySpace: Crime Victims. Retrieved from;

Voting Systems in the United Kingdom Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Voting Systems in the United Kingdom - Essay Example According to this kind of voting system, the candidate who will gather either the majority or plurality of voters will ultimately win the election. The main object of this voting system is to represent the majority or plurality of voters in a particular district, locality or state.  This system can be further divided into four different types which separate the plurality and majority system of voting. The first two are commonly used plurality system of voting, while the other two are majority systems.1. Single-member district plurality voting.2. At-large voting.3. Two-round runoff voting.4. Instant runoff voting.Proportional Representation SystemAfter plurality/majority system proportional representation system is the most used voting system. This voting system seems to be the competitor of plurality/majority voting system as this system is receiving popularity and persistently being used in most of the European countries.Proportional representation system provides more accurate re presentation of parties. The basic approach of proportional representation system is to represent or show multimember district instead of a single-member district. The number of seats declared to be won by a particular party in an election is proportional to a number of votes given to that party by the voters.  Ã‚  Electoral system designers divided the proportional representation system into three basic kinds in order to achieve more accurate proportionate results of the voting.