Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Blog # 10

F
Fatema Tuz Zohora
ENG 101 – 0768
Dr. Vasileiou
Essay 03 # final
Date: 12.05.2012


Violation of Privacy in the Name of Security

Our society provides us with certain freedom and protects us from crime and threats like terrorism. Sometimes in the name of protection, however, the society infringes upon our privacy. If in the future our society finds a way to punish criminals before the crime is committed, human privacy will be desecrated and our freedom will be taken away. Especially if someone changes his mind not to commit the crime in the end, punishing them will be an injustice. In the movie Minority Report, we have seen chief officer John Anderton ready to do anything to ensure safety of the people. However when he found himself as a murderer in a future crime, then he realized that the justice system he was working  under was in fact flawed because it violated people’s privacy and did not take free will into consideration. Therefore if our society finds a way to eliminate or drastically reduce crime, terrorism and other threats, we shouldn’t do so regardless of ethical consideration of the means we will use.

If our society finds a solution to protect people and reduce crime before it happens, it will violate the privacy of innocent people and we shouldn’t let this happen. Privacy is the thought that information that is confidential that is disclosed in a private place will not be available to third parties when the information would cause embarrassment or emotional distress to a person. In the movie Minority Report, John Anderton protects the society by arresting the criminals by using pre-cog system before the crime is committed. However since every person has free will and therefore it’s impossible to know beforehand whether a person will go through with committing the crime, the pre-cog’s prediction was not the absolute truth. When John realized that the pre-cog system did not take free will into consideration, Lammer did not want people to know about that because then the system will lose its credibility. To protect his turf, Lammer used John’s private data to set him up for Leo’s murder. In the end, however, John did not commit the murder because he chose not to. Had it not because of John’s strong determinism to prove himself innocent, he would have been framed and punished for the murder. Thus even if society finds a way to predict crimes in the making, we should not allow any action to be taken because people’s privacy will be violated and innocent people may be punished.

Sometimes excessive security measures violate people’s privacy. At our airports, the security checking is tighter than ever. Now days, passengers are asked to show their ids multiple times and asked to go through a full body scanner. If the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) suspects a passenger, he must go through uncomfortable questioning and rigorous checking of his personal belongings. People feel that such extreme measures are violation of privacy as majority of the air travelers are innocent. In a different kind of scenario, police in the United States can enter a suspect’s house unannounced with a search warrant whether or not the person has committed the crime. This legal loophole causes trouble for innocent people as they did not do any wrong.  Thus security is necessary but violating people’s privacy in the name of security is not acceptable.

The term “Stop and frisk” is a strategy for police officers to reduce crime by searching people they suspect which seriously violates innocent people’s privacy. According to an article in The New York Times by Robert Stolarik, the overwhelming majority of the stops do not result in the discovery of any wrongdoing on the part of the person stooped (Stolarik, 2012). By using stop and frisk, police unfairly targets, stops and arrests African-American and Hispanic young men for trespassing. In some cases police stops women which intimidates and embarrasses them. In one instance cited in, a 17-year-old boy who lives in the Bronx described being stopped by the police and questioned after returning from buying ketchup for dinner. His mother, Jaenean Ligon, was asked by officers to go to the lobby to identify her son, who she initially feared was dead or hurt (Baker and Gardiner, 2012). Police argues that this type of method was useful to reduce crime sharply in that neighborhood. While reducing crime is important, the police must not forget the importance of respecting people’s human rights. In the case of the mother and the son, the mother’s fear for her son’s life was unfortunate and unwarranted.

In the article Police Pursuits, the author Robert E. Moore discussed the police’s extreme pursuits of criminals by using high technology which caused tremendous harassment and loss of innocent life in some cases. The advancing world of technology continues to grow and expand, so do the amount of cases involving privacy invasion. Technology drives these privacy-invading crimes; however, crime also drives technology, creating a vicious cycle. When a criminal tries to get away with a stolen car, the police usually pursue him using advanced technology. However no matter how advanced the technology is, the car chasing occurs on the road which is shared by not only the police and criminal but also by other drivers and pedestrians. In the moment of a car chase, speed limits are violated and lane changing safety measures are ignored. When a collision occurs, it usually involves a few passenger cars who were not related to the crime by any means. In worse cases, pedestrians are killed as a result of the chase. These types of events sometimes kill or injure the innocent people. In 1980’s a police officer who is now retried chased a stolen car at high speed, crashed with a third car; the driver of that car was killed and a passenger was seriously injured (Moore, 1990). Thus an innocent person lost his life and another suffered irreversible damage because of a police officer’s reckless driving in the name of safety.
            We, humans in the society are a law abiding citizens, it means that we are following the rules of law. By invading our privacy, police and government aren’t respected our rights. Many of us might be agree with that police and government are only doing this security system to protect our society. Without security and safety we would be overtaken and probably killed. I agree that in certain cases, small adjustment to safety can be better for society but excessive security and safety system would be intruded into our personal dealings. However, the Fourth Amendment is particularly states that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause....” This amendment provides that, a person has privacy and freedom which should not be violates by police or government for security.   By searching, stopping, tracking, and scanning innocent people is to invasive because it violates our fourth amendment.
In conclusion, it is never justified to take away privacy for security. If the government uses high technology such as GPS tracking, or wire tapping to prevent future crime, it gains more power over people and people lose their basic human rights of privacy. When people’s privacy is compromised, they are vulnerable to various injustices such as punishment for crime they have not committed or unwarranted harassment.  Thus extra security is not worth it when privacy and freedom is lost.





Works cited:

  1. Spielberg, Dr Steven. “Minority Report” 2002, film.
  2. Stolarik, Robert. “Stop and Frisk Policy – New York City Police Department” The New York Times. Updated Oct 17, 2012. web
  3. Baker, Al and Gardiner, Aldan. “New York Police Dept. Is sued Over Stops in Private Buildings” The New York Times, March 28, 2012. web
  4. Moore, Robert E. “Police Pursuits” July-August, 1990. Print


Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Blog # 9



Fatema Tuz Zohora
ENG 101 – 0768
Dr. Vasileiou
Essay 03 draft
Date: 12.03.2012


Violation of Privacy in the Name of Security

Our society provides us with certain freedom and protects us from crime and threats like terrorism. Sometimes in the name of protection, however, the society infringes upon our privacy. If in the future our society finds a way to punish criminals before the crime is committed, human privacy will be desecrated and our freedom will be taken away. Especially if someone changes his mind not to commit the crime in the end, punishing them will be an injustice. In the movie Minority Report, we have seen chief officer John Anderton ready to do anything to ensure safety of the people. However when he found himself as a murderer in a future crime, then he realized that the justice system he was working  under was in fact flawed because it violated people’s privacy and did not take free will into consideration. Therefore if our society finds a way to eliminate or drastically reduce crime, terrorism and other threats, we shouldn’t do so regardless of ethical consideration of the means we will use.

If our society finds a solution to protect people and reduce crime before it happens, it will violate the privacy of innocent people and we shouldn’t let this happen. In the movie Minority Report, John Anderton protects the society by arresting the criminals by using pre-cog system before the crime is committed. However since every person has free will and therefore it’s impossible to know beforehand whether a person will go through with committing the crime, the pre-cog’s prediction was not the absolute truth. When John realized that the pre-cog system did not take free will into consideration, Lammer did not want people to know about that because then the system will lose its credibility. To protect his turf, Lammer used John’s private data to set him up for Leo’s murder. In the end, however, John did not commit the murder because he chose not to. Had it not because of John’s strong determinism to prove himself innocent, he would have been framed and punished for the murder. Thus even if society finds a way to predict crimes in the making, we should not allow any action to be taken because people’s privacy will be violated and innocent people may be punished.

Sometimes excessive security measures violate people’s privacy. At our airports, the security checking is tighter than ever. Now days, passengers are asked to show their ids multiple times and asked to go through a full body scanner. If the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) suspects a passenger, he must go through uncomfortable questioning and rigorous checking of his personal belongings. People feel that such extreme measures are violation of privacy as majority of the air travelers are innocent. In a different kind of scenario, police in the United States can enter a suspect’s house unannounced with a search warrant whether or not the person has committed the crime. This legal loophole causes trouble for innocent people as they did not do any wrong.  Thus security is necessary but violating people’s privacy in the name of security is not acceptable.

The term “Stop and frisk” is a strategy for police officers to reduce crime by searching people they suspect which seriously violates innocent people’s privacy. According to an article in The New York Times by Robert Stolarik, the overwhelming majority of the stops do not result in the discovery of any wrongdoing on the part of the person stooped (Stolarik, 2012). By using stop and frisk, police unfairly targets, stops and arrests African-American and Hispanic young men for trespassing. In some cases police stops women which intimidates and embarrasses them. In one instance cited in, a 17-year-old boy who lives in the Bronx described being stopped by the police and questioned after returning from buying ketchup for dinner. His mother, Jaenean Ligon, was asked by officers to go to the lobby to identify her son, who she initially feared was dead or hurt (Baker and Gardiner, 2012). Police argues that this type of method was useful to reduce crime sharply in that neighborhood. While reducing crime is important, the police must not forget the importance of respecting people’s human rights. In the case of the mother and the son, the mother’s fear for her son’s life was unfortunate and unwarranted.

In the article Police Pursuits, the author Robert E. Moore discussed the police’s extreme pursuits of criminals which caused tremendous harassment and loss of innocent life in some cases. When criminal tries to get away with a stolen car, the police usually pursue him using advanced technology. However no matter how advanced the technology is, the car chasing occurs on the road which is shared by not only the police and criminal but also by other drivers and pedestrians. In the moment of a car chase, speed limits are violated and lane changing safety measures are ignored. When a collision occurs, it usually involves a few passenger cars who were not related to the crime by any means. In worse cases, pedestrians are killed as a result of the chase. These types of events sometimes kill or injure the innocent people. In 1980’s a police officer who is now retried chased a stolen car at high speed, crashed with a third car; the driver of that car was killed and a passenger was seriously injured (Moore, 1990). Thus an innocent person lost his life and another suffered irreversible damage because of a police officer’s reckless driving in the name of safety.
           
In conclusion, it is never justified to take away privacy for security. If the government uses high technology such as GPS tracking, or wire tapping to prevent future crime, it gains more power over people and people lose their basic human rights of privacy. When people’s privacy is compromised, they are vulnerable to various injustices such as punishment for crime they have not committed or unwarranted harassment.  Thus extra security is not worth it when privacy and freedom is lost.

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Blog # 8



FREE WILL AND DETERMINISM


     Free will discuses ones ability to choose their decision with their own choice where determinism discuses the idea that all of ones decision are premeditated. Every person has free will. They have right to choose what’s good or bad for them. If the future is predetermined, there is no way to change the outcome of something that has already been determined. In the movie Minority Report, Oedipus the King and “Free Will and Determinism in the World of Minority Report” portrays ways in how we can determine whether humans have control over free will or not.

     In the passage, “free will and determinism in the world of minority report” explained that, free will is required two things alternate possibilities and self control. It mentions robot which lacks of free will because it lacks alternate possibilities. It controls its own actions according to a definite program, but when it comes to humans they almost have alternate possibilities and self controls. In the play, Oedipus was predetermined to kill his father where three roads meet. He met a herald and a horse drawn carriage and inside there was an old man. The old man lashed out him and shoving him aside. Oedipus had choice to walk away but he could not control his anger. That means Oedipus had alternate possibilities to walk away and self control to control his temper.

      In Minority report, the pre-crime system punished criminals who haven’t committed crimes yet. This system is better for mankind but there raise one question that is it unjust to punish someone for what who he is not responsible for? In the movie, the pre-crime police explain that, “the fact that you prevented it from happening doesn’t change the fact that is going to happen”. Therefore, preventing these predetermined futures from happening doesn’t mean the course of the event can’t be changed. If there is free will in certain extent therefore hard determinism is a threat to free will.

     Michael Huemer explains that “Free will and Determinism in the world of minority report” there are two levels of determinism, hard determinism and soft determinism. Soft determinism is true and yet we have free will anyway (Huemer106) and hard determinism where we have no free will and our future is predetermined. In the movie and the play these two determinism are taking place. In the movie “Minority report” John future was predetermined and he will be murderer of Leo crow. He choose to face his future. According to the pre-crime, there only one future is possible that he will commit a murder. However, he had his free will to choose whether he wants to kill him or not and he decide to not to kill Leo. “One thing that is often said is that when we make choices, at least some of the time, we directly, introspectively aware of our freedom” (Huemer108). Therefore in this situation soft determinism is taking place. In the play, Oedipus was predicted to kill his father Laius and marry his mother Jocasta. He tried to escape his future but he did not change his destiny. He did not had any other options to avoid killing his father because he did not know that Laius his biological father. Regarding this hard determinism is taking place because Oedipus didn’t a criminal and he did not had free will to change his future.
    Overall it can be said that Oedipus and john faces the choice between free will and determinism. They both have free will to change their lives. John Anderton choose to not to kill the Leo and Oedipus had options to choose another fate but he choose the wrong one; there was only determinism in which he had no alternate possibilities.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

BLOG # 7



Fatema tuz zohora

Eng 101-0786

Dr. Vasileiou

Blog 07

Date: 10.24.2012

Allegory of the cave

In Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, Socrates states that humans were trapped their whole life in a cave. Humans were chained in cave and can only see right in front of them. They had a fire burning behind them, and they saw shadows of people walking by carrying odd shaped objects. They knew nothing but these shadows and truly do belief they were real. One day one of the prisoners released and let out into the real world. His eyes were dazzled and could not see anything. After a few moments he had experienced many different things like the sun light that burned his eyes, as he finally got his sight back it became clear to him that what he believed was the real world was only his imagination. When he ran back to the cave to tell the other prisoners, they didn’t believe him. They thought that he was being crazy and they did not allow him live in the cave. In my opinion, our life is controlled by just like puppet show. People today are still kept in the dark by the government, and television and the media. They don’t believe what the reality is, they don’t find the truth, they just live on lie.

In pre Islamic Arabia, women had no rights. They were not considered equal to man and even if women gave birth to girl, people in Arabia killed the infant girl. A female baby was considered a disgrace to the family and female infanticide was a common response. Female baby was thought to be evil, many of them were sold or buried alive. There many people today believe that women are not equal and women have no rights to speech and women have no rights to live in the world. Women have rights to give birth to children and produce male offspring and also do their household work. Today people in many Islamic countries change their thoughts. Women are now getting education. People are giving the rights to women do job and also female baby killing is now less. So today these illusion become wrong to people. Few people who are not get enlightened by education they believe these illusion.

So in conclusion, today world is similar to plato's cave and prisoners are the humans and shadow was the family, government, TV, radio, newspaper, and internet and many more things. People don't want to believe outside the world and they don't want to move forward. We are blinded by the monstrous hands of the government. Media we view could possibly have been censored by the government, so we are actually viewing what the government wants us to see, not the original article or film. So Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” is very relevant to society today.

 

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Blog 6

A man cannot escape his destiny
The myth of Oedipus revolves around a man destined to suffer a horrible fate. He was born in a wealthy family but had little control over how he would take control of the wealth. He was born when both his parents were alive but was responsible for their eventual death. He was born with eye sight but was the reason for becoming blind. It was his destiny that propelled him toward those unfortunate circumstances despite his several attempt to escape those.
Oedipus’ first destiny was that he lived despite his parents’ wishes. When his parents learnt that their son would kill the father and marry the mother, they gave him away to have him killed. Unfortunately the prospective be killer pitied on the child and let him live. Thus Oedipus starts his childhood in Cornith although he was born in Thebes. This paves a path toward his ultimate destiny.
As a grown up when he learnt about his destiny, he tried to escape it by leaving Cornith. Little did he know that the Polybus and mother Merope were only his foster parents in Cornith. His ignorance that his actual parents lived in Thebes where he chose to start a new life made his attempt to escape his fate futile. In his words, “it was my fate to defile my mother’s bed, to bring forth to men a human family that people could not bear to look upon, to murder the father who endangered me”. (951-954). Despite his desperate measures to escape it, he started his journey to fulfilling the Oracle’s prophecy.
On his way to Thebes, Oedipus engaged in a fight with his father King Laius. Not knowing that it was his own father, he killed King Laius and his companions. When he finally arrived in Thebes, he solved the sphinx riddle and became the king of Thebes and married his mother Jocasta. After many years, when there was a deadly plague was ruining peoples lives, people came to Oedipus for help. Oedipus then sent Creon to the temple of Apollo to find the destiny of Thebes. He found out that it was the killer of the King Laius who was responsible for the plague. Alas he was yet to know that it was him who killed King Laius.
Even after Teiresias informed Oedipus that he was King Laius’ killer, he was not convinced. He continued to deny that his actions caused the plague in Thebes. Furthermore when Creon supported Teiresias’ prophecy, Oedipus humiliated both of them. This also is an indication that Oedipus’s fate was to marry his own mother and eventually be the reason of her death. He started to realize what might have happened only after Jocasta confirmed that “Oracle said Laius was fated to be killed by a child conceived by him and me” (857-858). At this point, there was nothing else that Oedipus could do to save his father.
However he could have saved his mother’s life by listening to her when she pleaded not to call upon the shepherd who was commissioned to kill him as a child. Alas he did not heed and confirmed that it was none but him who was the murderer of his father. When truth became apparent, his mother committed suicide and a sense of tremendous guilt engulfed him. He punished himself by taking his own eye-sight which further proved the accuracy of Teiresias’ prediction “those in the world below and those….from this land in exile. Those eyes of yours….clearly will be dark” (503-507). Thus the fate of Oedipus came to a full circle when he not only ruined his parent’s lives but also his own.
In conclusion, we can say that no one can change his destiny. Oedipus tried to change his fate more than once but he failed every time.


Monday, October 15, 2012

Blog # 5


Fatema Tuz Zohora

ENGL 101 – 0768

Dr. Vasileiou

Essay 01

Date: 10.15.2012

The feud between the Superhuman and ‘the other’

Genetic engineering is a term that some people associate with living a healthier life while others associate with meddling with human life form as we know it. Some people think that it is a way to live life at its fullest and others think that it is playing God. If used properly, genetic engineering can improve peoples’ lives by removing diseases from our bodies. At the same time, it can also remove our flaws and weaknesses that make us human. If we create genetically superior human, ‘the other’ human or the people who are born without any superior abilities would not support them.  On the other hand, the superior human may consider themselves entitled to take advantage of’ the other’ humans because they are not as capable as themselves. In Gattaca, we have seen an ordinary man Vincent to succumb to the circumstances and pose as Jerome Morrow in order to fulfill his dream to travel to the space. Although he did not commit any murder, he did disrupt the peace in the utopia known as Gattaca. So if created genetically engineered humans would seek to control their counterparts or destroy them. Thus a feud will ensue between these two groups. Historically similar feuds have caused loss of many lives.

         If genetically engineered represent the superior humans, they would seek to control the other and the superior humans want to take benefit from other people who were not genetically proved. This is so because super human would consider the others as “subhuman”. When we look back, the religious crusades that took place in the past, we see that a group or a missionary considered that people in a certain region were not enlightened and thus needed a new religion or a culture. The dominant group first tried convincing the sub humans verbally then forcibly and in the worst case annihilated them mercilessly. When Christopher Columbus conquered the new world inhabited by native people, he treated them as savages and took many lives. In Gattaca, there were two types of people – valid and invalid. The valid were genetically engineered, had no illnesses and possessed superior physical and mental abilities. The invalid were naturally born “God Children” who had flaws and were prone to illnesses. The superior believed that the invalid did not belong in their society and thus systematically restricted their access to opportunities in life. In order to attain the highest success in life, one must be born as valid in Gattaca. Otherwise a life full of humiliation and misery awaits the invalid. These two examples were Columbus and Gattaca society who thought that they were superior and tried to seek control over other.

No one likes a life of misery; especially when that person does not have any control over the situation. In a society where a group of people seek to dominate the others, sometimes the reaction of ‘the other’ is nothing but violence. We worship our football heroes, our actors, and famous people but if all of heroes came from genetically engineered children, the rest of us may not revere them as much. Instead we may resent their success as we cannot aspire to be like them. Similarly if using of genetic engineering enabled us to invent cancer drugs, it is unlikely that the drug will be free and will be accessible to ordinary people. In such a situation, the ordinary people will have no choice but to fight for their lives whether it is by stealing money to buy the drug or stealing the drug itself. The peace in the society will be disrupted though by the weaker group of people. In the essay, “The Man on the Moon” George J Annas explained that humans could be become immortal if their body functions were performed by machines but this will be the eradication of both human body and mind. So genetic engineering altering our genes, bring the gift of immortality to our species has placed us risk.

          In conclusion we should consider genetic engineering a risky science. The risk is in the hands of people who use this. We can use the science to cure diseases and grow better crops but we can also create an artificial scarcity of basic human necessities by restricting access to them to the less fortunate. Under no circumstances should we create a superior version of human as it is destined to create unrest in society. We should use this great science for the greater good of humanity where all people can live alongside each other with no concerns of being oppressed by the others.

 

                                                          

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Blog # 4


Fatema Tuz Zohora

ENGL 101 – 0768

Dr. Vasileiou

Essay 01

Date: 10.10.2012

The feud between the Superhuman and ‘the other’

Genetic engineering is a term that some people associate with living a healthier life while others associate with meddling with human life form as we know it. Some people think that it is a way to live life at its fullest and others think that it is playing God. If used properly, genetic engineering can improve peoples’ lives by removing diseases from our bodies. At the same time, it can also remove our flaws and weaknesses that make us human. If we create genetically superior human, ‘the other’ human or the people who are born without any superior abilities would not support them.  On the other hand, the superior human may consider themselves entitled to take advantage of’ the other’ humans because they are not as capable as themselves. In Gattaca, we have seen an ordinary man Vincent to succumb to the circumstances and pose as Jerome Morrow in order to fulfill his dream to travel to the space. Although he did not commit any murder, he did disrupt the peace in the utopia known as Gattaca. So if created genetically engineered humans would seek to control their counterparts or destroy them. Thus a feud will ensue between these two groups. Historically similar feuds have caused loss of many lives.

         If genetically engineered represent the superior humans, they would seek to control the other and the superior humans want to take benefit from other people who were not genetically proved. This is so because super human would consider the others as “subhuman”. When we look back, the religious crusades that took place in the past, we see that a group or a missionary considered that people in a certain region were not enlightened and thus needed a new religion or a culture. The dominant group first tried convincing the sub humans verbally then forcibly and in the worst case annihilated them mercilessly. When Christopher Columbus conquered the new world inhabited by native people, he treated them as savages and took many lives. In Gattaca, there were two types of people – valid and invalid. The valid were genetically engineered, had no illnesses and possessed superior physical and mental abilities. The invalid were naturally born “God Children” who had flaws and were prone to illnesses. The superior believed that the invalid did not belong in their society and thus systematically restricted their access to opportunities in life. In order to attain the highest success in life, one must be born as valid in Gattaca. Otherwise a life full of humiliation and misery awaits the invalid. These two examples Columbus and Gattaca were society who thought that they were superior and tried to seek control over other.

No one likes a life of misery; especially when that person does not have any control over the situation. In a society where a group of people seek to dominate the others, sometimes the reaction of ‘the other’ is nothing but violence. We worship our football heroes, our actors, and famous people but if all of heroes came from genetically engineered children, the rest of us may not revere them as much. Instead we may resent their success as we cannot aspire to be like them. Similarly if using of genetic engineering enabled us to invent cancer drugs, it is unlikely that the drug will be free and will be accessible to ordinary people. In such a situation, the ordinary people will have no choice but to fight for their lives whether it is by stealing money to buy the drug or stealing the drug itself. The peace in the society will be disrupted though by the weaker group of people. In the essay, “The man on the moon” George J Annas explained that humans could be become immortal if their body functions were performed by machines but this will be the eradication of both human body and mind. So genetic engineering altering our genes, bring the gift of immortality to our species has placed us risk.

In present, scientists use genetic engineering to create better animals and food. But the genetic engineering food is an expensive technology. The farmers of developing countries could not be able to afford this. If all people will buy genetically modified food, the farmers of the world will causes genocidal destruction. Genetically engineering food will not be good for people’s health. It will create risk to people’s life expectancy. In the essay, Annas also explained that if these processes also apply to children or embryos improving their memory, immunity, strength and characteristics. This is dangerous for children because its poses a threat to children of treating them as manufactured products and also there are surgical ways to achieve this goal. So we should regulate species endangering experiments.

          In conclusion we should consider genetic engineering a risky science. The risk is in the hands of people who use this. We can use the science to cure diseases and grow better crops but we can also create an artificial scarcity of basic human necessities by restricting access to them to the less fortunate. Under no circumstances should we create a superior version of human as it is destined to create unrest in society. We should use this great science for the greater good of humanity where all people can live alongside each other with no concerns of being oppressed by the others.