Lars Moss - IB3

A Belief to Be Seen: The Divide Between Engineering and Medicine

Ideally, two of the more important of today’s industries would do well to collaborate – if not immediately – for the sake of entrepreneurship, innovation, and discovery for the good of society. While this belief is seemingly apparent, it isn’t at all inherent, especially between the greatest of offenders: medical professionals and engineers. From electrical to agricultural (with possible, though momentary exception towards biomedical engineers), and from surgeons to practitioners on the side of medicine, there exists a major difference of ideals that creates a significant rift in the way medical innovation and use is brought about, an issue that not only exists due in thanks to reasons of ethics and expense, but as well processes of industry, use-inspiration, and immediacy therein. The issue lies not in that the two disciplines are fundamentally different, rather that the differences consistently affect their necessary collaboration. With the rising use and acceptance of technology as an inherent medium to both generations now and to come, the issue extends to the point where the apparent disconnect takes center stage.

            A significant point first lies in how the two professions are even brought about – the education of one is, of course, very much different from the other. While an engineer may simply earn a bachelors, all the way to a Ph.D., a medical professional (in this case, earning the professional title of “doctor") requires, at least in the United States and a number of other countries, a bachelors and four plus years of medical school. The additional training is made that much more obvious by the different approaches made by both fields, and in fact, many engineers who don’t seek an advanced degree are whisked straight away into industry with little bearing in the field of medicine. But, among those engineers appointed for research-like endeavors, the state of the education given to professionals of both fields, although a significant flaw, may not be the greatest to blame for the lack of conscious effort to properly collaborate.

           

            Perhaps what lies to be easiest to blame exists in the perception of all those involved and affected by medicine today. This is to say that despite the ethics and constraints that engineers research and create technology towards, whether that be artificial limbs, organs, or transplant materials, there still exists and element of use and an extra set of ethical standards that doctors and surgeons are made to use. The efforts of both engineers and scientists in today’s world and its economy, citizenship and entitlement therein opposes and loses the product of these innovations long before they can reach the operating table.

IB3 Joana Sipe

“The WhOile Truth” or “A Crude-Oily Run Society”

            Oil has many predisposed stereotypes and roles in society; it is penned as black gold or the root of all environment degradation, is simply known as gasoline, and is also the fuel to run the world’s ongoing machine.  Everything in the world’s cultural and intellectual world is a cycle. The oil cycle is one of the most prominent and influential of them, yet it is not taught to the public, instead oil acts as an underlying subject that most of the public is not educated well enough upon to fathom how great of an impact it implements on their lives. Oil not only “cycles” as a nonrenewable resource, but cycles the entire economy and nearly every function people take for granted. The cycling debate of oil running lives is relevant since it has become a growing menace that is predicted to become more controversial, has current stakeholders in multiple aspects of life, including the elusive general public, and creates relevant issues since it affects every aspect of each person’s life, especially the one whom has no voice: Earth.

            All sources of energy primarily from the sun, the same is of oil. Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons in the form of coal (soild), oil (liquid), and natural gas (methane) that are created by the compression and anaerobic decay of microscopic Jurassic-age plant, algae, and animal remains in the crust of the earth.  Environmentalists and scientists state that fossil fuels exist in a finite amount and are a nonrenewable resource since the amount of oil that is being  drilled and utilized today has been stored and since before humans were present on the Earth and takes millions of years to correctly be “pressure cooked” to the form of oil used.  However, though it is a finite resource that must be conserved many businessmen and politicians state that since it is stored underground and does renew, even though it is at a ridiculously slow-rate, that oil will never run out.  This is true if oil was used in moderation, which is not the case since dependence of oil is increasing at an exponential rate.

            Oil is the root of all of the issues that are exponentially deteriorating the earth such as the loss of rainforests, many impacts of global warming, air pollution, water pollution, soil degradation and numerous more.  Last spring, 388 ppm of carbon dioxide (the most polluting by-product of the burning of fossil fuels) was in the environment, as of today there are 392 ppm CO2.  In less than six months the amount of carbon dioxide released in the environment grew by 4ppm when the accepted amount that is tolerable for the earth is 350 ppm.  According to Hubbert’s peak, coined by M. King Hubbert the geophysicist of Shell Oil in 1956, Oil well extraction would reach a peak in 1970 and drop from that point.  However, that is not the case sadly, it is increasing at an exponential rate that the earth is not able to tolerate anymore and is bound to show an critical occurrence in the next 30-70 years.

IB 3 - Laura Beckwith: Crowd Source

(These are the first core paragraphs, not including my opening paragraph.)

Living in America in the 21^st century has so many different aspects than figuring out the solution to the world’s biggest problems or finding the “greenest” car. Everything that we see not just here in America, but around the globe has been represented in a visual presentation through media, advertising, billboards, trailers or virtually any other way of presenting something visually. So what does that mean for the every day person? How does it affect them? One of the main ways that crowdsourcing design work can impact the viewer is that the quality of the work will be shifted.

When an advertisement is being created, it needs to be taken into account how much time someone will spend looking at it. Our world is so fast paced, that the average amount of time that is spent focused on a billboard is less than 5 seconds, for an advertisement in a magazine often less than 15 and that’s if it’s an interesting advertisement. How can a designer make something that not only illustrates what the company is requesting, but also grabs the attention of the crowd.

What happens when an advertisement is put together without focusing on the details? If it’s too crowded, does that make the presentation catch the eye more, or does it simply confuse people’s minds? Think about it, when a room is really messy, clothes all over the place, piles of papers, trash scattered around, the tendency as humans that we have is to want to clean it up. If something is too messy, it becomes difficult to function or find anything in the room. This same concept can be applied to the design in advertising, if something is too busy it becomes distracting. The message can become jumbled beneath the visual noise.

Why not crowd source? One of the main reasons coming from a designer is that often, crowd sourced designs have a tendency to be busy. Not often, but more so than not because they have not received proper training. Now what does it mean, proper training? Proper training means they haven’t studied the basic principles in design, how shapes interact, how to create a logo with accurate hues and values.

For many companies, crowd sourcing is a way to get multiple different, fast results. When researching this topic, this perspective was discovered in an article titled, Crowdsource Your Next Program Design. In the article, Mary Andrade stated, “Through crowdsourcing, they found a faster, better way to drive higher quality results that would be supported by stakeholders before significant investment was made. It all started with an urgent request regarding a new hire orientation. The primary stakeholder felt strongly that a module needed to be redesigned, and quickly.” Companies might not always have the time to sit around and wait for a designer to show their work. Often, they need a result quickly, without having time to fully explain what they might be looking for in a product. Getting a job done quickly may be more important than the care that is taken with creating it.

Cost is a huge factor as well. Let’s face it, in the world today with the economic stance of the United States, every penny counts. If it’s between hiring a designer on staff full time or to complete a project or simply sending out a message to say “hey see what you 100 designers can do with this concept” and picking parts and pieces of a design. More than likely for the price it will be more appealing to chose from many different ideas rather than just a few. A challenge that comes up with using a website such as 99design is when designers upload their projects, often they get responses such as the following, “Please try adding a small fire (proportional to the teepee) in the front right of the teepee with small wisps of smoke going up.” Nate2929 requested in the Ashley Valley Wilderness logo design contest. If this were a conversation between the company and a designer, there wouldn’t be a problem. However, there was no specific request made to an individual, which meant that any designer could perhaps “use” another designer’s logo, adding in a fire next to the teepee and then end up “winning” the contest. A problem with crowd sourcing design work is that it can end up leading to theft of intellectual property.

            Designers across the country and around the world are constantly up in arms about this issue. A majority of designers, think of crowd sourcing to be a problem, others don’t see the harm in it and some truly don’t have a preference. Right here in Phoenix. Jesus M. Garcia posted a link to a “design contest” that the city of Phoenix was put up for the signs that hang in downtown Phoenix off of the lampposts. “Whenever anyone sees examples of crowd sourcing like this we as designers need to shed light on it within our community and contact organizations like AIGA so the issue can be addressed. This way it becomes more about educating our clients/potential clients rather than critiquing a misdirected action.” Ryan Lowye posted in response to the issue. Ryan brings up an excellent point.  Another designer, Megan, said “A while ago I saw some terrible outdoor media for Oregano’s. They’re a victim of crowdsourcing. It’s just as bad as outsourcing (in the creative industry). In effort to save money they obtain creative that is lacking. It’s unfortunate on both sides. We miss out on employment opportunities & the clients images suffer because bad copy/design is tainting their brand.” 
           Both of these designers brought up some interesting perspectives. Ryan pointed out that as designers, when an issue of crowd sourcing is discovered, it should be brought up so to stop it. If something is never talked about, how will anyone learn about the problem? 
           An example of a misunderstood problem, while it’s still a touch topic, is with the KONY 2012 campaign. Invisible Children received a lot of hate for making a video, but not really going the extra mile to make something happen. However, what many people don’t realize is that the intention of Invisible Children was never for the organization, to personally do anything. Their main purpose was to spread awareness of something that they feel is a social issue that needed to be addressed through means of media production. While crowd sourcing is no where near the issue child soldiers, just as Invisible Children raised awareness on what is going on in Africa, regardless of if they went about it the best way or not, the same thing needs to happen within the design field. As Megan commented, crowd sourcing not only puts designers out of work, but it also harms the company!
 

Lars Moss - IB2

Fact of the matter is, being an engineer, and being a medical professional are not all that much different until you boil down to the ethics of decision-making. While doctors and the like go through lawmakers, insurance policies, other specialists and their higher ups, usually an engineer's decisions are based entirely on his or her project constraints or the patent office. While I believe finding these two paths of  belief and decision to be consolidated and made more streamlined for the betterment of healthcare, a stasis to my argument would be that the way medical professionals and engineers work should remain fundamentally separated , or should rarely, if ever coincide and keep their beliefs and practices as strictly their own.

Conjecture:
So, the topic begins where belief systems affect healthcare decisions for each party - but how do they? Machines, principals and procedures may be concocted by an engineer but all the same by a doctor, so the conjecture should be made at the point where the logistics of these two ends of the spectrum diverge. One - presumably engineers - must rely on ingenuity and diving around fixed constraints and design standpoints, the other deals more with risk management and keeping said risk as low as possible for the safety of the patient. Belief systems keep these things in check and are the very principle both parties work by.

Definition:
Belief system - a set of values, principles, and postulates that aids decision making in a hopefully non-linear matter and/or solving issues by use of more or less systematic viewpoints. The definition holds true closer to engineers, as systems of belief is more or less a term native to engineering. Those in medicine do follow something similar, but it's far more systematic and carefully done.

Value:
As in the definition, the value of bringing these things together, as is desired in one viewpoint, is that the consolidation - either one to the other, or something completely new - less complicates medical innovation. Losing the methodic barrier between two vital parties means a greater influx of not only valuable items, but valuable ideas that arrive at the blueprint and go even further than the operating table.

Policy:
One loses policy and one gains - it happens when you swap the way each party works on their own. In the case of the sort of nondisjunction that goes on between the two comes the issue in which both parties can't do much but question the methods of the other whenever something that requires both their efforts comes to the table. It's either, "It's in our policy" or, "There is no policy for that." where the two endlessly hit the wall.

Of course, I personally am all for buddy-buddy to the two parties - even if it's more of a transparent issue, and even a monetary one - it's still something that's asked everytime some new medical device comes to the table - to prescribe it, diagnose it, suggest it, etc - but there are of course ways to go against it. Money is, of course one way to do so, but interfering with one pattern of thought could actually demolish productivity and innovation - it's to say that entrepreneurship, a thing that could possibly be lost in transition, is still pretty important. Though, through some if any means, I do think more cooperation is necessary.

IB 2: Finding Statis in My Critical Situation

When it comes to genetic engineering, the issues of development, distribution, and equality can cause conflicting arguments. Looking more specifically at the development of genetic engineering, one can easily notice the opportunity to use methods that some many deem unethical. Within this topic, it is easy to understand that the end goal is to genetically modify the human genome. How does one go about that? You need living organisms to test theories and hypotheses; does one use bacteria? Plants? Animals? Humans? I would say all organisms should be studied, however many would disagree. Stasis can be reached when discussing the benefits that genetic engineering could to lead to. No one can deny that this is a feasible way to combat diseases and chronic illnesses.

Conjecture:

Does genetic engineering exist? Yes, but not quite the level of genetic engineering that I am referring to. So far we’ve dealt with plants, bacteria, and barely touched the surface with animals. I am talking specifically about human beings, and once that level is reached; ethical problems will occur.

Definition:

Like stated before, I defined genetic engineering as the modification of the human genome. Don’t get me wrong, genetically engineering all other life is important (it is all T’s, A’s, G’s, and C’s), however ethical problems arrive in abundance when humans are involved.

Value:

Since the topic is, “Ethics of Genetic Engineering,” most issues will deal with being just or unjust. There is a lot of good that can occur because of advancement in genetic engineering, however, the “worth” of getting there and the, “bad” that can come out of it is where most of the issues can occur.

Policy:

Policy, much like politics, can boil down to what you specifically believe in and then going on from there. If you take a stance where you think the advancement and distribution of genetic engineering should be regulated, then you are going to come with regulations as your policy. To answer the question, “What should we do?” I shall answer, depends on your viewpoint.

I thought about a way to boil down the positions and I ended up with a list of variations using the words: yes, no, and kind of, in response to the topics of advancement and implementation. However, these variations seem redundant to list out so I will refrain from doing so (in other words, I’m lazy). Value will be the most important category when thinking about Genetic Engineering because of the topic of ethics. As for my own position, I would put myself into the, “Advancement of Genetic Engineering without bound but regulated or limited distribution,” category.

(Note: I'll get pictures up soon becaus everybody likes pictures!)

IB2 Finding an Oil Stasis Joana Sipe

                Stasis, a word implying motionless in state or development, tries hands in the form of rhetoric to the point of agreement between different stakeholders and their claims to the issue at hand.  In the world of crude oil, a “crude” issue is at hand.  Money is an undeniable stakeholder that many, including myself, take for granted without outwardly acknowledging its run of society.  For example, the business stakeholders believe it will cost the economy too much money to switch to alternative fuels while environmentalists believe the cost is worthwhile in the long run to saving our planet.  In my stance, or claim, on the issue I would reach a point of stasis between these three stakeholders in which funds of compensation would be given to dispute the “extra” cost of utilizing green fuels rather than oil.

                Beginning with Conjecture, the oil crisis does in fact exist.  Since fossil fuels are non-renewable resources and exist underground at finite numbers even a steady consumption rate would cause eventual over-exhortation.  How many years of this oil run life do we have left, and what are our options for the future?  While many people are delusional that such a problem exists, research states that oil will run out between 2025 and 2070.  However, this is not a new statement for oil has been expected to run out and has been rapidly depleting at an exponential rate since the 1990’s.   

                Oil is defined as a fossil fuel that takes millions of years to create by plant and animal remains and transformed into oil by intense pressure between bedrock and the layers of soil above.  This would classify oil as a non-renewable resource and a large problem since our society is defined by the automobile and electricity and technology and even our food is run by oil companies.  Alternative Fuels such as solar energy , wind energy or even biofuels are created by more sustainable sources of energy such as the sun and wind and food/plants in our Earth.

While I was searching different researcher blogs online such as oildrum.org, I stumbled upon a blog of a woman named Molly Eagen who is attempting to live 100 days without oil.  This enlightened me even more so upon the value of oil in every aspect of our society.   “This era in history may be remembered as the "Peak Age," a brief time when nearly all materials used to power and create our society reach the maximum extraction and production potential. Past this point, all of these resources become increasingly difficult to extract until they are no longer economically viable resources. There are hundreds of examples of resources, currently embedded in our industrial society, which have reached their peak in the 50 years surrounding 2010, but the one which will most impact our society is petroleum. The goal of living for 100 Days Without Oil is to understand the extent of our dependence on oil in American society today. Specifically how it will affect my life, as a 25 year old living in Minneapolis, MN. By using myself as a metric I can take a close and conscious look at where oil dependence occurs in all aspects of my daily lives: How we transport ourselves from one place to another, what we eat, how much waste we create, how water is cleaned and transported, where oil is used as an energy resource, in conventional medicine and for hygiene and how oil affects how we entertain ourselves and communicate with others. By demonstrating how someone would be forced to live without using any oil resources, outlining both what the sacrifices will be as well as the benefits, we can identify the many systems which will have to be re-designed in a world without cheap oil, and explore a new way of living in which we live in an energy balance.”   A link to her blog and further description of her experimental project is in this link: http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/100-days-without-oil-molly-eag-125193

Policies that should be taken encompass alternative fuels.  Other forms of energy must be implemented in order to sustain the Earth and all life upon it.  Conservation of energy and upgrading technology to be more oil conscious would help as well.  There are many more other policies that could be taken but more research upon the subject will be needed until then.

I found that I am becoming too biased on the “green revolution” and “oil is evil” issue and I need to take all stakeholder stances and become a more neutral investigator.  I need to research deeply more solutions and policies as well as put myself in some oil company shoes as well, think as a skeptic would and investigate.  There is always more research to behold.  A skeptic would believe that oil will never run out and nothing will happen to the Earth and an oil company would state that our economy is based on oil and it would plummet without it.  Evidence mostly on economic issues and proof that oil is a finite resource and its effect on the environment will help my claim along with how alternative fuels are worth the investment now rather than later when it is too late.

Laura Beckwith - Invention Blog 2

found on google

Social Media: 

Many sites such as Facebook, youtube and flickr are used by people across the board from many different backgrounds and areas using these sites. Flickr and YouTube are used to share personal, professional, amateur and aspiring videos and photos. Facebook is for sharing personal videos and endeavors. But where and how are the lines drawn between what the web company, such as Facebook, have the right to use images from their users? This could be considered in a way crowd sourcing. 
While they are not openly asking people to submit photos, designs, or personal property, when users sign up for a Facebook account, they agree to giving up a certain amount of their "right" to images, stated within the "term of agreement" that many overlook. 
What is to stop them from taking an image and using it for their own advertising purposes without giving someone credit, payment, or directly requesting the right to use said image. Everything that is put online is technically public, does anyone really "own" anything that is put online? From Facebook's stand point, they don't really have any use for the millions of images that users post. But what about a local high school's yearbook? If they notice they don't have images of a specific student, or they need a "cool background image" what stops them from simply going and using other peoples property? 

advertisement to raise awareness for Breast Cancer

Advertising: 

In advertising, there are endless possibilities for opposing sides on crowd sourcing. "Good design" is expensive. 
- Designers don't always have to have gone to a university or program to be able to design projects well. But there is an understanding and skill set in being able to take words and random thoughts, and put them together, kind of like starting with a shattered glass, and trying to put it together without seeing what it looked like to start with. As designers, there is a process that is carefully thought out in order for here to hopefully be a good end result. While the initial idea might not take very long, the important part is to follow through, keeping up with the times, making sure the ad is relevant. A design should communicate the companies views, values and personality, all in a matter of less than 5 seconds in an advertisement that most people will not ever remember. 
- For the company, having a ad that can communicate what the company stands for, what they are trying to convey and what is necessary to be shared with the audience. Is it worth their money to hire someone to get the job done right? Or is it easier to try to crowd source out to get many different ideas which may or may not be well thought out, or may accomplish a couple of things, but not all of them. 
- There is a likely chance that a designer who participates in crowd sourcing would argue that it gives them a chance to do something, without putting a ton of time or commitment into it. Working for 99designs.com could give them the chance to get noticed, or to design something cool. 

Creativity: 

Creativity can be affected by ALL and be seen how it effects the world around us. When a job is done well, by someone with passion, it is clearly translated through their work. When you do something that you really enjoy, weather it be painting, politics, photography, writing, designing something, a sport, whatever it could be regardless of your talent, it is shown through the work that it's something you are passionate about. You will find a way to do something in a way that people hadn't thought of before. 

some of my design projects from
second semester, while they don't look
"fun" because it is something I'm
passionate about, I really enjoyed doing them

- Designers creativity is impacted by crowd sourcing because it takes away opportunities for them to do what they love, where they are passionate, and figure out how to express a companies creativity and passion through their work. 
- Companies creativity, everyone of them has it. Some companies, like Google, may have a more creative streak than others. But regardless of how creative, or not, they may seem, every corporation has a message that they are trying to convey. How can they make their advertisements and products stand out from everything else in the world? When you think about a product design or a successful logo design, there are many things to consider, how will it be perceived in other countries? Is it recognizable? Is it easy to print in multiple different circumstances? Is it funny? Will it be memorable? These are just a few of the many questions that companies have to ask when they are coming up with a creative, orignal advertisement or design. 
- An excellent example of how crowd sourcing was used in a good way is through the Doritos Super Bowl Ads. While in general, I don't like the idea of crowd sourcing, I thought this was an extremely well though out campaign. The public was able to not only participate, but also vote on the videos that they wanted to see during the superbowl. What better way to make sure that a product sticks in the consumers mind then to allow them to be part of the creative process! 

Conjecture - When a company crowds sources, are they still getting honest, creative, orignal ideas? How much does the creativity behind design advertisements effect what the average person remembers? In other words, when a product is being represented, if it's creative, does the viewer remember what it was about? Do they remember what the ad was for? Or do they not remember it at all? If something is funny, are we more likely to remember it? Does color really play a large roll in the way we see images? If something is too busy, do we still understand it or does it distort our ability to comprehend?

Definition - Crowdsourcing; noun The practice of obtaining needed services, ideas, or content by soliciting contributions from a large group of people and especially from the online community rather than from traditional employees or suppliers. (Webster)

Value & Policy - One of the main reasons that I personally see a problem with crowd sourcing in design is that there are so many things that have been designed poorly. While I don't know what the case may for each thing, I think that one of the main criminals in poor design is the lack of attention to detail. People may rush through a design without really carefully considering every aspect. Everything in design should have a purpose and a reason behind it. "Design is intelligence made visible." - Alina Wheeler




 

IB1 - Beliefs of Engineers and Medical Professionals in Healthcare Decisions

Stakeholders


- Research Scientists

Cooperation with engineers and medical scientists would preferably allow use-inspired research to happen, not based on issues of expense or limits to research. On the other hand, there also exists the possibility of more streamlined resources and research based on government/firm assignments.. Good thing or bad thing? Somewhere in between.

- Medical Scientists

Direct cooperation with the belief systems of engineers would generally be a good thing towards the expense and focus side of research with the continued use of contraints and parameters rather than "accidental" discoveries - supposedly.


- Electrical Engineers

Freedom to work directly with medical professionals would eliminate the limits that these engineers run into as they attempt to create medical devices. However, due to the greater incentive of this, there exists the issue of grant money in terms of the directive that the cooperation would entail, as well as the occupational language barrier.


- Biomedical Engineers
Bioengineers benefit the most in terms of consolidating systems of belief, especially in healthcare. The critical error in the cooperation between the two parties is which devices are most immediately effective. Generally speaking, bioengineers already work directly with hospitals, and therefore medical doctors, however in a way more or less counterproductive (Explaining, fixing, manufacturing machinery is great and all, but there still exists the mechanical and disciplinary barriers!).



- Surgeons
Benefit from knowing exactly what the machinery does, and why it does it. In terms of an average engineer's belief toolbox, entrepreneurship and accessibility are paramount and therefore absolutely necessary. This holds true for a surgeon, but each and every time they operate on a patient, they're (literally) cutting into new territory. From MRI to CT down to every new technology, in an issue of bringing the two systems of belief closer together or making amends such that they better cooperate, a more common need would have to arise between the two factions.

- Family Practitioners
Knowing what's being implanted inside a patient is a great way to tie together patient relations - as such, yes, engineers are a great pathway. Even then, directly working in medicine for an engineer of any type could reduce misdiagnoses in the part of this party. They just gain reliability.



- Patients
Most engineers go through the FDA before their machinery gets out (see below!), and a major problem in the medical industry would have to be "necessary" implants gone awry. Patients benefit from a union (or swapping of ideas) by further knowing the risks involved with the metal being stuffed into them for all the right reasons, instead of finding out further down the line that the material within it (or, similarly, the drugs administered) is causing some awful disease.

- Politicians
Less regulatory watch necessary.

- Lawyers
Everything is in plain sight. Not only is it difficult to argue against an alibi where everyone has the same goal in mind, but it's probably easier to prosecute them that way, too.

- Patent Offices
Loss of patents due to more streamlined ideas...or vice-versa, a scenario in which there comes a burst of new patnets with the aid of all new visas to create new tech.

- Regulatory Officials (FDA/EPA)
Use-inspired in the name of the game here: i.e., making things less for the sake of making things (and income) and making them so that they actually do the job of helping the audience it's made for. The consolidation of a medical doctor and engineers' practices generally means, for these regulatory companies, that all of the machinery/techniques/etc. that comes toward them is generally beneficial and tested to the tooth. The FDA and the EPA benefit from knowing that from an engineer's point of view, it's neither depleting ozone or disintegrating someone's innards.

- Foreign Administration
The union of beliefs could possibly also result in the union of ideas. In theory, at least.

And, of course, at a dinner party these groups would be tooth and nail. It's not necessarily that these groups disagree with each other, more or less, they would just much rather commit to the singular goal in a much different way. To some, the goal of healthcare reigns under the Hippocratic oath (Most doctors/works in health care), while for engineers, perhaps, it's more venture based. Politicians would have their day attempting to not fend off the loss of expense in terms of where grant money goes and why...but surely, and most hopefully, the general consensus is for the people.

Joana Sipe Alternative Fuels

As shown above, a few general stakeholders in the critical issue of alternative fuels and going “green”  are the United States Government, engineers, International Governments, farmers, the world market, businesses, the general public, EPA and other environmental agencies, transportation services, mother nature, and of course oil companies.  The United States Government would lose funding by large oil companies but would gain a large new era of green technologies that would forever shape the U.S. Engineers would grow immensely since they would have to develop new ways to implement green alternative fuels to power our “oil” way of life.   Some International governments would gain since many are already switching to more sustainable forms of fuel before the United States, however countires like Saudi Arabia and in the Middle East that depend on  the oil trade to fuel their economies.  Farmers would gain if biofuels were chosen to be implemented as an alternative source of energy because a large amount of crops would be needed to both feed the population and fuel energy sources.  The world market would have trouble getting onto its feet since it is centered around fossil fuels but it would also expand the market to include green technologies and cleaner fuel sources.  Businesses and CEO’s would lose the current way of running business and have to invest in new ways of life.  The general public would have to have a wake up call for skeptics in global warming and work together as a community to choose the best intention for the public’s well-being. The public would lose their “traditional” way of life at gas stations and having fossil fuels functioning their lives every day but would gain the beauty and health of the Earth and avoid a gas shortage.  The EPA and other environmental agencies would gain popularity and educate the public into being more environmentally conscious.  Transportations services would have to switch their vehicles and airplanes and such to new fuel-run vehicles, though it would cost a lot initially the price would pay off since oil would eventually run out forcing them to change.   Mother Earth, though she may not have a true voice is hurt since oil drilling and spills destroy nature and cause too much carbon emmisions into the atmosphere.  If alternative fuels were developed, plants and animals would flourish and nature would thrive rather than die.  However, oil companies would get the worst end of the deal and lose their entire companies that depend on the outdated source of energy.

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-obama-trade-jabs-over-energy-policy-alternative-220600502.html



 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/business/energy-environment/04biofuel.html?_r=1

One of the most prominent current events is the current presidential election, both presidential candidates have polar opposite views on fuel and energy and what stance to take in the future.  Obama advocates green energy and fuel and to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, however he advocates offshore drilling.  Obama also advocated biomass production by farmers instead of fossil fuels.  Romney has a "big oil" agenda.  He believes in drilling for oil in America locally in order to satisfy our demand for oil and keep relying on outdated fossil fuels.  Romney comes from a more business CEO standpoint and believes that if we convert to green alternative fuels it would cost too much money to switch and destroy the American and World Economy. He denounces green solar, and wind energy as wasted forms of energy that are not as efficient as oil and gas.  I  believe that both "sides" are merely trying to please the voters rather than want what is best for Mother Earth.  I believe that they should work together to reduce dependece on oil and forget about money for a second and remember the future well being of everyone on this planet that we cal home.

If Romney and Obama were to have dinner together it would end up like this:

1. First Obama would go shopping to improve his public image and look more like an every-day man and garner a few more votes while getting things for the dinner party.

 

2.Then Romney would see the pictures and decide he has to do his "I'm just like you" campaign too and go grocery shopping for something to bring to the dinner party.

 

 

3.  Upon arriving Romney would act like he is so grateful to be invited to the dinner party and wait for a picture to be taken of his guest-like hospitality towards the host even though they are rivals. (and not to mention show who has the real strength)

 

 

4.  Then they would go straight to eating since they would want to avoid initial arguments and promote peace for as long as the cameras are present. (Obama triesto keep his white shirt and criminal record clean during the meal with a politician smile) 

 

 

5.  Obama and Romney pose for the cameras one last time as appearing to get along and have friendly politician-like discourse and disagreements (though they secretly hate each other and want to keep it clean while their wives are around watching).

 

 

6.  Even though they try to keep things PG rated, for viewers of course, they eventually fight it out over Alternative Fuels and whether dogs should be allowed in the car or not and if Obama is a socialist.

 

 

More seriously, Obama and Romney would highly disagree on the others stances towards alternative fuels and green energy.  Romney would disagree with Obama trying to implement new green technologies such as wind energy and reducing oil dependency.  While Romney would want to drill in America starting today for the "economy", and make fun of Obama wanting to help save our earth and oceans though it not be as radical of a change as is needed due to global warming.