_id
stringlengths 23
47
| text
stringlengths 70
6.67k
|
|---|---|
training-digital-freedoms-ifakhbwfg-pro03b | Wikipedia is a common starting point for enquiries, but not because it is excellent; it has become a standard source of reference because it is free and easy to access. Wikipedia, through its popularity, is often the first search result found when using public search engines like Google, which draws users to its information regardless of the reliability that other sources may offer. Many of its users are students, with too little experience to ascertain the quality of an article but anxious to find the quickest and ostensibly most efficient path to the information they require. Overdependence on Wikipedia means that students in particular never develop proper research skills and increasingly accept that an approximately right answer is good enough. [1] , [2] Middlebury College’s history department even banned students from citing Wikipedia in papers, [3] and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales himself has asserted that changes to Wikipedia are necessary to make it a suitable resource for college students. [4] , [5] [1] Graham, L., & Metaxas, P. T. (2003, May). “Of course it’s true; I saw it on the Internet!” Critical thinking in the Internet era.Communications of the ACM, 46(1), 71-75. [2] Frean, A. (2008, January 14). White bread for young minds, says University of Brighton professor. The Times. Retrieved June 9, 2008. [3] Jaschik, S. (2007, January 26). A stand against Wikipedia. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved March 4, 2008. [4] Young, J. R. (2006, June 12).Wikipedia founder discourages academic use of his creation. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 4, 2008 [5] Young, J. R. (2008, May 16). A ‘frozen’ Wikipedia could be better for college, founder says. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 4, |
training-digital-freedoms-ifakhbwfg-pro05a | Wikipedia models, in an accessible form, the process of knowledge creation through writing. hrough the process by which its articles are constructed, Wikipedia supports “notions of revision, collaboration, and authority” that many academics value and helps to make visible the knowledge-making process. [1] With its Discussion and History pages, Wikipedia illustrates the peer review process academic writing goes through as well as the iterative, recursive nature of public writing. Thus, it can disabuse students of the notion that good writing happens in isolation in one sitting. Therefore, Wikipedia can be an excellent teaching tool. [2] [3] [1] Purdy, J. P. (2009). When the tenets of composition go public: A study of writing in Wikipedia.” College Composition and Communication 61(2), W351-W373. Retrieved May 9, 2012. [2] Wilson, M. A. (2008, April 1). Professors should embrace Wikipedia. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from Inside Higher Ed. [3] Lundin, R. W. (2008). Teaching with wikis: Toward a networked pedagogy. Computers and Composition 25(4) (2008) 432–448. |
training-digital-freedoms-ifakhbwfg-con03b | Wikipedia does offer a better service, not necessarily in terms of the quality of information, but in terms of the depth, breadth and accessibility of information. Enquiries will not and should not end at Wikipedia, but it provides accessible background information as well as links to additional research and publication on a topic and is, therefore, an obvious starting point. [1] Nobody at Wikipedia has claimed that it is a definitive account of human knowledge or a replacement for in-depth research. But it gives a quick guide to an unknown subject and points the enquirer on to more specialist sources. It is used to good effect by students, teachers, journalists and even judges, among many others – showing it is a valued reference source. Experienced users can quickly assess the quality of an article from its written quality and the thoroughness of its references, so they need not accept its content out of hand. Nothing on the internet should ever be accepted uncritically, but Wikipedia has earned its reputation as a valuable starting resource. [1] Purdy, J. P. (2010). Wikipedia is good for you!? In C. Lowe and P. Zemliansky (Eds.), Writing spaces: Readings on writing, Vol. 1 (pp. 205-224). Fort Collins, CO and West Lafayette, IN: WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press. Retrieved May 9, 2010. |
training-digital-freedoms-ifakhbwfg-con05a | Wikipedia threatens the academic enterprise. If Wikipedia is taken to be an accurate resource, then the academic expertise is threatened because anyone can produce “correct” knowledge. Though academics can continue to participate in this work, they are not essential. Normal, ordinary people can do as good a job. Not only does relying on Wikipedia (incorrectly) make academics seem unnecessary, it proliferates the misinformation that academic work seeks to combat. Overdependence on Wikipedia means that students never develop proper research skills and come to believe that an approximately right answer is good enough. [1] Free, open access to huge swathes of information is a threat to both good research and the teaching of good research-writing skills. [2] Middlebury College’s history department even felt so strongly about Wikipedia’s negative influence that in 2007 it banned students from citing Wikipedia in papers. [3] [1] Graham, L., & Metaxas, P. T. (2003, May). “Of course it’s true; I saw it on the Internet!” Critical thinking in the Internet era.Communications of the ACM, 46(1), 71-75. [2] McClure, R. (2011.) Googlepedia: Turning information behavior into research skills. In Vol. 2 of Writing spaces: Readings on writing, edited by Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky, 221–41. Fort Collins, CO and West Lafayette, IN: WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press. [3] Jaschik, Scott. (2007, January 26). A stand against Wikipedia. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved March 4, 2008. |
training-digital-freedoms-ifakhbwfg-con05b | “If we see the ongoing evolution of information in public spheres as a part of scholarly work . . . Wikipedia can enrich, extend, and enliven, rather than threaten, the scholarly enterprise.” [1] Wikipedia encourages more people, including students, to participate in scholarly work by asking them to edit and respond to its articles. In this way, it makes scholarly work more visible and accessible. Wikipedia integrates research and writing in productive ways in the service of knowledge production, which educators can exploit to teach students. [2] Wikipedia transforms people from passive users of web content to active producers of it. [3] [1] Purdy, J. P. (2009). When the tenets of composition go public: A study of writing in Wikipedia.” College Composition and Communication, 61(2), W351-W373. Retrieved May 9, 2012. [2] Purdy, J. P. (2010). The changing space of research: Web 2.0 and the integration of research and writing environments. Computers and Composition, 27(1), 48-58. [3] Bruns, Axel. (2009). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang. |
training-digital-freedoms-iphwclcp-pro02b | Inefficient or not, artists should have the right to retain control of their creations. Even if they are not making any money out of it, they still have the right, and often the desire, to maintain control of the way their art is used. If artists do not desire such control, they can opt to release their works into the public domain, while allowing those who do not wish to do so to protect their work. |
training-digital-freedoms-iphwclcp-pro04b | While there is value in other artists exploring their own creativity by means of others’ work, it does not give them an overriding right. Rather, artists should have a meaningful control over how their art is disseminated and viewed in the world, as it is ultimately their creation. Furthermore, the protections copyright affords means that the responses that do arise must be more creative and novel in and of themselves, and not simply hackneyed riffing on existing work. This helps to benefit the arts by ensuring that there is regular innovation and change. |
training-digital-freedoms-iphwclcp-pro04a | Long copyright stifles creative responses to and re-workings of the original work Artistic creations, be they books, films, paintings, etc. serve as a spark for others to explore their own creativity. Much of the great works of art of the 20th century, like Disney films reworking ancient fairy tales, were reexaminations of existing works. [1] That is the nature of artistic endeavor, and cutting it off by putting a fence around works of art serves to cut off many avenues of response and expression. When copyright is too long, the work passes beyond the present into a new status quo other than that in which it was made. This means contemporary responses and riffs on works are very difficult, or even impossible. In the United States tough copyright law has prevented the creation of a DJ/remix industry because the costs of such remixing is prohibitive. [2] While a certain length of copyright is important, it is also critical for the expression of art to develop that it occur within a not overlong time. Furthermore, it is valuable for artists to experience the responses to their own work, and to thus be able to become a part of the discourse that develops, rather than simply be dead, and thus voiceless. [1] Keegan, V. “Shorter Copyright Would Free Creativity”. The Guardian. 7 October 2009, [2] Jordan, Jim, and Teller, Paul, “RSC Policy Brief: Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix it” The Republican Study Committee, 16 November 2012, |
training-digital-freedoms-iphwclcp-con03b | The vast majority of artistic output results in having little lifelong, let alone postmortem economic value. Most artists glean all they are going to get out of their art within a couple years of its production, and the idea that it will sustain their families is silly. In the small number of cases of phenomenally successful artists, they usually make enough to sustain themselves and family, but even still, the benefits accrued to outliers should not be sufficient reason to significantly slow the pace of artistic progress and cross-pollination of ideas. Besides, in any other situation in which wealth is bequeathed, that money must have been earned already. Copyright is a bizarre construct that allows for the passing on of the right to accrue future wealth. |
training-digital-freedoms-iphwclcp-con01a | Artists deserve to profit from their work and copyright provides just recompense Artists generating ideas and using their effort to produce an intangible good, be it a new song, painting, film, etc. have a property right over those ideas and the products that arise from them. It is the effort to produce a real good, albeit an intangible one, that marks the difference between an idea in someone’s head that he or she does not act upon, and an artistic creation brought forth into the world. Developing new inventions, songs, and brands are all very intensive endeavours, taking time, energy, and often a considerable amount of financial investment, if only from earnings forgone in the time necessary to produce the work. Artists deserve as a matter of principle to benefit from the products of the effort of creation. [1] For this reason, robbing individuals of lifelong and transferable copyright is tantamount to stealing an actual physical product. Each is a real thing, even if one can be touched while the other is intangible in a physical sense. Copyright is the only real scheme that can provide the necessary protection for artists to allow them to enjoy the fruits of their very real labours. [1] Greenberg, M. “Reason or Madness: A Defense of Copyright’s Growing Pains”. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2007, |
training-digital-freedoms-iphwclcp-con04b | Artists generally desire to create, and will do so whether there is financial incentive or not. Besides, many artists live and die in relative poverty, [1] yet their experience seems to not have put off people from pursuing art as a profession and passion. The loss of a few marginal cases must be weighed against the massive losses to art in general, such as the huge curtailment of exploration of and response to existing works, which are often artistically meritorious in their own right, and also the rendering unavailable of much of the artistic output of the world. [1] The Economist, “Art for money’s sake”, 27 May 2004, |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwiwcb-pro02b | Western states, like all states, owe their primary responsibility to their own citizens, not those in a distant land claiming to be striving for common notions of rights. It is difficult for Western states to ascertain the actual motivations of the body of risers in any given scenario, let alone the motivations of specific individuals utilizing the technology. The West is not necessarily aiding seekers after freedom by providing this technology, but may rather be abetting crimes and violence worse than the regime being challenged. The nature of the technology is that it would have to be indiscriminate, making it unsuited to the task of aiding in the liberation of oppressed peoples. |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwiwcb-pro02a | Western states have a duty to aid those striving for the ideals they cherish The West stands as the symbol of liberal democracy to which many political dissidents aspire in emulation. It is also, as a broad group, the primary expounder, propagator, and establisher of concepts and practices pertaining to human rights, both within and without their borders. The generation and dissemination of anonymity software into countries that are in the midst of, or are moving toward, uprising and revolution is critical to allowing those endeavours to succeed. This obligation still attains even when the technology does not yet exist, in the same way that the West often feels obligated to fund research into developing vaccines and other treatments for specifically external use, thus in 2001 the United States spent $133million on AIDS research through the National institutes of Health. 1 The West thus has a clear duty to make some provision for getting that software to the people that need it, because it can secure the primary platform needed to build the groundswell to fight for their basic rights by ensuring its security and reliability. 2 To not act in this way serves as a tacit condolence of the status quo of misery and brutality that sparks grassroots uprisings. If the West cares about civil liberties and human rights as true values that should be spread worldwide and not just political talking points, then it must adopt this policy. 1 Alagiri, P. Et al., “Global Spending on HIV/AIDS Tackling Public and Private Investments in AIDS Prevention, Care, and Research”, July 2001. p.5 2 Paul, I. and Zlutnick, D. “Networking Rebellion: Digital Policing and Revolt in the Arab Uprisings”. The Abolitionist. 29 August 2012. |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwiwcb-pro03b | All software can be hacked, even with cruder hardware and software. The ability of Chinese hackers to undermine businesses’ advanced firewalls in the United States, having demonstrated a potent ability to penetrate several major media companies. 1 Products made in the West with government subsidy will just have a bloated price tag thanks to the extra costs of production in the West, and the tendency to overrun costs that tends to occur when government is involved. The incentive may not even be enough to persuade many software companies to work on such a project, as they will wish to maintain their markets in authorotarian states such as China which such an innitiative would annoy. China in particular has a history of blacklisting and retaliating against companies that are involved in activities that it sees as being against its national interests. 1 Pakzad, X. “Depth of Cyber Attacks from Chinese Hackers on American News Outlets”. IVN. 9 February 2013. |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwiwcb-pro01a | Anonymity software helps to guarantee protection for people involved in uprisings The past few years have been marked by an explosion of uprisings around the world, particularly in the Middle East, North Africa, and Arab world generally. These uprisings have all been marked by the extensive and pervasive use of social media and social networking tools, like Twitter, BlackBerry Mobile, and other platforms. The Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia, for example, wherein people mobilized to overthrow their dictator has even been called the Twitter Revolution after the huge number of people using that platform to lead and chronicle the successful uprising. 1 It was the sophistication of physical surveillance technology and the resourcefulness of the security forces that forced dissenters onto the internet, which quickly became, prior to the start of large scale demonstrations, the primary mode of expressing discontent with governments. But the internet is no safe haven, and technology has caught up, allowing governments to crack down on individuals who engage in dissent online. Anyone using the internet to coordinate demonstrations therefore faces the threat of being tracked and arrested as a result. This was the case in Iran after the failed Green Revolution, dissenters were rounded up and punished for challenging the government. 2 Without anonymity, participants in uprisings are liable to face reprisals. Only external help from the technologically advanced West can these freedom fighters maintain their safety and still be able to fight for what they believe in. 1 Zuckerman, E. “The First Twitter Revolution?”. Foreign Policy. 14 January 2011. 2 Flock, E., “Iran Gets Back E-mail Access, But Other Sites Remain Blacked Out Ahead of Protest”. Washington Post. 13 February 2012. |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwiwcb-pro01b | First it is wrong to simply assume that this will guarantee protection for people involved in uprisings. Previous attempts at providing software to help dissenters have had security vulnerabilities that could have allowed the regime to expose its users identities. This was the case with Haystack a tool that was meant to keep users anonymous during the failed green revolution in Iran. 1 Second providing anonymity and thus snubbing the regimes that survive uprisings means those states will be less willing to envision working with the West toward reforms. When an uprising occurs clearly something needs to change. But when the West is putting such undue pressure on a government, it will not react in a way that would benefit the civil rights of the people. Operating from a position of weakness, it will seek to retrench its strength, through force if necessary. Anonymity means little in this scenario, as governments can simply round up all participants in protests and enact harsh punishments to deter future acts. 1 Zetter, K., “Privacy Tool for Iranian Activists Disabled After Security Holes Exposed”, WIRED, 14 September 2010. |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwiwcb-pro03a | Incentives are the best way to produce effective, affordable software The West has clear reasons to seek to provide the software necessary for anonymity to people involved in uprisings, and it has the means. Western countries are the most advanced technologically and have been the leaders in creating and developing the internet and thus they are best suited to producing and disseminating this technology. Firstly, as they are more advanced in software development, the products they distribute will be much more difficult for the target regimes’ to hack or subvert to their own advantage, or at least significantly more difficult to than were it produced in any other locale. 1 Secondly, the efficient production of software requires special industry clusters. These exist almost exclusively in the West. Silicon Valley, for example is the high tech capital of the world, and were companies there incentivized to produce software for the participants of uprisings it would be a simple matter of efficient distribution, which these firms are best in the world at doing. The need for subsidy is also clear. People involved in uprisings tend not to have huge amounts of disposable income, so to date there has been little market for the production of these sorts of software devices. With a subsidy from Western governments the incentive is created and a top quality product that will save lives and make the uprising more likely to succeed is born. 1 Paul, I. and Zlutnick, D. “Networking Rebellion: Digital Policing and Revolt in the Arab Uprisings”. The Abolitionist. 29 August 2012. |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwiwcb-pro04a | It is a means of vocalizing support for uprisings and liberty at a remove, preventing the backlash of direct intervention By enacting this subsidy, the West makes a tacit public statement in favour of those involved in uprisings without coming out and publicly taking a side. This is a shrewd position to take as it blunts many of the fall-backs opposed regimes rely upon, such as blaming Western provocateurs for instigating the uprising. Rather than making a judgment call involving force or sanction, the simple provision of anonymity means the people involved in the uprisings can do it themselves while knowing they have some protections to fall back on that the West alone could provide. This is a purely enabling policy, giving activists on the group access to the freedom of information and expression, which aids not only in their aim to free themselves from tyranny, but also abets the West’s efforts to portray itself publicly as a proponent of justice for all, not just those it happens to favour as a geopolitical ally. In essence, the policy is a public statement of support for the ideas behind uprisings absent the specific taking of sides in a particular conflict. It throws some advantages to those seeking to rise up without undermining their cause through overbearing Western intervention. And that statement is a valuable one for Western states to make, because democracies tend to be more stable, more able to grow economically and socially in the long term, and are more amenable to trade and discourse with the West. By enacting this policy the West can succeed in this geopolitical aim without making the risers seem to be Western pawns. |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwiwcb-con03b | In an uprising the government is going to try to level lots of accusations. Some will stick, some will not. In this case the government has a touch more ammunition on the anti-Western front, but this is entirely overwhelmed by the boon of protecting the leaders and organizers, who are at greatest risk using the social media needed to coordinate the uprising, and are the most essential to a successful outcome. The benefits of providing anonymity clearly outweigh the tangential costs of giving a bit more mud to the government to sling. |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwiwcb-con01b | Regimes will paint everyone as looters and disturbers of order irrespective of anonymity. This software changes that status quo by offering the political dissidents, the real people regimes will be trying to root out during and in the aftermath of uprisings, a means of not falling immediately foul of the state security forces. They are the people that need protection in this scenario because it is on them that the success of the uprising and its ideals rest. |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwiwcb-con02a | Clandestine aid to dissidents will serve to alienate and close off discourse on policy Reform in oppressive regimes, or ones that have less than stellar democratic and human rights records that might precipitate an uprising, is often slow in coming, and external pressures are generally looked upon with suspicion. The most effective way for Western countries to effect change is to engage with repressive regimes and to encourage them to reform their systems. By not directly antagonizing, but instead trading, talking, and generally building ties with countries, Western states can put to full use their massive economic power and political capital to good use in coaxing governments toward reform. 1 Peaceful evolution toward democracy results in far less bloodshed and instability, and should thus be the priority for Western governments seeking to change the behaviour of states. Militant action invariably begets militant response. And providing a mechanism for armed and violent resistance to better evade the detection of the state could well be considered a militant action. The only outcome that would arise from this policy is a regime that is far less well disposed to the ideas of the West. This is because those ideas now carry the weight of foreign governments seeking actively to destabilize and abet the overthrow of their regimes, which, unsurprisingly, they consider to be wholly legitimate. A policy of flouting national laws will demand a negative response from the regimes, leading them to take harsh measures, such as curtailing access to the internet at all in times of uprising, which would be a major blow to domestic dissidents who, even with heavy censorship, still rely on the internet to organize and share information. This action would serve simply to further impoverish the people of useful tools for organization and uprising, such as occurred in Russia when the government ejected American NGOs they perceived as trying to undermine the regime. 2 1 Larison, D. 2012. “Engagement is Not Appeasement”. The American Conservative. Available: 2 Brunwasser, M. “Russia Boots USAID in a Big Blow to Obama’s ‘Reset’ Policy”. September 2012. |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwiwcb-con04a | Western businesses will be forced out of lucrative markets The Western firms being incentivized to produce and distribute this software will require at least some market penetration to be able to reach these dissidents. This means they have business interests in these countries that may well be important to their own bottom line and to jobs back home. Putting these relationships and long-standing business arrangements at risk through a risky gamble like software specifically to help rebels is foolhardy. When regimes that are the target of these efforts get wind of these efforts, they will no doubt sever ties, damaging long term business interests, which is particularly damaging considering it is in authoritarian regimes like China and Vietnam that technology companies see the greatest room for growth. 1 The illusory benefits of catalysing regime change are far outweighed by the huge potential business costs. Furthermore, the ability of businesses to help effect change in these countries is hampered by this policy. It is the business interests linked directly into these economies that generate the most sharing of ideas and principles. It is through these channels that eventual reforms shall flow. It is best not to cut the tap for an all-or-nothing play. 1 The Star Online. “Intel Upbeat on South-East Asia, Sees Double-Digit Growth for Processor Manufacture Next Year”. 12 November 2012. |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwiwcb-con03a | Aiding of the agents of chaos will allow the government to discredit the uprisings as being instigated and abetted by the West The fact that dissidents can be conflated with other rioters gives real power to the government to discredit the uprising. Firstly, they can report the rioting and looting in tandem with the uprising, as they hide behind anonymity, making it difficult to ascertain specific agents and their directives. Secondly, the regime can identify the West as the instigator of the unrest. This is what Iran’s leaders did during the Green Revolution, when it blamed the foreign tools of dissent like Twitter and other social media for aiding in the rebel protests. 1 This two-pronged attack can be used to drive a wedge between the general public and the leaders and primary agents of dissent seeking to build a broad base of support, a necessary prerequisite for an uprising to succeed. While anonymity gives some ability for individual leaders to hide themselves in the crowd, they lose their moral authority and impact when they can be easily construed as cowardly Western-backed agénts provocateur. 1 Flock, E., “Iran Gets Back E-mail Access, But Other Sites Remain Blacked Out Ahead of Protest”. Washington Post. 13 February 2012. |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwiwcb-con04b | Engagement will still occur. The software exists to aid in uprisings, which is the endpoint of the regime, or at least a signal of its imminent change. It is a play that Western governments should back on a human as well as political level. The subsidies and incentives, furthermore, can be sufficient to compensate companies if things do indeed go sour. This would be expected, in fact, since the companies, acting rationally will have to be coaxed into producing and supplying this technology. |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwiwcb-con02b | It is often not enough simply to encourage gradual change, many states when given such encouragement simply take what the west offers and ignores what the west asks. This indeed was the case with Mubarak's Egypt for three decades, it took billions in aid from the United States yet did not reform, the U.S. even strengthened the regime by respecting restrictions on which NGOs could get funding. 1 If people are able to act and organize with more limited government reprisal, their chance of success is significantly increased. The incentive of the West should be to bet on the dissidents when they rise up and to take the gamble so that they can welcome a new, freer regime into the congress of nations. 1 Bery, S., “Roots of Discontent: Egypt's Call for Freedom”, Harvard Kennedy School Review, 2011. |
training-digital-freedoms-phbplpfsbop-con02a | Unrestricted scrutiny into private lives could be a detriment to democracy Continual probing into the private lives of public figures actually harms the functioning of democracy. Very few potential political candidates, for example, will have entirely spotless private lives, free from embarrassing indiscretions committed while young and irresponsible. The prospect of fierce and unforgiving press scrutiny will thus deter many from seeking public office and deny their talents to the public good. Those who do present themselves for election will therefore tend to be rather unrepresentative individuals of a puritanical nature, whose views on sex, family life, drugs to name but a few may be skewed and intolerant as a result. The sex scandals of Elliott Spitzer and Anthony Weiner, to use just New York politicians, are not therefore representative of New York as a whole, but rather a system that is only attractive to those who believe in their own invincibility and potentially lack the necessary humility to truly represent their constituents. |
training-digital-freedoms-phwbtoabup-pro03a | Demographic/profile-based advertising fundamentally alters the experience of the internet for people of different backgrounds When the experience of the internet differs between people because of their backgrounds and past activities, the position of the online experience as one free of informational prejudice is undermined. It is important that the internet and the sites and services that float around it be as free from external prejudicing that contemporary targeted marketing creates. This marketing shapes at the most basic level the internet experience people interact with, and as it differs between people the quality of the universal service is diminished in a way. [1] This is particularly problematic when that internet experience is designed to differentiate between people of differing demographic backgrounds, which serve only to heighten divisions between these groups. The internet should remain a neutral space. [1] Cartagena, R. “Online Tracking, Profiling and Targeting – Behavioural Advertisers Beware”. eCommerce Times. 19 December 2011, |
training-digital-freedoms-phwbtoabup-con02a | The sort of information being used in this advertising is legitimate for firms to utilize The information trail left online through cookies etc. is a public statement, put into the public sphere. Provided the individual's identity is not revealed the information is usable through the impermeable intermediary of security settings, etc. Thus firms get information about users without ever being able to ascertain the actual identity of those individuals, protecting their individual privacy. [1] For this reason it cannot be said that there is any true violation of privacy. Furthermore, this sort of targeted advertising, while focusing on general demographics and programmes, does succeed in hitting its mark most of the time. Thus there is a value in having the programming, and it is absent stereotype. All of this advertising is simply the continuation of firms’ age-old effort to better understand their clients and to cater for their needs and should not be considered any differently to adverts being placed as a result of working out what programs are watched by what demographic. TV is also moving towards targeting ads to individuals through information such as household income and purchasing history, this is information that is not private and online usage should be considered the same way. [2] Advertising is difficult business, given media saturation, and it is only right that this system exist to better serve the customers, given it is the natural outgrowth of past efforts. [1] Story, L. “AOL Brings Out the Penguins to Explain Ad Targeting”. New York Times. 9 March 2008. [2] Deloitte, “Targeted television advertisements miss the point”, 2012, |
training-digital-freedoms-phwbtoabup-con03a | This advertising strategy benefits companies by making marketing more efficient and allows smaller markets to develop Targeted advertising using the wealth of personal information left for collection and collation online makes business far more efficient for advertisers. Until recently advertisers were forced to use ads that went into the world basically at random, hitting everyone and not necessarily reaching the desired audience. This meant that producers could rarely target small markets, and thus advertising and mass media products all focused on large groups. [1] Thus small producers have been crowded out from the mainstream. With the advent of targeted marketing, producers can now afford to compete for business and to advertise their services to the groups that actually want what they have to sell. Thus businesses have been able to flourish that once would have languished without access to a proper market. An example of this is the targeting by niche fashion boutiques targeting the diffuse but expansive “hipster” market. [2] This has led to a more efficient business world, with lots of producers that can compete with the larger mainstream quite effectively. [1] Columbus Metropolitan Library. “Using Demographics to Target Your Market”. 2012. [2] Fleur, B. “New Meaning for the Term ‘Niche Market’”. New York Times. 29 September 2006, |
training-digital-freedoms-phwbtoabup-con01a | This form of marketing makes for better advertising that benefits consumers By targeting demographics and personal profiles, businesses are able to put forward the services that are statistically likely to pique their target’s interest. In the past, because advertisers had limited budgets and no sophisticated means of reaching their target audience, they had to settle for broad demographics and to cater to majority tastes and interests. This led to a reduction in the breadth of goods and services to niche markets. Targeted advertising helps to alleviate this issue by allowing customers of eclectic tastes to actually find services they are interested in outside the mainstream, enriching their own lives in the process. The internet is vast, and it is often difficult to sift out things that might be interesting to the individual consumer from all the information available. Targeted advertising is one of the most effective ways of providing this information to people. [1] The data compiled to create an individual profile is easily able to divine a broad brushstrokes outline of a person’s likely interests. This creates a better experience for internet users because it provides a far easier means of finding goods and services that would interest them, often from sources they might not have otherwise been aware. When Facebook furnishes this service to advertisers, users are shown ads that fit their profiles, ones they might find interesting. [2] Given that there is only finite ad space, it is far better for the consumer to see ads for things they care about while using the service rather than just ignoring pointless things. [1] Columbus Metropolitan Library. “Using Demographics to Target Your Market”. 2012. [2] Lewis, J., “Facebook faces EU curbs on selling users’ interests to advertisers”, The Telegraph, 26 November 2011, |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwbawdh-pro02b | The internet is a flourishing place for discourse because it is absolutely free to all, and everyone accepts and experiences the fruit of that freedom. When the government abandons its stance of neutrality and begins censoring materials, even if it begins only with the nastiest examples, it compromises the copper-fastened liberties that the internet was created to furnish. Many people will abuse that tool, but thankfully people can evade the hate sites easily and never have to experience them without compromising their own freedoms by censoring their opponents. |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwbawdh-pro02a | Holocaust denial sites are an attack on group identities The internet is the center of discourse and public life in the 21st century. With the advent of social networks, people around the world live more and more online. Unlike any other kind of hateful speech that might flourish on the internet, Holocaust denial stands apart. This is due firstly to the particular mark that the Holocaust has made on the collective consciousness of western civilization as the ultimate act of human evil and depravity. The Holocaust is now a defining part of Jewish identity, denying it attacks all those who suffered and their decedents. Allowing Holocaust denial websites is allowing the rejection of groups’ very identity. Thus its apologists do far more harm than any troll, misogynist, or even apologist of other atrocities. For this reason, the government can justifiably censor sites promoting these absolutely offensive beliefs while not falling down any sort of slippery slope. The second reason Holocaust denial stands apart from other sorts of internet abuse is that these sites are often flashpoints for violence materializing in the real world. More than just talk, neo-Nazis seek dangerous action, and thus the state should be doubly ready to remove this threat from the internet. [1] Accepting that Holocaust deniers have a point that should be articulated across the internet would be helping these neo-nazi groups gain a foothold. The particularly grievous nature of the Holocaust demands the protection of history to the utmost. [1] BBC. “Germany’s Neo-Nazi Underground”. BBC News. 7 December 2011, |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwbawdh-pro01a | Governments should not allow forums for hate speech to flourish Denial of the Holocaust is fundamentally hate speech. It is the duty of the government to deny these offensive beliefs a platform of any kind. [1] By blocking these sites, the government denies a certain freedom of speech, but it is a necessarily harmful form of speech that has no value in the market place of ideas. Many people, often Jews, but also members of other discriminated against minorities like Roma, suffer directly from the speech, feeling not only offended, but physically threatened by such denials. Holocaust denial however goes beyond hate speech because it is not only offensive but factually wrong. The attempt to rewrite history and to sow lies causes a threat to the truth and an ability to co-opt the participation of gullible individuals to their cause that mere insults and demagoguery could not. It represents a threat to education by undermining the value of facts and evidence. For this reason, there is essentially no real loss of valuable speech in censoring the sites denying the Holocaust. [1] Lipstadt, Deborah. Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. New York: Free Press, 1993. |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwbawdh-pro04a | A ban would stop Holocaust deniers from engaging in effective real world actions The greatest fear with hate groups is not just their hateful rhetoric online, but also their ability to take harmful action in the real world. When Holocaust deniers are able to set up standard websites, they have the ability to mobilize action on the ground. This means coordinating rallies, as well as acts of hooliganism and violence. One need only look at the sort of organization the Golden Dawn, a neo-fascist Greek party, has been able to develop in part through active use of social media and websites. [1] By capitalizing on the tools of the 21st century these thugs have succeeded in bringing sympathizers to their cause, often geographically diffuse, into a tight-knit community capable of action and disruption that harms all citizens, but particularly the minority groups they are presently fixated upon. By utilizing social media and websites Holocaust deniers have gained a new lease on life. The government can significantly hamper these organizations from taking meaningful actions, and from coalescing in the first place by denying them their favored and most effective platform. [1] Savaricas, Nathalie, “Greece’s neo-fascists are on the rise... and now they’re going into schools: How Golden Dawn is nurturing the next generation”, The Independent, 2 February 2013, |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwbawdh-con03b | While some people might be enticed by the mystique of Holocaust deniers as transgressors, far more people will be put off by the firm hand of the state denying them a powerful platform from which to speak. Even if some are enticed these individuals will find it much more difficult to access the information they seek and so only the most determined will ultimately be influenced. Some Holocaust deniers will always lurk in the shadows, but society should show no quarter in the battle for truth. |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwbawdh-con01a | Everyone has a right to freedom of expression No matter how unpalatable their opinions may be, everyone should have the right to voice them. The very core of a free society is the right to express one’s mind freely, without hindrance from the state. When the state presumes to judge good speech from bad, and to shut off the channel by which the designated bad speech may flow, it abrogates its duty to its citizens. The government does this by presuming to make value judgments on kinds of speech, and thus empowering itself, and not the people, to be the final arbiter of acceptable speech. Such a state of affairs is anathema to the continuation of a free society. [1] With free speech the all sides will get to voice their views and those whose opinions have most evidence will win out so there is no need for censorship as the marketplace of ideas will prevent ideas without sufficient evidence from having an impact. Furthermore, the particular speech in question is extremely fringe, and is for that reason a very unusual one to be seeking to silence. Speech can be legally curtailed only when there is a very real and manifest harm. But that is not the case here, where the participants are few and scattered, and those who would take exception to what the Holocaust deniers have to say can easily opt out online. [1] Chomsky, Noam. “His Right to Say it”. The Nation. 28 February 1981, /19810228.htm |
training-digital-freedoms-pidfakhwnfawn-pro02a | The default of copyright restricts the spreading of information Current copyright law assigns too many rights, automatically, to the creator. Law gives the generator a work full copyright protection that is extremely restrictive of that works reuse, except when strictly agreed in contracts and agreements. Making the Creative Commons license the standard for publicly-funded works generates a powerful normalizing force toward a general alteration of people’s defaults on what copyright and creator protections should actually be like. The creative commons license guarantees attribution to the creator and they retain the power to set up other for-profit deals with distributors, something that is particularly useful for building programs that need to be maintained. [1] At base the default setting of somehow having absolute control means creators of work often do not even consider the reuse by others in the commons. The result is creation and then stagnation, as others do not expend the time and energy to seek special permissions from the creator. By normalizing the creative commons through the state funding system, more people will be willing to accept the creative commons as their private default. This means greater access to more works, for the enrichment of all. The result is that a norm is created whereby the assumption is that information should be open and shared rather than controlled and owned for profit by an individual or corporation. All governments recognise a right to freedom of information as part of freedom of expression making it the government’s responsibility to provide access to public information [2] and many are enabling this through creating freedom of information acts. [3] This is simply another part of that right. [1] ‘About The Licenses’, Creative Commons, 2010, [2] ‘Access to public information is government’s responsibility, concludes seminar in Montevideo’, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 8 October 2010, [3] See ‘ This House believes that there should be a presumption in favour of publication for information held by public bodies ’ |
training-digital-freedoms-pidfakhwnfawn-pro01a | If the public funds a product it belongs to them Everyone benefits and is enriched by open access to resources that the government can provide. A work is the province of its creator in most respects, since it is from the mind and hand of its creator that it is born. But when the state opts to fund a project, it too becomes a part-owner of the ideas and creation that springs forth. The state should thus seek to make public the work it spends taxpayer money to create. This is in exactly the same way that when an employee of a company creates something presuming there is the correct contract the rights to that work go to the company not the employee. [1] The best means for doing this is through mandating that work created with state funding be released under creative commons licenses, which allow the work to be redistributed, re-explored, and to be used as springboards for new, derivative works. This is hampered by either the creator, or the government, retaining stricter forms of copyright, which effectively entitles the holder of the copyright to full control of the work that would not exist had it not been for the largesse of society. If state funded work is to have meaning it must be in the public sphere and reusable by the public in whatever form they wish. Simply put taxpayer bought so they own it. [1] Harper, Georgia K., ‘Who owns what?’, Copyright Crash Course, 2007, |
training-digital-freedoms-pidfakhwnfawn-pro01b | There is a difference between the general public and the government. It is the government that bought the rights to the work not the people even if the people are the ones that originally provided the money to develop the work by paying their taxes. It can be considered to be analogous to a business. Consumers pay for the products they buy and the profits from this enable the business to make the next generation of products. But that the consumers provided the profit that enabled that development does not enable the consumers to either get an upgrade or for the product to be released with a creative commons license |
training-digital-freedoms-pidfakhwnfawn-con03b | The government should not be interested in the profit motive but what is best for its citizens which will usually mean creative commons licenses rather than the state making a profit. This is even more likely when developments are a joint project with a for profit operation; taxpayers will rightly ask why they should be paying the research costs only for a private business to reap the profit from that investment. The government already provides a leg up to businesses in the form of providing infrastructure, a stable business environment, education etc., it should not be paying for their R&D too. |
training-digital-freedoms-pidfakhwnfawn-con01b | Government is quite simply not ‘like everyone else’. If government acted like a profit maximising business it would clearly have the ability to turn itself into a monopoly on almost everything. This is why the role of government is not to make a profit but to ensure the welfare and freedoms of its citizens. |
training-digital-freedoms-pidfakhwnfawn-con02a | Creative commons is not a good option for many government works It is simply wrong to paint all government funding with one brush decreeing that it should only be spent if the results are going to be made available through creative commons. Governments fund a vast diversity of projects that could be subject to licensing and the pragmatic approach would be for the government to use whatever license is most suitable to the work at hand. For funding for art, or for public facing software creative commons licences may well be the best option. For software with strong commercial possibilities there may be good financial reasons to keep the work in copyright, there have been many successful commercial products that have started life being developed with government money, the internet being the most famous (though of course this is something for which the government never made much money and anyway the patent would run out before it became big). [1] With many military or intelligence related software, or studies, there may want to be a tough layer of secrecy preventing even selling the work in question, we clearly would not want to have creative commons licensing for the software for anything to do with nuclear weapons. [2] [1] Manjoo, Farhad, ‘Obama Was Right: The Government Invented the Internet’, Slate, 24 July 2012, [2] It should however be noted that many governments do sell hardware and software that might be considered militarily sensitive. See ‘ This House would ban the sale of surveillance technology to non-democratic countries ’ |
training-digital-freedoms-pidfakhwnfawn-con03a | Creative commons prevents the incentive of profit The incentive of profit, rather than a creative productive drive, spurs the creation of new work. Without the guarantee of ownership over one’s work, the incentive to invest time and effort in its creation is significantly diminished. When the state is the only body willing to pay for the work and offers support only on these strict terms, there will be less interest in being involved with that work. Within a robust copyright system, individuals feel free to invest time in their pursuits because they have full knowledge that the fruits of their efforts will be theirs to reap. [1] If their work were to immediately leave their control, they would be less inclined to do so. The current copyright system that is built on profit encourages innovation and finding the best use for technology. Even when government has been the source of innovation those innovations have only become widespread when someone is able to make a profit from it; the internet became big when profit making companies began opening it up. If the government wants partnerships with businesses, or universities that are not directly linked to government then it has to accept that those partners can make a profit. Furthermore, the inability of others to simply duplicate existing works as their own means they too will be galvanized to break ground on new ideas, rather than simply re-tread over current ideas and to cannibalize the fecund ground of creative commons works. [1] Greenberg, M. ‘Reason or Madness: A Defense of Copyright’s Growing Pains’. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2007. |
training-digital-freedoms-pidfakhwnfawn-con01a | Government, like everyone else, should be able to profit from its work, that profit benefits its citizens rather than harming them We generally accept the principle that people who create something deserve to benefit from that act of creation as they should own that work. [1] This is a principle that can be applied as easily to government, whether through works they are funding or works they are directly engaged in, as to anyone else. The owners of the work deserve to have the choice to benefit from their own endeavours through having copyright over that work. Sometimes this will mean the copyright will remain with the person who was paid to do the work but most of the time this will mean government ownership. Public funding does not change this fundamental ownership and the quixotic bargain state funding in exchange for mandatory creative commons licensing is a perversion of that ownership. The Texas Emerging Technology Fund is an example of the use of state funding in the private sector to produce socially useful technologies without thieving the ownership of new technologies from their creators. [2] Moreover states clearly benefit from being able to use any profit from their funding. It would clearly be in taxpayers interest if the state is able to make a profit out of the investments that taxpayers funding creates as this would mean taxes could be lower. [1] Greenberg, M. ‘Reason or Madness: A Defense of Copyright’s Growing Pains’. John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2007. [2] Office of the Governor. ‘Texas Emerging Technology Fund’. 2012, |
training-religion-msgfhwagcm-pro05a | It is discriminatory to refuse gay couples the right to marry One of the last bastions of discrimination against gays lies in the fact that gay couples in many countries are at present not allowed to marry. Such discrimination should be eradicated by permitting gay couples to marry as a means of professing their love to each other. The contemporary views of society ought to change with the times; as recently as 1967, blacks and whites in some Americans could not marry, no-one would defend such a law now 1. Gay marriage is possibly, as Theodore Olson, a former Bush administration Republican suggests, ‘the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed 2’. To permit heterosexual couples to profess their love through the bonds of marriage, but deny that same right to homosexual couples ultimately devalues their love, a love that is no weaker or less valid than that of straight couples. As New York State Senator Mark Grisanti admitted when voting in favour of a 2011 bill, ‘I cannot deny a person…the same rights that I have with my wife’ 3. It is clearly discriminatory and reflects an out-dated view of homosexuality. 1.The Economist, 1996 2.Olson, 2010 3. Black, 2011 |
training-religion-msgfhwagcm-pro04a | Gay marriage is good for society Gay marriage has clear and tangible positive effects on societies where it is permitted. There are now ten countries that allow gay marriage, with no obvious or noticeable detriment to society at large. As Chris Ott reports from Massachusetts, one of few US states to grant gay marriage rights, ‘predictably, the sky hasn’t fallen…ensuring equality doesn’t mean there’s less to go around for everyone else’ 1. Further to that, gay marriage encourages gay adoption, granting a home and a loving environment for an increasing number of orphaned or unwanted children worldwide. The evidence also suggests that gay parenting is ‘at least as favourable’ as those in heterosexual families, eroding fears that the adopted children will be worse with gay parents 2 . The economist Thomas Kostigen also argues gay marriage is a boost for the economy, ‘weddings create revenue of all sorts…even if a marriage doesn’t work out that helps the economy too. Divorces cost money’ 3. Finally, and most simply, societies benefit from the net utility of their citizens, to allow and even encourage gay marriage ensures that those gay citizens wishing to celebrate their love are able to do so, in an environment conducive to their mutual happiness. 1. Ott, (2005) 2. Short, Riggs, Perlesz, Brown, & Kane, (2007), p.25 3. Kostigen, (2009) |
training-religion-msgfhwagcm-con04a | Marriage is a religious institution, and the major world religions frown upon homosexuality Marriage is historically a religious institution. As most of the major religions in the world (e.g. Christianity, Islam and Judaism) frown upon homosexuality itself, it would thus be unacceptable to extend the right to marry to gay couples. In Christianity, the Bible is clear in Genesis that marriage is between that of a man and a woman; ‘it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him…a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh’ 1. In the Quran, it is stated that ‘Allah has given you spouses of your own kind, and has given you, from your spouses, sons and grandsons’ 2. There is little room for conjecture with such statements; marriage, so finely entwined with the religious roots of modern societies, renders marriage an institution between a man and a woman. 1.Catholic Answers, 2004 2. Eldin, 2011 |
training-religion-msgfhwagcm-con04b | Marriage is not a religious institution, but an institution that has been co-opted by religion as the means by which couples declare themselves to each other for an indefinite period. As such, marriage has always complimented contemporary attitudes and institutions. Traditional beliefs regarding the 'sanctity' of marriage are now out of touch both with contemporary opinion on the matter and concurrent advances in human rights elsewhere. In Australia a recent poll found that 75% of the population felt gay marriage was inevitable, leading marriage equality advocates to claim 'the tide of history is running toward equality and nothing can turn it back'1. Furthermore, the fact that atheists and agnostics are free to get married, but homosexuals are not undermines claims that marriage is a derivative organ of religion. 1 Wockner, Rex (2011, June 16). Australians accept marriage equality. Retrieved June 16, 2011, from the Bay Area Reporter |
training-religion-fmshbrdmhg-pro02b | Many people have been keen to wrap themselves in the trappings of religion just as they do in the flag or in the rhetoric of one political ideology or another. Seeking to associate one’s opinions with one creed or another is the oldest trick in the ideologue’s book. The fact that men of violence claim to be doing things in the name of peaceful religions tells us very little about the religions themselves. In the modern world they is no reputable religious leader doing so and those minority leaders who attempt to are generally condemned and ostracized by the principle leaders of their faiths. Laying responsibility for violence at the foot of religion as a whole gives credibility to a handful of extremists – in much the same way that conflating patriotism and fascism would. |
training-religion-fmshbrdmhg-pro02a | Because religion combines dogmatic certainty with the existence of the afterlife, violence and death is all too easy to justify Particularly in the case of contemporary Islam, although other historical examples could be referred to, the combination of certainty and the promise of life after death is a sure route towards violence. That said, Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland demonstrated this until recently; the Yugoslav wars between Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims, both sides of the battle for Israel/Palestine and many others in history could also be thrown into the mix. Allowing people the opportunity to claim that “God’s on our side” can be used to justify anything, especially when He appears to be fighting on both sides. |
training-religion-fmshbrdmhg-pro03b | Secularism is a peculiarly Western European concern. In most of the world religious observance is taken very seriously. Denying people access to the guidance of religious leaders flies in the face of allowing people freedom of choice and conscience. Secularists routinely, and somewhat arrogantly, insist that their voices must be heard but those of people of faith, despite representing the overwhelming view of humanity, should be silenced. Equally where there are religious precepts incorporated within the law. One of the oldest systems of secular, state arbitrated law- the common law of England- is based largely on religious principles. For secularists to attack religious people for criticizing difference, when all they are really saying is that most people aren’t secularists, is the height of hypocrisy. Most of the world takes religious observance very seriously and expect their beliefs to be respected by their international political leaders and others |
training-religion-fmshbrdmhg-pro01a | Religious organisations tend to act as a reactionary pull on wider society opposing egalitarian reforms and developments It is a basic tenant of all religions that they divide humanity into ‘us’ and ‘them’ – believers and non-believers. However, the divisions of society perceived by religious believers do not stop there, and have a tendency to reflect the social and moral views of an earlier and far less progressive age. As well as condemning those who practice other faiths, or who choose to follow no faith, they have fought, and continued to fight, the expansion of the rights of women and of socially marginalised castes, among other social groups. All of the major churches and sects have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world, and most of them are still desperately trying to ignore the existence of modernity. While justifying their political and moral positions through obtuse and deliberately obscure interpretations of religious texts, obscure texts even the mainstream interpretations of major religions are usually sexist, frequently racist and almost universally homophobic. Preventing access to contraception is the single largest block to women getting out of poverty. There are many other examples of the excesses and double standards of mainstream religion – too many examples to pick one. |
training-religion-fmshbrdmhg-pro01b | All of the major religions teach respect for others regardless of whether people agree with their lifestyle or beliefs. That’s a huge advance on much of secular thought – quite without the help of religious organisations, prejudice exists within the worlds of business, politics and science. It seems a little unfair to single out one area of life. At least religious organisations are based on the belief that everybody should be treated with respect, which is not a claim that could be made be most political creeds. In addition there are few social changes that have not involved religious radicals at their foundation. Rightly or wrongly, major religious organisations tend to reflect the views of the societies of which they are a part. It seems unfair to blame the religious organisations for that. It is also worth distinguishing between nations where one religious belief is wide-spread and almost normative in nature, and those where it is far more of a choice. If women or homosexuals chose to join a church in a pluralist society, presumably they are not expecting to be a priest. |
training-religion-fmshbrdmhg-con01b | The simple reality is that religious organisations in most of the world are all too willing to involve themselves in ecumenical politics and issue declarations on economic matters. Equally, presenting the absurd and grotesque wealth and power of the world’s major religions as having anything to do with quiet spiritualism is, frankly, absurd. In some circumstances, major religions can provide international perspective but, all too often, that simply means importing the most reactionary position available – African Anglicans on gay ordination in the US; the mediaeval views from Islam in the Middle East into discussions on the rights of women in European migrant communities. Generally this brand of internationalism simply reopens social battles that were settled a century and more ago in the West |
training-religion-fmshbrdmhg-con02a | Religious ceremonies and organisations provide solace and celebration for the great changes in life such as birth, marriage and death, there is democratic support for this around the world At times of great need or celebration, religious communities and organisations are often the only organisations that seem fit to the task of marking them. This principle applies both in people’s own lives, with the birth of a child or the death of a loved one, but it can also apply to national events. At times of great tragedy it is frequently the main religious community that is expected to sum up the mood of a nation and to provide explanation and succour. It is difficult to see how a politician, jurist or academic could fulfill that role so well. It is interesting that although we may ignore the day-to-day role of religion in society and in communities, at moments of great trial, or great celebration, it is to religious rites that most people turn. |
training-religion-mhwkosm-pro02a | A utilitarian approach will result in a decision that saves the largest number of lives possible. Every time a life is extinguished, some amount of present and future good vanishes from the world. All the good things that that person would have experienced – joy, accomplishment, delight – will no longer occur. Similarly, all the beneficially effects they will have one other people, from productively working to loving their family, will also not occur. True, people also experience unhappy times, and they sometimes negatively affect others, but in all but an exceptionally small number of cases, the net contribution of a human life to total utility is positive (indeed, if it weren’t, we probably wouldn’t consider death to be bad). Even though there will be some fluctuations in how much each life contributes to total utility – a happy doctor probably adds more utility than a miserable meter maid – it is overwhelmingly likely that saving the five lives will result in a situation of greater utility than preserving the life of the one. |
training-religion-mhwkosm-pro04b | Assessing the value of a life on the basis of family members and how much the person is worth to everyone else creates a perverse priority on those with large families and many connections. To do so makes an injunction: position yourself so that you’re important and well-connected, and suddenly you get priority when we are deciding who to save. |
training-religion-mhwkosm-con06b | Firstly, it may well be the case that we are indeed morally obligated to donate all of our disposable to charity; the longer one considers how many people could be saved with the money one spends on a flat screen television, the less acceptable the purchase becomes. However, there are also meaningful distinctions between the thought experiment and donation to charity. In the thought experiment, there is no one else who can possibly come to the aid of the five. This is distinct from the complexities of a global economy where there are other possible moral saviors and the path to saving lives is far less clear. |
training-religion-cghwrwugapa-pro05a | Prevents the coercion of school children It is key to this debate that school children are required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of each day. Although they have the opportunity to opt out, the proposition does not believe they have the knowledge necessary to fully understand the oath that they are taking. (The Humanist Society 2004) According to the decision in Newdow v. US "The [school's] policy and the [1954 Act adding 'under God' to the Pledge] fail the coercion test. Just as in Lee [Lee v. Weisman, 1992], the policy and the Act place students in the untenable position of choosing between participating in an exercise with religious content or protesting."(United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2002) Children should not be put in this position so ‘under God’ must be taken out. |
training-religion-cghwrwugapa-con03b | If the opposition accepts that the inclusion of the words “under God” is a state sanction of religion, then they cannot deny that their inclusion sidelines atheists. The proposition believes that the status quo is inherently pro-religion and anti-atheists and thus needs to be changed. Religious people will not see a move to the state, which is supposed to be completely separated from religion, making no comment about religion as an anti-religious comment. |
training-religion-cghwrwugapa-con04a | The American people would be against the change As discussed above, the removal of “under God” will not be a move towards neutrality but a move against religion. As a result it is not surprising that the American people would be against such a move. An immense majority, 87% in a newsweek poll said the pledge should contain “under God” against only 9% saying no.(CNN, 2002) No democratic government should go against the will of such a majority of the population they are supposed to represent. |
training-religion-cghwrwugapa-con05b | The proposition totally rejects the idea that the words “under God” are necessary to indicate that the government does not have the power to do whatever it wants whenever it wants. The fact that the constitution exists and the government cannot contradict it is what means the government cannot act without consideration; the words “under God” add nothing to the government’s answerability and their removal would detract nothing. |
training-religion-cghwrwugapa-con01a | “Under God” is part of American tradition and history Reference to God is made throughout American patriotism. The Supreme Court opens by saying ‘God save America and this honourable court’. The ‘under God’ in the pledge itself came from Lincoln’s Gettysburg address a significant speech in American history.(Library of congress) It is impossible to remove references to God from American patriotism and to do so would severely damage American heritage and tradition. (Robertson 2002), (Federer 2003) |
training-religion-cghwrwugapa-con04b | The majority is not allowed to oppress the minority, they would not be allowed to go back to slavery if they wished, in exactly the same way congress should not be able to establish religion even if the majority wants it to as it is against the US constitution. |
training-religion-msfhbmoi-pro05b | The idea that the existence of marriage undermines other methods of raising children is ridiculous. This is equivalent to saying that making it legal for same-sex couples to adopt undermines raising children as a heterosexual couple or as a single parent. Some people choosing to raise children in a certain way does not prevent or inhibit other people doing so in a different way. |
training-religion-msfhbmoi-pro04a | Marriage should be for all by Marriage is a religious institution in a society of declining religion The proposition believes that they have proven that marriage no longer has a social or practical function. This leaves its only function as one of religious significance. However, with the percentage of people in the UK who identify as having no religion having risen by nearly 20% in the last 20 years and the percentage of people who identify as religious having dropped by approximately the same amount (British Social Attitudes Surveys 2007). Church attendance is even lower at a mere 6%(whychurch.org.uk). As a result there needs to be a new more inclusive institution that is open to all religions and those of no religion. It is clear that marriage can no longer perform this function for everyone in society. |
training-religion-msfhbmoi-con05a | Marriage promotes a better way to raise children Marriage promotes raising children as part of a monogamous couple. Without marriage, the frequency of single parent families would rise. Statistically, children who come from single parent families are more likely to live under the poverty line, more likely to be convicted of a criminal offence, more likely to become ill, less likely to complete every level of education and more likely to grow up to have low incomes themselves. (O’Neill 2002) Clearly then, marriage provides a lot of goods to children of married families, thus it provides goods in modern society and therefore cannot be outdated. |
training-religion-msfhbmoi-con04b | In the last 20 years, the number of people in the UK who identify as religious has declined by 20%. This shows that religion as a whole is becoming less important and, with it, marriage is becoming less important. (British Social Attitudes Survey 2007) |
training-religion-ermfhwaccww-pro02a | The courts have a duty to develop services that will meet the needs of society Fairness requires that cohabiting couples share their property on separation: when couples have lived together for a long period (such as five years or more) they will have gained benefits at each other’s expense but also suffered disadvantages for the other’s benefit. If one partner gives up a career to raise children or support the other in their career, they are seriously disadvantaged upon separation. Where the other partner has gained as a result of this sacrifice, they should compensate the former, so that the two parties can move towards independence in equal positions. Parties may choose not to marry, but this should not have to cause such financial harm to one partner. |
training-religion-ermfhwaccww-pro01b | The absence of property rights does not prevent interdependence: the law does not prevent individuals supporting each other or taking risks. However, it requires that couples discuss such plans properly with each other and decide how they wish to structure their own relationships. Expecting all couples, regardless of their circumstances, to support each other financially is unrealistic. Furthermore, it is possible that at the margin some couples may not cohabit in order to avoid having to share their property. These couples will have even less support. |
training-religion-ermfhwaccww-con03b | Care can be provided without property rights: as with interdependence, the status quo does not prevent individuals reducing their income to care for others. It merely requires that couples discuss their plans and make provisions to deal with the need to care for children or elderly relatives. i |
training-religion-frgsbnaofcs-pro03b | No-one is in a vacuum – everyone has social pressures affecting what they wear. Banning veils itself is divisive and will create strong reactions in highly religious communities [1] . Framing laws that only ban the veil could be seen as an attack on Islam, and lead Muslim communities to think they are being unfairly targeted. The result will be that they won’t co-operate with people of other faiths. This would be bad for society and make extremists more influential. [1] Huffington Post, ‘France Bans Burqas: A Look At Islamic Veil Laws in Europe’, 4 November 2011, |
training-religion-frgsbnaofcs-pro04a | A ban would be easy to enforce As a face covering is very obvious, it would be a school to check to see if someone is wearing one. France [1] and Turkey [2] already have attempted such bans on headscarves, which do not cover the face. This could be enforced by teachers, not police. [1] BBC News, ‘French scarf ban comes into force’, 2 September 2004, [2] Rainsford, Sarah, ‘Turkey divided over headscarf ban’, BBC News, 11 February 2008, |
training-religion-frgsbnaofcs-con01b | A ban on face coverings wouldn’t be a target to a particular faith as it would also ban veils that might be desired by people of other faiths as well. Moreover only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the veil; in France with 5million Muslims it is thought that only 350 wear the face veil. [1] [1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘There’s nothing enlightened about burka-bashing’, Spiked, 19 September 2013, |
training-religion-chwccaogalp-pro01b | Infanticide is a part of nature, as is cannibalism. What separates humanity from the rest of the natural world is our ability to appreciate morality beyond ‘what is natural’. One of the moral rules that God has imparted to us is that the only moral sexual behaviour is between man and wife. Other moral systems obviously take a different view of sexual ethics, but they aren’t relevant how a Christian Church should organise itself. |
training-religion-chwccaogalp-pro04b | Religion is not a political party, changing and catering to the views of the current electorate. The Church acts as the curator of God’s Word and maintains its principles no matter how unfashionable they may be. This is especially important in an increasingly secular age when Christianity will only survive by virtue of it maintaining a clear, consistent message. |
training-religion-chwccaogalp-pro03a | Priests have to represent their congregations Priests have a responsibility to represent the members of their congregations. A large number of Christians are gay, and they can receive better spiritual direction from gay ministers than from heterosexuals who do not understand their lifestyles or relationships as well. |
training-religion-chwccaogalp-pro04a | The Church has adapted before, it can adapt now The Church has adapted over the centuries on a number of social and natural issues as it seeks to re-interpret and re-explain God’s message of love in the terms of modern society. For example Churches have adapted to the problems that science has thrown up, even the Catholic church, often the slowest to embrace change did eventually agree with Galileo over the earth going round the sun. [1] The acceptance of homosexuality and admission of gay priests is a necessary next step for the Church today. There will be others in the future. [1] Butt, Riazat, ‘The Vatican may be cosying up to science but it will never go all the way’, Notes&Theories guardian.co.uk, 23 February 2011, |
training-religion-chwccaogalp-con02b | Condemning homosexuality as sex outside marriage is unfair, since it is the Christian church which does not offer the right of marriage to gays and lesbians. If it were to do so, they could enjoy sex within loving relationships, sanctified by the Church, just as heterosexuals do. Jesus’ main teaching was clear - "love your God and love your neighbour" - and there is clear difference between adultery and homosexuality in this respect; the former causes pain and has a victim (the betrayed partner), the latter can be a purely loving relationship. |
training-science-euhwcface-pro01a | Space exploration produces many valuable technological innovations that benefit all of human society: Space exploration and research have resulted in many major advances in science and technology. Everything from Velcro to more efficient and powerful computers has come out of the space program1. The technological advances produced by the space program would not have been possible were it not for the intensity of focus on the paradigm of exploration. That same paradigm has come to permeate scientific enquiry generally, pushing scientists to seek new answers and to develop new technologies. So long as mankind keeps pushing the barriers of its own knowledge, it will never stagnate, and human understanding of the Universe will continue to grow. Should humanity, however, take an insular view of itself and turn back on a history of pushing of boundaries, the paradigm of progress might dissolve as well. 1 Coalition for Space Exploration. 2010. "Benefits of Space |
training-science-euhwcface-con03b | There is no need for us to be searching for alien life to be exploring the universe. The dream of contacting aliens seems to be an example of humanity's dreams gone awry. Earth's beamed messages and questing probes have for their efforts received no return signal. Surely if intelligent life were near enough to have received our signals, they would have replied. Alternatively, if they are too far away, there is no physical means by which they could ever reach Earth, due to the constraints of the laws of physics, which deny objects the power of reaching the speed of light. Furthermore, the value of the drive to explore itself should be questioned, since humanity's track record on the subject is far from stellar; the abysmal treatment of the Native Americans by European settlers, for example, shows that the will to explore can come with terrible costs. |
training-science-euhwcface-con03a | Attempts to contact extraterrestrial life are a waste of time and money: Billions of dollars have been spent by a number of countries, principally the United States, on great projects seeking to make contact and signal extraterrestrials. None of these has received so much as a peep in reply. The reason for this is likely that intelligent life is an extreme rarity, with humanity its only exemplar in this part of the galaxy1. If there were intelligent life within receiving range of Earth-based transmissions, the extraterrestrials would have had ample opportunity to respond, or at least make their presence known. The fact that they have not suggests that there are no extraterrestrials within contactable range, or at least none with any interest in talking to Earthlings. If there were extraterrestrials on more distant planets, efforts to contact them would be pointless, as they would be so far away that communication would take many years and would be unreachable physically. Furthermore, the search for extraterrestrials violates reason. Money should only be spent on projects after phenomena worth analyzing have been detected. There is no evidence that intelligent lie other than our own exists at all. Trying to contact little green men in space is just a waste of time. 1 Ward, Peter. 2000. Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe. Philadelphia: Springer. |
training-science-ciidffehwa-pro02a | ISPs are private service providers and should thus be able to have some filters on the most extreme spectrums of extremism ISPs are ultimately private providers of a service. Because of this they should retain the right to restrict that service to certain groups. So long as ISPs make public their policy for what constitutes extremism so that consumers can decide if they want to opt into it, there is no real issue. There are many filters available to users to screen out certain materials already, for example internet providers offer customers the option to block adult content, [1] and this is merely an extension of this approach. Businesses must be able to sort their own ethos. Some ISPs may not opt to use this power given to them by the state, but others may not wish to carry content they consider dangerous. Because extremism is on the very fringe of speech and opinion, and because of the potential dangers that can arise from it, it is only right that the state give some ability to ISPs to block objectionable content. [1] BBC News, “Internet providers offer parents bar on porn” 11 October 2011, |
training-science-ciidffehwa-pro03b | While it is true that extremists seek to undermine and bend the systems of discourse to be as favorable as possible, they are a tiny fringe minority of opinion, and the number of sites challenging their skewed narrative is far more numerous. Even young people are able to surf the web with great skill, and can easily see that the extremist view is fringe in the extreme. There is also little evidence that preventing access to some sites would make it more difficult for extremists, when large numbers of jihadi websites went offline in 2012 discussion simply moved elsewhere and leaders emphasized recruiting more people offline. [1] [1] Zelin, A. et al. “The State of Global Jihad Online”. New America Foundation. January 2013. /Zelin20130201-NewAmericaFoundation.pdf Pp.10, 15 |
training-science-ciidffehwa-pro05a | ISPs are better placed than governments to make decisions on when and who to block As the access providers for the internet ISPs are best placed to implement policies for blocking extremist sites and so are the natural option for deciding when and which sites to block. Furthermore, because the state is often slow due its extensive bureaucracy, it is less able to respond with alacrity to extremist sites popping up online. ISPs on the other hand are likely to be able to act as soon as they are informed of the existence of a website whereas working through government would simply add an extra layer of requests and orders. The ISPs blocking the site also creates a fire break between the state and the action so not giving the extremists the ammunition that state intervention might give them. Essentially, the good result of eliminating these sites from public access is accomplished faster, more effectively, and with lesser backlash than if any other agent did the blocking. |
training-science-ciidffehwa-pro01b | Denying extremists their right to speak threatens everyone’s freedom of speech. It is essential in a free society that people should be able to freely express their views without fear of reprisal, however extreme or unsavory their views are. If you value free speech you must be willing to defend that right for everyone, even for those you find repugnant. |
training-science-ciidffehwa-pro04b | Extremist groups will always find ways to organize direct actions, be it via in-person meetings, furtive use of social networking tools, or even by using untraceable black sites online that ISPs cannot block because they cannot see them. The result of blocking these views from the public internet only serves to push the extremists further underground. |
training-science-ciidffehwa-con01b | Freedom of speech is important, but must be curtailed when people are threatened. Extremists are a very real threat because their messages and actions galvanize people to take violent, disruptive actions against the state and its citizens. ISPs have a right, and even a responsibility to block extremist websites if it is written into the contract when a user purchases the service. When people opt into an ISP they accept the parameters of the service, so their freedom is not being limited by the blocking of extremist content as they have already accepted that extremist websites are not a part of the access package they bought. |
training-science-ciidffehwa-con05a | Censorship provides a propaganda victory to its targets By denying people the ability to access sites set up by extremists, ISPs serve to increase extremists’ mystique and thus the demand to know more about the movement and its beliefs. When the public appears to oppose something so vociferously that it is willing to have its internet provider set aside the normal freedoms usually taken as granted, people begin to take notice. There are always groups of individuals that wish to set themselves up as oppositional to the norms of society, to transgress against its mores and thus challenge what they see to be a constraining system. [1] When extremist beliefs are afforded this mystique of extreme transgression, it serves to encourage people, particularly young, rebellious people to seek out the group and even join it. Such has been the case of young, disaffected Muslims in Europe, and the United Kingdom in particular. These young people feel discriminated against by the system and seek to express their anger in the public sphere. Islamists have been able to capitalize on this disaffection in their recruitment and have become all the more attractive since their sites have come under attack by the UK government. [2] By allowing free expression and debate, many people would be saved from joining the forces of extremism. [1] Gottfried, Ted. Deniers of the Holocaust: Who They Are, What They Do, Why They Do It. Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First Century Books, 2001. [2] Jowitt, T. “UK Government Prepares to Block Extremist Websites”. Tech Week Europe. 9 June 2011. |
training-science-ciidffehwa-con03a | ISPs are not well placed to make judgments on what constitutes extremism ISPs are businesses, not scholars or governments. They do not have the expertise to effectively define the parameters of what constitutes extremism or when a certain site is such, and cannot gauge the extent of damage the site is having. If governments give the power to ISPs to take down extremist sites they are giving these companies the ability to dissipate the freedom of the internet on the basis of its own judgment. [1] That is a very dangerous power to give the agents that are the gatekeepers of information to the people. Even if the state sets guidelines for ISPs to follow, it will be difficult to police their decisions effectively and will set the dangerous precedent that service providers should have a degree of power over what content citizens can consume. The ISPs also face the risk of legal challenge by groups blocked that claim to not be advocates of extremism at all so burdening the ISPs with long and costly court battles which would effectively be being fought on behalf of the government. Ultimately private actors cannot be given the authority of the public censor. [1] Mitchell, S. “BT Resists Move to Make ISPs Block Extremist Content”. PC Pro. 7 February 2012. |
training-science-ciidffehwa-con05b | While some people might be enticed by the mystique of extremism as transgressors, far more people will be put off by the positive statement of denying them their favored platform from which to speak. There will always be extremists, but their views must always be challenged and their influence curtailed wherever it is found |
training-science-ciidffehwa-con04b | Forcing extremists underground can only serve the cause of justice. With them out of the spotlight they are less likely to drag in new recruits among casual, open-minded internet-goers. Underground they are less visible, less legitimate-seeming, and less likely to be able to build an organization capable of violent action. |
training-science-ncpshwlucpc-pro02b | Many other things such as radios within cars are just as distracting as mobile phones. Although it is easy for police and prosecutors to prove that a mobile phone was in use during a particular period of time, it is difficult to monitor the use of mobile phones in most situations. Enforcing a ban on mobiles would be as impractical as a ban on arguing with a spouse. Further, the point of the ban on mobile phones is to minimise distractions. However, a simple ban on mobile phones is likely to create a false sense of security among road users. Objects similar to cell phones are not subject to bans, despite the fact that they might be distracting as well. For example, a tablet PC in the passenger seat would not be under this ban, but could easily be as distracting. This false sense of security could practically cause drivers to be less conscious of distractions and thus hurt in the long run. Whilst the law might incorporate these bans into the system, the prevalent message that will get to the people will typically be centred on a mobile phone ban. This is because mobile phones are the single most prevalent item that would be banned under the proposition. As such, even though the law covers all distracting goods, it might still breed complacency in people, causing them to ignore other items in the car that might be distracting and assume that they are legitimate. [1] [1] Tetlock, Paul. Burnett, Jason. Hahn, Robert. “Ban Cell phones In Cars?” Cato.org 29/12/2000 |
training-science-ncpshwlucpc-pro01b | Firstly, it has been found by some studies that cell phone use does not have a statistically significant impact in the reduction of car wrecks. [1] This might be plausible because being able to call ahead to work for example and tell them that you will be late reduces the chance that people will speed on the roads. It also reduces the chance that you will attempt to weave between traffic to increase your speed even where acceleration might not be possible. Further, given the societal benefits from cell phone use in cars, such as better organisation for the entire population, it seems that a ban on the use of cell phones should not be implemented because the cost of doing so is too great when compared to the benefits allowing phones would confer. [2] [1] Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. "Ban Cell Phones In Cars?". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 [2] Tetlock, Paul. Burnett, Jason. Hahn, Robert. “Ban Cell phones In Cars?” Cato.org 29/12/2000 |
training-science-ncpshwlucpc-con01b | The logical extent of opposition’s argument is a strongly libertarian society that does not legislate on almost any issue because it fears taking away people’s ability to choose. It is important to note that when someone causes a death through ignorant driving they have resulted in the dehumanisation of a person through the removal of their ability to choose. However, more so, the resulting society where people are free to do what they want ignores the fact that often people lack full information to make their decisions in an informed way. It also fails to understand that as time goes on people often regret decisions that they once made. As such, people are often happy to and do make the choice to give up some of their freedoms and allow the state to make those decisions for them. Given then that people consent to having the “humanity” taken away from them, it seems legitimate that the state can make decisions that they might not immediately agree with, under the assumption that the state, as a composite of a large number of different people has a level of oversight that the individual doesn’t. The state has the advantage of being able to take a step back and have a broader perspective. Individuals will make decisions that impact them in a positive way but this does not mean that those decisions will not have a negative wider impact on society. The state uses this broader perspective under the mandate to protect society as a whole looking at what is best for the group not the individual. |
training-science-ncpshwlucpc-con02a | The Ban is Unenforceable This is especially true of hands-free phones, where accused motorists could simply claim to be singing along to the radio or talking to themselves. In any case, the widespread introduction of speed cameras in many countries, and an increased public fear of violent crime have led to the redeployment of the traffic police who would be needed to enforce such laws. [1] [1] Miller, Craig. “Laws Limiting Car-Phone use Tough to Enforce.” NPR. 08/2007 |
training-science-ncpshwlucpc-con01a | The State Does Not Have the Authority To Limit Citizens in This Way The state places rules upon its citizens for the overall betterment of society. However, whenever possible the state also affords citizens liberty. This is the case because the state sees that when people are free to do what they want they are able to make better decisions for themselves and further are able to interact with the state better. They do this because they feel that the state is allowing them to make their own decisions and as such the state is showing its trust in its citizens. This bond of trust between the state and the citizens as well as the state giving the citizens their own responsibilities means that citizens respect the state for the fact that it does not limit them. To examine this from a point of view that does not rely on moral consequentialism and a utility based principle, it is possible to say that the state should afford people liberty and freedom because the starting point of any rational moral calculus should be the admission that an individual is the best judge of what is in his own interest. To not give people choice is ultimately an idea that dehumanises people. As such, the only time where freedoms should truly be restricted is when allowing the freedom results in a greater level of dehumanisation among the people. So for example, we prevent murder because allowing people to kill one another results in allowing some people to entirely remove other people’s ability to choose on purpose. |
training-science-ncpshwlucpc-con02b | New laws would be enforceable, as billing records will show whether a phone was in use at the time. Improving camera technology may also allow the automatic detection of drivers breaking laws against mobile phone use at the wheel. In any case, just because a law is not completely enforceable, it does not follow that it should be scrapped. |
training-science-uhbmsf-con01a | Manned space exploration is prohibitively expensive while providing limited spin-off benefits: Space exploration costs enormous amounts of money. The United States spends tens of billions of dollars every year on its space program, and the Chinese and European space agencies are seeking to catch up technologically. Overall, the amount of money wasted is astronomical. Even if manned space flight were a desirable goal, the cost is far too great. Unmanned space flight offers the same benefits at far less expense, since unmanned vessels weigh less than those needed to carry humans, and do not require the expensive and sophisticated life-support technology necessary to sustain human life in the harsh wilderness of space. [1] Furthermore, the benefits accrued from spin-off technology resulting from space exploration are generally overstated. NASA, for example, had claimed that protein crystals could be grown in zero gravity that could fight cancer, as well as numerous other claims of benefits. Most of these benefits have never materialized. With all the billions of dollars wasted on manned space flight, most of the spin-off technologies could likely have been created independently, given the resources, and probably at lower overall expense. [1] Kaku, Michio. “The Cost of Space Exploration”. Forbes. 2009. |
training-science-cpesgguhwe-con03b | Space exploration gives back more than it takes from the treasury. Dr. Joan Vernikos, a former head of NASA Life Sciences, argues ‘economic, scientific and technological returns of space exploration have far exceeded the investment…royalties on NASA patents and licenses currently go directly to the U.S. Treasury, not back to NASA.' Furthermore, as Keith Cowing points out, the funding for space exploration is insignificant compared to our other discretionary spending: ‘Americans spent more than $154 billion on alcohol (in 2006); We spend $10 million a month in Iraq; all of America’s human space flight programs cost around $7 billion a year." Cowing also points out the fact that ‘the money is spent on the earth – it creates jobs and provides business to companies, just as any other government program does’ (Dubner, 2008). [1 [1] Dubner, S. J. (2008, January 11). Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost? A Freakonomics Quorum. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from Freakonomics |