Alexandra Jimenez
I think there is a cycle for everything in life, and right now the newest cycle involves robots. It’s a scary thought to have, that one day robots will take over. Before we were thinking small, vending machines, ATM’s, smartphones, now it’s Echos telling you what you should wear, face recognition programs so you can enter your work, to now robots preparing food for you.
I was reading the article by Daniel Kline, “Are Robots Taking Over Fast Food Restaurants?” and how is now testing ordering kiosks, how dominoes has many ways we can order food without having to be at the shop, which at first does not seem like anything bad. There are numerous places like Panera that already have ordering kiosks I honestly prefer, it gives you hundreds of options to customize and still add comments of how you specifically want things made. I personally love kiosks because I do not have to wait in line, and I don’t feel the pressure when I do ordering. I can take my times, flip through endless options and get everything I want. I know that if I were to order at the register would not customize my sandwiches at all because I would not want to be that annoying person that makes their order super complicated. I think that when it comes to ordering food it is not something bad to move to in our technological lives. Yes it would be less jobs, but it can also add jobs, more orders will come in, meaning more money for companies, and also with more orders, requires more people to be taking these orders so instead of being at the register, people will be in the kitchen. We are moving towards a world where everything is going to be handled by robots, and the thought makes me feel uneasy. It always takes me back to the robot movie were they robots take over the world, and I do believe this will be party of our story on earth. Robots doing what we cannot do, being “taught” morals and how to think for themselves will lead to them thinking they are better than us. I think we need to limit what robots are being thrown at us, we are already super dependent of technology and it is only going to get worse.
0 Comments
We all want our [future] kid to grow up perfectly healthy and not have to live in a hospital, but life happens. Sometimes it’s our fault as parents, but sometimes it is just our genes and there is nothing we can do about it because most of the times it is a one in four chances of passing down a genetic marker. Of course, if we could prevent these disease to be passes down, we would do anything for it, but how far is it ethically okay?
This article begged the question, "Do we need an international body to regulate Genetic Engineering?" There are two places in the world, currently, where it is legal to do testing in genetic modification. Canada has created “lab-made” mosquitos to stop the spread of mosquito borne illnesses. They deemed it ethically legal and safe for humans and the environment. But months after they were released, they ended up crossing the border into US land causing issues to be brought up and it is not legal in the United States to do genetic testing and modifying. “If modern science can defy the boundaries of borders, who exactly should be charged with deciding what science to unleash upon the world?” Something similar just happened in the United Kingdom, the government gave scientists the okay to genetically modify embryos. Brown argues that it risks “opening up Pandora’s box of designer babies and genetically engineered super-humans.” In 2015, it was approved to use gene editing tech to stop mitochondrial disease genes from being passed on from mother to children. Last February, the United Kingdom passed the first, in the world, license to research and modify healthy embryos. The National Intelligence Council argued in a report that “How people think about the very nature of life and how people love and hate is likely to be challenged by major technological advances in understanding and efforts to manipulate human anatomy, which will spark strong divisions between people, country and regions.” Should we or should we not be able to modify our DNA? I understand why the idea of being able to take away diseases and cancer genes from our future generations but how far will it actually go? Will it bring up the question of whether we should be able to pick what we want our children to look like? What abilities they have? What abilities they shouldn’t have? Will we be able to build the perfect children? Who has a say in this? I choose to believe that everything happens for a reason and that we all play a role is the development of our future and the next generations future. But I do not agree with messing with mother nature and making people from test labs. That is what our future is looking like, a bunch of robots, we as robots with genetically modified tech in our bodies. We will lose what makes us human. There is already enough harm with plastic surgery, and now people want to modify our core DNA. There needs to be an agency to regulates these types of experiments before they get out of hand. Walt Bettiger, the CEO of Charles Schwab, a financial and retirement advise company, takes an interesting twist on interviewing potential employees. He told the New York Times that he is concerned most about candidate’s character and the kind of person they are. He said, “What I am looking for is whether their view of the world really revolves around others or whether it revolves around them. And I will ask them about their greatest failures in their life and see whether they own them or whether they were somebody else's fault."
He invites the candidate for breakfast, arrives early to the restaurant and tells the manager to mess up the order for the candidate. He says, “"I do that because I want to see how the person responds, that will help me understand how they deal with adversity. Are they upset, are they frustrated, or are they understanding? Life is like that, and business is like that. It is just another way to get a look inside their heart rather than their head." The interviewer points out that “another response to a messed-up breakfast order that can be very telling is not saying anything at all… If you receive the wrong food and do not acknowledge it, this may tell the interviewer you are timid, pay little attention to detail, or are not willing to right a wrong — all messages that you do not want to send a potential employer.” I find this to be extremely interesting. He makes a point to seek out how these candidates will respond because their main focus is answering correctly during the interview. All that is in their heads is mentioning their experiences, what they can bring to the table and how they will be an asset to the company. Everyone bring their ‘A game’ to interviews and are in their best behaviors because you have to fake it till you make it honestly. As Bettiger says, it is another way to look inside their heart and not their head. To see if they are good people, and if they will be a great team member. It is not an ethical process but it is also not unethical because I believe it weeds out people who could just not be right for the company and could hurt the company’s image. I always believe there is more to people than their resume or their transcript. There is a whole life and story to everything and everyone and this is a simple way to truly see someone because you are catching them of guard. I love one on one interviews even if I am super nervous, which is always, I think that the employer gets to see me as me. I am a people person, and I can start a conversation with anyone about anything, and it is a skill that not everyone has and one that is hard to teach. For any company to function, there needs to be communication and people need to be able to respond accordingly, specially in a crisis. I agree with how he handles candidate interviews and I think more companies should do something similar. |
AuthorHello! I'm 19 years old. i'm a 3rd year Communication Design major with an emphasis is visual design and a minor in Business Marketing. Archives
May 2017
Categories |