SHOULD WE CLONE HUMANS?

There is no justifiable reason that would lead people to clone their loved ones. Of course, if Mrs. Kaggwa’s son is successfully cloned, it will never be the same as their dead son. It may be the same in terms of physical features but will be different in terms of its moral principles and its way of thinking especially when it is exposed to new environment. There is no assurance that the cloned son is 100% the same of his dead son.

As for Professor Wesley, by presenting the advantages of cloning, he can provide compelling reasons to justify cloning of Mrs. Kaggwa’s son. The advantages of cloning include the use of the cloned organ as a substitute and serve as a back-up in case of an organ failure; it also provides a viable solution to infertility in human beings. Cloning can make it possible to reproduce a certain desirable trait in human beings through cloned embryo. Technologies used in cloning can also serve a useful purpose for the researchers in genetics. It is possible to alter genetic constituents in cloned humans, so as to simplify their analysis of genes. A wide range of genetic diseases can be averted through cloning. It can also help to replicate animals that can be used for research purposes by scientists.

I won’t subscribe to such reasoning because it is morally wrong to clone human beings. I strongly disagree to this practice because life is sacred and every human being should be created out of love.  

                The disadvantages of cloning include the weakening of our adaptation ability because of the lessening of genes diversity. It will also severely affect diversity in plants and animals. A cloned species may not know how to react to viruses and other destructive agents as scientists cannot predict such potential developments. Cloning of body organs opens the possibility of malpractices in medical fraternity. Cloned organs may not be cost-effective for a good part of human society. The benefits of cloning techniques reaching the common man remain a big question mark.

                Animal cloning is now routine and there has been no organized opposition yet because cloned animals are useful to scientists for research purposes. Also, cloned animals were not used for breeding that is why there is no opposition to it. 

DID YOU SAY PRIVACY? WHAT PRIVACY?

Since surveillance technology has progressed to the point that it is possible to identify individuals walking city streets from satellite in orbit. It is undeniable that technology is advancing that is why it not surprising to know that everybody is under surveillance especially in technologically advanced countries. With the recent discoveries and innovations on technology we are going nowhere but advancing through the age where everybody can hide nothing even though how much they try to conceal some of their private information. If today, an anonymous can be easily identified how much more when we use more advanced technology. We still have individual privacy because we are still in control of how much information we are willing to share to other parties.  We may be monitored night and day, 24/7 but we still have the authority on how much information we can disclose. The best way to safeguard privacy is to control or limit the amount of information we share to different parties. Also, one may not be subjected to surveillance if he/she is not doing any suspicious acts. I have nothing against everyone under surveillance as long as it assures safety and security. However, the government should not invade a person’s personal information or his/her personal space.  

CYBERSQUATTING: IS IT ENTREPRENEURSHIP OR INTELLECTUAL THEFT?

Mr. Hayden has not violated Mrs. Clinton’s intellectual rights because she has not filed any intellectual property rights even though the site was named after her. Mrs. Clinton seemed to be reluctant and was not aware of cybersquatting.  Cybersquatting is registering, selling or using a domain name with the intent of profiting from the goodwill of someone else's trademark. It generally refers to the practice of buying up domain names that use the names of existing businesses with the intent to sell the names for a profit to those businesses.  Mr. Hayden can claim free speech protection for the use of the names because he has paid for the exclusive rights of the internet addresses. These exclusive rights may entail free speech protection and other rights. There should be laws to make this practice illegal because it invades the privacy of an individual especially when that individual was not aware of cybersquatting.    

ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE AND THE BODYGUARD

Jon has a right to know what the bodyguards have been doing in his premises. However, his right has limitations as not to invade his employees’ right to privacy.  Furthermore, as employer he has the right to know what his bodyguards are doing. There is no assurance that his bodyguards will do no harm to him, that they will protect him always. Jon was just doing his thing to feel more safe and secured by guarding his guards because if not him who will guard the guards? 

WHO WILL PAY THE PRICE FOR FLAWED SOFTWARE?

Peter Eflon was not wrong, because what happened was out of his control. He may have lapses for not checking immediately or not doing his final quality checks earlier. There are many possibilities why the flaw was not identified during the initial quality checks. Anyhow, what happened does not matter anymore because it already had happened. The important thing is how Peter Eflon and Cybersoft company would address this challenge especially when they are all aware of the losses suffered by other businesses due to defective software. Since, there is still a few days before the launch Peter must immediately and carefully address this problem. And if things do not go their way that they need more time Peter and Cybersoft may delay the launch but not that long. This delay would really mean loss for Cybersoft but the company would suffer more losses if they will launch and release the defective software. The release of defective software would jeopardize the company’s reputation especially when it is still launching itself to be a major Internet-based platform developer. This would cause the loss of consumer confidence on Cybersoft which suggest that the consumer would not recommend the company’s product that would lead to their downfall. 

ALL IN THE OPEN, MY FRIEND-BE WATCHFUL FOR YOU WILL NEVER KNOW THE HOUR!

I believe Josephine Katu does not have any right to put virus on her employees’ computer. She has given those computers to her employees therefore those laptops are her employees’ possession. The right to privacy of every employee was violated in this case. Josephine, suggest that he does not fully trust her employees in spite of their loyalty and dedication. Her little tricks imply that her employees were under her personal surveillance and that she is trying to invade their privacy. Also, Josephine’s attitude may affect her management of her company because she will always be doubtful with her employees. She will always be on the look of her employees’ activities which is beneficial for the company but is destructive for her because she will never be able to establish good relationship with her employees which is essential for a company’s success. 

ONE FOR THE ROAD- ANYONE?

Florence Yozefu felt guilty for the wearing Catchmenot while being drunk. She was so drunk that time and did not know what she was doing that she wore Catchmenot at the wrong time and at the wrong situation.

For me, she is not right to market Catchmenot because her experience is not enough to prove the robots ability. The robot needs further testing. If anything went wrong, it is only Florence that should be held responsible. Firstly, because no one forced her to use the robot, it was her choice out of her stubbornness. Secondly, it was the first time where Catchmenot was tested and she was not with herself so she knew nothing of how well the robot worked.

Catchmenot is programmed to take over driving functions of a vehicle from a human operator when it is worn by the driver. With this, the driver needs not to be concerned of his/her route as long as the robot knows where he is heading. This suggests that the people or driver need not to learn how to drive because they can rely on the robots ability.  

Based on Catchmenot, it may imply that artificial intelligence may not be only limited to actions of for example robot. With the continuous advancement of technology, it is not impossible that robots may exhibit ethical behaviors especially when they are programmed what is right and wrong.