Tsc: What Is Reality? We Pursue Virtual

TSC: What Is Reality?

We pursue virtual reality not because we seek to embrace reality, but because we seek to escape it. The availability of virtual reality technology enables us to create a controllable world which 'feels' real, but without any of the actual consequences of inhabiting reality. In virtually real games, we can act violently; become sports stars; take on entirely different personas in a consequence-free universe. One of the definitions of technology is that it technology involves the use of various created implements to make our lives seem 'easier.' To some extent, this is true of virtual reality technology, given that virtually real universes do not hold within them the risks of actually fighting, pursuing death-defying sports, or confronting supernatural beings in strange realms. However, the risks of virtual reality are great, namely that we will enter into the 'real' world after 'playtime' with a less secure grasp on the physical realm and believe, however subconsciously, that the real world resembles virtual reality.

Q2. Technology, Morality, and Ethics

In the article by Leon Kass, "Preventing a Brave New World," Kass expresses his fears that the use of cloning will make the dystopian future of Brave New World a reality. Kass views human cloning as holding the potential for human beings to engineer the future of the species and that a lack of regulation and a faith in science will allow the technology to eventually be used to clone human beings in an uncontrolled fashion. I "exaggerate somewhat, but in the direction of the truth: we are compelled to decide nothing less than whether human procreation is going to remain human, whether children are going to be made to order rather than begotten" (Kass 2001:1). Kass admits there is a great deal of revulsion towards straight human cloning: still, he points with fear to the many defects and dangers with 'experimenting' even with animals using cloning technology; furthermore, there are the dangers, if successful, regarding the child's identity and who 'he or she' would really be if a clone of the parent. However, this revulsion may abate in society -- just as people are offering $50,000 for Ivy League-quality eggs for IV fertilization, everyday ethical standards can change. Finally, Kass argues that the other scientific benefits of human cloning, such as therapeutic cloning, can be provided by stem cells.

On one hand, it is easy to dismiss Kass' fears (most people still want to have children 'the natural way' and artificial insemination is not analogous to cloning, given that it does not produce a 'copy' of either parent). Even though stem cells may be valuable in medical research and technology, banning cloning and its potential to offer additional medical assistance seems to cut off the potential for treating many diseases. Surely it is possible to regulate the technology more than Kass suggests? Still, Kass has a valid point that there will be people who abuse such technology: there have been examples in real life of people having children to be a perfect 'genetic match' for an existing child who needs a donor organ and of people who use reproductive technology to have many more children than is advisable or safe at one time. Allowing therapeutic cloning but banning human cloning seems wise, as does requiring all researchers to submit their plans to ethical review boards before going ahead with their experiments and having broad government regulations on the process. This should be true of all forms of cloning, given that animal and plant cloning, if unabated, could affect the natural environment and still have profound consequences.

Q3. Case Study: Western Oceanography Institute

1. How would you respond to the director?

"Unfortunately, every project has its problems and this particular one has had some unforeseen snafus. The need to convert to a more efficient system was inevitable, however, and it is better that we can deal with the problems sooner rather than later. The problems can be fixed provided we approach them in a systematic fashion and work together."

2. What mistakes did Young make that contributed to the problems at the end of the case?

First and foremost, Young's interpersonal skills were lacking. She did not make personal connections with her staff to ensure that they would regularly inform her of any problems that might occur over the course of the project. Because of her 'food allergies' she refused to dine with them; she was impatient with their youthful culture; she was more interested in pursuing other projects than focusing on the here and now. There was also initial resistance to the conversion and Young largely dismissed these fears: this made the problems which occurred at the end of the case even more difficult to overcome, given that Young had created an impression of invulnerability beforehand. Young also acted very dictatorially, deleting files without permission and constantly judging the needs of others to be irrelevant without asking why people were so concerned beforehand.

3. How could she have managed the conversion project better?

Young was extremely arrogant, dismissing concerns that the staff had with the conversion and getting frustrated with them when they did not act 'according to plan.' Young also did not ask for permission before deleting files and engaging in other critical, permanent steps that could have a lasting effect on people's workstations. Above all, Young did not solicit 'buy-in' from the entire company and get everyone on board. If people were convinced of the need for the conversion, they may have been more tolerant of difficulties and more helpful to her throughout the process, thus reducing the likelihood of complications.

Q4. Case Study: Kerzner Office Equipment

1. Critique Briggs's management of the first meeting. What, if anything, should she have done differently?

Briggs did a number of things very well: she set down ground rules and gently and non-abrasively stressed the need for timeliness. She also stated the 'when, where, what, who, and how much' of the project. She got the contact information of members made a commitment to setting a new planning time and to use software to minimize conflicts. She gave all members of the group an assignment before the meeting ended. However, she could have done more to create inter-group dialogue in a positive fashion, instead of merely asking members to introduce themselves individually. She allowed certain group members to voice their discontent early on with the project without diffusing the situation.