Designer Babies, yay or nay?

What are designer babies?


     Although the phrase "designer babies" brings to mind the image of little baby models, they're not babies posing for photo shoots wearing gucci, louis vuitton, or anything like that. The term has more to do with the genetics of a baby. In the oxford dictionary a designer baby is defined as "a baby whose genetic makeup has been artificially selected by genetic engineering combined with in vitro fertilization to ensure the presence or absence of particular genes or characteristics." Sounds complicated huh? It pretty much means babies that have been genetically altered to look a certain way and be rid of certain diseases. This type of "altering" can be related to the franchise of Build-A-Bear where you choose how you want your teddy bear to look, if science comes far enough along in this field, designer babies could be the same thing except with children. Although this all seems interesting, it bring up the question....


Is it ethical?


     Is it right to change your child from how they would naturally look, into what you want them to look like? Is it okay to decide a baby's eyes should be blue instead of their natural brown? This topic brings up many more ethical questions and scientists around the world are split. Some are intrigued by the development in the field, some are repulsed by what we are doing to these children. Sure, it started out with the intentions of lowering the chance of couples having babies with diseases by implanting the mother's eggs with clean chromosomes, but the more this science develops, the more superficial it becomes. Now couples can determine their babies' sex up to 5 months before the birth, this may seem great but it has its negatives. Some people specifically want either a boy or a girl, and if they find out they are receiving a baby with a gender they weren't hoping for, since it's at an early stage, abortion is an option. This means you could see a gradual increase in abortion rates in the world. This is not good. There are already more than 200'000 abortions in the UK per year, that's 200'000 kids who never got to see the light of day and it's sad.


In conclusion!


     Just like most things in this world, the idea of designer babies has its positives and its negatives, pros and cons. The positive side is that now couples can learn their child's gender months in advance giving them time to prepare for their newborn's life, the screening and implanting of embryos help doctors to get rid of the disease carrying cells, therefore producing much healthier babies. The negative is that the abortion rates could potentially go up, people will soon become obsessed with having "perfect children" both genetically and facially, demand will be a problem if the procedure prospers and not everyone will be able to afford it, meaning the richer families could have healthier babies than the poorer families just because they could afford the procedure. It really is a win or lose situation, there is no in between.


Summary of the article.


     The article which i found on wired.com details an interview conducted by the wired team for trans humanist author James Hughes, and associate executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society, Marcy Darnovsky. The interviewers receive feedback and opinions from Hughes who is in favor of the reproductive sciences and Darnovsky who is completely against. In the article Hughes explains that right now all that scientists are doing with embryo selection is changing hair color and eye color, in an attempt to make designer babies not seem like a big deal. Darnovsky on the other hand explains how unethical its it to test this experimental procedure on humans without knowing its 100 percent safe for the child or not. She also discusses how the economy is a problem, she says that if the world can not provide vaccinations for children all around the world, she really doubts it'll be able to provide fertilization treatments for every mother. Both have strong arguments in the article.


Credibility.


      The article was written by Brandon Keim a Brooklyn, new York based journalist reporting for wired.com. Mr.Keim claims to be fascinated with science, culture history and nature, so the writer of the article seems to be credible. After a little searching on wired.com I found 100's of other science articles, as well as other articles about embryo selection ad designer babies. I personally recommend that you check out wired.com because their work, after comparing with a few other articles, seems quite credible and reliable.


Article Link:http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/designerdebate/

By: Jalen James

COMMENTS FOR YOU MS. LARGO, LOOK AT THEM.

http://kristinuh.blogspot.com/2010/10/privacy-on-social-networking-sites.html

http://robertsmediablog2.blogspot.com/2010/11/keeping-safe-on-internet.html

http://steffiatmedia.blogspot.com/2011/02/mashed-potato.html

http://euloveme-dia.blogspot.com/2010/12/ms-jackson-outkast.html

http://abygaelc.blogspot.com/2010/11/privacy-protection.html

http://robellerd.blogspot.com/2011/03/blog-entry-5-digital-actors.html

DIGITAL ACTING, DOES IT DESERVE RECOGNITION.

Is this acting or animation?

      Digital acting can still be considered acting to some degree. Althoklhjo,ugh the actors themselves are not shown in the scene, it's still embodies their motion, dialogue, and feeling. Digital acting is just the best of both worlds in my opinion, you're animating the acting styles or real life actors and turning them into something else. It's kind of like a more realistic cartoon.

      I personally like the idea of digital acting. It's a creative new form of entertainment and film. The movie Avatar for example had digital acting and received multiple nominations and awards. Avatar was nonated for 9 oscars and won 3 of them. The movie earned countless other awards,so it just proves that digital acting appeals to society and has been getting recognition.

Logo Parodies are cool too.

My favorite BP logo parody: http://www.flickr.com/photos/greenpeaceuk/4751476905/in/set-72157623796911855/ 


1.Describe the logo using the language of the Elements and Principles of Design.

    The parodied logo consists of radial balance of red streaks emanating form behind a grim reaper looking thing that is holding the actual British Petroleum logo covered in what seems to be oil. There are smudges of oil that can be seen around the edges of the photo as well.


2. Describe the symbols used in the logo. Why did the graphic artist use such imagery?


     The creator of the image has incorporated the image of the grim reaper in with the BP logo. The grim reaper is known to be a symbol of death and evil. There is also oil streaks and smudges around the image because of the BP oil tragedy.


3. What does this logo say of BP's corporate identity?


     This logo shows that British Petroleum is evil and killing millions by the use of the grim reaper who is a symbol of Death. It's true because many animals lost their lives and their homes because of the oil tragedy. BP didn't do their job properly, now they have to accept the consequences.
    
     

Graffiti and Graffiti.

These two pictures are my favorite examples of graffiti both light and street.

Light Graffiti

      This photo is my favourite example of light graffiti. I like it because it reminds me of Toronto and I was born and raised in Toronto, it's my hometown. The one building in the middle looks like the cn tower, that's the main reason it reminds me of Toronto, and the main reason I like it. 

Street Graffiti



       This photo is my favourite example of street graffiti. I like it because of how well the artist captured the appearance of The Transformers in battle, it's so cool. I also really enjoy The Transformers series. Optimus Prime is my favorite and he's also the main point of the art. It also almost looks 3d due to the layers and textures of the art, it's like the robots are coming out at you in a way.

Street Vs. Light

      Street graffiti and light graffiti aren't that different from eachother. They're both art forms, just different ways of displaying it. Although light graffiti can be done without vandalizing anything, street graffiti can be seen by everyone. Neither art form is better than the other, both have their benefits and negatives.

#3 MASHUPS AND TING.

For this post, I'll be talking about mashups and copyright law. Mashups are like taking two or more songs and mixing them up to make one big baby song. More often than not you'll find yourself enjoying the mahsup of songs more than you enjoyed the individual songs in the first place. I'm going to use a mashup of Jay Z vs. The Beatles to answer a few question about copyright and mashups.

Questions:
1. What is this mashup trying to communicate? Is it technical experiment, social or political commentary, a comedic parody, or an abstract work of media art?
2. Did its creator follow or break copyright laws in its production?
3. Do you think that mashup like this requires copyright permission? Why or why not.


Answers:
1. I think this mashup is trying to communicate a technical experiment. The creator of the song, Dj Danger Mouse, experimented using rock instrumentals with rap lyrics. The mix of genres  worked very effectively to make a great mashup.
2. I think the creator may have broken a few of the copyright laws in this video. Only because the Dj used footage from The Beatles' concert's as well as Jay Z's. Although he did edit the video a lot, he sort of made it his own with all the effects and edits.
3. Yeah, I think this video requires copyright permission for the use of the concert footage, without it the companies who look after the Beatles' may charge the Dj for copyright infringement. 


Video:
The Grey Video- Jay Z vs. The Beatles: