Neanderthals Are Humans Too!

In the editorial Neanderthals Are People Too the author, Svante Paabo discusses the ethical dilemma of replicating a genetically accurate living Neanderthal. He explains how, because scientists have sequenced a genome of a Neanderthal, many scientists think we should create a living breathing Neanderthal for scientific study. However, this presents many problems. Paabo uses his grandfather as an example to argue his point. He explains how his grandfather died long before he ever had the chance to meet him. He admits that he had always wished he had been able to know him, but he would not want to replicate a twin of his grandfather. Paabo believes it is the same with Neanderthals. He says “In a civilized society, we would never create a human being in order to satisfy scientific curiosity.” His point is: we wouldn’t make a human to poke and prod at in the name of research why should the rules be any different for a Neanderthal? They are our ancestors after all.

I agree with Svante Paabo, it is not at all morally right to treat a cloned Neanderthal like a lab rat. Even though this Neanderthal is a clone it is still a human and a real person who has their own thoughts and feelings.

As well as thoughts feelings this clone will have new experiences. When you are born you do have a certain amount of inherited traits, but most of your lifestyle and personality is developed through learning and experiences. To use Paabo’s grandfather as an example, if you cloned a relative that has passed, they will start out with the same traits that your relative started out with. However any part of the person’s personality that was learned or developed will be absent. This new clone will develop different traits because their childhood environment will be different from that of your relative. The clone will not be exactly the same as your relative, and – I’m no scientist—but I think this could possibly happen with a cloned Neanderthal. This cloned Neanderthal will be living and growing in the twenty first century, a drastically different environment than what original Neanderthals experienced and that could impact how this Neanderthal lives and acts.

Paabo is absolutely right when he says cloning a Neanderthal for lab work is not ethical. It is unfair to the Neanderthal clone. Thankfully, some scientists have thought of alternatives such as growing Neanderthal tissue and studying that. It will be alive and observable, but it will be only a swatch of cells which is a much less harmful alternative. I do believe that research such as this will be useful to the future of science, but I also think we have to be careful about how we go about it.

Minimum Wage, Time For A Raise?

Lately, there has been a lot of talk about raising the minimum wage. Because it would affect the economy greatly if we did raise it, there has been a great deal of controversy targeted towards the issue. The article Time for a Raise? by Patricia Smith explains the problem and some people’s ideas about what the solution should be. Many people think it should be raised because it will benefit many people who work undesirable minimum wage jobs. Others think raising the minimum wage will present new problems to the economy of the US.

 

Smith’s starts off by explaining some problems with the current minimum wage. She explains that although most think the people who earn minimum wage are mostly teens working a summer job, the truth is that more than a fourth of minimum wage workers are 25 years or older, with a family, and working full time, possibly with another job. Many Americans say that raising the minimum wage would relieve some of the financial stress on these families and would reduce that poverty rate. However, some US citizens tell a different story. The other side of this argument is that, by raising the minimum wage, we will ravage our economy. Apparently if we pay low-wage workers more money, companies have to pay all other employees a little extra and these little raises can add up quickly, forcing companies to keep shorter hours, lay off workers, or charge customers more (which will “scare them off”). This means that raising the minimum wage could cost many people their job.

 

In my opinion, Raising the minimum wage a little would be a good idea. Certain states (Washington, California and more) have already raised their state minimum wage higher than the federal level and are doing fine economy-wise. As well, doing this could help to reduce our poverty rate; according to The Economic Policy Institute, increasing the minimum wage by $2.85 would allow 28 million workers to earn an extra 6,000 dollars a year. When you look at the facts, the good things about raising the minimum wage seem to outweigh the bad.

Synthesis Page: Minimum Wage

Ban on Gay Marriage Denies Justice to Children-- Critical Analysis

The article "Ban on Gay Marriage Denies Justice to Children" by Sara Miles is about the unfairness of banning gay marriage to the children of gay couples. The author talks about how a judicial ruling from Judge Robert S. Smith against gay marriage is unfair and illogical. Judge Smith's main point was that marriage is very important to the welfare of children with which (to some extent) I agree, but he also implied that gay couples to not meet these marriage standards, which is simply not true.

Among other arguments, Smith said that gay or lesbian couples denied a child access to a role model of the opposite sex. However, Ms. Miles' response to that was " If the point is a variety of role models, why allow single straight people to adopt?" which is a very valid question! Another of Smith's arguments was that (according to Miles) "Wayward, irresponsible, sexually promiscuous straight people need the legal benefits of marriage as inducements to lure them into 'solemn, long-term commitments to each other so that they can responsibly care for children.'" Sara Miles concluded that there are gay couples who will and do care for their children more responsibly than these "Wayward, irresponsible, sexually promiscuous straight people" even after marriage. If this is the case, and marriage is an "inducement," than shouldn't gay and lesbian couples be able to marry too? Lastly, Ms. Miles asked, if Judge Smith really was vouching for the welfare of children, why are the kids of gay couples (who are deprived of many legal securities) not counted as children who need protection? If Heterosexuals should get married to protect their children, why not Homosexuals?

In her forceful arguments, Ms. Miles wants us to feel that lesbian and gays are being cheated out of marriage. She wants us to see that the Judge's argument is invalid and illogical. In truth, she makes him look a little idiotic. She does this by making such sensible arguments and strong comebacks (such as remarking on the Judges "impeccable" logic) that she actually humiliates the Judge. It is a very strong essay and is quite persuasive. I fell she completely obliterates the opposition.

Personally, I agree with Ms. Miles' argument. Gay and lesbian couples should not be omitted from the opportunity of marriage, and their children should not be cheated of legal protections. I also agree that many people's opinions on Gay marriage (like Judge Smith's) are very irrational and ignorant and maybe even idiotic. In any case, gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to marry. Them and their families are essentially being discriminated against.

Why The Best Books Are Written In Blood-- Critical Analysis

The article "Why The Best Books Are Written In Blood"by Sherman Alexie talks about contemporary Y/A books and how they should not be banned and taken out of libraries and schools. In "Why The Best Books Are Written In Blood" Alexie responds to Meghan Cox Gurdon's article about why contemporary Y/A books should be banned.  Gurdon says that Y/A literature "reflects back hideously distorted portrayals of what life is." However, Alexie knows that for some teens, these "hideous portrayals" are real life. In Alexie's eyes, Gurdon clearly either chooses not to see these problems or is actually completely ignorant to them. He tells readers that these types of books really reach out to troubled kids who have maybe been through the horrors in Y/A books.  In fact, he talks about how he was once one of them: "Would-be saviors tried to rescue my fellow tribal members, they tried to rescue me... What was my immature, childish response to those would-be saviors, 'Wow, you are way, way too late.'"  He felt the things the "would-be saviors" did to protect him were pointless, and that by the time anybody tried to save him he was already damaged.  Alexie says about writing for young adults: "I don't write to protect them.  It's far too late for that.  I write to give them weapons-- in the form of words and ideas-- that will help them fight their monsters."  He means that these teens that face these painstaking problems use young adult literature to help them get through their lives.  Alexie wants to help these teens, he knows that it is too late for some-- just like himself-- so he writes to help them, not to protect them.

In his article, Alexie wants us to feel that taking Y/A books out of libraries and schools would hurt the children who need those books. He thinks that Y/A books help the kids "fight their monsters." If this is so, then taking young adult books out of libraries would impede these kids on their path to a better life.  Alexie shows us this by giving short narratives of some kids who were, or are, in trouble, as well as short narratives of his own childhood.  He mentions again the "monsters" and talks about the "monsters" in his own life: "I read books about monsters and monstrous things because they taught me how to battle the real monsters in my life." Alexie really wants to get across the message that these problems are monsters, and the books are weapons to shoot them down.

I agree with Alexie that books should not be banned. However, I like to think of the books as more of a salve than a weapon. In some senses they do "fight" problems, but I think they can also heal teens and alert them that there are others out there with the same problems.  One thing I think many writers and readers can agree on is that Y/A fiction does portray reality, and these books do help teens, and you cannot turn your back on these issues and pretend they don't exist.