Introduction
As far as architectural education provides a large amount of knowledge and skills, an architect can design various objects, from apartment buildings and cottages to hotels, schools, and urban spaces. The architects, along with other representatives of creative professions, create timeless works of art. Their responsibilities include creating the idea of the building and visualizing the project in the form of a layout, combining engineering, creativity, and management (Thompson 12). The purpose of this paper is to discuss the architects’ special worldview and how it affects the way they solve problems with design solutions and make the best real estate projects.
Main text
Architects, as well as sculptors or other creative professions, pay attention to the details that elude the eyes of other people. Unlike artists, who create an abstract picture of a real object, architects embody an abstract idea into reality. They are people with an unusual way of perceiving space, which helps them build their careers and develop professional skills. Architects see the world as a three-dimensional space and have increased awareness of the surroundings which is reflected in the way they see the spatial environment (Thompson 28). When asked to describe a place or an object, an architect will talk about the paths around the object and its boundaries. Therefore, increased attention to the surroundings seems to have a profound effect on how architects perceive and represent space.
Special skills and space perception help architects solve various problems with design solutions. This process includes understanding the problem, brainstorming and generating ideas, design and modeling, selection of the ideas and concepts, and the implementation of the design. First, they determine the underlying problem, then consider many options for solving it and choose the most suitable one. This process is called design thinking, which requires a creative approach to the implementation of tasks (Thompson 8). Professional architects carefully analyze each stage and create its visual embodiment, which remains a reliable assistant throughout the work on the project. This approach allows them to find the optimal balance between functionality and aesthetics (Thompson 7). Good architects also have to consider the end-user at every stage of their work. This principle should form the basis of each step, from the development of documentation and a functional diagram to the determination of structural basis and composition.
Architects acquire knowledge not only in the field of architectural composition but also in the production of structures, engineering infrastructure of buildings, ventilation, and much more. This allows them to study the nature of technological processes and constantly seek the best combination of functional and architectural solutions. For this reason, the architects become the best real estate developers since they know structural mechanics, materials science, as well as the methods of calculating building structures from various materials (Thompson 15). They design residential buildings, industrial enterprises, and social facilities, thus forming the appearance of cities and towns. They are environmental technologists, whose main task is to develop new and optimize the existing space-planning solutions of the environment.
Conclusion
People are not born architects; they are educated to be them. A chosen profession may form the worldview and affect the way the brain functions. The architect’s goal is to create a well-balanced living environment and design a project taking into account human needs. To achieve this, the architects have to rely on their perception of space, as well as on the knowledge of construction, economics, design, engineering, materials science, social practices, and many other fields. Moreover, the architects possess a fundamental feeling of space, and this unusual quality helps them solve various problems with design solutions and become the best real estate developers.
Work Cited
Thompson, James. Narratives of Architectural Education: From Student to Architect. Routledge, 2019.
Essay Voice-over
The Ethical Side Of Animal Testing
Animals often become objects of scientific research aimed to test new cosmetics, medicines, methods of treatment, and food. It leads to the endless hardship of hundreds of thousands of animals, which until recently were considered to be a sole means to check drugs and products. Nowadays, new advanced technologies, especially AI and cell technology, allow scientists to forgo that outdated practice. However, sentient beings are still involved in experiments, and many people tend to find different justifications for it. This fact raises the ethical aspect of animal testing that should be addressed worldwide. The main reason usually expressed by animal testing advocates is that there are no other options, whereas its critiques argue that it is a grave violation of animal rights and ethical norms. Despite the complex and timely process of further cultural transformation, humanity has to abolish the use of animals in science because it is an unethical, cruel, and unreliable scientific tool.
The reality is that majority recognize the suffering of rabbits or rats used in research laboratories and even sympathize with them. However, people still tolerate cruel experiments for a wide range of reasons, including psycho-sociological aspects reflected in carnism and other similar theories. Carnism is the opposite ideology of veganism that explains why people choose to eat meat and use animals as their property, believing that it is the right thing to do (Gibert and Desaulniers 293). Its main reasons stem from deeply rooted culture, traditions, and the psychological nature of moral inconsistency, which occurs, for instance, when people defend their dogs and tolerate the suffering of rats in laboratories. Human beings tend to rely on primary defenses of carnism, which are psychological mechanisms. They try to view animals as “non-living” objects (objectification) that are something abstract (deindividualization).
Moreover, dichotomization plays the most crucial role here as it allows people to divide animals into different groups, such as farmed ones and pets. This approach helps to avoid tension between loving animals and letting them suffer from pain by denying that some species have moral rights. Loughnan et al. reveal that when omnivores categorize a creature as food, they start to perceive its intelligence and capacity to suffer as marginal, which in turn decreases moral concern (17). In other words, people tend to comfort themselves and ignore the natural ability to sympathize with animals to avoid cognitive dissonance.
The animal rights movement should be seen as a part of a larger human rights movement. For instance, Regan stresses that because the animals are systematically treated as less useful to humanity and with a lack of respect, their rights are also systematically violated (233). According to the rights view, improvement of their detention conditions or minimizing of caused pain is not enough. The full replacement is needed because animals also possess the inherent value and deserve to live freely without human interference. The main problem is that people see them as renewable resources or as objects lacking independent value.
One of the most popular arguments is that animals used for testing are bred for it; thus, it is their mission. Scientists do not kill wild animals and avoid adverse impacts on the environment. It may be true from a global perspective; however, it shows that humanity ignores the fact that all animals deserve to have rights. Gibert and Desaulniers stress that society has false beliefs concerning the intelligence gap between different species (295). The fact is that all animals have enough mental capacity to understand the pain and feel different emotions, which makes them even (Loughnan et al. 16). For instance, animal rights activists attribute animals to a wide emotional life, whereas meat-eaters deny their minds’ complexity and ignore their moral rights.
Another common argument that supports animal experimentation is the total unacceptance of human being testing. Of course, the testing phase of new drugs or products should not be neglected to avoid possible casualties, whereas even testing performed on volunteers is, to some extent, perceived as an unethical activity. According to Armstrong and Botzler, widely accepted moral principles that are central to the human conception of morality shed light on the currently increased delinquency of using animals as test subjects (311). These principles tell not to harm, kill, or cause to suffer conscious, sentient animals for no good reason. Even defenders of such testing feel the obligation to avoid causing unjustified pain to all creatures. The “justified reason” becomes the main driver for perceiving animal experimentation as at least morally acceptable if not entirely ethical.
The future of humanity has been prioritized over rats and mice in science because there allegedly was no other choice. A chain of laws and acts was adopted to enhance control over the unethical use of animals and minimize the adverse consequences of such experimentation (Doke and Dhawale 224). Nevertheless, the usage of rats, mice, hamsters, dogs, and primates for research is still not abolished in the world. Recent findings on animal experimentation efficiency, together with intense technological advancement, make all “justified reasons” cease to exist. According to Archibald, animal testing was not always successfully applied as it failed to find appropriate treatments for such diseases as cancer, asthma, and stroke (2). Moreover, it provides limited predictability of medicines’ safety for human patients, which makes it an unreliable and outdated tool.
To assess the moral side of animal experimentation, not only costs to animals but also human costs should be considered, as many people die from drugs that undergo insufficient testing. For instance, 95% of new medicines that were found to be effective and safe in animals fail during human trials (Archibald 4). Further human costs and the realization that animal testing is a poor model for humans may defeat and stop this experimentation method’s usage. Its high human and animal costs, together with low utility, totally undermine the “sacrifice for a good reason” justification.
Furthermore, recent incredible scientific advances made it possible to test human biology to the extent that precludes the usage of living creatures. According to Doke and Dhawale, such alternatives to animal testing, like in vitro cell testing and computational techniques, are more efficient and offer both ethical and scientific advantages (225). It is a time when opponents of cruel experiments involving animals cannot be accused of having the antiscience position and prioritizing animals over people.
To conclude, animals have enough cognitive level to feel emotions and suffer from maltreatment. Animal testing requires systematic causing of harm to sentient beings to test drugs and products that will be later used by people. Taking into consideration that animals have inherent value, this unethical procedure violates their rights. People tend to justify their sacrifices by prioritizing human life, diminishing the intelligence capabilities of animals, and applying sentiment of “justified reason.” Recent findings proved that the abolishing of animal testing becomes a win-win situation for all parties as it would enhance medical research to the benefit of both patients and animals.
Works Cited
Archibald, Kathy. “Animal Research Is an Ethical Issue for Humans as Well as for Animals.” Journal of Animal Ethics, vol. 8, no. 1, 2018, pp. 1–11.
Armstrong, Susan J., and Richard G. Botzler. The Animal Ethics Reader. 3rd ed., Routledge, 2016.
Doke, Sonali K., and Shashikant C. Dhawale. “Alternatives to Animal Testing: A Review.” Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal vol. 23, no. 3, 2015, pp. 223-229.
Gibert, Martin, and Elise Desaulniers. “Carnism.” Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics, edited by Paul B. Thompson and David M. Kaplan, Springer, 2014, pp. 292-298.
Loughnan, Steve, Boyka Bratanova, and Elisa Puvia. “The Meat Paradox: How are We Able to Love Animals and Love Eating Animals?” The Inquisitive Mind Italia, vol. 1, 2012, pp.15-18.
Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press, 2004.
“Job Or Health?” By J. Tankersley
Coronavirus is one of the most pressing issues affecting the world today, and the coverage of the pandemic in the news is extensive. In particular, articles concerning the social effects of the outbreak are widely published and read. In their article “Job or Health? Restarting the Economy Threatens to Worsen Economic Inequality”, Tankersley (2020) reports that lifting restrictions from business activity in the United States too quickly could further socioeconomic inequality in the United States. The main argument of the article is that the pandemic’s effects varied based on people’s socioeconomic status. The author states that the pandemic has already divided Americans into two groups based on their income level. While the more affluent people can afford to practice social distancing, people from low-income backgrounds are forced to take on any available jobs to avoid losing money (Tankersley, 2020). Therefore, opening businesses too soon could lead to negative consequences for the second group, as they are likely to start working as quickly as possible regardless of potential health consequences (Tankersley, 2020).
In order to develop and support their argument, the author uses appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos throughout the text. In order to appeal to emotion, Tankersley (2020) includes excerpts from interviews with people from low socioeconomic status who were influenced by the outbreak. Interviews explore their concerns and feelings, thus also evoking empathy in the readers. Credibility is established through the use of statistical figures, research findings, and expert opinion. Exploring information from reliable sources assists the author in highlighting the depth and scope of the problem, which contributes to the validity of the argument. Lastly, credibility is established through the use of appropriate voice and tone. The author’s use of language suggests an unbiased perspective; they avoid using informal expressions and present the issue from both sides, thus showing credibility. On the whole, the article concerns an important topic, and the author appeals to credibility, emotion, and reason effectively to support their argument.
Reference
Tankersley, J. (2020). Job or health? Restarting the economy threatens to worsen economic inequality. The New York Times. Web.