Comparative Analysis Five years ago, I watched a classic science-fiction film “Wall-E” (2008), the main character in this movie is a robot which collects trash on the abandoned earth in the future. Although it follows the order by human engaging the boring task day by day, it saves the global environment with its strong emotion when it finds the green plant. Most interesting, Wall-E also falls in love with EVE at the end of this movie.
Even the fantasy plot is merely happen in the film, currently, with the development of technology, more and more humanoid robots are beginning to work in our realistic world as the assistants in many fields. From “Humanoid Robotics: Ethical Considerations” to “My Friend the Robot,” both of this two articles focus on the ethical decisions on the robots, although robots become more autonomous and intelligent, they cannot and will not ever replace humans. People need to find ways to ensure that they are better equipped to make moral judgments.
By comparing with two articles that talk about this topic, we can confirm the different and similar points between these two articles. In the article “Humanoid Robotics: Ethical Considerations,” published on the Idaho National Laboratory website on May 30, 2006, David Bruemmer emphasizes the importance of technological development and regulation in the field of giving robots some motivational system. Following the development of science and technology, artificial intelligence is extensively used in many aspects.
Therefore, human improving humanoids via intelligence is a trend in currently. Likewise, the author also quotes the best-known set of guidelines for robo-ethics is the “three laws of robotics” coined by Isaac Asimov who is a science-fiction writer, in order to illustrate the high-level rules are simply impracticable from a software engineering perspective. Bruemmer uses the ethical rules to measure whether giving robots intelligence or not, and gets a conclusion that the technology has driven mankind’s progress, but each new advance has posed troubling new questions.
Autonomous machines are different, the sooner the problems of moral agency they raise are dealt with, the easier it will be for mankind to enjoy the benefits that they will undoubtedly bring. Another article “My Friend the Robots,” published on the times higher education website on Feb. 16, 2007 in London. Kathleen Richardson talks about how the companion robots benefit people, especially for the elder. She cites many different kinds of robots which were made before as examples to demonstrate that the robots are useful in people’s life.
In addition, Richardson reminds people to realize the relationship between human and robots, and gives robots more status. Ultimately, the robots made in the future do their best to help people and interact harmoniously coexistence with people. Bruemmer is a vice president in the company called 5D. His major work concentrates on the development of intelligent robots. Kathleen Richardson’s research focuses on the field of therapeutic assistance for children and elders; she obtains PhD in the Department of Social Anthropology.
Although their majors are both to research and develop robots, they work in different fields. Bruemmer focuses on the application of robots in the field of business, but Richardson pays more attention to the development of robots in society. According to their different fields of research, Bruemmer and Richardson’s theses are not similar. Bruemmer suggests people should not doubt and stagnate improving the emotion with humanoids even if they are worried about humanoids replacing human and taking over the world, because humanoids are the products of our own minds and hands.
Richardson talks about how the companion robots benefit the elderly, and reminds people to realize the relationship between human and humanoids, in order to give robots more status as equal as human. In the aspect of audience, both Bruemmer and Richardson target the people who focus on the development of humanoid robots or engagement in the field of scientific research. However, Bruemmer also writes for many software engineers. Richardson’s article is issued on the education website, so her audiences are, including students, social anthropologists and the public.
Bruemmer and Richardson both support the development of humanoid robots with intelligence and emotion, but they have different viewpoints. In Bruemmer’s article, he says, “We cannot shirk responsibility by calling the future inevitable. It is difficult to direct a snowball as it careens down the slope (2006). ” Bruemmer explains the intelligent robots represent the high technology and the social progress, but nurture and monitor the improvement of humanoids is a great challenge, even it will be a long-term goal. While, Richardson writes her article by personal emotions.
She expects companion robots can solve the problem of elderly alienation. For example, in her article, Richardson asks many questions about the relationship between human and robots. At the end of her article, she gives her main point, “In the absence of a human-centred vision, the technology’s benefits to the elderly will be uncertain and limited (2007). ” Through this comparison, although Bruemmer and Richardson have different background and different groups of audience, both of them support the development of humanoid robots with intelligence and emotion.
In addition, Bruemmer emphasizes the importance of technological development and regulation in the field of giving robots some motivational system, he believes that nurturing and monitoring the improvement of humanoids is a great challenge. Richardson talks about how the companion robots benefit people, especially for the elderly. Finally, she concerns about human-centred in order to remind people of realizing the relationship between human and robots, and giving robots more status. Compared with these two articles, Richardson’s article is more effective than Bruemmer’s, because her topic is closer to the public.
Also, she uses more examples in her article to let reader understand easier, rather than much professional words. Richardson writes her article with personal emotion, it can make audience feel empathy while reading. Obviously, the audiences prefer to accept Richardson’s article. References Bruemmer, D. (2006). Humanoid Robotics: Ethical Considerations. The Idaho National Laboratory. Retrieved from https://www. inl. gov/humanoidrobotics/ethicalconsiderations. shtml Richardson, K. (2007). My Friend the Robot. The Times (London). Retrieved from http://www. timeshighereducation. co. uk
Review Of “Things Fall Apart” By Chinua Achebe
This quote is often used by physicists and other scientists, and it holds true in various aspects. In literature, a character that contrasts and enhances another character is called a “foil.” When two characters serve as foils to each other, they have opposing views and personalities, but their presence together highlights their qualities. Chinua Achebe’s fictional novel Things Fall Apart features Okonkwo as the main character.
In the novel, Okonkwo possesses several distinctive traits that contrast with his foil, Obierika, which ultimately accentuates his own characteristics. Obierika’s calm, easy-going, and composed nature sharply contrasts with Okonkwo’s strong-minded, dogmatic, and hot-tempered personality in Things Fall Apart. Furthermore, Obierika’s ability to remain relaxed and not easily frustrated serves as a clear foil to Okonkwo. Even when faced with unfavorable circumstances, Obierika patiently awaits the natural course of events.
When the Oracle called for the killing of Ikemefuna, Obierika chose to stay behind and not be involved. When Okonkwo questioned why Obierika did not participate in the killing, he cleverly responded, “Because I had something better to do…Why should I? But the Oracle did not request my involvement.” These quotes illustrate Obierika’s reluctance to interfere in a matter that he did not feel was his responsibility (Achebe 66).
Obierika serves as a contrasting character to Okonkwo in terms of their attitudes towards power and dominance. Unlike Okonkwo, who is obsessed with being powerful and mighty, Obierika is easy-going and calm. In the village, Obierika’s son, Maduka, is a formidable wrestler. Okonkwo holds great admiration for Maduka and believes he will achieve great things. However, when Okonkwo expresses his desire to have a son like Obierika’s due to his strength and mightiness, Obierika responds in a soothing manner, stating that there is no need to worry as their children are still young (Achebe 66).
This passage highlights Obierika’s lack of concern for power and supremacy. In contrast, Okonkwo possesses traits of strong-mindedness, dogmatism, and hot-temperament. If things do not go his way, Okonkwo tends to react impulsively. For instance, when he asks his second wife about the whereabouts of his third wife, Ojiugo, and discovers that his second wife lied to him, he becomes furious. Upon Ojiugo’s return, he beats her severely (Achebe 29).
Okonkwo beating his third wife during the Week of Peace was a display of extremely poor judgment. This specific week was designated as a time when the tribes were expected to refrain from violence. This incident highlights Okonkwo’s short temper and low tolerance compared to Obierika. Apart from contrasting personality traits, Obierika also serves as a foil to Okonkwo due to Okonkwo’s insatiable hunger for power. In fact, Okonkwo earned the reputation of being the most dominant figure in his village by defeating Amalinze the Cat, an undefeated and highly regarded wrestler.
Okonkwo, being the first to defeat him, held great power. He hoped that his son, Nwoye, would follow in his footsteps. However, Nwoye resembled his mother more and possessed qualities that made him seem more feminine than Okonkwo desired. Okonkwo expressed his concerns for Nwoye in the book, stating, “’I am worried about Nwoye. A bowl of pounded yams can throw him in a wrestling match. His two younger brothers show more promise. But I can tell you, Obierika, that my children do not take after me’” (Achebe 66). This passage portrays Okonkwo’s longing for a son like Maduka, who possesses exceptional strength, unlike Nwoye.
Okonkwo’s relentless pursuit of power and his desire for supremacy for himself and his family is evident. In Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart, Obierika serves as a striking contrast to Okonkwo in various ways. Unlike Okonkwo, Obierika is calm and reserved, displaying a level-headedness that Okonkwo lacks. Additionally, while Okonkwo is driven by his hunger for power, Obierika does not share this same ambition. Despite their stark differences, the novel depicts Obierika and Okonkwo as close friends, highlighting the concept that opposites often attract.
Reflection On Wit The Movie Analysis
Reflection Paper on Wit Launa Theodore A universal constant about being a patient is vulnerability and loss of control. In the movie Wit, starring Emma Thompson, you get to see all these and more. You get to see another side of the medical profession that shows blatant disregard for medical humanities, the similarities between intellects and the simple art of caring by a nurse who is not an intellect. Wit is the story of an intellectual, Vivian Bearing being diagnosed with stage four ovarian cancer, the treatment and how she is stripped of her personal and professional status, in the name of being a patient.
The movie started with Dr. Kelekian telling Vivian that she had advanced metastatic ovarian cancer and the treatment was a vigorous course of chemotherapy for eight weeks as an inpatient. Very early on, Dr. Kelekian refers to Vivian as an intellect, he says to her, “you are a professor, Miss Bearing” to which she replied, “like yourself, Dr. Kelekian”. He wanted to show her that academia and research came at a very high price, maybe even at the price of death.
Being sick, especially being hospitalized puts the patient in a position of inferiority and this is shown in the conversations between Vivian and the x-ray technician, and also the young doctor, a former student of Vivian’s. He is put to care for her while she is in the hospital and on their first meeting, he seemed very awkward and amateurish. He rushed through the interview and exam and acted as if she was a scientific experiment showing little interest in her emotional displeasure.
He finished the meeting by giving her a degrading vaginal exam, after which he ran out of the room in what appeared to be a shameful fit. As the movie progressed, Vivian became severely sick and was in constant pain while her physical condition declined. The only friend she had was her primary nurse and their bond got stronger as her health got worse. The nurse was not an intellect, but she was friendly and cared about Vivian. Although they came from different backgrounds, they enjoyed each other’s friendship and learned a lot about each other.
She listened and even found time to have a popsicle with the patient when she was too sick to tolerate fluids. The nurse proved to be her only advocate especially at the end of her life when the young doctor was ready to resuscitate her and never considered her wishes to be not resuscitated. She was the one who defended her against the doctors when she had no family to do so; the one who sat with her when she was scared, stoked her hand and told her “its ok”. They both knew that she would die but the nurse’s ability to comfort was all Vivian needed.
During the grand rounds, the doctors all spoke above the patient, not really seeing her as a person, they missed the only visible sign from the side effects of the chemotherapy, the bald head. As a scholar Vivian was supposed to share the respect for research and the impersonality with minimal personal involvement that entailed. She finally broke down and could no more play the professional intellectual role, she became afraid and needed human contact, so she talked to Jason about his fascination with cancer.
He showed an inconsiderate side by talking about the bedside manners course as a “colossal waste of time for researchers”, and he also implied that although he told his patients he would miss them after death, he did not really feel any grief. She who seemed not to be a sentimentalist hesitated for what she was hearing and he took her hesitation as a symptom of short term memory loss, asking: “Professor Bearing , who is the President of the United States? ”. This made her think about the choices she had made in her life, academia over something more people oriented.
As nurses, we have the opportunity to strengthen our profession by making sure these medical inhumanities are stopped. With care presently being centered around the patients, we can be better advocates. Even doctors are now being trained to see the patients as a whole instead of a part. If as nurses we can understand the process of being a patient, the constant pain, the loss of modesty, being dependent on others for everything, the not knowing of what is next and just lying in a bed with nothing to do but worry, then I think we can substancially care for our patients with empathy and be the nurses Florence Nightingale envisioned.