Choosing Our Pleasures

Choosing Our Pleasures

I believe that human beings are damaged by the inherent violence and brutality, as well as the trauma of modern civilization that has disconnected them from their senses, instincts, and true feelings regarding life on earth. The prevalence of disruptions, disputes, and accidents have distinct countries and their leader’s fearful believing that the world is risky. While science has raised warnings that critical decisions should be made, the field has always been uncertain. Besides, with medical catalepsy where simultaneous firing of numerous nerves has drawn the human body into spasms, thereby making the body politics to be drawn into a type of regulatory catalepsy due to many health scares, environmental lawsuits, several reversals, and numerous consumer warnings. However, I find government interventions to be always naïve or are trilling due to their inability to come up with a solution that can help prevent occurrences of risky phenomenon that can affect the health and life of human beings. While technology has helped improve how activities are undertaken and made the world a global village, I believe that technology has made human life riskier than in the past. Most discoveries on asbestos, pesticides, and nuclear power have all focused on harming the environment and human beings.

The issue regarding the mode in which a person can be harmed or the creature who can be harmed by the development of technology is just relative merits of steps that can be used to alleviate the risk associated with technological growth. Discoveries that were made in other fields have increased mortality rate. Previous studies have shown that while mortality rates have increased in some illnesses, there are also noninfectious threats due to discoveries and inventions that have been made. For instance, although communicable diseases like tuberculosis, cholera, typhus, polio, and smallpox have concurred, the leading causes of deaths in the world now are cancer and heart diseases. The rest of deaths is accounted for by other diseases like HIV/AIDS and Malaria and by natural disasters, homicides, and accidents. For that reason, based on the risky state of human life, societies are now striving less to fend off the issue of full-time mortality by attending to accidents, quality of life, and accidents. Some of the diseases that are demanding attention in contemporary society include brown lung, asbestosis, and lung illness. Since human bodies tend to put effort in optimizing the survival of its trillion cells, it churns out numerous hormones, as well as a chemical that can help reinforce fun behaviour and help in fighting unwanted objects in the body.

Technological inventions and development have made societies relative to previous human confrontation characterized by mortal risk in emotionally unsettling situations of living a healthier life and longer than before. If human beings were living on the margin of survival, then they would have the luxury of worrying about hairdryers and microwaves. In the prehistoric life and history, there were little musts with people living a leisurely life of hunting and gathering food and some of the other responsibilities being shared among members of the community. By analyzing contemporary and traditional life, I found out that activities that are undertaken by human beings currently are riskier when compared to what was undertaken in the past. When comparing causes of mortality rate as a result of discoveries, coal was used as a measure of comparison with deaths enumerated as a result of releasing radioactive substances from burning fossil fuels and train wrecks. On the other hand, when assessing nuclear power and inventions in modern society, nuclear weapon proliferation and terrorist abuse are analyzed. Technological development in the field of war machinery has enhanced nuclear use with the most notable one being the attack in Nagasaki in Japan during the second world war. It is problematic for humans to learn how to deal with sophisticated machines by taking into account all relevant social considerations.

The prevalence and effects of technological innovations inventions have forced distinct stakeholders to identify mechanisms that can help solve problems or risks that are associated with technological growth. Comparative approaches have been used to identify the consequences of a particular discovery. As it dawns in social consciousness where strict protection mechanisms have admitted on residual harm, it has been discovered that through induced exposure to hazards, little by little stakeholders have been able to identify techniques that can be used to solve or mitigate the risky or hazard while, on the other hand, harming human life. There are distinct chemicals that are used as a food preservative but have a health effect on the health of human beings. Some of the preservatives that are applied to beef hurt the life of an individual and can cause cancer and heart diseases. Although there are legislative and industrial programs that operate under guidelines that mandate the reduction of harm to human health and life, as well as protection of consumers from business people, the degree of protection or reduction has not been specified. For that reason, goal ambiguity has remained as one of the program objectives with numerous goals coming into conflict. While setting goals can be possible, setting realistic goals that can help reduce harm to the health of humans can be challenging. It should be understood that realistic goals are tailored to ensuring that human beings are protected against harm that can be caused by technological development and chemical use as preservatives in foods.

In fighting against the effects of technological development, the US Congress established a regulatory agency that was tasked with the responsibility of overseeing activities of organizations. With issues like automobile emission, regulatory body have insisted on reviewing both economic and scientific evidence in detail to determine the causes and effects of the emissions as well as standards that have been set for automobile companies. Although the goal of the legislative crusade was to bring distinct hazards into a regulatory framework based on medicine, law, economics, engineering, and science, there were still inadequate bases for essential decisions. For that reason, I have concluded that while legislative formulation has helped control technological inventions and innovations, they have done little in controlling what is released into the atmosphere, which causes risk to the health of human beings. There are little administrative actions that have been taking to control the health risk of technological innovations to humans despite the formulation of laws and policies that control the harm caused to the environment by human activities.

Studies have shown that it is challenging to marshal the support of government agencies when undertaking fundamental studies to establish how each agency has contributed to a clean environment through policy implementation. Court actions has been problematic due to delays of case hearings and landmark decisions that are handed down by judges. Despite some organizations and people being caught to have gone against the set policies, courts are still experiencing challenges in interpreting legislative mandates, as well as refereeing the territorial disputes that exist between agencies. The challenge, which has continued to work its way up most supreme courts, is related to the imperative of costs benefit analysis when making regulatory decisions. For that reason, it has been challenging for courts to make decisions regarding disputes that exist between agencies. While non-governmental bodies have had a collective initiative to promote a safe world, it is still challenging to identify contributions that have been made by the new institutions. As such, they deserve watching since they typify efforts for developing procedures, techniques, focal centres, and databases that can be used for assessing risks outside the government. Nonetheless, the question that lingers in most people’s mind is whether services offered by nongovernmental organizations can provide high technical quality, develop a reputation of integrity, as well as whether courts and governments can accommodate contributions made by the bodies as an alternative to government-sponsored analysis and direct regulations.

Despite the technological development directed towards inventions, criticism has been levelled at the quality and manner that scientific analysis has brought public hazard on the health of people. Due to lack of a central authority who can guide science field, proposals are made to establish a central authority structure, where technical disputes in regards to riskier activities can be appealed. Generally, distinct bodies that are involved in technological innovation and monitoring of activities undertaken by scientific companies should be responsible for appraising public hazards to ensure that risks are managed before they affect the health of human beings.