TOW #20 Visual Text "One dies, million cry. Million die, no one cries"

    Six years ago, humanity lost one of its most brilliant innovators.  Steve Jobs, the renown entrepreneur and Co-CEO of Apple, had changed the face of technology with the creations of the iPod, Mac, iPad, and most notably the iPhone. In merely a decade, Jobs rapidly advanced the "Information/Computer Age",  revolutionizing the modes of communication and lifestyles of millions of people. Despite Jobs' magnificent creations, the crucial humanitarian issues have yet to be solved. While the creation of new technological devices have impacted many lives, none of the devices saved any more lives than the pre-computer age. Through the use of juxtaposition and irony, the artist effectively opens the eyes of people to the vital problems that have yet to be solved in the world.
      Africa, the home to millions of impoverished people, is directly positioned next to the iconic logo of Apple, a multi-billion dollar company.  While Steve Jobs' Apple and his products changed the lives of many people, when looking from a broader scope, he was just a single man. Everyday, thousands of Africans die of malnutrition, infection, and many other medical deficiency. However, on the day that Jobs died, millions of people mourned his death, despite the fact that there are hundreds of deaths by the hour across the globe. By juxtaposing Apple and Africa, the author clearly wants to make a stark contrast between the two very different situations.
      The intended arrangement of Africa and Apple logo vividly reveals the irony behind the death of Steve Jobs. Although the death of such a notable man is heartbreaking, from a humanitarian standpoint, the idea of millions of deaths being forgotten is unacceptable. The play on words with the idea of a "million" people shows two completely opposite messages, all while tying the two ideas together at the same time. Perhaps the ironic Americans need to begin thinking outside of their bubble and step out into a larger perspective of the world, being aware of the countless death of their African brothers and sisters.
     In a simple, yet very powerful visual, the artist makes an effective and direct statement to Americans in hopes of changing their closed minded thoughts into a more humanitarian mindset.

TOW #19 - BILL GATES: A new kind of terrorism could wipe out 30 million people in less than a year — and we are not prepared

    While most billionaires may relax and live an enjoyable self-centered life, Bill Gates, the renown CEO of Microsoft, is seeking to make an impact in this world.  For his philanthropic work, Gates is tackling on an enormous problem that may in fact affect millions of lives globally. Although military defense budget is vital for the safety of humanity, Bill Gates effectively argues that there is a much greater problem that people must be aware of: Epidemics.
     The military defense of a country may save human lives, but Gates explains how people are not concerned about the war with pandemics.  Gates is alarmed by the fact that people tend to ignore health security when discussing global security and emphasizes  "whether it occurs by a quirk of nature or at the hand of a terrorist, epidemiologist says a fast-moving airborne pathogen could kill more than 30 million people in less than a year".Gates clearly portrays the possible outcome of an flu outbreak and the deadly consequences, ultimately opening up the eyes of the human race. By providing the statistical evidence of the sky high mortality rate of disease outbreaks, Gates argues that people must focus on another form of "terrorism" that could wipe out a huge portion of the human races.
      Gates also examines the aftermaths of the previous epidemics and emphasizes the need to prepare humans, for there is no absolute guarantee of epidemic prevention. Although a monstrous flu has not yet affected millions of lives around the globe, Gates reminds people, "It's hard to get your mind around a catastrophe of that scale, but i happened not that long ago. In 1918, a particularly virulent and deadly strain of flu killed between 50 million and 100 million people".  Bill Gates understands that it is difficult for people to expect a disease that has not been seen for many decades, but he reminds them that there is a chance, a great chance, that a pandemic of similar size may occur at any moment. He logically argues that the scariest part about this fact is that people are not prepared, and may in fact damage perhaps another 50 million to 100 million people once again.
   Hence, through the integration of statistical data and logical reasoning, Bill Gates effectively argues for the necessity of an increase in humanitarian funds for his philanthropic epidemic project.

Link: http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-op-ed-bio-terrorism-epidemic-world-threat-2017-2

TOW #18 - Should we leave Earth to colonize Mars? A NASA astronaut says “nope”.

     Living on a different planet, particularly Mars, has rapidly become a popular topic of discussion in the science field. While the thought of expanding human civilization to new horizons may be intriguing, the idea may not be as ideal as many people portray it to be. In an interview with Quartz Media, former NASA astronaut Ron Garan explains how people should not abandon life on Earth in order to establish new homes on Mars. In his argument, Garan effectively convey's his point through scientific logical reasoning as well as appealing to the emotions of all human beings.
   As a winner of the NASA Exceptional Service medal and the NASA Space Flight medial, Garan is considered to be one of the most qualified space astronaut in the world.  While he has already established his credibility through his years of experience out in space, he still gives scientific rational as to why life on Mars is not ideal.  When asked why Garan believes humans should not colonize Mars, he answers, "if we can't even "terraform" - which is to control our climate and environment - our own planet, what makes us think that we can go to another planet and control the environment there?".  Although Garan provides scientific reasoning behind his claim, he also gives insight as to what "terraform" is, which allows the audience to not only be informed, but believe in Garan's stance. While he does provide logical reasoning through his experiences as an astronaut, he also explains what he wants to convey in order to make his argument more appealing to all people, even if they are interested in space programs or not.
    To continue his point on the flaws of permanently settling in Mars, he appeals to the human emotions that is universally felt by everyone. While many people romanticize the idea of living out in another section in the solar system, Garan warns, "There are a lot of things that define beauty of life on oiur planet, like the breeze in your face, mist on a lake, and the sound of the birds. If you're going to live on Mars, your're not gonna have that for the rest of your life". As an astronaut himself, he has the first hand experience of the feeling of isolation in outer space. He opens the eyes of many people by sharing his years of spending time out in space, depiciting the less-than-ideal life on a different planet. By revealing the true beauties of planet Earth, and the numerous hardships that hopeful martians may endure, Garan effectively proves his claim.
    Hence, by sharing his first hand experience as an astronaut to the world with the inclusion of scientific rational and appealing to pathos, Garan reveals as to why colonization of Mar is less than ideal to humans living on Earth.

Link: https://qz.com/907211/should-we-live-on-mars-nasa-astronaut-ron-garan-believes-we-should-focus-on-fixing-problems-on-earth-instead-of-martian-colonization/

IRB Post #3

For the third marking period, I will be reading The Closer: My Story by Mariano Rivera. The book is an autobiography of one of the best closing pitcher in Major League Baseball history. Although Rivera has gained recognition worldwide, the elite athlete surprisingly grew up in one of the most underdeveloped areas in the world. Throughout the book, Rivera leads the readers through his journey of ultimately becoming the man he has become know as today. I decided to read this book because growing up, I was a huge baseball fan and I was mesmerized by Rivera's skills when watching games.

TOW #17 - IRB Blink

Could a split second decision possibly be more effective than a well thought out timely decision? Contrary to popular beliefs, Malcolm Gladwell argues that decisions made in a blink of an eye can actually have very powerful effects, at times being even more effective than a planned decision. To a certain extent, Malcolm Gladwell's argument is valid as shown in his numerous strong evidences, but many times throughout Blink he also shies away from the importance of well-timed decisions as well.  

   Gladwell effectively proves the power of split second decision through the use of statistical evidence and persuasive credible sources.  In a study done on the theory of thin slice by psychologist John Gottman, "If he analyzes an hour of a husband and wife talking, he can predict with 95 percent accuracy whether that couple will still be married fifteen years later. If he watches a couple for fifteen minutes, his success rate is around 90 percent." (Gladwell 21-22). While most people may believe it would take a lifetime to truly get to know the relationship between two people, Gladwell proves the importance of thin sample size data. Although in statistics, the more data will lead to accurate results, Gladwell proves his argument that there is great power in quick analysis and decisions.  With such a high accuracy, it is hard not consider the out-of-the-norm claim that Gladwell brings up.

     Although Gladwell does an excellent job opening up the eyes of the audience with his stunning evidence, one must consider counterarguments to the claim as well. When meeting a new person, Gladwell argues, "you can learn as much - or more - from one glance at a private space as you can from hours of exposure to a public face" (Gladwell 37). Although this may be true in many cases, opposing viewers may argue against the statement by stating that the illustrated situation is based on people's prejudices. The people that quickly glance at someone's possession are merely making judgements based on their thoughts, not based on the others' personalities which can be better identified through longer conversations. Although the statement "decisions made very quickly can be every bit as good as decisions made cautiously and deliberately" is a valid argument, Gladwell's claim cannot be said to be completely true as the ideas presented are highly controversial.