What nature has given us is amazing but recent development in technology are playing an important role in society and has given the ability to change many aspects of nature, however, the question is to what extend should we allow technology to control or change us?
Our scientists have begun to mix genes from different animals to create strange hybrids, If our scientists keep mixing human DNA with DNA from other animals, will "part humans" be living and working among us? . Perhaps the above picture shows the future where creatures are 15% pig, 15% cow, 15% dog and the rest human.
It has been proved that this works by making a glow in the dark rabbit by inserting a gene from a jellyfish that fluoresces into rabbit DNA. These genetic experiment are thought to be dangerous or a threat to some species if for some reason the were allowed to interact in real ecosystems , for instance if fish has a mixed genes some how got into sea this could change the nature of other fish and also seeing the above art how can we treat this part of human, part of animal ? And this will certainly increase the discrimination in society and a society as whole would be not normal these kind of creature and it might not be safe as well. Although we have improved many aspects of society through technology and beyond , I think we should not mess with nature . Despite the worries surrounding this technology if does have some potential

medical uses which may benefit us.

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.world-science.net/images/humandog.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060808_chimera.htm&h=203&w=270&sz=11&hl=en&start=518&tbnid=NtUshTCJKzsC4M:&tbnh=85&tbnw=113&prev=/images%3Fq%3Danimal%2Bmixed%2Bgenes%26start%3D500%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

Is the media to violent?

Does modern media observe society and replicate it, or does the media lead society and change it over time? This is a question which in today’s media reliant society is becoming ever more relevant. Few people will have failed to notice that the media in all it’s forms has penetrated our daily lives providing us with valuable information, for the most part this is a useful addition to our lives. But the media also has a darker side; it’s not just useful information that we receive, we are also bombarded with thousand of violent and graphic images. The average child watches around 8,000 televised murders and 100,000 acts of violence before the age of 11 with that number doubling by the time the child reaches age 18.
The effect of these violent images on society, particularly its younger members is unknown but it is thought to be detrimental. The argument for this is that if TV executives can encourage companies to spend thousands on 30-second commercials because they can influence consumer behaviour, than surely programs filled with violence which last longer than 30 seconds can also influence social behaviour.
A study by Eron and Rowell Huesmann found that children who watched significant amounts of TV violence at the age of 8 were consistently more likely to commit violent crimes or engage in child or spouse abuse at 30. They concluded "that heavy exposure to televised violence is one of the causes of aggressive behaviour, crime and violence in society.
In our increasingly violent societies it is easy to blame increasing media violence for the surge in violent crimes. The counter argument is that the breakdown of the family unit and lack of morals exhibited by people today that is to blame . Although there have been many studies into the precise effect of the media on society the true effect is unknown. The cause of violence may never be identified but should society still allow young and vulnerable members to be exposed to such violence?

http://www.psychologymatters.org/mediaviolence.html

Information and society

Historically, information has played an important role in society and has changed many aspects of our culture and identity. Particularly in the past century as people have become increasingly reliant on technology and information provided by the media.
Information can influence and change society easily through the introduction of new technologies such as the telephone, radio, television and the PC .Information is needed in society, because information is knowledge and only by increasing knowledge can societies evolve and grow. In addition, knowledge and information are equated with power; whoever controls information has power. So in order to maintain sociological structure governments have to control information in a way to limit access to certain members of society.
There are various other benefits which arise from the control of information. Firstly, information is now a valuable commodity which is traded between nations, so it clearly makes sense to protect an investment. In addition certain types of information can be used to develop new technologies and design devices such as nuclear warheads which place certain nations at an advantage over nations. There is also a downside to this as, this information in the wrong hands could have a potentially huge effect on all societies around the world. Information also has to be controlled for public safety, some information if released would frighten people causing widespread panic and hysteria.
Information is vital in society and although portions have to be controlled the sharing of information between individuals is beneficial for society in order to increase knowledge and promote further growth of the human race.

Boone & Kurtz, Contemporary Business, (2002), tenth edition, page 616-620.

http://www.indiana.edu/~tisj/


http://www.duke.edu/~mccann/info-soc.htm

How technology has changed many aspects of culture and society?

In recent century technology has played an important role in culture and society and began to change many aspects of our lives and the term was described by Thomas in very general meaning of the word, made of the systematised acquired skills and applies in their dealings with nature. These can be said for instance, infrastructure which refers to basic system of communication (such as television, radio, print media and telecommunication) and vehicles (e.g. bicycles, cars, motorcycles, trains, ships, and aircraft). This kind of technology has been adapted very quickly to culture and society and it has become a part of our culture the way we share information and knowledge in society. Particularly, the way we access to information through computers and other kind devices in society and the way media present and broadcast information to us has modified many factors of our culture . It should also be noted that technology basically means knowledge about techniques, that tries to influence the behaviour of people whether by communication or by other form of technology. Technology and techniques are cultural products which form part of ongoing processes in society and the relationship is important to the society although it does affect the society and culture but in profound ways and therefore it can not be learned separately. It is difficult to depict culture and society as continues process and this is because of human nature can be easily influenced by new development techniques surrounding society. Therefore technology can be seen as something dynamic and continuously changing.

Thomas Hylland Eriksen, small places, large issues , (2001) second edition.
http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2006/07/10/does-technology-change-culture-or-culture-change-technology/

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_8/carolan/index.html


http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_8/carolan/index.html

what is culture and societ?

As we have mentioned in recent articles many aspects of culture and society and I thought its time to understand and explain what we mean by culture and society according to Thomas.
One way of looking at society and culture is anthropology under the concept of an author’s main view.
It can be seen as a theory of social and cultural anthropology that can be studied with interest in the whole or society and also tries to simplify the relationship between many aspects of human’s existence.
The aim of anthropology is not only to account for social and cultural difference across the world but also to understand them.
Logically, the theory of anthropology distinguishes between social and cultural. Moreover the important concepts of anthropology are the comprehensive likeness between social systems and cultures.
Accordingly, any such systems and cultures can always be studied by using anthropology; alternatively contemporary research can be applied although these theories tend to reflect anthropological ideas. They also cover a huge variety and range of culture.
However, culture is hard to define as the word is ambiguous. It is derived from a Greek word meaning “cultivated” therefore culture and anthropology is literally knowledge about cultivated humans.
Although they are many often factors which are involved including those that is interesting to many anthropologists such as religion, political power and child raising traditions. Its state that knowledge is connected to obtain behaviour, in some cases that is true although to what extent well varies from society to society, also the method behind society need to be comprehended in terms of relationship in society and as well as between society.
Another way of looking at culture it can be seen as symbolic of humans come to being, for instance, history and tradition, where as society sometimes refers to organisation of human life, putting this into another way to get by and manage tasks that is constantly occurred under the human beings lives and it seems society is way of neighbouring and having relationship with in society as neighbourhood.
On the other hand, it is believed that anthropology has similarities with social sciences and humanities and also it’s clear that the path behind anthropology more likely to be understood by humanities and thereby society and culture become binding by it, in another word culture and society once become existence when anthropology and humanities are applied to it.
In some situations the concept of this tend to be followed as result of relationship between humanities and society and that creates culture with in society but whether believe it or not these all have to be studied by anthropological.
To conclude this it’s obvious that there are many ranges of definitions that are to be comprehended in culture and society under the author’s major points.

Thomas Hylland Eriksen, small places, large issues , (2001) second edition.

Page 1 -10.

Why are we mean to chavs?

The slang term ‘Chav’ is becoming increasingly popular in our society, there is no exact definition of the word and the section of society it refers to is still very wide, but the most common explanation of 'chav' is a young person, often lacking of a high level of education, who follows a particular fashion. Stereotypical chavs usually wear tracksuits and designer labels including the make 'Burberry', and if they’re girls, very short skirts, large hoop earrings and stilettos. A ‘chavette’ is a female chav who is seen wearing sportswear, fake designer gear.
The phrase has often been mentioned in regards to anti-social behaviour and in other circumstances, the term is used to describe those of a low class, those who are poor or working class. Some people look at these chavs and chavettes in different ways because of how they dressed and they think that they should be excluded from our society. From my understanding this is just one of the aspects of British culture. Traditionally in British society has been class ridden with the middle and upper classes showing this particular attitude towards lower classes.
It is fairly obvious that this attitude creates problems within society and has a strong influence over young people, particularly in regards to their behaviour. When people are judged by other or treated differently people judge others differently, and their attitudes and behaviour change in order that they become segregated from their communities and society as a whole.
The segregation of society only ever fuels a lack of knowledge and understanding which in turn leads to fear and social groups such as chavs becoming vilified by those who believe they are in some way better. Whilst it is true that some chavs do act in a way which merits the negative connotations associated with the word, not all chavs are deserving of this. I believe it is time that Britain stopped being mean to chavs and promoted acceptance of them and other social groups within society.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4070000/newsid_4077100/4077102.stm
http://www.search.com/reference/Chav

should homosexuality adopt children?

It has been nearly one century since homosexuality has become acceptable in western society. However, many religions and cultural practices deem homosexuality as a crime and sin. Deciding who should adopt children is a matter of choosing couples with the capability, responsibility, needed for a stable, nurturing upbringing of children. Homosexual couples of being able to adopt children is a very controversial issue and has become an important area of the les-gay rights debate in many countries like the United States, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland. However, many people claim that this is the issue of equality and there is the equality act due to come into force in UK in April, outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexual orientation but there are several adoption agencies in UK run by catholic stating that they will not consider application from homosexual couples because its against church. However, individual in every society should be equally treated despite their beliefs and personally I’m not against the homosexuality. In addition, homosexual couples want if they want to adopt children this is their personal choice , I think that as long as they are capable of providing support for children both financially and emotionally specially, those children who are orphan he or she is really well taken care of.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6311097.stm

What have I said?

Recently there has been a huge debate about racism in a big brother and most people claimed that this is not acceptable in our society. So I would personally like to express my view toward this situation.
Racism has existed throughout human history and has been present in many forms, but what exactly is racism? It can be defined as the hatred of one person by another or the belief that another person is less than human because of skin colour, language, customs, and nationality or any personal characteristic of an individual. This is mostly happens when people from different cultural backgrounds have disagreements with each other or make no effort to understand difference. This is exactly what occurred in big brother hose between Jade Goody and Shilpa Shetty. Jade made ‘racists’ comments saying that Shilpa should 'Go back to the slums', referring to India as a slum. In addition Shilpa herself was subjected to insults and at one point called ‘Poppadom’.
I think this is one of the form of racisms which is due to frustration because Shilpa is talented and classy person and what ever task jade is carrying whether is TV show or not she should not behave in way that harts people feelings, special where she presented herself in TV show like big brother and what jade say may offend people as well as damaging her career, Although Jade apparently didn’t mean what she said, it cannot be undone. It just remains to see if there has been any long lasting damaged caused by this incident but hopefully it will have demonstrated the need to show respect and other cultures but education ourselves.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6282883.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6287857.stm

Why peace and democracy can not be developed in some countries?

Achieving peace and democracy can be difficult in many counties such as Palestinian
and Israel . This is mainly due to culture and religious . All humans are equally cultured, but at the same time we are all equally cultured in different aspects, which displays itself through cultural variety. There are many features according to the theory of anthropology that makes us different from each other. However, in case of Palestinian and Israel states both have been involved in religious and political conflicts. Although many people claim that the current conflict in Middle East is rooted to 20th century, and is infact related to the land which has been occupied by Israel over many years this is not a case the reason is that Religion and politics it suggested that should never mix. Religion is a personal choice and should never be used in regards to decision making for the whole population. If politics and religion mix the problems arise of what religions and what issues. The Jewish may want a ban on abortions. The Islamic community may want headscarves worn by all women in public. A religious person might be happy to have their religious issues as part of the state law, but this is may not work for other religions. This is exactly what America is trying to do in Palestinian and Israel. In addition to this , there are rules forced by a government which are not acceptable in religious practice such as a gay marriage this the central problem in these countries as to why the development of democratic and peace may never be established.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6262007.stm

Did he really deserve the death penalty?

As many of you would have read in the newspapers this week, Saddam Hussein, the former leader of Iraq for more than two decades, had his death sentence carried by hanging on the 30th December 2006.
The execution provoked a mixed response throughout the world, particularly in the Arab world, with Hezbolah renouncing the act and states such as Israel expressing their support.
I would personally like to express my delight that Saddam has finally received a just punishment for his crimes against humanity. Although execution and the death penalty is, perhaps, one of the ugliest aspects in any society, it is a long standing penalty for the most severe of crimes in many Islamic countries.
Saddam was a ruthless dictator who caused immense suffering to thousands of people. His crimes were so grave and numerous that no other sentence would be fitting. Perhaps he may have escaped execution, if he had shown remorse or had offered an apology to the families of those who he himself given the death penalty to.
As it stands I find it hard to argue for any lesser punishment, however, I am opposed to the way in which his sentence was carried out. I do not believe it was appropriate for his death to be filmed. Whether he was a dictator or not, no human should face be treated with such disrespect. In addition to this, the released footage has meant that the ending of his life has not put and end to his impact on the people of Iraq. His controversial statement will live on and continue to destabilise Iraq.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6243747.stm



8 January 2007



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1099005.stm


30 December 2006