In 2-3 paragraphs post an example of a Superstitious belief and Ritual you or someone you know has. Using your text and Lecture 1, cite the importance and value of rituals in our society. Be sure to cite the principles of Operant Conditioning by B.F. Skinner. How does the concept of reinforcement apply to the superstitious belief and how might the superstition be maintained?

Who is most likely to have the most fragile self-esteem?

Question 8 options:

Please answer of the question ASAP!! You can just 2,3 sentences answer for each question.

2. How have Western views on early childhood development changed over the years?
3. How have non-Western perspectives on childhood differed from Western views?
4. How can a knowledge of early childhood development guide classroom interactions and curriculum planning?
5. How can an understanding of early childhood development guide the observation and identification of children with disabilities?
6. How can a knowledge of early childhood development promote an understanding and appreciation of diversity?
7. How can this knowledge guide advocacy and the shaping of public policy?
8. Why should professionals study child development from a multicultural perspective?

The right to life for an able-bodied adult is considered a negative and absolute right.

Give three examples when the right to life can be considered a positive right.

Give three examples when the right to life can be considered a limited right.

I'm having a hard time understanding what this is asking, thank you so much for the help!

Please write down your response after reading the paragraphs. (At least 5 sentences long. 150-200 words)

I think that there is a very fine line between technology and human innovation. That fine line is when the technological innovation starts to harm humans. That is not the case here with Geraldine Hamilton’s organs on a chip. With this organ on a chip, there are no humans being hurt. She is using cells to try to stimulate accurate representations of a human body. She is doing this to try to help the world of medicine. Using these chips, she can test cures for certain diseases and even test medicine for specific people. Not all people are the same so she can take specific people’s cells and test if they would react in a fatal or non fatal way to a drug. She gives an example in her talk, when she explains how she had a headache and took an advil, then fifteen minutes later, she was rushed to an emergency room (Hamilton). This shows how differently people can react to different types of medicine. Using this technology could end up saving so many lives in the long run.

I think that there is a very fine line between technology and human innovation. That fine line is when the technological innovation starts to harm humans. That is not the case here with Geraldine Hamilton’s organs on a chip. With this organ on a chip, there are no humans being hurt. She is using cells to try to stimulate accurate representations of a human body. She is doing this to try to help the world of medicine. Using these chips, she can test cures for certain diseases and even test medicine for specific people. Not all people are the same so she can take specific people’s cells and test if they would react in a fatal or non fatal way to a drug. She gives an example in her talk, when she explains how she had a headache and took an advil, then fifteen minutes later, she was rushed to an emergency room (Hamilton). This shows how differently people can react to different types of medicine. Using this technology could end up saving so many lives in the long run. I think that human innovation is gradually becoming dependent on technology but for a good reason. Technology can do many things that humans cannot. We can program technology to do various different things that are more faster and efficient than we could do ourselves. We should use technology to our advantage, to help us improve ourselves and everyone around us. I think that it is a very powerful tool which can help us make the world a better place for everyone. An example is this organ on a chip technology that could potentially eliminate the need for animal testing which has so many ethical issues. Another example is when we use technology to give people prosthetic arms and legs to people who were born with none. I think that technology is an amazing thing, it is helping us make huge strides in medicine and beyond.

Activity: Take a look at some of the medical adds from the 1900s-1930s.

Select an ad that you find interesting. In at least 200 words, describe why you selected this image and what you think it says about the depiction of medicine in the media. Some things you could write about include: what does this ad indicate to us about its intended audience? What kind of medical claims do they make? What kind of evidence do they provide?

In at least 50 words each, comment on ads selected by two of your peers, noting what you find intriguing or find strange in the image they chose. (30 points)

In 400 words compare structural Functionalist, Social Conflict Theory, and Symbolic Interactionist

describes the purpose, and provides an example, of the following elements for educators

• Goals
• Activities/action
• Expected outcomes/evidence of completion
• Resources
• Reflection
• Timeline

Identify health education and promotion intervention components that can be applied to theories and models.

Your response must be at least 300 words in length.

What is program sustainability? Discuss key factors of program sustainability. Explain why each factor is essential to program sustainability.

Your response must be at least 200 words

The idea of Paleolithic humans giving a tangible visible representation to intangible symbolic imagery they were “seeing” in their heads through altered states of consciousness (visions, dreams, hallucinations, trance). We have a better understanding of our brain’s visual mechanics in our own time but we as humans still routinely tap into altered states of consciousness, whether it’s through daydreaming, roleplaying (ex. Cosplay) meditation, dance, substance use, or escapism into virtual worlds such as video games, movies, music, art, social media.

-WHAT, IN YOUR OPINION, IS THE APPEAL OF AN ALTERED STATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS FOR US AS HUMANS?

-If you find yourself wanting to “unplug” from reality in an altered state, what feeling are you after and is there a visual component to it?

-How can we relate our own state of altered consciousness in modern times, back to the Paleolithic humans and their interest in recording visions they saw in their heads on the walls of caves?

Please write down your response after reading the paragraph. (At least 5 sentences long. 150-200 words)

Ethically, autonomous cars mixed together on the roads with human-operated cars raises a scary picture in my mind. If autonomous cars are running on the mindset of saving the greater good, and human operated cars are also on this roadway with the mindset of saving their own self… I am unsure of how that would turn out. It is a bit frightening to think about. It is also frightening to think about being a passenger in an autonomous car. As a passenger, you would be putting your faith and life into the hands of a machine, designed by humans, which may be prone to some type of error. Yes, the machine would not make human mistakes as to drink and drive or to text and drive, but there is still the chance of some type of error on the machine's part. As the speaker said, society needs to determine which trade-offs they are willing to make.

Please write down your response after reading the paragraph. (At least 5 sentences long. 150-200 words)

The idea of a driverless car in our modern day and age at first sounds very pleasant, if one does not think too hard about it. Much like how Iyad Rahwan mentions in his TED talk, about 1.6 million people die every year in traffic accidents, and oftentimes because of human error. If human error was taken away, wouldn’t this drastically decrease the number of accidents occurring? However, there are many ethical dilemmas that one must consider: should you allow your car to decide that it should kill you if it were to save five pedestrians as a result? There are an infinite number of factors that could change your answer immediately: what if you were driving with a family member or your significant other on the passenger seat? What if swerving meant running into an unsuspecting mother with a baby carriage? Like Rahwan mentioned, would society even allow driverless cars with such risks, however small? With everyone having different opinions on the risks they’re willing to take, I believe society as a whole will never be able to come to a complete consensus on such a matter. However, I do think that most would avoid driverless cars as a result to avoid such a situation.

Personally, I believe in Bentham’s view of the situation; minimizing harm by choosing to kill one life over five others. However, Kant’s belief that you should allow the car to take its course is also a very valid argument. Who are we to choose who lives and who dies in a society in which one believes every human being is created equal? In addition, if one of my family members was with me in the car, and crashing would put their lives at risk, would I be willing to make that sacrifice just to save five people that I don’t know? As such, this is a very difficult ethical dilemma to consider.

Please write down your response after reading the paragraph. (At least 5 sentences long. 150-200 words)

In my point of view, I believe that driverless car will definitely be the trend of technological development. Meanwhile, 100 percent security will be the target for all related companies. If those cars are mixed into human driven cars in the future, the outcome will be horrible. Even if the technique is well developed, the traffic in the real society is not expectable. There will be so many uncontrollable factors. For example, some pedestrians probably will not walk through zebra crossing, and driverless car must have the ability to deal with corresponding situation.

Moreover, driverless cars will probably meet the situation of ethical dilemma, like what was said in the video. “Kill the passenger or five pedestrians”, it is a difficult question and there will be much more similar questions like this. The people who should be thinking this problem are designers of driverless car, and then they just need to input it as a program into the car. From the ethical aspect, it is better to sacrifice one life for saving five more lives. However, humans are selfish. If I am the passenger, I rather let those five pedestrians die, because I don’t wanna die and I believe most people will have the same idea as me.