Lifelong education is makes possible to adapt to society

In this modern world education is necessary for young people. Without education they probably would have trouble with getting job. Generally, the more skill develops, the more education is needed by people. Historically, human beings have developed thier skill for a long time. They have invented a lot of machines. Nowadays a lot of young people are interested in informational technology. According to an article of “Education for a difficult world” by the author, Russell tells us that a suitable education helps young people in this world. I agree with him. The progress of science and technology requires people to learn new skill and a lot of knowledge. So young people need the speed for understanding and the ability to deal with the problem. Such information increases day by day. So young people have to learn the new knowledge even after they have finished some academic courses. They need lifelong education that makes young people possible to hang onto their job.
According to the author, Russell, there are two reasons why the world is difficult to live in. First he discusses about the nature of knowledge from the two kinds of view. One of them is a specialization in this society. Because of that some problems and solutions seem mysterious so he said that technical developments brought a new social psychology in to such mysterious world. Old psychology has been dangerous because of increased technical skill. Many people competed each other for surviving in this world. The new psychology should be more cooperative. It becomes more profitable for all people, but it becomes difficult to achieve because of traditional enemies. Second he discusses about the nature of education. He treats teaching skill and wisdom. He said that the skill portion has increased and the wisdom have reduced today. So he discusses about teachers how they to do and what to do, but it does not teach what should be done. Third he treated for educational solution. There are two kinds of issue. The first one is that teaching literature and second is teaching history. In the first issue he said that teaching literature should not teach but it teach just facts. But young people should learn to feel and understand the principles (it is defined as empathy). In the second issue teaching history does not mean the teaching history of war or nationalism. But it means the teaching of history of “mankind” and human progress. In conclusion he said that we should learn to see the General in the particular.
In addition to a suitable education for young people now, they probably need lifelong education even after they have modern knowledge. Actually lifelong education is very important for people to adapt to a more industrialized society. So suitable education will be widely open to every generation. For example even though they are unskilled labor they have to find their job by operating computers. In this computer dependent society most white collar worker need the skill of writing and having communication by sending e-mail. So, lifelong education facility will be needed for a while.

Reference

Russell,B. (1952). Education for a Difficult world. Education and the modern world.Newyork:

CESl GSE class material.(2005). SIUC CESL

Summary of an article about my hero ; Father Damien

An article Father Damientells us that he devoted his life for lepers in Molokai,Hawai. He was a missionary to the Hawai. Since there were a lot of lepers in Hawai,the king Kamehameha IV decided to send the patients to the one of their island,Molokai. He took a isolation policy.The people in Molokai lived against moral.Damien deicided to move to the island and build a church, school, and put water pipes from the source of water.One day he noticed he was afected by the virus because he had no pain when he droped boiling water on his foot.Finally he died but 5 people succeeded Damiaen's ministry.On his grave stone there is a scripture "Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.

Practice Final

Nowadays we can download the music by Internet. We can find many internet sites on the web which provide the copy of music and computer software. They try to earn money by selling those stuffs. I think they should stop selling those products because they are illegal behavior and they violate the intellectual property. I will explain about this issue from three reasons. The first reason is that the development of the information network infrastructure brings the illegal behavior. The second is that the majority of people who buy the products are in the youth generation because they have enough time to download. The third is they don’t have enough self-awareness for their behavior. In the following paragraph, I will discuss this issue with others’ ideas.

The first, the development of the information network infrastructure brings the illegal behavior. According to Wilfred, D.(2000), the technology of information and the Internet make it possible for musicians to publish their products directly to the customers and they also make it possible to buy music cheaply and more conveniently. In those countries which have information network infrastructure, some corporations have innovated the new kinds of products such as I-river, Ipod etc. These products save music data in digital form. Digital format adapts very well for the network society. Many people are getting used to buying music from internet and many artists and music labels have begun to provide their products on the web. It is useful for people to buy music because they can get music at home without moving. However, there have been a lot of personal music sites on the web. Some sites put the music data on the web and some other sites provide the information to sell the copy of the music. These are obviously illegal sites.

The second, the most of people who buy the products are in the youth generation because they have enough time to download. According to S. Silverstone (2004, par. 3), “The researchers believe that most downloading is done over peer-to-peer networks by teens and college kids, groups that are money-poor but time-rich, meaning they wouldn’t have brought the songs they downloaded.” So, the young generation does copy a lot according to this research. They may feel free to copy the music and they probably don’t have enough self-awareness of illegal behavior. I think their behavior is related to moral issue.

The third , the young people don’t have enough self-awareness for their behavior. This is the moral issue too. According to K. Porter,(2005, par. 6), “….radical improvements in communication technology make global media empires feasible and lucrative in a manner unthinkable in the past.” So, the more network infrastructure becomes advanced the more people especially the young generation do unthinkable behavior on the web.
Finally, I think we may have to watch out for illegal sites so as not to buy the illegal one and we need to educate young generation about the moral of behavior in internet.


Reference:

Porter, K, (2005). The pro-and Anti-Globalization labels just don’t fit. Retrieved from Global Envision http://www.globalenvision.org/library/8/559/10-05-05

Silverstone, S. (2004, June, 21). Music Downloads: Pirates-or Customers? Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School. Retrieved Oct. 5, 2005 from http://hbswk.hbs.edu/iteml?id=4206&t=innovation

Dolfsma, W. (First Monday, 5, May, 2000). How will the music industry weather the globalization storm, retrieved (2005, Oct, 5) from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_5/dolfsma/

Resarch proposal paper The intellectual property problems of medicine

Abstract
This article is about intellectual property problem of medicine. Some countries have copied some drugs without permission. Some developed countries established WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization). In the WIPO conference in 2005, they tried to prohibit copying the new chemical compounds which are expected to be a good medicine for human cure to LMMC (Like Minded Megadiverse Countries). This paper argues that we should have three perspectives in trying to solve problem. The first one is some chemical companies in LMMC should pay for the price of copyright of medicine. The second one is ethical issue that WIPO should persuade more developed countries to sell the copyright because some medicines can save people’s life. The third one is related to globalization that some biotech companies can provide medicines faster and cheaper than those of USA and Europe because LMMC usually are located near the third world.

Nowadays we can get similar kinds of medicine in different places in the world. Some biotech companies have the ability to analyze and make copies of the chemical compounds of medicines. The information of technology has become more easily spread all over the world with information networks. Since the world has become globalize, the speed of spreading information is faster than that of several decades ago. Their market is not limited by time and distance. According to J. Pinkerton (2005), Brazil is the famous for copying the medicine. Brazil succeeded in making copies of three kinds of AIDS medicines. Two American pharmaceutical corporations are under threatening by the Brazil. According to J. Pinkerton (2005), to avoid these uncontrolled copies of intellectual property, some developed countries, especially of the USA and some Europe countries have established the “World Intellectual Property Organization” in Geneva, Switzerland. In June 2005, the conference about intellectual property was held in Geneva. WIPO and other international groups gathered and discussed new rules for harvesting new chemical compounds in animals and plants which are very effective for human cures. At the same time, 17 other countries called “Like Minded Megadiverse Countries” were gathered there to find ways to avoid these rules. They are called “Axis of IP evil” too. Those include Brazil, China and India. They ignore copyright for the patents. They care about their losing benefit in the medicine market if WIPO prohibited using new chemical compounds. Regarding this problem, I think they need to recognize difference of the principle of capitalism and the medical aid for those who need help in the world. I will discuss about three perspectives to solve problem in the following paragraph.

First, I believe LMMC should pay for the price of intellectual property because they have enough money to pay for it and because copying of intellectual property is obviously thefts. According to Glassman (2005, par.5), one of the LMMC’s, Brazil sells medicine without spending huge money for research and invention. According to Abbott in Glassman’s article (same as above par. 8), “(Brazil is) It’s the 11th-largest economy in the world, with thriving aircraft, petrochemical and steel industries and a Gross Domestic Product that’s 50 percent greater, in terms of purchasing power, than that of Spain and nearly as big as France’s.” So the chemic company has enough money to pay to the chemical companies which are located in developed countries. So, this issue is related to economic growth and to the national interests for both developed countries and LMMC. Brazil has enough economic stock to pay the price of copyright to developed countries. In addition, if LMMC’s hope to buy the property WIPO may need to discuss whether some companies allow LMMC to buy intellectual property. They may suggest selling the patent after they first invented it and selling the new chemical compound. So some companies in developed countries do not lose benefit and will have more advanced medicine.

Second, we should focus on to ethical aspects of this issue. Medicine can save a lot of people’s lives. The spread of medicine directly affects to people’s lives. Those medicines are expensive in the third world. So, the biotech companies might sell their products cheaply only for medical aid. The developed countries’ governments should treat this issue not only in light of its benefit, but also in light of the world’s health problem. This means we sometimes should choose humanism rather than capitalism. If developed countries always follow only the principle of capitalism without humanitarian grounds, it may cause them to lose customers’ favor. I think some companies should provide their medicine for cheaper price or free to the LMMC to save people’s lives. Eventually, many people including kids die everyday in those area, so I, personally, think they should be saved in any way possible. In addition to these humane reasons, the biotech companies may provide medicines to the LMMC’s governments for lower prices in order to make medicine available. LMMC’s have their own idea for the copy. One of them is that 70% of people in the world live in LMMC’s. They express their legitimacy in some conventions based on the principle of being the majority in the world.

Third, this issue involves not only medicine companies but also political concern. This kind of issue is related to the difference of principle between competition and development. So this problem has a political background. Most of the biotech companies are from the USA and some countries are in Europe. The USA government wants to protect the benefit of their biotech companies to keep holding the copyright. America and some European countries expect corporation tax. So the copying of intellectual property is related to their revenue. The biotech industry is very important for LMMC’s. They would develop some other kinds of medicine. It is very expensive to buy the copyright from some other companies. In the globalization movement some developed companies may do outsourcing. I think WIPO should encourage both side to cooperate with each other countries. Even there are the principle of capitalism WIPO should care about less developed countries and the third world.

In a conclusion, I believe LMMC’s should pay for the price of copyrights and the biotech companies in developed countries should allow LMMC’s to buy their patents. WIPO should treat ethical aspects because the spread of new medicines can save people’s lives. Some LMMC’s can contribute to provide medicine cheaper price to those people who need medical help. So, both governments should treat this issue not only in light of their benefits but also in light of the world health problem.


Reference:

Engler, Y. (2003). Copyright and the Myth of Free Markets, Canadian Dimension, Vol.37, Issue 3, p.32. Retrieved from EBSCO, Aug. 31, 2005.

Glassman, J. K. (2005, Jul. 25). Stop, thief!, Howard News Service, Retrieved from Lexis Nexis, Aug. 30, 2005.

Lohr, S. (2005, Apr. 12). To IBM, sharing looks better than hoarding : Releasing patents is seen as profitable. The New York Times. Retrieved from Lexis Nexis, Sep. 7. 2005.

Maidment, F. (2005). International business 05/06 13th ed. McGraw-Hill/Dushkin,
Dubuque, IA.

Pinkerton, J. P. (2005a, Jun. 16.). Newsday, (New York), A new threat to intellectual property, Retrieved from Lexis Nexis Academic, Aug. 31, 2005.

------------------ (2005b, May, 24). Newsday, (New York), Globalization helps ,but can also hurt, Retrieved from Lexis Nexis Academic, Aug. 23, 2005.
Ralph Peters (2005, May, 23). Myths of globalization. USA TODAY Retrieved from Lexis Nexis Academic, Aug. 23, 2005.

Argument Essay- Whether WIPO should allow LMMC to use new intellectual property or not

Nowadays we can get similar kinds of medicine in the world. Some biotech companies have the ability to analyze and make copy of the chemical compound of medicines and they produce similar ones. The information of technology has become more easily spread all over the world with information networks. Since the world has become globalized, the speed of spreading information is faster than that of several decades ago. Their market is not limited by time and distance. We call these changes of the world “globalization”. However we have negative aspects of globalization. Copying is obviously theft. According to J. Pinkerton (2005), to avoid these uncontrolled copies, some developed countries established the “World Intellectual Property Organization” in Geneva, Switzerland. The conference was held in Geneva in June 2005. WIPO and other international groups gathered and discussed new rules for harvesting new chemical compounds in animals and plants which are very effective for human cures. At the same time, 17 other countries called Like Minded Megadiverse Countries were gathered there to find ways to avoid the rule. If WIPO prohibited using new chemical compounds, LMMC would lose interests in the medicine market.

I believe LMMC should pay for the copyright because this is a business issue. The biotech companies in developed countries should not hesitate to sell their patents because the spread of new medicines may save people’s lives. And the government should treat this issue not only in light of its benefit but also in light of the world health problem.

First, I think LMMC should pay the price of intellectual property. And then they should develop some other kinds of medicine. Actually it is very expensive to buy the copyright from some other companies. But I think most American and Europe companies don’t want to sell the copyrights because LMMC can produce more cheaping cost than that of developed countries. In the globalization movement some developed companies may do outsourcing. So, I think LMMC should not let the local companies copy the medicines but they buy they ask WIPO to build plants in their countries

Second, WIPO should discuss allowing LMMC to buy intellectual property after the 10 or 20 years after when they first invent the new chemical compounds, and then they will not lose benefit and will have more advanced medicine. Actually this issue includes an ethical issue. Medicine can save a lot of people’s life.

Third, this issue involves not only medicine companies but also countries. So this problem has political background. Most of biotech companies are from the USA and some countries are in Europe. The USA government wants to protect the benefit of their biotech companies to keep holding the copyright. America and some European countries expect corporation tax. So the copying of intellectual property is related to their revenue.

As a conclusion, I want LMMC to pay for the copyright and the biotech companies in developed countries should allow LMMC to buy their patents. Finaly, the developed countries should think of ethical aspects. The spread of new medicines may save people’s lives. So, the government should treat this issue not only in light of their benefis but also in light of the world health problem.

References:
Lohr S.(2005,Apr.12) To IBM, sharing looks better than hoarding : Releasing patents is seen as profitable. The New York Times. Retrieve from Lexis Nexis, Sept.7.2005.

Pinkerton, P.J. (2005, June.16.) Newsday, (New York), A new threat to intellectual property, Retrieved from Newsday, (2005, June.16,) Retrieved from Lexis NexisTM Academic, Aug.31, 2005.

P, James (2005,May.24),Globalization helps ,but can also hurt, Newsday, (Newyork) Retrieved from LexisNexis 23,Aug,2005.

Resarch proposal-The intelectual property problem of medicine and globaliztion

Nowadays we can get similar kinds of medicine in the world. Some biotech companies have the ability to analyze the chemical compound of medicines and they produce similar ones. The information of technology has become more easily spread all over the world with information networks. The speed of spreading information is faster than that of several decades ago. The world has become globalized. People communicate with each other with high technological machines. Most modern companies do businesses using networks. So, their market is not limited by time and distance. We call these changes of the world “globalization”. However we have negative aspects of globalization. One problem is that copying of intellectual property which has already been innovated by some companies. Copying is obviously theft. According to James P. Pinkerton (2005), to avoid these uncontrolled copies, some developed countries established the “World Intellectual Property Organization” in Geneva, Switzerland. The conference was held in Geneva in June 2005. WIPO and other international groups gathered and discussed new rules for harvesting new chemical compunds in animals and plants which are very effective for human cures. At the same time of the conference, 17 Third World countries called Like Minded Megadiverse Countries were gathered there to find ways to avoid the rule. If they prohibited using new chemical compounds they lose interest in the medicine market.

In this following paragraph I will mention my opinion. First, the LMMC should pay for the copyright because this is a business issue. Second, the biotech companies should not hesitate to sell their patents because the spread of new medicines which are especially effective for serious diseases contain an ethical issue because the new medicine may save people’s lives. Finally, I will try to treat this issue with political background. Most of biotech companies are from the USA and some countries are in Europe. USA government wants to protect the benefit of their biotech companies to keep holding the copyright. America and some Europe countries expect corporation tax. So the copying of intellectual property is related to their revenue. To know more about this issue in medical industry, I will read other articles and add some examples and my observation.

Reference:
James P. Pinkerton (2005, May, 24). Globalization helps, but can also hurt, Newsday, (New York) Retrieved from Lexis NexisTM, Aug. 23, 2005.

----------------------- (2005, June.21). A new threat to intellectual property, Newsday, (New York) Retrieved from Lexis NexisTM , Academic, Sep. 20, 2005.

Steve Lohr (2005, Apr. 12) To IBM, sharing looks better than hoarding : Releasing patents is seen as profitable. The New York Times, Retrieve from Lexis NexisTM, Sept. 7, 2005.

Summary Responce#3 Intellectual property changed in the globalized world

An article, “To IBM, sharing looks better than hoarding: Releasing patents is seen as profitable” by the author Lohr, S. tells us that IBM is a famous and respected company with its enormous storehouse of licensed inventions. IBM has estimated that sharing technology is more profitable than protecting licenses and secrets. The main intellectual property of IBM is software code. Nowadays, internet and globalization and pressure to keep costs down to work together. There have been needs for sharing the intellectual property must be kept as offensive and defensive tools to keep their superiority.

I think the competition for intellectual property among advanced companies will change the world more than globalization. In the following paragraphs I will discuss the dynamics of industry and the relation ship with intellectual property.

Even in this 50 years, the big companies have started outsourcing to get cheaper cost. The specification to the invention has caused the change to the industrial structure in many areas. Many entrepreneurs have invested huge amount of money and built plant at the place where cheaper labor forces are available. So some unskilled workers have lost jobs in more developed countries. I think most companies still ask other company to make products and provide circulation. And only the innovation sector and head office they do not sell.

So the specification to the intellectual property will cause the change to the industrial structure. The factor of the location of the company may not be important. So it has great possibility for many less developed countries to grow with their new intellectual property.

Reference:

Lohr S.(2005,Apr.12)To IBM, sharing looks better than hoarding : Releasing patents is seen as profitable. The New York Times Retrieve from Lexis Nexis, Sept.7.2005.

Summary Responce#2-The general issues about intellectual property

An article “A new threat to intellectual property” by the author, James P. Pinkerton tells us about the general issue of intellectual property. Intellectual property is indefinable property like software or music. According to a research by Leonard Nakamura, the whole value of intellectual property in the USA is more than $5 trillion. Intellectual property is very flexible, so it is defended only by copyright and patent and is very easy to be stolen by others. For example, the loss of U.S. software industry is estimated of a billion dollars for what used illegally by Brazil alone in 2005. China is the country that always rips off American intellectual property. According to Obed Shenkar the Chinese have a perfectly logical strategy on this theft with their idea. If Chinese can make American wealth their own, they think it is good. America is still faced with another threat in Intellectual property with the biochemical industry. WIPO (the World Intellectual Property Organization) and other international groups had a meeting to discuss about making new rule that would raise the cost of biotech companies’ prospecting for new chemical compounds in plants and animals. A group of 17 Third World Countries called LMMC (Like-Minded Megadiverse Countries) are gathered in Geneva to find out how to change the rules concerning intellectual property. According to Moley, U.S. ambassador to international organizations in Geneva, Americans should care about the fact that between 150-200 new drugs would never make it to the market under the proposed LMMC.

Based on the author’s idea, I will mention my solution for these circumstances. America and some developed countries may be better to sell stuff with cheaper prices. If they are anxious about illegal copying, they should ask the LMMC to make a self control law to prohibit the illegal copying. Intellectual property is very fluid as the author mentions. Nothing can stop the dynamics of providing and demanding of stuff if even if it is an informal business. America and other developed countries have choices to sell their copyright or not to LMMC.

As a second suggestion, America and some developed countries may be better to sell products with cheaper prices than that of their own nations, because the prices are very high. If America and other countries give the rights to set the lower prices to those LMMC, it may bring the cessation of illegal copying. I think America and other developed countries still have rights to sell copyrights but the local company can set appropriate prices. Their markets are probably different from each of it, so to allow LMMC the unique prices may bring more appropriate market.

I think I should suggest the other merit from the point of view that new innovation may be occurred by transfer the rights and allow LMMC to improve developed countries’ technique. I think developed countries should know that the LMMC have great ability to improve the products and techniques. For example, Japan innovated one small aircraft which could change the direction of the body with flying in the air. Once the USA heard about the new innovation plan, the USA tried to stop Japan to do further innovation and USA began to negotiate to make it as a joint development. Some USA’s aircraft company probably feared the loss of their market by the new aircraft.

As a conclusion I believe illegal copying should be perished because it is a kind of theft. America and other more developed companies ought to respond to LMMC’s economic circumstances and allow them the rights to sell and to set the unique price. America should remember the spirit of innovation because it may brings better standards of living to the people in the world.

Reference:
Pinkerton, P.J. (2005, Jun.16). (New York), A new threat to intellectual property, Newsday, New York, Retrieved from Lexis NexisTM Academic, Aug. 31, 2005.

Summary Responce#1 -The importance of being united beyond the cultural differences

An article of Myths of globalizationin USA TODAY, May 23, 2005, by the author Ralph Peters, shows us his negative idea about globalization. He mentions that globalization is a myth and he says that we consider it "a wondrous child without historical parents” (R. Peters, par.3). And he refers to international relationship that has changed but “it has never changed the human nature” (par.5). People who live in more developed countries have been conflicted with other international globalization. It means “globalization of insecurity” (par.10). He mentions that the idea that globalization brings peace ignores the facts” (par.11). In the following paragraph I will mention the relationship of globalization and history and refer to the human nature that is related to the conflict between some American people and international people.

The author disagreed with the statement that ”Globalization is a wondrous child without historical parents” (Peters, par. 3). I agree with his idea because the migration is a kind of globalization and it has been occurred in some countries. For example Chinese people have migrated to other countries for a long time. They have a lot of Chinatown especially in more developed countries. A new generation of them migrate to those area where their relatives have lived in. As a second example, Korean people have migrated to the U.S.A. A lot of them are the small shop managers in L.A. Many Korean shops were robbed of the stuff when the store buildings were destroyed because of the earthquake in L.A. That was a kind of persecution to the aliens. Like this, some minority people have been persecuted. There have been a lot of cultural conflicts between Americans and immigrants. Nowadays young people have come to the USA as students and brought their own culture.

Those international groups express ethnicity. Unfortunately some muslim students caused the 9/11 terrorism. In the movement of globalization, people have been able to go abroad easily. However, unfortunately, globalization made it possible for terrorists to do something wrong. But I believe the problem is not globalization itself. Globalization is a structure. The real problem is the human nature that has been never changed (par.5). So the globalization has been insecurity.
As a conclusion, the globalization is very related to history. The human nature has never changed in the negative aspects like persecution. So if the people feel the necessity of becoming united and it will be a good solution for the problem.

Reference:
Peters, R. (2003.May 23) Myths of globalization. USA TODAY. Retrieved from Lexis Nexis, Aug. 23, 2005.