engr 195 social global issue engineering writing

Description

No copy and paste from online, you should do by your own and No ai using in this homework, it will be checked by turnitin so be considerate for those two rules , after you done share with me report of the checked by turnitin both ai and plagiarism report thank you.

Reflection Paper 2
 (minimum 750 words)

Select a technology of interest (invented anywhere, but not nuclear weapons, timekeeping, or social media). You will consider the political implications of this technology within a non-U.S. country (that may or may not have invented the technology). See brief notes after the prompt on “governance,” “political qualities” and “inherently political.”


1) Describe the relevant factual details of the case you will be discussing: the technology, where it was first developed, the non-US country you will examine, and how people are using it in that country.


2) State your conclusion about whether or not the technology possesses inherently political qualities. You may consider this for the case that a non-US country has absorbed the technology, or if you wish, for a technology that is being or soon will be assimilated. In the latter case you will need to forecast the shape the follow-on governance so that you can assess the technology as “inherently political” or not.

Then give an argument that establishes your conclusion based on the relation of the selected technology to specific social factors related to governance in the non-U.S. country. That is, describe an aspect of governance, such as processes related to societal leadership and social choice, and show how governance has shifted under the influence of the technology. You are making an argument that the way the technology has entered into social practice has made prior governance unsuitable, and caused some particular changes in governance that you identify.

If your selected technology has not reached mainstream use at scale (e.g., quantum computing, genetic engineering, blockchain), you need to project how the technology would be deployed into the selected non-U.S. society, and how that would influence governance. That is, you would imagine along the lines of: “I assume the technology will have these properties and will be deployed and taken up in this way. This will mean that this set of presently-existing governance structures or practices will be undermined or altered, and the new governance will have the following form.” You are making an argument that the way the technology will enter into widespread social practice will rule out or substantially undermine the present form of governance, requiring changes that you can (at least partly) envision because those changes in some manner directly reflect properties/features of the technology.


3) State your conclusion about whether or not it was ethical to introduce the technology into the selected country. If your technology is not yet used at scale, then you will envision societal arrangements once it is in widespread use and assess the ethical qualities.

Then give an argument for your conclusion that assesses ethical qualities of social arrangements that result from taking up the technology at scale. That is, you will identify some new conditions, activities, relationships, etc., and show that they meet or violate what (you believe to be) ethical practices/standards/ideals. For example, you may identify a shift in governance, show that it asymmetrically empowers a small sub-population in the non-U.S. country, and find this unethical because it limits the ability of the rest of the population to fairly and equally participate in choices about the future (that affect them).

Treat “ethical” as supportive of general flourishing (many lives are improved, and this is achieved without requiring substantial harm to some). Treat “unethical” as the uptake of the technology results in a society with less justice, more entrenched inequality, new or stronger barriers to freedom to determine one’s course — or in general is such that whatever benefits accrue to some are achieved in a way that necessarily and substantively harms others.


Notes on Technology, Political Qualities, and Inherently Political Technology

You have the slides and recordings from lecture, and the Winner readings, to guide your understanding of governance, technology with political qualities, and inherently political technology. Here are brief summaries, including the generalization of “inherently political” that I’ve introduced to cover technology in the current era.

By “governance” we mean processes by which some actors (perhaps all!) in a society participate in the formation of choices and the taking of decisions about the future state and functioning of society. This includes substantive impacts on lives, livelihoods, roles, agency, opportunities, distribution of power, ability to be considered for primary roles in key institutions, etc. The most important case for governance is when its effect is to shape future governance — e.g., the ‘rules’ that determine who participates in charting society’s course, and how they participate.

In brief, “technology with political qualities” is technology that, when entered into practice, shifts governance in a community. It may do so by dissolving an issue, by settling a matter (e.g., after the manner of McCormick or R. Moses), by introducing new mechanisms for people to influence societal relationships in the future, or by creating or removing barriers to participation by some in processes aimed at shaping the collective future .
“Inherently political technology,” in Winner’s definition, is technology that is only compatible with one or a narrow range of (future) forms of governance — e.g., in the way that nuclear weapons technology requires the absolute centralization and hierarchical control over decision-making pertaining to the use of these systems. However, many modern technologies, such as social media, are clearly disruptive of governance, yet may be compatible with a variety of societal arrangements. We therefore generalize Winner and allow that “inherently political” can also be taken to mean (a) that governance in the present society is essentially certain to change in substantive ways, (b) we may not know the timing or follow-on form of governance if we look ahead, but then (c) looking ahead we can say that the follow-on form will be strongly constrained by the technology, and looking back we can see clearly how the technology caused what turned out to be the evolution of governance. In essence, our generalization says the future is not pre-determined, but it is not random or completely opaque — it’s shape will reflect the technology in necessary ways.

Grading and Use of AI



Your essay must have an introduction (summarizes the paper, or, makes a claim that will be argued), a conclusion (summing up), and your thoughts/answers on the questions above. When you respond to these questions, you should be specific and cite specific details from the readings, class lectures, and your own research. You should have at least two references; these may include documents or lectures from the class. Also, you MUST make sure to cite your sources in your response and include a reference list at the end of your essay. Citations must be from reputable sources. Sites like Wikipedia, about.com, etc. are NOT considered acceptable sources. 



You may use AI as a thought partner, but in this, your thinking must lead. Keep in mind that grammar checking and language improvement now uses AI, and that the results you receive will almost always build in new content (extend your thinking); therefore, always critique what you receive for (a) validity or non-hallucination, and (b) indications it has added to your thinking. You may not submit the prompt to an AI, and you may not use AI to write any part of your paper, even if you were to cite it as a source. See the syllabus for the complete discussion of how you may and may not use AI.

Higher credit will be given for responses that show evidence of a systematic and comprehensive understanding of the topics involved.
 You are encouraged to review the rubric for this assignment and make sure that you answer each question in detail and with specifics.
 Correct use of English is a fundamental requirement for your papers to be graded.


Formatting

Standard font, 12pt.
 MLA, APA, or any other format is acceptable provided that it is consistent through the entire paper. No cover sheets.

Rubric

Reflection Paper 2

Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntro or Thesis, and Conclusion	20 ptsExcellentIntro or thesis and conclusion set up and summarize the essay very well17 ptsVery goodIntro or thesis and conclusion set up and summarize the essay well14 ptsAcceptableIntro or thesis and conclusion set up and summarize the essay acceptably, but need work10 ptsPoorIntro or thesis and conclusion fail to set up and summarize the essay — both present but flawed6 ptsVery poorIntro or thesis and conclusion fail to set up and summarize the essay — at least one present; quite flawed0 ptsNo observable effortintro or thesis and conclusion are absent	20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescription of the caseDescribe the technology, where it was first developed, the country you will examine, and how people are using it in that country	20 ptsExcellentExcellent description of the technology, where it was first developed, the country examined, and how people are or will be using it in that country — a rich discussion that prepares well for the political analysis17 ptsVery GoodVery good description of the technology, where it was first developed, the country examined, and how people are or will be using it in that country — the discussion sufficiently prepares for the political analysis14 ptsAcceptableAcceptable description of the technology, where it was first developed, the country examined, and how people are or will be using it in that country — but the discussion is minimal10 ptsPoorPoor description of the technology, where it was first developed, the country examined, and how people are or will be using it in that country — the discussion is minimal and in some respects flawed6 ptsVery poorVery poor description of the technology, where it was first developed, the country examined, and how people are or will be using it in that country — the discussion is quite flawed but an attempt is made0 ptsNo observable effortDiscussion is absent	20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument for whether technology is “inherently political” or notDoes the technology decisively determine the follow-on social configuration’s form of governance, or force evolution of the society in ways that will in time lead to a qualitatively different sort of politics/governance? Alternately, are multiple **quite different** governance forms compatible with the technology?	20 ptsExcellentThe conclusion is stated and an excellent argument is made for/against inherently political technology (in the selected country)17 ptsVery goodThe conclusion is stated and a very good argument is made for/against inherently political technology (in the selected country), but evidence or reasoning are limited in one place14 ptsAcceptableThe conclusion is stated and a suggestive argument is made for/against inherently political technology (in the selected country), but evidence or reasoning are limited, or the argument isn’t fully coherent11 ptsPoorThe conclusion is stated and an argument is made for/against inherently political technology (in the selected country), but evidence or reasoning are not coherent — the conclusion doesn’t follow from the argument6 ptsVery poorAn attempt is made to state a conclusion and provide an argument for/against inherently political technology (in the selected country), but there are gaps, errors, and/or the argument is not coherent0 ptsNo observable effortConclusion and argument are absent	20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeArgument for whether the introduction of the selected technology into/by the selected country was ethical, or not.Does the uptake of the selected technology generally support the flourishing of many without needing to create harm for some? Does it increase valuable social qualities such as justice, equality, freedom, or opportunities for self-determination? The reverse?	20 ptsExcellentOffers clear and persuasive argument and evidence to support the claim that deployment/adoption of the technology was ethical or unethical17 ptsVery goodOffers a very good argument and evidence to support the claim that deployment/adoption of the technology was ethical or unethical14 ptsAcceptableProvides some evidence to support claims,and while there is no error (nothing invalid), the argument is not successful or persuasive11 ptsPoorMakes a claim but lacks evidence, or, lacks an argument from the evidence to the claim6 ptsVery poorMakes a claim but lacks an argument0 ptsNo observable effortEthical claim and argument are absent	20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEssay Mechanics	20 ptsExcellentExecutes on spelling, grammar, and paragraph structure perfectly.17 ptsVery goodExecutes on spelling, grammar, and paragraph structure nearly perfectly.14 ptsAcceptableExecutes on spelling, grammar, and paragraph structure intelligibly.10 ptsPoorPervasive problems in spelling, grammar, sentence and/or paragraph structure.6 ptsVery poorEnough pervasive problems in spelling, grammar, sentence and/or paragraph structure to make overall essay very difficult to understand.0 ptsNo observable effortNo observable attention to essay mechanics.	20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGE V ALO3Explain how a culture outside the U.S. has changed in response to internal and external influences.threshold: 3.0 pts	5 ptsExceeds Expectations3 ptsMeets Expectations0 ptsDoes Not Meet Expectations	—
Total Points: 100