Arguments on Artificial Intelligence

Arguments on Artificial Intelligence We live in an extraordinary time. Improvements in technology seem to be accelerating at an unbelievable rate. Every time they think Moores Law has reached its limits, tech companies come up with a new level of capability. No less is the advancement of artificial intelligence (AI). Our every day lives are already deeply immersed in AI, and we dont even know it. It controls much of the financial markets, performs law enforcement tasks, and makes our internet searches more useful. Most AI today is weak AI, designed to perform a very specific task (Tegmark, n.d.). But the goal of all research and corporate investment is always more; what else can we know or do? Often, these entities are creating things in a vacuum, with limited moral, ethical, or legal boundaries. When is it too much? The driving force that makes us want to always explore further is what makes the development and use of artificial intelligence (AI) a risky course of action. Why is this a risky course of action? Because giving control of systems to artificial intelligence could have seriously negative results. Take, for example, researchers working with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. In this case, they develop a neural network that returns suggestions for treatment of pneumonia patients. Using a historical database with the solutions and results of methods of treatment, the AI is supposed to provide suggested solutions to treat patients. In one solution, it recommended that certain high risk patients be sent home (Bornstein, 2016). This solution had high probability of resulting in death. When working with and complex task, accomplished by human or machine, the law of unintended consequences must always be considered. No matter how well someone thinks they have thought a system through, it is nearly impossible to consider every possible outcome. Certainly, unintended consequences are not all bad, many drugs have side effects that are beneficial and completely not what the drugs was designed to do. On the other hand, many drugs have very negative side effects. Certainly, they are not intended to cause any adverse symptoms, but many have severe unintended consequences, including death. Some would argue, AI is currently in use and benefits everyone with no negative effects. Singularity cannot happen. While we certainly use some types of AI currently and have had minimal negative effects. It is also true we have not reached singularity. It is the height of hubris to believe that we have total control over anything or that we have considered all possibilities. Consider Fukishima or Chernobyl, all possibilities were not covered and resulted in huge disasters. Even NASA, the standard for careful scrutiny of complex systems and procedures has had some catastrophic failures in the form of space shuttle crashes due to hubris of the organization and/or individuals. How many people died on the Titanic? A ship that was unsinkable was sunk by a simple iceberg, or was it hubris? The shoddy steel used in the construction of the hull, the poorly designed bulkheads that didnt reach to the top deck, and the pressure to go as fast as it could are what sunk the ship. And not enough life boats on the unsinkable ship killed the passengers. Hubris lead them down the path to destruction. We are at the point that we have the capability to combine AI to create autonomous military machines. Some are even in the testing phase of development. Machines that make decisions of life and death on their own (Russell, 2015). Absent human intervention, what is to keep one of these machines from deciding the wrong person is a target. A machine knows no morality, no ethical code, only its programming, its goal or reason to exist. Given a powerful enough computational system, it could decide to use everything at its disposal to achieve its goals (Anderson, 2017). Things like taking control of infrastructure, or even humans. So, what do we do? Is there risk? Even captains of industry and experts like Gates, Musk, and Hawking suggest there is (Holley, 2015). It is clear we are already on the path to creating ever more complex and capable AI. We must recognize that we all make mistakes and constantly be on guard against mistakes and, more importantly, hubris. Most expansion of knowledge has risk. When confronted with a discipline that has catastrophic possibilities, we must fight the desire to run forward as fast as we can with no concern for the consequences. Methodical deliberation is the only course. We must consider the ramifications of each step and ensure safeguards are in place should we need to terminate or isolate any AI that develops goals counter to those of humans. If we manage to be conscientious enough and adhere to ethical principles, we might, just might, keep from developing the instrument of our own demise. References Anderson, J. (2017, February 16). Googles artificial intelligence getting greedy, and aggressive. Activist Post. Retrieved from http://www.activistpost.com/2017/02/googles-artificial-intelligence-getting-greedy-and-aggressive/ Artificial Intelligence. (2015). In Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/apps/doc/PC3010999273/OVIC?u=embryxid=415989d5 Bornstein, A. (2016, September 1). Is artificial intelligence permanently inscrutable? Holley, P. (2015, January 29). Bill Gates on the dangers of artificial intelligence: I dont understand why some people are not concerned. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/01/28/bill-gates-on-dangers-of-artificial-intelligence-dont-understand-why-some-people-are-not-concerned/ Russell, S. (2015, May 28). Take a stand on AI weapons. Nature, 521 (7553), 415-416.

Assess critically the contribution Essay

Taylorism is a form of job design, which stresses short, repetitive work cycles; detailed, set task sequences; a separation of task conception from task execution; and motivation linked to pay. Taylor argued that the principal objective of management should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employee (1911). Fredrick Taylor’s five principles of scientific management: 1. A clear division of tasks and responsibilities between management and workers. 2. Use of scientific methods to determine the best way of doing a job. 3. Scientific selection of the person to do the newly designed job. 4. The training of the selected worker to perform the job in the way specified. 5. Surveillance of workers through the use of hierarchies of authority and close supervision. Taylor proposed this by measuring what workers did against the time taken, to develop ‘one best way of working’ (1911). By using quantitative methods a workers output could be accurately measured. At the time of its inception Taylor found that firms who introduced scientific management as he prescribed became the worlds most meticulously organised factories (Nelson, 1980). Managers are responsible for identifying the best cost efficient work practices and training workers to become highly productive and affective in their specific work task. Taylor argued that it stands to reason that an employee becomes more productive when working at their speciality and concluded with stating that there are more benefits gained for both employees and employers from dividing workers. With linking pay to each task performed, Managers can thus control the workforce and output and consistently achieve desired goals. The piece rate pay system  pays workers in parallel to number of items each worker has produced, hence also providing employees with an incentive to work. Henry Ford’s theory (Fordism) referring to mass production in industry (Marcouse, 1996) united the idea of assembly line and Taylor’s theory of division of labour and payment. Fordism focused on dividing jobs into unskilled and semi-skilled tasks. Whilst managers at Ford vehemently opposed any relation to Taylorism, it can be said that Fordism retained the faults of Taylorism of an autocratic work environment with little room for creativity as well as the benefits of the piece rate system relying on financial motivation. Criticisms of Taylorism: 1.Assumed that the motivation of the employee was to secure the maximum earnings for the effort expended; and neglected the importance of other rewards from work (achievement, job satisfaction, recognition), which later research has found to be important. 2. Neglected the subjective side of work-the personal and interactional aspects of performance, the meaning that employees give to work and the significance to them of their social relationship at work. 3. Failed to appreciate the meaning that workers would put on new procedures ad their reaction to being timed and closely supervised. 4. Had inadequate understanding of the relation of the individual incentive to interaction with, and dependence on, the immediate work group. Taylor did attribute ‘underworking’ to group pressures, but misunderstood the way in which these worked. He failed to see that these might just as easily keep production and morale up. 5. Ignored the psychological needs and capabilities of workers. T he one best way of doing a job was chosen with the mechanistic criteria of speed and output. The imposition of a uniform manner of work can both destroy individuality and cause other psychological disturbances. 6. Had too simple approach to the question of productivity and morale. It sought to keep both of these up exclusively by economic rewards and punishments. Incentive approaches under the scientific approach tended to focus on the worker as an individual and ignored their social context. Pay system may result in a worker valuing quantity over quality. 7. Functional foremanship was deemed to be too  complex and an unwieldy mode of supervision. (Huczynski, 2013) Ways to alleviate the negative effects of Taylorism especially to worker motivation and performance and find new ways to job designs came about following the introduction of the American psychologists Fredrick Hertzberg two factor theory of motivation. Hertzberg had the idea that there were two sets of factors that affected motivation and job characteristics: Motivators: These factors refer to the extent to which a job offers opportunities for achievement, creativity, responsibility, opportunities for personal growth. These are intrinsic to the job itself. Hygiene factors: These comprise issue as the nature of supervision and supervisory style, the level of pay, working conditions, and interpersonal relations. These are extrinsic to the job. For Hertzberg it was only the motivator factors that have the potential to generate satisfaction and motivation. If hygiene factors are improved, they do not result in improved motivation, but if removed, will result in demotivation. To raise levels of motivation and therefore performance, following Hertzberg theory of motivation, companies needed to ensure that the hygiene factors were in place, and to also ensure that the ‘motivator factors’ (i.e intrinsic motivators) were incorporated into the jobs. In particular, jobs needed to be designed in such a way that workers could be given opportunities for achievement, responsibility and personal growth. Criticisms of Hertzberg two-factor theory: Can job characteristics fall neatly into two categories of motivators and hygiene factors? Can a job characteristic be both? (Example can pay be a motivator as well as a hygiene factor-?) Blunt and Jones (1992) They point out that some studies from Nigeria have indicated that hygiene factors, in particular pay, supervision and working conditions, acted as motivators. Machungwa and Schmidt (1983) reported on a study conducted in Zambia and found that material rewards and the physical conditions of work appeared to have both motivating and demotivating effects. This was interpreted by Blunt and Jones in the following way: if material rewards were inadequate they were demotivating, but they acted as motivators if they were perceived as reasonable. This appears to directly contradict Hertzberg’s theory, but Blunt and Jones consider that this is only likely to be the case in less developed countries, as Hertzberg (1987) himself appears also to argue. However, one study does not refute a theory. Hertzberg did his original work on qualified professionals, such as engineers, whereas the people surveyed in the study above were manual workers. This in itself might be enough to account for the difference. In general, we can expect professional or managerial workers everywhere to be more intrinsically motivated than ma nual workers given the different nature of the work that the two groups undertake, but as we shall see the way work is organized may compensate for such differences in the relative interest value of different types of work The theory is regarded as a Universalistic theory; that it will impact all individuals in the same way in all work situations. It does not take into consideration that some people may not have a desire for personal growth, and are therefore unlikely to be motivated by job enrichment initiatives that give them higher levels of autonomy and responsibility. Hertzberg theory was superseded by Richard Hackman and Greg Oldham ‘the Job Characteristics Model’; which argued in a similar respect to Hertzberg theory, that if jobs are enriched this will lead to improvements in attitudinal outcomes (increased satisfaction and motivation) and improvements in behavioural outcomes (higher productivity and lower rates of absenteeism). Three critical psychological states: Hackman and Oldham argued that jobs should be designed in such a way that they are focused on the achievement of three critical psychological states: Workers must experience work as being personally meaningful-something that  they care about. Workers must experience personal responsibility for their work- accountability for their work. Workers must know if their work performance is effective-they must have knowledge of the results of their work activities. If these 3 critical psychological states are achieved, higher levels of satisfaction, motivation and performance will result from the worker. However this theory too has had its criticisms. Current literature now argues the importance and focus on team working, however one should acknowledge that the interest in team working is not something that is new to current times. Autonomous and semi-autonomous work groups were central to earlier theories of the 1960’s and 1970’s. Team working has now re-emerged as part of the lean production & flexible working debates. An American Theorist, Harry Bravemen thesis known as the ‘Bravemen thesis argues to counter the popular view in social science and management literature that Taylorism has been superseded by human relations and other more sophisticated approaches; that there is in fact a tendency for workers and their jobs to become de-skilled through fragmentation, rationalisation and mechanisation. This argument of deskilling workers and jobs was continued in the context where it became known as McDonalization a term that came about after the publication of a book by Georg Ritz. McDonalisation is a form of work design aimed at achieving efficiency, calculability, predictability and control through non-human technology, to enhance organisational objectives by limiting employee discretion and creativity. He used the term to refer to the processes used at the growing number of fast food restaurants dominating the American market. McDonalds is a modern example of the Taylorised way of work. The tasks are de-skilled and simplified for an employee at McDonalds and limited by the  sophisticated technology of fast food preparation. Hamburger grilling instructions are detailed and precise, cooking times and the sequence of events dictated to make a burger. Drinks dispensers, French fry machines, programmed cash registers all limit the amount of time required to carry out a specific task and leave little room for the employee to do as they wish, little room for creativity or innovation to processes. This way of working ensures the aims of the organisation to achieve greatest efficiency, calculability, predictability and control all of the key elements described by the Ritzer’s ‘Mcdonalization’. Regardless of the fact that the de-skilling may lead to de-motivated employees, which may result in high absenteeism and high staff turn over; its ability to integrate new workers into the production processes and dismiss employees without losing knowledge form the organization allows the model to still be successful. Taylorism can also be illustrated in modern day call centres. A case study on a customer service call centre run by two British Companies, Martin Beirne, Kathleen Riach and Fiona Wilson found strong continuities with Taylorism, in relation to work design and operation. They found the work to be pressurized and highly paced with managements focus on productivity and cost minimisation. Most of the jobs were narrowly defined and closely monitored. The time duration of each call taken; the content of the conversation with each customer; and the advise also given to the customer was prescribed (from Beirne et al 2004). But modern day illustrations of Taylorism don’t end there. It is also seen in relation to ‘scientific selection & training’. We’ve now moved away from an industrial economy towards a knowledge –based economy where an organisations competitive success depends on its talent. Much effort is devoted by contemporary organisations to select and recruit the right person for a role. Taylorism also placed importance and the introduction of scientific selection criteria by management to do a particular task. In line with his emphasis on scientific approach to selection, Taylor advocates scientific training as he argues that â€Å"it is only when business systematically cooperate to train the competent man†¦that it shall be on the road to national efficiency†. (Taylor, 1911: p 98). In the context of the knowledge  economy, organisations are generally encouraged to develop employees’ skills and knowledge. ‘Now one of the very first requirements of man who is to handle pig iron as a regular occupation is that he shall be so stupid and so phlegmatic that he more nearly resembles in his mental make-up the ox than any other type. The man who is mentally alert and intelligent is for this very reason entirely unsuited to what would, for him, be the grinding monotony of work to this character. Therefore the work man who is best suited to handling pig iron is unable to understand the real science of doing this class of work’. (Taylor 1911/1997 pg 59) â€Å"The task is always so regulated that the man who is well suited to his job will thrive while working at this rate during a long term of years and grow happier and more prosperous, instead of being overworked†. (Taylor 1911) Thus scientific management matched the worker to the job and in the process separated the conceptualization of work from its execution. It also provided safeguards against personal bias and individual favoritism, which is something that can still be applied to the current context of contemporary organisations. Taylorism is also found in the Saudi Educational system, for example metaphorically describing students as the ‘raw material’ of schools; controlling the movement of teachers & students through class bells; conceiving of the curriculum as a product; dividing students into grades or dividing curriculum into units and individual lessons; describing the school facilities as a ‘plant’ are a result of a ‘factory model’ schooling that has its roots in the adoption of scientific management principles by educational administrators. Contemporary schools in Saudi are still largely influenced with its teaching and learning deeply rooted in ‘scientific management’ as seen with the following: 1. Schools are large and bureaucratized. 2. Students change teachers every year. 3. Teachers plan and teach alone. 4. Curriculum is fragmented. 5. Tracking students by ability levels. 6. Deskilling of teachers through alignment of teaching mandated curriculum and standardized tests. 7. Emphasis on monitoring /surveillance & bureaucratic activity-scripted curriculum and scripted tests. Taylorism does not permit autonomy in work. Input by production workers in the organisation, planning, and direction of the manufacturing process was not allowed, requiring workers to do exactly what they were told to do and no more. This authoritarian approach to work can been illustrated in the schooling: That student’s are excluded from the planning, organisation and direction of the educational process. De-skilling of the teachers as their work is conceptualised by others (Ministry of Education who agrees the standard curriculum to be used in schools) and enforced by the bureaucratic outcome of accountability systems implemented in schools. The other way that Taylorism continues to influence the education system is through the use of individual rewards for individual effort (example the focus on a students individual test results). Taylor developed wage-incentive schemes emphasizing piecework and historically assembly line foremen attempted to stop any sort of worker inter action. Elton Mayo who introduced Human Relations theory based on his research at the Hawthorne electrical factory was to see how productivity will improve if the lighting condition changes and he followed Taylor’s scientific principles by testing the changes against a control, with part of the factory lighting being unchanged, (Kelly 1982). This lead him to conduct further experiments which vast doubts on Taylors assumptions about the importance of money in motivation (Marcouse, 1996). According to Huczynski and Buchan, the conclusions which can be drawn from Hawthorne studies are: 1. People at work are motivated by more than just pay and conditions. 2. Their need for recognition and sense of belonging are very important. 3. A person’s attitude to work is shaped strongly by the group in which that individual  belongs within the company. 4. The ability of the informal group or clique to motivate an individual at work should not be underestimated. (Huczynski and Buchanan 1991) . Another contributor to the Human Relations approach is Abraham Harold Maslow, an American psychologist who was best known for creating Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. They range from physical & social to psychological needs. Maslow (1943, 1954) stated that human motivation is based on people seeking fulfilment and change through personal growth. Self-actualized people as those who were fulfilled and doing all they were capable of. The Human Relations models have changed management and how workers are in fact valuable employees and stakeholders of an organisation. The key difference between scientific management and the human relations model is highlighted when analysing the motivational techniques to increase productivity. Scientific management emphasises the use of financial measures in order to secure employers objectives whereas the human relations model argues that management should acquire the insight into the skills that will manipulate social factors in order to harness their employees social needs to managerial ends (Fincham & Rhodes, 1999). Thus, behavioural science; motivation theories in combination with the humanistic theories of management, have added to Taylors principles and allowed for contemporary organizations to succeed where scientific management alone failed. Taylorism was an influential management theory of the late nineteenth century. Despite its relevance to its time the influence can still be seen in todays twenty first century: educational institutes, service sector and the manufacturing industries. Though there are limitations to his method, this principle has a considerable profound and lasting influence to all contemporary organizations because of  Taylor’s â€Å"preoccupation with the efficient use of resources†. This philosophy can almost apply to every organization, despite its work structure, such as structures of team working or job enrichment; one of the ultimate goals should be improve efficiency. As Braverman says, â€Å"the principle of scientific management is not a failed system, but a set of guiding principles which continue to inform and influence the role and function of modern management†. Some of the methods he advocates, such as division of labour, scientific selection and training, have become the features of modern society. More primarily, as efficiency is one of the enduring needs of all organizations, his preoccupation with the efficient use of resources thus becomes the driving force behind the evolution of subsequent management theories and the root of management practice. References: Huczynski, A. and Buchanan, D: Organisational Behaviour. Eighth Edition. Pearson 2013. Huczynski, A. and Buchanan, D.,1991. Organizational behaviour An Introductory Text. Second edition. London: Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd. Hertzberg,F., B.Mausner and B.Snyderman: The motivation to work (New york: Wiley 1959). Taylor F.W (1997): The principles of scientific management. Mincola, NY (original work published 1911). Braverman, H (1974): Labour and Monoploy capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. New York Monthly review press. Kelly, John. (1982), Scientific Management, Job Redesign, & Work Performance. Academic †¨Press. Marcouse, I. et al. (1996), The Complete A-Z Business Studies Handbook, Hodder & †¨Stoughton. Ritzer, George. (2000) The McDonaldization Of Society. Sage Publications Inc. Taylor, Frederick W (1911) The Principles of Scientific Management, Harper Bros. Fincham, R & Rhodes, P (1999) Priniciples of Organisational Behaviours, Oxford Univeristy Press. Nelson, David (1980) Frederick W Taylor and the Rise of Scientific Management, The University of Wisconsin Press. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-96. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row.

Global Warming Fact or Fiction Essay

Throughout their history, humans have witnessed all the environmental imbalances they have created in the world. The unstoppable technological advances of the world have greatly contributed to the enhancement of economic progress and improvement of the quality of life. However, the phenomenal growth of the economy and the increase of the standards of living are achieved at the expense of environmental destruction that is pressing the contemporary society. Hence, as human beings are the ones responsible for taking care of and preserving nature, they should impose certain limitations in their attempts to acquire economic progress in order to protect the environment. The pivotal change in the composition of the earth’s atmospheric condition gave birth to the term global warming, leaving the whole world unnerved of the damages it is currently causing and will continue to cause. However, we should consider if global warming is true or a mere product of our imagination. Some scientists argue that what we are experiencing right now is a natural occurrence and is a part of the earth’s climate cycle. Theorists believed that the earth is currently undergoing climate cycle, wherein the planet cools then heats up. Scientists pointed out that 75 million years ago, the earth experienced ten degrees higher than today’s temperature, but still, life was sustained. On the other hand, there is a strong evidence that global warming is not a natural phenomenon but is a result of human activities. Global warming is progressing at a rapid pace, with its damaging effects leading the world more and more to its destruction (Hopwood and Cohen). Thus, this paper aims to present information that supports the claim that global warming is a fact and is threatening human life. Global warming is considered as the worst dilemma faced by humans as a result of their constant neglect of the environment. Global warming developed through the increased emissions of the noxious greenhouse gases resulting in an increase on the temperature of the earth’s surface (SciDev. Net). Global warming renders a variety of changes that affects the environment and the quality of life. As a result of humankind’s neglect and carelessness, the Earth is now experiencing extreme shifts in temperature which result in heat waves, irregular weather conditions, and rapid unfreezing of icecaps and glaciers located at the two opposite poles of the earth. As the ice caps and glaciers melt, the sea level rises, resulting in occurrences of coastal flooding. Causes of Global Warming The main cause of global warming is the widespread emission of greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are the natural blanket of the Earth located in the atmosphere. It traps some of the light to keep the surface warmer. Over the century, the Earth’s surface temperature increased by . 5 degrees Celsius and it was believed that this was due to the increased on the concentration of the main greenhouse gases, which are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorocarbons (Hopwood and Cohen). The natural phenomenon was named â€Å"greenhouse effect† because it has a similar effect created by the glass panes of a greenhouse. The greenhouse traps the heat inside preventing large amounts of heat to go outside. The greenhouse gases selectively transmit infrared rays emitted by the sun. It traps some of the waves and permits some to travel in space. The greenhouse gases then bounce the infrared rays back on the lower atmosphere causing the increase in temperature (Hopwood and Cohen). Carbon dioxide is one of the main components of the greenhouse gases. It is produced and emitted in the atmosphere through the process of photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide is emitted when humans exhale, when fossil fuels burn for energy, and through the deforestation of the planet (Hopwood and Cohen). The release of carbon dioxide is a biological function among humans and other animals which have a similar respiratory system. Fossil fuels are formed through the decay of the plants and animals a thousand years ago. People utilize these fossil fuels in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas to create a supply of electricity, to heat their homes, and to run their cars. The fossil fuels contain carbon which, when burned, mixes with oxygen, resulting in the formation of carbon dioxide (Hopwood and Cohen). Other greenhouse gases accumulate in the earth’s atmosphere due to the negligence of people. As they continue to strive for economic progress, they reinforce the causes of the environmental dilemma that can lead the planet to its destruction (Hopwood and Cohen). Deforestation is another cause of the production of carbon dioxide. Deforestation occurs though logging for lumber, pulpwood and fuel wood. Another factor contributing on deforestation is farming new land, which involves developing forests into farmlands and pastures. Deforestation takes away trees that absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen. The less number of trees in the forest, the less carbon dioxide will be processed and made available in the atmosphere (Hopwood and Cohen). Thus, global warming is caused by humans’ unstoppable emission of noxious gases on the earth’s atmosphere and the denuding of forests. At present, the status of global warming is progressing, rendering detrimental effects to the planet and its inhabitants. Effects of Global Warming The increase of the amount of greenhouse gases present in the earth’s atmosphere has negative implications on the earth’s environmental mechanism. These effects only signify the existence of the environmental dilemma. Due to global warming, the planet is experiencing imbalances our environmental processes. The earth is suffering from heat waves, sudden unusual shifts in weather, and changes in precipitation patterns. The odd patterns of precipitation reinforced by the rise of the sea level result in coastal flooding and take away the land where people live. This circumstance induces migration, causing the population of the inland cities to escalate (â€Å"Global Warming: Early Warning Signs†). Global warming also has a direct effect on our earth’s hydrosphere. The increase in temperature contributes to the rise of sea level. The rise of the earth’s waters results from the expansion of water due to heating and the melting of glaciers and ice caps in the North and South poles (Raper and Braithwaite 311). Global warming also affects the daily lives and lifestyle of the people. It also causes a chain of events that raises extreme concern from environmentalists who are anticipating the worst scenarios resulting from this environmental issue (Hopwood and Cohen). Global warming renders both negative and positive effects in our agriculture. As for its benefits to agriculture, global warming helps to increase food production. Since one of the determinants of agriculture is climate, it is suggested that heating is better than cooling. Moreover, carbon dioxide is one of the essential factors needed by plants in making their own food. As the temperature rises, more farmlands will be available on the poles and the length of the growing season will be prolong. However, extreme rise in the temperature will cause drought that affects our crops. Extremely hot temperatures also prevent some of the crops to be planted due to the adherence of the climate (Hopwood and Cohen). Global warming also raises various health concerns. One of the most obvious effects on health is directly through heat. As the temperature of the earth continues to increase, more people will suffer from heatstroke, heart ailments, and other illnesses exacerbated by heat (Hopwood and Cohen). In addition to this, it was stated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that climate change develops a wide array of adverse effects on human health, resulting in significant loss of human lives. As temperature increases at the earth’s poles, pests and insects migrate toward these areas. Some of these insects and pests carry diseases, such as malaria and dengue fever, which could lead to an increase in the number of cases documented each year (Hopwood and Cohen). Thus, if the current situation will not be addressed, global warming is foreseen to create a chain of negative implications such as the spread of diseases, occurrence of droughts and fires, heavy rainfall, flora and fauna range shift, and population changes (â€Å"Global Warming: Early Warning Signs†). Conclusion The environment is continuously violated and destructed as people strive to achieve industrialization, economic progress, and improvement of the quality of human life. As a result, global warming has emerged as an alarming dilemma that stems from our negligence and exploitation of the earth’s natural resources. Thus, global warming is not a product of our imagination but a product of our continued destruction of the environment. Global warming is brought about by the escalated concentration of greenhouse gases, causing the earth’s temperature to increase as the gases trap infrared waves and bounce them back to the earth. The increased concentration of the greenhouse gases result from the neglectful emission of components that comprise the noxious greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide, the main component of the greenhouse gases, accumulates in the atmosphere as the amount of carbon dioxide recycled is reduced. Deforestation is one of the causes of the increased in the concentration of the harmful gases on the earth’s atmosphere. Global warming brings about various effects on the environment, human health, and people’s lifestyle. Although global warming has some advantages, such as prolonging the growing (of plants) season, it produces more negative implications. For instance, it can cause the spread of various diseases, the occurrence of droughts and wildfires, the unusual patterns of precipitation, and considerable shifts on the flora and fauna distribution. The sad truth is that global warming exists and continues to progress as we constantly neglect our environment. The current rate of its development causes concerns to arise, and the effects we are currently experiencing are proof of its threatening presence. Hence, as global warming continues to threaten human lives, attention and action are extremely needed not only to resolve the growing problems caused by global warming, but also to prevent further damages to the planet and its inhabitants. Works Cited Global Warming: Early Warning Signs. 1999.Retrieved May 8 2008 from http://www. climatehotmap. org/. Hopwood, Nick and Jordan Cohen. â€Å"Greenhouse Gases and Society. † University of Michigan. 1998. 18 July 2008 . Raper, Sarah C. B, and Roger J. Braithwaite. â€Å"Low Sea Level Rise Projection from Mountain Glaciers Icecaps under Global Warming. † Nature 439 (19 January 2006): 311-313. SciDev. Net. â€Å"Global Warming. † Climate Change and Energy. 2008. May 8 2008 .

Stag Beetles, Family Lucanidae

Stag beetles are some of the biggest, worst bugs on the planet (at least they look bad!). These beetles are so named for their antler-like mandibles. In Japan, enthusiasts collect and rear stag beetles, and even stage battles between the males. Description Stag beetles (family Lucanidae) do get quite large, which is why they are so popular with beetle collectors. In North America, the largest species measures just over 2 inches, but tropical stag beetles can easily top 3 inches. These sexually dimorphic beetles also go by the name pinch bugs. Male stag beetles sport impressive mandibles, sometimes as long as half their body, which they use to spar with competing males in battles over territory. Though they may look threatening, you dont need to fear these enormous beetles. Theyre generally harmless but may give you a good nip if you try to handle them carelessly. Stag beetles are typically reddish-brown to black in color. Beetles in the family Lucanidae possess antennae with 10 segments, with the end segments often enlarged and appearing clubbed. Many, but not all, have elbowed antennae as well.​ Classification Kingdom – Animalia Phylum – Arthropoda Class – Insecta Order – Coleoptera Family - Lucanidae Diet Stag beetle larvae are important decomposers of wood. They live in dead or decaying logs and stumps. Adult stag beetles may feed on leaves, sap, or even honeydew from aphids. Life Cycle Like all beetles, stag beetles undergo complete metamorphosis with four stages of development: egg, larva, pupa, and adult. Females usually lay their eggs under the bark on fallen, rotting logs. The white, c-shaped stag beetle larvae develop over one or more years. Adults emerge in late spring or early summer in most areas. Special Adaptations and Defenses Stag beetles will use their impressive size and massive mandibles to defend themselves if needed. When it feels threatened, a male stag beetle may lift its head and open its mandibles, as if to say, Go ahead, try me. In many parts of the world, stag beetle numbers have declined due to forest defragmentation and the removal of dead trees in populated areas. Your best chance of seeing one may be observing one near your porch light on a summer evening. Stag beetles do come to artificial light sources, including light traps. Range and Distribution: Worldwide, stag beetles number around 800 species. Just 24-30 species of stag beetles inhabit mostly forested areas of North America. The largest species live in tropical habitats. Sources Borror and Delongs Introduction to the Study of Insects, 7th Edition, by Charles A. Triplehorn and Norman F. JohnsonInsects: Their Natural History and Diversity, by Stephen A. MarshallStag Beetles of Kentucky, University of Kentucky Entomology Department