Athena

Notes from underground

[t12012]

Hello, my name is Athena. I am currently pursuing a degree in electrical engineering with minors in astronomy and mathematics. Writing has been one of my hobbies since elementary school, so I created this blog with the intention to practice and refine my academic writing.

Essays

Literature

[t12012]

Literature - favorite quotes or segments from books I’ve read

1984

The Idiot

The Old Man and the Sea

[t12012]

Hemingway, Ernest. The Old Man and the Sea. New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1952.

[the-quasar-hero]

“Rappers only talk about their money, cars, and clothes!”

Why might someone from a group of people that historically have been denied access to wealth, now brag that they have it?

“Rappers only talk about sex!”

Why might someone from a group that have historically been denied sexual autonomy now brag about their sexual escapades on their own terms?

“Rappers only talk about drugs and crime!”

Why might someone from a group that historically have been denied the more legal means to acquire wealth and had drugs forced on their community talk about their experiences with it?

[aviewtodeath]

Animal Farm, a book criticising totalitarian governments, is getting a visual adaptation where there are silly animals selling their crops to those they're supposed to hate.

The Picture of Dorian Gray, a book written by an author who got imprisoned for sodomy, is getting a visual adaptation where the two characters with clear homoromantic undertones are turned into brothers.

Dracula, a book about a group of friends that explore the themes of antagonism and Victorian anxieties, is getting a visual adaptation where the count falls in love with one of his rape victims.

Wuthering Heights, a book that beats the reader over the head with a bat about how the POC protagonist wants to be privileged and white, is getting a visual adaptation with a white person as the protagonist and a POC as the one he envies.

The Odyssey, a book about a man from Ancient Greece trying to get home from war, is getting a visual adaptation coated in a "Hollywood" aesthetic that rejects accurate armour and casting.

2026 is not a good year for classic literature fans all around.

[t12012]

Space Exploration and Exploitation 14.06.26

The benefits of space research are so integral to everyday life that most people do not notice or fully understand the purpose of it. Such benefits include satellite communications and telecommunications, advanced medical imaging, GPS navigation systems, weather forecasting, lightweight materials, and climate monitoring (Tereshkova et al.). Space research has improved solar panels, water purification systems, batteries, and material production. Data obtained from space is also beneficial for environmental conservation and climate change efforts. Space research helps to expand human knowledge while producing technologies that improve life here on Earth. As humans explore space, ethical decision-making becomes just as important as scientific research. Space should remain a neutral domain used for scientific research because private enterprises and potential human colonization raise ethical concerns regarding risk and exploitation.

Space Debris

There are currently over 100.5 million pieces or 9,000 metric tons of orbital debris in Earth’s orbit (NASA). That’s roughly the same weight as 1,800 elephants! As time passes, some pieces of debris are able to fall back to Earth or burn up completely in the atmosphere on the way down instead of remaining in orbit—but not all of it. An article titled “The Role of Ethics in Space Exploration says: “Cosmic responsibility dictates that we take measures to mitigate the creation of space debris and actively engage in debris removal efforts” (“The Role of Ethics in Space Exploration”). If debris is left up in space, there is the theoretical danger of Kessler Syndrome, in which the density of space debris in the Low Earth Orbit becomes high enough to trigger a chain reaction: collisions create massive clouds of fast-moving debris, causing even more collisions. If Kessler Syndrome occurred, it would disrupt satellite dependent systems that much of modern society relies so heavily on. Space debris poses a huge risk as collisions could interfere with essential worldwide services such as emergency response and disaster relief efforts and GPS and navigation. 

In order to better understand the risk of Kessler Syndrome, picture a massive circle of dominoes, each with another line of dominoes branching off from it. Knocking over just one domino causes the entire structure to collapse, as the dominos collide and knock each other over until none are left standing. One domino knocks over two, those two knock over four, and so on. Kessler Syndrome works the same way. When one piece of debris collides with another, the impact scatters fragments outward, which then smash into even more debris. As fragments of debris smash into other debris, satellites inevitably get caught in the mix and are destroyed. Although Kessler Syndrome is only a theory at the moment, the consequences if it were to occur would be catastrophic. For example, emergency response satellites operate entirely in the Low Earth Orbit, where Kessler Syndrome would hypothetically occur. Many modern devices connect directly to satellites to contact emergency services when off-grid. Extreme environments—marine, aviation, deep wilderness—rely on satellite systems to transmit SOS distress signals through dedicated beacons. Disaster relief satellites that also operate in the Low Earth Orbit provide communication and Earth-observation services when terrestrial networks fail. Without the essential services these satellites provide, many lives could be put at risk—all due to space debris.

However, cleaning up space debris is both expensive and difficult. Space debris also makes satellite operations and future space research more expensive and difficult. The Aerospace Corporation explains this further: “Almost everything we do in our modern way of life uses satellite technology. Space debris adds to the cost of operating those satellites. If space debris destroys a satellite, it may take years and hundreds of millions of dollars to restore that service…. Some satellites can move to avoid a collision, but moving a satellite uses valuable propellant and can shorten a satellite mission” (Space Debris 101). Sending satellites up into space is risky because of orbital debris, but studying space debris is difficult if satellites are not launched. Space operations—such as space weather research—are necessary to best understand how space debris is created and how it can be removed. Many nations are making efforts towards cleaning up space debris because they are required to under the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and the Liability Convention of 1972 (UNOOSA). The Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee has also set a guideline that satellites should be removed from their orbits 25 years after their missions have been completed. Private enterprises, however, are not legally required to clean up the objects they send up into space.

Private Enterprises

While private enterprises have lowered the cost for launches into space and have opened the doors to increased innovation and exploration opportunities, they have also contributed to space debris and growing concerns about ethical responsibility. A scientific paper by Valentina Tereshkova—a Russian engineer and the first woman in space—and colleagues argues that “balancing space exploration with preservation is crucial not to compromise the space environment for current and future use” (Tereshkova et al.). Humans have a responsibility not only to Earth, but also to other worlds. Humans are at risk of contaminating other celestial bodies, as Earth microorganisms can be transported with spacecraft and other equipment launched into space. “This could compromise the integrity of scientific experiments and, more importantly, affect the pristine nature of these cosmic landscapes” (“The Role of Ethics in Space Exploration”). Unintentionally contaminating other celestial bodies with Earth microorganisms would be similar to the European colonists accidentally bringing disease ridden rats to the Americas. It is the ethical responsibility of humans to ensure that they do not damage or compromise the places they explore. Strict sterilization procedures have been put in place to help prevent this, but the commercialization of space exploration and the race to colonize Mars raise serious concerns.

“Space Research Ethics”, a paper written by experts in philosophy and computational space physics explains that “in 2024, less than 1% of all satellite launches were motivated by science, and the vast majority of the environmental impacts are hence caused by the commercial use of space” (Sivula et al.). Rocket launches cause a lot of damage to the ecosystem, such as releasing greenhouse gases that deplete the ozone layer, which increase the risk of ultraviolet radiation from the Sun and contribute to global warming. Think of the ozone layer like an umbrella shielding Earth from the Sun—rocket emissions slowly poke holes in it, letting in harmful radiation. An academic study that mapped rocket launch sites and analyzed their surroundings found that “shuttle cloud and exhaust of the rocket boosters can lead to local vegetation damage and biodiversity loss because of fuel spills, chemical leaks, acidic deposition”—all of which threaten local ecosystems (Ang et al.). Ecosystems near coastal launch sites suffer from water contamination from unburned rocket fuels. Sonic booms and the extreme noise levels that come from launch harm and disrupt local wildlife. Failed launches, such as SpaceX’s Starship in 2023 or Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket in 2026, scatter debris that cause large amounts of environmental damage and increase the risk of air and water pollution (Hollingham).

Space programs are also incredibly expensive and require enormous funding. SpaceX, for example, has spent over $15 billion on Starship: a launch vehicle that is intended to help SpaceX colonize Mars (Roulette and Wang). Building a rocket can cost anywhere between $100 million to several billion dollars to develop. Private enterprises are also moving towards space tourism. Space tourism is the commercial practice of sending private civilians beyond Earth’s atmosphere for recreational or leisure purposes rather than for scientific research. There are two types of space tourism flights: suborbital and orbital. Suborbital flight sends passengers above the Kármán line (the boundary between Earth’s atmosphere and outer space) for around 10 to 15 minutes. Orbital flights allow passengers to stay in space for days or weeks as they orbit around the Earth. Suborbital flights would cost around $500,000 per seat while orbital flights cost around $200 million (Silva). Although it would be very cool, space tourism offers little to no scientific merit and diverts resources away from Earth’s pressing crises. As such, many argue that the money spent on rockets, Mars missions, and space tourism could instead be used to address issues such as poverty, healthcare, hunger, education, and climate change.

This raises a question about priorities: should humanity invest billions into trying to colonize other planets while problems remain unsolved on Earth? Colonizing Mars and trying to implement commercial space tourism would not only be incredibly harmful, but also unethical. Erika Nesvold, an astrophysicist, explains that attempts to colonize Mars requires terraforming, which is the theoretical process of modifying a celestial body to make it habitable for human life. Terraforming “might exterminate species or entire ecosystems without even detecting their existence” (Nesvold). It’s like destroying an entire forest to build a new city, potentially wiping out countless species while doing so, all while your own home just needs a little renovation. Some argue that space expansion is necessary to human survival, but the resources used towards these attempts could be used towards improving life on Earth instead. 

Potential Benefits

One of the strongest arguments for human colonization is that humanity’s long-term survival depends on becoming a multi-planetary species. Earth faces many terrestrial threats such as climate change, global pandemics, nuclear conflict, supervolcanic eruptions, and asteroid impacts. Many of these threats are unlikely, but history has proved that catastrophic events can occur unexpectedly. Because human civilization currently exists entirely on Earth, a significant disaster could severely threaten the existence of humanity. If people are capable of creating self-sustaining settlements on other planets, not doing so could be considered irresponsible because it leaves the future of humanity exposed to avoidable risks. Colonizing Mars or other celestial bodies could reduce this threat and act as risk management by creating independent populations beyond Earth. Given the idea that colonization is necessary for human survival, the moral obligation to preserve humanity should outweigh the ethical concerns about exploitation and environmental impact. Every major expansion in history has involved risk, yet those expansions have ultimately produced benefits. 

Aerospace engineer Robert Zubrin advocates for the colonization of Mars by arguing that the motivation to go to Mars could lead to revolutionary inventions that can benefit humanity. Colonization could also give humanity access to the abundance of deuterium on Mars. “Deuterium is the key fuel not only for both first and second generation fusion reactors, but it is also an essential material needed by the nuclear power industry today” (Zubrin). Being able to mine deuterium and transport it back to Earth would provide Earth with the means to use a virtually inexhaustible energy source—reshaping the future of nuclear and fusion energy. This would revolutionize technology and greatly benefit humanity. Resource extraction from space would reduce the pressure of terrestrial mining. Responsibly using the resources mined from celestial bodies could also contribute to economic growth and support future clean-energy technologies. 

Helium-3, a rare isotype of helium that can be used for nuclear fusion, quantum computing, and medical imaging, can be mined from the moon or from passing asteroids. Asteroids contain a large quantity of metals such as iron, silicon, and aluminum, all of which hold economic value and a wide range of industrial applications. Daynan Crull, the founder of asteroid mining company Karman+, says “consider mining of water for its life-sustaining oxygen and rocket propellant hydrogen, or of clay for the 3D printing of ceramics that can be used to make, say, space habitats or solar collectors. Mining would circumvent much of the costs of getting these into space from Earth entirely” (Sims). In other words, asteroid mining would reduce the need to transport heavy and expensive materials from Earth, making deep space exploration and research cheaper and more possible. One of the biggest obstacles in space exploration currently is the cost to launch materials from Earth, and asteroid mining would greatly lower that. Being able to extract resources directly from space would benefit and increase the likelihood of colonization and human expansion in space. Mining deuterium from Mars or metals from asteroids would also be an economic gold mine for corporations, as there is estimated to be millions to billions of dollars of profit. This explains why the race to colonize Mars is a major motivation for many private enterprises involved in space exploration. 

Private enterprises have lowered the cost of and have increased opportunities for space exploration. In the past, space research has mainly been conducted, funded, and monitored by government agencies. However, some argue that government-led programs alone progress too slowly and are ineffective due to budget limitation and political instability. Governments hold the power to cut funding from space programs, capping the potential of scientific research and innovation. Private enterprises are able to circumvent these limits and invest more resources in developing new technologies. Advances in reusable rockets serve as evidence for improvements in space equipment and efforts to reduce environmental impact. Profit incentives also encourage some innovation in scientific research that government programs cannot. Competition among companies can improve existing satellite systems such as communication, disaster monitoring, navigation technologies, and other services that society is dependent upon. While ethical concerns regarding exploitation and risk are important, many argue that these concerns can be addressed through regulation and international cooperation rather than through restrictions on commercialization. The desire to extend human survival through colonization and space resource extraction all seem increasingly within reach, thanks to private enterprise. However, this desire risks prioritizing profit over ethical responsibility and the preservation of celestial bodies.

Risk

Although there are benefits to private enterprises in space, the motivation for profit instead of research can still lead to unequal access to space resources. An article titled “Ethics and Equity in the Emerging Space Economy” explains that “current beneficiaries of the space economy remain primarily in the Global North, dominated by private investors, elite engineers, and governments with established aerospace capabilities” (Herzog). While space resource extraction would be beneficial for all humanity, allowing private enterprises to dominate the process causes the benefits to turn into a market. It could create a new form of colonialism, where more powerful groups claim and exploit resources that should belong to everyone. At that point, only nations and companies with enough money would benefit, increasing the financial inequality gap on a global scale. The billions of dollars spent on mining technology—autonomous robots, spacecraft, equipment—could ideally be used to solve problems here on Earth instead. The process of mining asteroids is also risky as mining operations might disrupt asteroid trajectories, potentially sending them on a collision course towards Earth. Rubble produced from mining operations could worsen the space debris problem and contribute to the risk of Kessler Syndrome as well.

But would limiting private enterprises result in a lack of motivation for space research, exploration, and funding? There are concerns that restricting private enterprises or banning them from space completely might prevent scientific breakthroughs from happening. Regardless, conducting research only for profit raises ethical concerns. Space research and exploration is done for the benefit of humanity. When profit is the motivation, few benefit. Engineer Anisha Palaparthi writes: “The prominence of independent private companies in the space industry brings to light new ethical questions of how corporate greed could impact the well-being of future generations, as humanity looks to space as not only a scientific enterprise but also an untapped economic marketplace” (Palaparthi). For example, with the increased use of AI in recent years, some companies even plan to deploy data centers in space to earn profit. The idea of data centers orbiting the Earth might sound like a great idea for energy conservation, as they have higher solar efficiency and wouldn’t have to rely on terrestrial energy sources. However, data centers in space require thousands of satellites, which increases both the amount of objects orbiting around the Earth and the risk of Kessler Syndrome. 

A good idea on the surface might include a lot of complications that could put humanity at risk. If a private enterprise makes a scientific breakthrough, they are then able to put a monopoly on that breakthrough instead of using it to help advance humanity. Companies that make it to Mars can put a monopoly on the deuterium mined there for more profit instead of using it to help all of humanity improve with a revolutionary energy source. The metals mined from asteroids might be used towards benefiting private companies rather than the general public. Mars is also unlikely to become self-sustaining anytime soon, and the resources put towards attempting colonization could be used entirely towards solving Earth’s current problems. The goal to survive does not justify repeating historical patterns of exploitation. This is analogous to invasive plant species growing aggressively and causing biodiversity loss in habitats they don’t belong. Article 2 of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 states: “Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means” (UNOOSA, “Outer Space Treaty”). Space has already been established as neutral, yet the rapid commercialization of space seeks to undermine this foundational agreement. Private enterprises, motivated by profit rather than the benefit of humanity, seek to monopolize resources, contribute to space debris, and prioritize financial gain over scientific research and ethical responsibility. 

Space research has proven to be incredibly valuable to humanity through its contributions to medicine, communications, energy—all of which were made possible because scientific research was conducted for the wellbeing of the public. Space and all of its resources do not belong to a single nation, enterprise, or individual. Space is a shared ground for all of humanity, meaning that every person on Earth holds an inherent stake in how resources are used and protected. Scientific research should continue to be guided and led by academic experts, experts who want to conduct research for the sake of science and for all people. Allowing private enterprises to operate without limits will transform space from a neutral research domain into a commercialized marketplace that is beneficial to few and puts Earth at risk. In order to preserve both the integrity of space and the welfare of future generations, space must remain neutral and governed by international cooperation, ethical decision-making, and the motivation to conduct research for the development of humanity—not a resource to be exploited for profit.

Ang, Lee P., et al. Rocket Launches Threaten Global Biodiversity Conservation. vol. 5, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2024.

Herzog, Emma. “Ethics and Equity in the Emerging Space Economy.” Herbst Program for Engineering, Ethics & Society, 2025.

Hollingham, Richard. “When Rockets Go Wrong – Protecting the Environment from Catastrophe.” BBC.com, BBC, 29 May 2026.

NASA. “ARES | Orbital Debris Program Office | Frequently Asked Questions.” Nasa.gov, 2010.

Nesvold, Erika. “The Thorny Ethics of Planetary Engineering.” The MIT Press Reader, 12 Feb. 2024.

Palaparthi, Anisha. “Lost in Space: The Ethics of the Private Space Race - Viterbi Conversations in Ethics.” Viterbi Conversations in Ethics, 25 Jun. 2024.

Roulette, Joey, and Echo Wang. “Exclusive: SpaceX Spending on Starship Tops $15 Billion in Rush for Airline-like Rocketry.” Reuters, 1 May 2026.

Silva, Jonathan. “What Is Space Tourism? Types, Costs and Career Opportunities.” UCF Online, 18 Dec. 2025.

Sims, Josh. “Are We on the Verge of Mining Metals from the Asteroids above Earth?” Bbc.com, BBC, 23 Mar. 2025.

Sivula, Oskari, Mikko Puumala, and Minna Palmroth. Space Research Ethics. vol. 32, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2026.

“Space Debris 101.” Aerospace.org, The Aerospace Corporation, 2024.

Tereshkova, V. V., E. A. Tereshkova, and Denis E. Firsov. Ethical Aspects and Prospects of Space Exploration and Exploitation. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, 2025.

“The Role of Ethics in Space Exploration.” Falcon Scientific Editing, 11 Sept. 2023.

UNOOSA. “Liability Convention.” United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, 29 Nov. 1971.

UNOOSA. “Outer Space Treaty.” United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, 19 Dec. 1966.

Zubrin, Robert. “The Case for Colonizing Mars, by Robert Zubrin – NSS.” National Space Society, Aug. 1996.

[t12012]

“Whoever infringes upon individual ‘charity’,… infringes upon man’s nature and scorns his personal dignity. But the organizing of ‘social charity’ and the question of personal freedom are two different questions and are not mutually exclusive. Individual goodness will always abide, because it is a personal need, a living need for the direct influence of one person on another. In Moscow there lived an old man, a ‘general’, that is, an actual state councillor, with a German name; all his life he dragged himself around to jails and prisoners; every group of exiles to Siberia knew beforehand that ‘the little old general’ would visit them on Sparrow Hills. He did it all seriously and piously in the highest degree; he arrived, walked along the rows of exiles, who surrounded him, stopped before each one, asked each one about his needs, hardly ever admonished anyone, called them all ‘dear hearts.’ He gave them money, sent them necessary things—leg wrappings, foot-cloths, pieces of linen, sometimes brought pious tracts and gave them to all who were literate, fully convinced that they would read them on the way, and that the literate ones would read to the illiterate. He rarely asked about their crimes, though he would listen when a prisoner began talking. He placed all the criminals on an equal footing, he made no distinctions. He talked with them as with brothers, but in the end they themselves came to regard him as a father. If he noticed some woman exile with a baby in her arms, he would go up to her, caress the child, snap his fingers to make the child laugh. He did this for many years, till his own death; it reached the point where he was known over the whole of Russia and the whole of Siberia, that is, to all the criminals. I was told by someone who had been in Siberia that he himself had witnessed how the most hardened criminals remembered the general, and yet, when he visited them, he would rarely give them more than twenty kopecks each. True, they did not remember him all that warmly or in any very serious way. Some one of those ‘unfortunates,’ who had killed some twelve souls, who had stabbed six children solely for his own pleasure (they say there were such men), suddenly, out of the blue, at some point, and maybe only once in all of twenty years, would suddenly sigh and say: ‘And what’s with the little old general now, can he still be alive?’ He might even smile as he said it—and that was all. But how do you know what seed had been sown forever in his soul by this ‘little old general’ whom he had not forgotten in twenty years? How do you know, Bakhmutov, what meaning this communion of one person with another will have in the destiny of the person communed with? . . . Here the whole of life stands before us and a countless number of ramifications that are hidden from us. The best chess player, the sharpest of them, can calculate only a few moves ahead; one French player, who could calculate ten moves ahead, was written about as a wonder. And how many moves are there, and how much is unknown to us? In sowing your seed, in sowing your ‘charity,’ your good deed in whatever form it takes, you give away part of your person and receive into yourself part of another’s; you mutually commune in each other; a little more attention, and you will be rewarded with knowledge, with the most unexpected discoveries. You will be bound, finally, to look at your work as a science; it will take in the whole of your life and maybe fill the whole of it. On the other hand, all your thoughts, all the seeds you have sown, which you may already have forgotten, will take on flesh and grow; what was received from you will be passed on to someone else. And how do you know what share you will have in the future outcome of human destiny?”

Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Idiot. 2003. translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, Vintage Books, 1869.

[t12012]

Technology Use in K-12 (25.05.26)

Banning technology from classrooms may seem like an easy solution to distractions and academic dishonesty, but avoiding technology altogether does not prepare students for the real world. Technology is an integrated part of everyday life, influencing the way people interact, communicate, and learn—especially in the classroom. Schools should be more focused on teaching students how to use technology productively and responsibly. Technology should be incorporated into classrooms in a way that can help students learn how to use it appropriately with guidance from teachers and the curriculum. 

Although technology offers many educational benefits, it can negatively affect students’ learning and focus if misused. The overuse of technology has unfortunately led to a decline in student writing skills as a result of widespread accessibility to digital communication. A paper published by the Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University notes: “Due to the excessive usage of online chatting and shortcuts, the writing skills of today’s young generation have declined quite tremendously” (Raja and Nagasubramani). Many students struggle to spell different words, use grammar properly, or read cursive. The student literacy rate has also declined since the pandemic in 2020, when online education largely replaced in-person learning systems (Harris). Empathy and face-to-face interaction between peers have also decreased as students become more dependent on technological forms of communication. All these challenges demonstrate the need for teachers and curriculum to work with students to teach them how to use technology responsibly and in a way that is beneficial to student learning and development. 

Notwithstanding all the negative impacts of technology, the use of technology in schools can be incredibly beneficial for student engagement. A study by the Ladoke Akintola University of Technology titled “Exploring the Impact of Technology Integration on Student Engagement and Academic Performance in K–12 Classrooms” found that when done correctly, technology integration was effective. It increased academic performance, student engagement, and enhanced student learning experiences (Alabi). Technology can be a powerful learning tool. Integrated technology such as online databases and libraries allow for more access to information and resources to benefit student learning. Adaptive learning platforms and other online programs can also create more personalized and accessible learning opportunities for students. When technology is responsibly integrated by teachers and curriculum, it can greatly benefit student learning, performance, and engagement.  

If a class is solely focused on using technology for learning, students are more likely to be distracted and lose face-to-face interaction with their teachers and peers. Since technology cannot be avoided, it needs to be properly integrated in the classroom. Allie Beldin, a sixth grade math teacher, emphasizes the importance of implementing technology appropriately: “Is it increasing collaboration? And are they engaged and excited about learning? If it’s not doing that, it’s normally a digital worksheet or something to check off a box to make them complete work. . . . Educators have to make sure it’s a purposeful and meaningful support or extension to learning” (Torchia). It is important that technological programs are used to support teachers, not replace them. Teachers should use online educational programs that are able to keep students engaged and actively learning. Curriculum that uses technology should also include teaching students about internet safety, digital literacy, and critical thinking. When using technology in the classroom, teachers should help guide students and teach them proper etiquette to prevent misuse. Classroom instruction and curriculum should combine the use of technology with traditional learning methods as well so that students can still develop skills such as writing, reading, and proper grammar without technological interference.

As society becomes more dependent on technology, schools and teachers must prepare students by teaching responsible technology use and create learning environments that support student success and development for the modern world. It is crucial that teachers keep in mind that technology is a tool to enhance and support learning, not replace it. The future of education is dependent on teachers, curriculum, and schools to teach and guide students by combining face-to-face instruction supported with the benefits of technology. 

Alabi, Moses. Exploring the Impact of Technology Integration on Student Engagement and Academic Performance in K–12 Classrooms. 3o Apr. 2025. ResearchGate.

Harris, Stephaan . “The Nation’s Report Card Shows Declines in Reading, Some Progress in 4th Grade Math.” Nagb.gov, 29 Jan. 2025.

Raja, R., and P. C. Nagasubramani. “Impact of Modern Technology in Education.” Journal of Applied and Advanced Research, vol. 3, no. 1, 10 May 2018, pp. 33–35.

Torchia, Rebecca. “Q&A: Allie Beldin on Continuing to Innovate with Technology in K–12 Education.” Technology Solutions That Drive Education, 2021.

[falloutnewnobody]

i'll never forgive a certain genre of person for fostering this common conception that dostoeyvsky's works are all these horribly depressing, hard to read novels because that man's writing is funny as hell and reads like a long distance friend telling you about a local drama on facetime at 2am

[undinesea]

These are my sanctuaries: music that stirs, nature that heals, poetry that whispers, and solitude that understands.

Marina Tsvetaeva, from a letter to poet Boris Pasternak

[t12012]

[velartis]

Franz Kafka, 1912

[t12012]

"He would have liked to continue talking about his mother. He did not suppose, from what he could remember of her, that she had been an unusual woman, still less an intelligent one; and yet she had possessed a kind of nobility, a kind of purity, simply because the standards that she obeyed were private ones. Her feelings were her own, and could not be altered from outside. It would not have occurred to her than an action which is ineffectual thereby becomes meaningless. If you loved someone, you loved him, and when you had nothing else to give, you still gave him love. When the last of the chocolate was gone, his mother had clasped the child in her arms. It was no use, it changed nothing, it did not produce more chocolate, it did not avert the child's death or her own; but it seemed natural to her to do it. The refugee woman in the boat had also covered the little boy with her arm, which was no more use against the bullets than a sheet of paper. The terrible thing that the Party had done was to persuade you that mere impulses, mere feelings, were of no account, while at the same time robbing you of all power over the material world. When once you were in the grip of the Party, what you felt or did not feel, what you did or refrained from doing, made literally no difference. Whatever happened you vanished, and neither you nor your actions were ever heard of again. You were lifted clean out of the stream of history. And yet to the people of only two generations ago, this would not have seemed all-important, because they were not attempting to alter history. They were governed by private loyalties which they did not question. What mattered were individual relationships, and a completely helpless gesture, an embrace, a tear, a word spoken to a dying man, could have value in itself. The proles, it suddenly occurred to him, had remained in this condition. They were not loyal to a party or a country or an idea, they were loyal to one another.... The proles had stayed human. They had not become hardened inside."

"If you can feel that staying human is worth while, even when it can't have any result whatever, you've beaten them."

Orwell, George. 1984. New York, Signet Classics, 1949.

[t12012]

[t12012]

Essays

Manipulation, Loyalty, And Self-Deception : analysis and comparison between Gru from Despicable Me and Doflamingo from One Piece

“Here’s Not Here” Is Actually Here : The Walking Dead s6e4 analysis

WALL-E: Bringing People Down to Earth : Wall-E analysis

AI and Personhood : AI cannot be a person

Divine Command Theory : Divine Command Theory (+ deontology) is flawed

Shiki : Shiki analysis

Technology Use in K-12 : How should technology be used in schools?

Space Exploration and Exploitation : Space should remain a neutral domain for research

[t12012]

Shiki (22.11.22)

Shiki is a Japanese psychological horror novel written by Fuyumi Ono, which was serialized into a manga series by Ryu Fujisaki and published in a monthly magazine from 2007-2011. Shiki was later adapted into an anime which aired in 2010.

I. Historical Context and Synopsis

Shiki is set in a rural Japanese area called Sotoba, which is isolated from the rest of society and is surrounded by mountains and momi fir trees on three sides. The momi fir trees are used to make grave markers and coffins, and in the prologue of the Shiki novels, junior monk Muroi Seishin writes: “the firs themselves destroyed for the dead, is unmistakably a land of death. Closed in on three sides by firs, the village is isolated within death.” (Ono, pg. 3, 1998) This metaphor about Sotoba being surrounded by death is mentioned a lot in the show itself, and it provides a foreshadowing about the death that is about to come upon the villagers.

In the hot summer of 1994, the few residents that lived in Yamiri, an area of Sotoba, mysteriously died due to unknown causes. A series of unknown deaths begin to spread in the village of Sotoba, right as a strange family named the Kirishikis move into their new home: a western-style mansion on top of a hill. The cause of these deaths is first believed to be an epidemic, but the doctor of the village, Ozaki, begins to question supernatural causes as a plausible explanation for these deaths when Yuuki Natsuno asks him if his dead classmate, Shimizu Megumi, is really dead. Shortly after, the existence of the shiki are discovered: vampire-like corpses that have come back to life and feed on human blood for their own survival—killing the human in the process. As soon as Ozaki reveals to the villagers that the true cause of the mysterious deaths in Sotoba are the Kirishikis and the shiki, the villagers revolt and hunt the shiki down.

II. Human Nature

One interpretation of Shiki is that it is meant to represent the selfishness and self-interest of humans. Ironically, the shiki’s selfishness for their own self-interest is prevalent as well, as they could attempt to find a way to coexist with humankind, but they claim that the hunger they experience prevents them from doing so. Sunako—the leader of the shiki—describes it as an empty hunger, one so deep that they come to the point where they think nothing of killing people. When Natsuno’s friend Tohru became a shiki, Natsuno tried to convince him to try to coexist with humans. Tohru replied, “If we could solve things like that, we wouldn’t need to attack people in the first place!… People don’t eat a live pig by slicing off its flesh little by little.” Most of the shiki display narrow self-interest, as they act only to keep themselves alive. Contrarily, when one of Ozaki’s nurses became a shiki, she refused to eat humans, no matter how hungry she was. Tohru yelled at her and said that no one would praise her for doing so, but the nurse replied that she didn’t want to hate herself like Tohru did.

Kirishiki Seishirou, a human allied with the shiki, says: “Shiki would probably be viewed as evil, according to conventional thought, since they kill people in order to live… But why is it wrong for shiki to hunt humans? Humans also hunt humans.” In saying this, Seishirou is implying that humans are only acting out of self-interest for their own survival against the shiki; they don’t actually care that they are becoming murderers. Most of the humans display examples of enlightened self-interest as well. The humans work together to hunt down the shiki and eradicate them, and in doing so, it may appear that they are working in the self-interest of humanity and the survival of the village. However, during the shiki hunts, when a human was barely bitten by a shiki, they were killed by the other humans without remorse. Some of the humans seemed to gain pleasure in killing the shiki, and although it may have seemed like what the humans were doing was for the greater good, they were only killing the shiki for their own selfish fulfillment.

In Shiki, God is both a higher and terrifying love. Sunako believes that the shiki are “forsaken by God”, and she laments: “It’s not like I became a creature like this because I wanted to. But if I have life, I don’t want to lose it. Is it my sin? This is what they mean by being ‘forsaken by God’.” When Tohru expressed deep regret and guilt for killing people as a shiki, Seishin comforts him by saying: “People may call what you did a sin, but who could blame you for wanting to live?” Oddly enough, the shiki believe in the existence of God more than the humans themselves, even if the shiki are terrified of religious items and the shrine has the most influence in the village. A bartender in the village, Hasegawa, said that the villagers have “received the baptism of modern rationalism. You could call it brainwashing.” In Shiki, both the humans and the shiki lean towards a more realistic worldview while Seishin is an idealist. Sunako thinks that Seishin is a romanticist, and considering that Seishin believes that God is inherently good and temptations are of the devil, it’s natural that he leans towards idealist views.

III. The Good

What exactly separates the shiki from humankind? Shiki are “different from ghosts… They didn’t come back to life. They have a corpse for a body, but they’re not just corpses like zombies. They have souls and are equal to humans, right? But they’re different from humans… An existence of a completely different nature.” When Natsuno met the risen Tohru, he began reminiscing memories he had with him, and felt despair and grief when he remembered the ice-cold touch of Tohru’s hand. Memories live on even after a person has died and their corpse has gone cold, and although Tohru and his memories returned, he isn’t the person he once was. Both Ozaki and Seishin—the two people who have the most authority over Sotoba—believe that there is no law to judge the shiki. While Ozaki believes that because the shiki aren’t bound by human law they deserve to die, Seishin believes that shiki have every right to live the way they can because they aren’t bound by human law. If the shiki aren’t human, then there is no law to judge them. For the humans, however, “since ancient times, there have been ‘rules’ which were decided by no one.”

Shiki doesn’t exactly encourage the viewer to prefer one side or the other; instead, its purpose is to leave an area of gray morality for definition. The shiki can be considered evil while the humans are good, but the actions of the humans determine otherwise. Ozaki had no qualms whatsoever when he killed his wife after she turned into a shiki. He tortured her, and she exhibited clear distress and pain at his actions. She actively struggled and protested against being killed, yet Ozaki did it anyway. Seishin entered shortly after Ozaki killed his wife, and stated, “Killing others is never justice, no matter what kind of noble cause one upholds. I don’t want to kill, be it humans or something else.”

Most every action the humans take is an example of utilitarianism, as they believe that by eradicating the shiki, humankind will be saved. There is one very clear example of relativism, and that is the bartender Hasegawa. Hasegawa himself claims to be a relativist and during the shiki hunts, he refused to kill anyone but continued to help other humans kill the shiki. However, when the humans ran out of stakes and tied up the shiki to burn in the sunlight, Hasegawa took action and killed the shiki that were suffering because he wanted to put them out of their misery. His actions demonstrate relativism as he only acted based on what he believed to be “right” in the situation.

When a corpse rose and became a shiki, they were told that they'd "gained the privilege to kill”. Megumi used to be a timid girl who was afraid to stand up for herself, but as soon as she became a shiki and had the power to kill, she became an entirely different person. She was able to express her wants more readily, and she was motivated more by her own self-interest. When people gain power to do things that are forbidden, they change into entirely different people. However, the tyrannical rule of the Kirishiki's and the fear of being killed again is what kept the shiki in check from destroying themselves.

IV . History vs. Hollywood

Seishin’s book in progress—Shiki—is about a man who used to live as a heretic on a hill under God’s control. One day, out of despair, the man killed his younger brother, not because he hated him, but because “His younger brother was a point of contact between him and the world, and at the same time, a point of contact between him and his despair.” The older brother was exiled from the village and began to wander the wilderness, but his dead younger brother followed him as a shiki. The younger brother had played a good man to gain the favor of God, and in doing so, he suppressed himself and hated the hill. He had wanted his older brother to kill him to set him free from God’s control. When the younger brother disappeared, the older brother called out his name, and realized it was his own name. “He did not have a younger brother! He was the one who killed. He was also the one who was killed. The younger brother was born from his despair, and, due to that despair, he killed and shed the blood of his younger brother—himself.”

Sunako compares Seishin’s story to that of Cain and Abel in the Bible, and Seishin asks Sunako if she is Abel. The shiki are born out of humankind’s despair, yet they are one and the same. The shiki represent the darkness and selfishness of humankind, and the desire to be free from reasoning, logic, and the higher power. In the end, “Life and death are two sides of the same coin, good or bad”. Sunako says: “Death is terrible for anyone. Young or old, good or evil, it’s all the same. Death is impartial. There is no especially terrible death. That’s why death is so fearsome. Your habits, your age, your personality, your wealth, your beauty… They are all meaningless in the face of death. Since it destroys all of these, death is terrible.”

A fire ended up burning everything, erasing everything that had happened at Sotoba. The Kirishiki family was mostly eradicated along with the rest of the shiki, but Sunako managed to escape with Seishin. No matter how much effort humans put in to eradicate the darkness of the world, the realist views of human nature prevail. If everyone was born inherently good then wickedness wouldn’t exist in the first place—unless you choose to believe in a devil created by God himself. In that case, even God has his Abel.

Abe A., Inoue T., Ozaki N., & Isono H. (Executive Producers). (2010). Shiki [TV Series]. Daume; Siren Visual.

Ono, F. (2013). Shiki (Sinnesspiel, Trans.). Shinchōsha. (Original work published 1998).

[t12012]

Divine Command Theory (25.02.24)

There are many ways people determine morality and virtues. Some may base their virtues off of personal experiences or external philosophies, while others base their virtues and definition of morality off of a higher power: God. It is hard to understand the virtues of people who base them off of their own personal experiences unless we speak to them directly, but we can attempt to understand people who base their understanding of morality off of a higher power. First, we must try to understand what that higher power is. The higher power could be God (singular), as in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism; gods (plural), as in Hinduism, Taoism, and Shintoism; or the universe, as in philosophical Taoism, Buddhism, and Pantheism. If there are multiple beliefs in different higher powers, then there is no foolproof way to determine which one is correct. Divine Command Theory is a flawed way to determine morality and virtues because there are so many factors and questions that are tied into the very existence of God and morality.

Definition

Divine Command Theory is the “view that morality is somehow dependent upon God, and that moral obligation consists in obedience to God’s commands.” (Austin, n.d.) This essentially means that morality is what God says or allows, and that anything besides that is wrong. Divine Command Theory also includes the idea that morality is based off of God’s character and traits, and that by following God’s example people can do what is morally right. There are a lot of problems just with this view alone. If morality is based entirely around God, then who is determining whether God is moral or not? Other people will argue that nobody has to determine whether God is moral or not because God is a higher power. If God is a celestial being—a higher power—that has more understanding than a regular human, then God must know what choices we should make because God has more knowledge than us. God’s vast amount of knowledge is what can guide humans towards the truth, because God is omnipotent. That is where the problem lies. People are listening to “God” because God knows and understands more than anyone else, but who is God?

God

As previously mentioned, there are many religions all around the world that believe in a different version, form, or personification of a higher power. Some religions have just one God, while others may have multiple. Other religions choose not to believe in a “God” at all and simply believe in the universe, heaven, or earth as the higher power. There is no one definition for God, just as there isn’t one definition for morality. When I refer to “God”, I am referring to a general higher power, one that doesn’t have any specific traits or characteristics that stand out in order to keep things as simple as possible. Plato’s Euthyphro is a conversation between Euthyphro and Socrates about the meaning of piety and justice. Piety is loyalty, faithfulness, reverence, or devotion to a higher power, typically in a religious context. Euthyphro is a dialogue that is questioning the foundational basis for Divine Command Theory. At one point in the dialogue, Socrates questions Euthyphro: “The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods.” (Plato, n.d.) Here, Socrates is asking if someone is beloved by the gods because they are morally good, or if they are morally good because they are beloved by the gods. Is someone morally good as a result of their own actions, or are they morally good because the gods said so? Euthyphro contradicts himself by saying that both are correct, which falsifies Divine Command Theory in this context.

It is important to note that the gods Euthyphro and Socrates are referencing throughout the dialogue are the gods of Greek mythology, all of which are not exactly the best examples of an omnipotent higher power. Many of the Greek gods were flawed: Zeus is well known for cheating on his wife with mortal women; Dionysus, the god of wine and insanity, has followers that have been known to rip apart people; Artemis turned a man into a deer and had his own dogs tear him apart; Aphrodite practically started the Trojan War; and that is just barely scratching the surface of some of the things the Greek gods have done. Many of the gods’ punishments for people and creatures in mythology were often far from humane as well. Seeing as that is the case, being pious to the Greek gods probably wasn’t great, as most of them weren’t the best examples out there. Since Divine Command Theory states that morality can also be based off of a gods’ character and traits, then it is basically saying that assaulting women and killing someone you don’t like is fine because the Greek gods have done it. Divine Command Theory only works if God is truly omnipotent, good, and has the best interests of humanity at heart. Otherwise, Divine Command Theory is a great way to give people an excuse to do bad things.

Deontology

“Deon” is Greek for “duty”. Immanuel Kant, in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals states that we do moral acts because the act is good in and of itself. The consequences, the emotions involved, or any other external factors do not influence whether an act is morally right or not. The act itself has to be morally right in order for it to be good. Kant somewhat denounces the influence of God on morality by saying:

Even the Holy One of the Gospel must first be compared with our ideal of moral perfection before he is cognized as such; even he says of himself: why do you call me (whom you see) good? None is good (the archetype of the good) but God only (whom you do not see). But whence have we the concept of God as the highest good? Solely from the idea of moral perfection that reason frames a priori and connects inseparably with the concept of a free will. (Kant, 1998)

According to Kant, human will is what determines moral duty in deontology. Thus, deontology judges God based off of what humans believe is morally right. However, if God truly is omnipotent, then humans are all inherently influenced by God, which causes Divine Command Theory to ring true even in deontology. Again, there is a lot of room for error within that statement as there are many different religions that all usually believe in a different higher power—some of which are not omnipotent at all. In the case of the Greek Pagan gods and goddesses that Euthyphro and Socrates were discussing, deontology is applicable. An imperfect god can be judged by human means, whereas an omnipotent God works better with Divine Command Theory. “Moreover, people can, have, and do live purposeful lives apart from belief in God. Religious faith is not necessary for having a life of purpose.” (Austin, n.d.) People don’t have to believe in God to be morally good, which falsifies Divine Command Theory further. A belief in a higher power doesn’t automatically make you a morally good person, but unlike deontology, not everyone’s actions make them a morally bad person either. Morality is not determined by a specific belief system, and that raises the question: what is considered a morally incorrect/wrong choice?

Crime (Sin)

Everyone can agree that a bad moral choice is when someone does something wrong, such as committing a crime or “sin”, especially when Divine Command Theory is involved. But who defines what is wrong? We’ve already determined that there is no definition for God, as there are too many factors that go into it. However, through the eyes of a “sinner”, the definition of crime, sin, and what is morally wrong may be determined. No Longer Human is a book written by Japanese author Dazai Osamu. The story follows a man by the name of Oba Yozo who believes that he has failed or has been "disqualified" as a human being. Yozo has extremely low self-esteem, has been in jail, often attempts suicide, is a drug addict, and is just dreadfully unhappy. At one part in the book, Yozo plays a guessing game of antonyms with his friend. For example, “The antonym of black is white. But the antonym of white is red. The antonym of red is black” (Osamu, 1958). The point of the game isn’t to list the dictionary antonym of a specific thing—it is to name something in the world that is least like that one thing. Yozo asks his friend what the antonym of crime is, to which his friend says: law. Yozo says that is wrong, as crime can still exist even without law. Yozo’s friend then replies with “virtue” as the antonym of crime, to which Yozo says that virtue is the antonym of vice, not crime. Frustrated, Yozo’s friend declares that the antonym of crime is God. Yozo thinks this over, but says that the antonym of God is Satan, and that “actions punishable by jail sentences are not the only crimes. If we knew the antonym of crime, I think we would know its true nature” (Osamu, 1958). Perhaps, the antonym of crime is punishment, which Yozo realized after saying that Fyodor Dostoevsky may have named his book Crime and Punishment because the two words are antonyms.

Again, who defines what is wrong? Is it, according to deontology, anything that goes against inherent human will? Or is it what goes against God’s commands, as stated by Divine Command Theory? Yozo in No Longer Human could definitely be considered a morally awful person as he has “sinned” many times, but he is frightfully aware of his own shortcomings and everything that he has done wrong. Yozo says: “I was frightened even by God. I could not believe in His love, only in His punishment. Faith. That, I felt, was the act of facing the tribunal of justice with one’s head bowed to receive the scourge of God. I could believe in hell, but it was impossible for me to believe in the existence of heaven.” (Osamu, 1958) If punishment is the antonym of crime, then without the fear of punishment, “crime” may not exist. People could still do awful and morally wrong things, but if there is no punishment, then no one could truthfully determine if something is wrong or not. Doing bad things often leads to bad consequences (punishment), which is how we are able to determine what is considered a sin or a crime. “Virtue and vice are concepts invented by human beings, words for a morality which human beings arbitrarily devised.” (Osamu, 1958) Humans could have made up the concept of morality all by themselves. Concerning deontology, where morality is based off of human will, that could simple be considered a concept of morality made up by humans. What people know to be “God” could also be a concept made up by humans, especially since there are so many different religions and forms of a higher power out there. This isn’t to say that morality are God are useless concepts, but if we take a moment to consider that everything may just be entirely made up, our very actions and thought-processes could be drastically different. For those reasons, Divine Command Theory and deontology are highly flawed virtue theories.

Austin, M (n.d.). Divine Command Theory. IEP.

Dazai, O. (1958). No Longer Human (D. Keene, Trans.). New Directions. (Original work published 1948).

Kant, I (1998). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1785).

Plato (n.d.). Euthyphro (B. Jowett, Trans.). The Internet Classics Archive.