36 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2018
    1. Technology is therefore no mere means. Technology is a way of revealing. If we give heed to this, then another whole realm for the essence of technology will open itself up to us. It is the realm of revealing, i.e., of truth.

      Technology opening itself to us giving us the essence of technology to which we--as a species-- can conquer the mysteries of the natural laws around us. As many fears for the day of the technological singularity, they should not worry since by the fact that that piece of information is unlocked for researchers to tinker then there will always be a counter measure to such an event. Knowing the truth of the machine allows for loopholes of the machine to be exploited and neutralize.

  2. Sep 2017
    1. procedure established by law’ in Article 21 does not connote a formalistic requirement of a mere presence of procedure in enacted law. That expression has been held to signify the content of the procedure and its quality which must be fair, just and reasonable. The mere fact that the law provides for the deprivation of life or personal liberty is not sufficient to conclude its validity and the procedure to be constitutionally valid must be fair, just and reasonable. The quality of reasonableness does not attach only to the content of the procedure which the law prescribes with reference to Article 21 but to the content of the law itself. In other words, the requirement of Article 21 is not fulfilled only by the enactment of fair and reasonable procedure under the law and a law which does so may yet be susceptible to challenge on the ground that its content does notaccord with the requirements of a valid law. The law is open to substantive challenge on the ground that it violates the fundamental right

      Fair, just and reasonable

    2. The word ‘procedure’ in Article 21 is wide enough to cover the entire process by which deprivation is effected and that would include not only the adjectival but also the substantive part of law
    3. the lack of substance in the submission that privacy isa privilege for the few. Every individual in society irrespective of social class or economic status is entitled to the intimacy and autonomy which privacy protects. It is privacy as an intrinsic and core feature of life and personal liberty which enables an individual to stand up against a programme of forced sterilization. Then again, it is privacy which is a powerful guarantee if the State were to introduce compulsory drug trials of non-consenting men or women. The sanctity of marriage, the liberty of procreation, the choice of a family life and the dignity of being are matters which concern every individual irrespective of social strata or economic well being

      privacy not the privilege of a few

    4. This submissionbetrays a misunderstanding of the constitutional position. Our Constitution places the individual at the forefront of its focus, guaranteeing civil and political rights in Part III and embodying an aspiration for achieving socio-economic rights in Part IV. The refrain that the poor need no civil and political rights and are concerned only with economic well-being has been utilised though history to wreak the most egregious violations of human rights. Above all, it must be realised that it is the right to question, the right to scrutinize and the right to dissent which enables an informed citizenry to scrutinize the actions of government. Those who are governed are entitled to question those who govern, about the discharge of their constitutional duties including in the provision of socio-economic welfare benefits. The power to scrutinize and to reason enables the citizens of a democratic polity to make informed decisions on basic issues which govern their rights. The theory that civil and political rights are subservient to socio-economic rights has been urged inthe past and has been categorically rejected in the course of constitutional adjudication by this Court.

      Individual at the centre of constitutional protections. civil and political rights cannot be subservient to socio-economic rights.

    5. The submission betrays lack of understanding of the reason why rights are protected in the first place as entrenched guarantees in a Bill of Rights or, as in the case of the Indian Constitution, as partof the fundamental rights. Elevating a right to the position of a constitutionally protected right places it beyond the pale of legislative majorities. When a constitutional right such as the right to equality or the right to life assumes the character of being a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, it assumes inviolable status: inviolability even in the face of the power of amendment. Ordinary legislation is not beyond the pale of legislativemodification. A statutory right can be modified, curtailed or annulled by a simple enactment of the legislature. In other words, statutory rights are subject to the compulsion of legislative majorities. The purpose of infusing a right with a constitutional element is precisely to provide it a sense of immunity from popular opinion and, as its reflection, from legislative annulment.
    6. The interpretation of the Constitution cannot be frozen by its original understanding. The Constitution has evolved and must continuously evolve
    7. privacy protects liberty and that “privacy protection gains for us the freedom to define ourselves and our relations to others”311. This rationale understands the relationship between liberty and privacy by stipulating that while liberty is a broader notion, privacy is essential for protecting liberty.

      Response to the reductionist critique

    8. The purpose of elevating certain rights to the stature of guaranteed fundamental rights is to insulate their exercise from the disdain of majorities, whether legislative or popular. The guarantee of constitutional rights does not depend upon their exercise being favourably regarded by majoritarian opinion. The test of popular acceptance does not furnish a valid basis to disregard rights which are conferred with the sanctity of constitutional protection

      Need for fundamental rights, and statutory protection not being sufficient

    9. To recognise the value of privacy as a constitutional entitlement and interest is notto fashion a new fundamental right by a process of amendment through judicial fiat. Neither are the judges nor is the process of judicial review entrusted with the constitutional responsibility to amend the Constitution. But judicial review certainly hasthe task before it of determining the nature and extent of the freedoms available to each person under the fabric of those constitutional guarantees which are protected. Courts have traditionally discharged that function and in the context of Article 21 itself, as we have already noted, a panoply of protections governing different facets of a dignified existence has been held to fall within the protection of Article 21.

      Recognition of rights which are facets of already existing rights is not beyond the scope of judicial review

    10. We are unable to agree with the contention that in order to build a welfare State, it is necessary to destroy some of the human freedoms. That, at any rate is not the perspective of our Constitution. Our Constitution envisages that the State should without delay make available to all the citizens of this country the real benefits of those freedoms in a democratic way

      rights v welfare state

    11. The submission that recognising the right to privacy is an exercise which would require a constitutional amendment and cannot be a matter of judicial interpretation is not an acceptable doctrinal position

      Recognition of rights does not require a constitutional amendment

  3. Oct 2016
    1. Where he said WE MUST LEARN AGAIN TO ASK HOW WE CAN MAKE THE MOST OF WHAT WE ARE, WHAT WE HAVE, WHAT WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN. I disagree because we all this technology its more complicated to talk person to person and discuss more about our issues and problems with this planet why it matter anyways ? everyone is more selfish this days

    2. Inkeepingwithourunrestrainedconsumptiveness,thecommonlyac-ceptedbasisofoureconomyisthesupposedpossibilityoflimitlessgrowth,limitlesswants,limitlesswealth,limitlessnaturalresources,limitlessener-gy,andlimitlessdebt

      Why is our economy have a supposed possibility of limitless growth? Who puts that limit?

    3. Butalsowewillhavetore~examinetheeconomicstruc~turesofourlives,andconformthemtothetolerancesandlimitsofourearthlyplaces.Wherethereisnomore,ouronechoiceistomakethemostandthebestofwhatwe

      Isn't that kind of what we have been doing for some years? Trying to be eco friendly, recycling and such to make the world a better place. Yet people keep on cutting down trees. How is that going to change when people can do what they want to do. Yes, we can make the best of what we have but what if what we have isn't enough or all gone. What then? People will use something else and that will be gone soon as well.

    4. Inthearts,bycontrast,nolimitlesssequenceofworksiseverimpliedorlookedfor.

      I believe this is incorrect. Arts are nothing but limitless sequences of work with nothing but things to be looked for

    5. Weare,inshort,comingunderpreuretounderstandourselvesaslimitedcreaturesinalimitedworld.

      Yes we are limited, but being limited has never stopped mankind from progressing.

    6. Ournationalfaithsofarhasbeen:"There'salwaysmore."Ourtruereli-gionisasortofautisticindustrialism.

      Why choose that mentality when we have found ways to innovatively come up with solutions to prior problems in the past?

    7. economywithoutlimits.

      Would an economy without limits actually be limitless.

    8. mwellawareofwhatIriskinbringingthislanguageofreligionintowhatisnonnallyascientificdiscussion.

      There is no point and no risk in bringing religion into this argument because ones religion is a set of morals for them. Humans are minimizing their morals and beliefs to pursue this limitless life.

    9. Butoncegreedhasbeenmadeanhonorablemotive,thenyouhaveaneconomywithoutlimits.Ithasnoplacefortemperanceorthriftortheecologicallawofreturn.Itwilldoanything.Itismonstrousbydefinition.

      It is true that greed drives the economy, especially when it comes the the vast supply and immense demand for oil. However, as time goes on greed will push people to innovate new fuels that can replace oil. Isn't it contradictory for the author to make the claim that greed leads to no limits? For if that were the case, alternative solutions are inevitable.

    10. There are plenty of resources being scientifically developed for less of a negative effect on our planet. However, big businesses are blindsided and only use what is easy to get rather than what we can already use that earth gives us (wind, water, etc.)

    11. Ifweeachhadtwolives,wewouldnotmakemuchofeither.Orasoneofmybestteacherssaidofpeopleingeneral:"They'llneverbeworthadamnaslongasthey'vegottwochoices.

      If their live isn't worth it, then do you prefer to go back to the law of the jungle where there's only one chance?

    12. Inthearts,bycontrast,nolimitlesssequenceofworksiseverimpliedorlookedfor.Noworkofartisnecessarilyfollowedbyasecondworkthatisnecessarilybetter.Giventhemethodologiesofscience,thelawofgravi~tyandthegenomewereboundtobediscoveredbysomebody;theidentityofthediscovererisincidentaltothefact.Butitappearsthatintheartstherearenosecondchances.WemustassumethatwehadonechanceeachforTheDillineComedyandKingLear.IfDanteandTShakespearehaddiedbeforetheywrotethosepoems,no-bodyeverwouldhavewrittenthem.

      My contention with the contents of this paragraph lies in the fact that science is but an extension of art, sharing similar characteristics with it. I would argue anyway that Newton's work is just as nuanced, integral, and unique as Monet's or Dante's. Science began as metaphysics--"the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space"--(Google). I believe scientists and artists to be explorers. The ways in which they explore are similar; however, their headings are different.

    13. therealnamesofglobalwarmingareWasteandGreed

      Having studied the issue of Global Warming in detail under the direction of two other professors here, I find this claim Berry makes to be utterly flattering. It suggests that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions (less than 5% of total CO2 surface emissions) rival those that can be attributed to natural processes. Do you believe Berry to be employing a "truthful hyperbole"--as Trump would say--here to illustrate the danger of our "limitless" view of the Earth; or do you believe Berry himself to be caught up in a view of human limitlessness (in other words, do you believe he thinks the impact humans have on this planet to be limitless)?

    14. so throughout this article it talks about how we are going to run out of oil. and then what are we going to do after that? But if you notice this has happened before. (whale oil) and even different sources of water, we just move to the next source until that source replenishes. whats to say that when oil runs out we have another resource that we use for everything. (hydrogen/ uranium)

    15. Howeveritcameabout,thiscredooflimitlessnessclearlyimpliesaprin~cipledwishnotonlyforlimitlesspossessionsbutalsoforlimitlessknowledge,limitlessscience,limitlesstechnology,andlimitlessprogress

      Who would have all the limitless answers? How would we go about using everything?

    16. Weknowfurtherthatifwewanttomakeoureconomicland-scapessustainablyandabundantlyproductive,wemustdosobymaintain~inginthemalivingformalcomplexitysomethinglikethatofnaturalecosystems.

      If we are knowledgeable of what we need to do to sustain our resources, then why are we living as if we have an infinite amount?

    17. ButIknowtoothatwearetalkingnowinthepresenceofmuchevidencethatimprovementbyoutwardexpansionmaynolongerbeagoodidea,ifiteverwas

      Why is now the time to stop consuming? Who makes that decision, what line was crossed?

    18. removesomeoftheemphasiswehavelatelyplacedonscienceandtechnologyandhaveanewlookatthearts

      I think we don't have to remove any emphasis on the science and technology because those are still very important aspects to know about, but maybe just adding more emphasis to the arts while intertwining the three of them together.

    19. globalwarming

      I think an Ice Age is coming. I believe an Ice Age is overdue. In my personal opinion, it has been getting colder each year for the last ten years, not warmer. Is global warming really happening?

    20. "All are entitled to pursue without limit whatever they conceive as desirable.." I agree with this statement but in my opinion I would add that all are entitled to pursue without limit whatever they conceive as desirable as long as that desire would not harm others.

    21. Itishardtomakethemostofonelife.

      It might be hard but is it impossible?

    1. Are physical limits going to stop our mental knowledge to create a better world with a purpose?

  4. Dec 2015
    1. They suggested that the CHA’s heat infra-structures conjoined wastefulness and neglect in ways that encouraged tenants’attachments to heat and, with respect to heat consumption, placed them perma-nently beyond practices of self-sufficiency

      I completely agree with this statement. They were unable to control levels of heat within their homes so when it consistently stayed too hot, they opened windows to let in cold air... hello.. That's like having your sprinklers on for your yard when it's pouring rain outside.. and there's a drought.

  5. Sep 2014
    1. Avoiding ads doesn't help much either. Because brand images are part of the cultural landscape we inhabit, when we block ads or fast-forward through them, we're missing out on valuable cultural information, alienating ourselves from the zeitgeist. This puts us in danger of becoming outdated, unfashionable, and otherwise socially hapless. We become like the kid who wears his dad's suit to his first middle-school dance.

      Unless you accumulate friends who also avoid ads, who think you're less cool for having allowed yourself to be exposed to them or for deploying them too conspicuous as social signaling, at least when that brand is not favored by that scene. Ironically, of course, most scenes are simply favoring different brands, because it's hard to accumulate any significant set of material trappings that aren't branded.