[SH] #3 First Debate

 

by. Bong Eunseo

 

Motion : THBT Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

Position : Government – Deputy Prime Minister

 

1. Main points of Government side

: As the government side, our team insisted that the death penalty should be abolished for several reasons. Our first reason was that the system of capital punishment is weak and easy to be misused. Sentencing a person to death is a very complex problem, but in some cases it is overused. There are many cases where people who were sentenced to death turned out to be innocent. Other punishment can end right there and the judicial can compensate that person with something, while death penalty is irrevocable. Human dignity and cost were the other reasons for our opinion. The death penalty violates the right to live which happens to be the most basic of all human rights. Also, implementing and insisting on the death penalty system is financially a burden to the government budget, according to Korean Ministry of Statistics reference.

 

2. Main points of Opposition side

: The opposition side strongly suggested that the death penalty actually deters the crime rate. They showed some statistics as an evidence, saying countries which still perform capital punishment has lower rate of crime. Also, they insisted that the weight of the criminal’s life is never the same with the victim’s. They stated the definition of human, and also the virtue and morals of human. Even though every person is brought to life with the equal rights and dignity, people who give up on their rights should not be treated the same with people who don’t. Hurting other people and breaking social rules should not be tolerated when they are behind the line. The opposition side carried their opinion that these kind of people should be sentenced to death, for the rights of the victims and the society’s peace.

 

3. My Speech

Good morning fellow debaters and honorable judicators, this is the deputy prime minister.

I am here to talk about how ineffective, cruel, and simplistic response to the serious and complex problem of violent crime the death penalty is.

Before I introduce government’s third and fourth argument for prohibiting capital punishment, I would like to rebut on the leader of opposition’s argument.

The leader of opposition stated the reason for opposing the abolishment of capital punishment as reducing the crime rate. However, we believe fear of death wouldn’t be a suitable reason to reduce crime rate. Also, leader of opposition stated the criminal’s life isn’t important enough, since they gave up the dignity as a human. However, human dignity is not something “gave” or “taken away” from an individual. Every human being, regardless of their personality, behavior or ethics, deserves the equal amount

The opposition side argues that criminals are not included in “human” for they gave up the human dignity and has loose their rationality. However, not every people are perfectly rational. Embracing them and helping them to recover, or understand the rational part inside them, is the government’s duty and responsibility. That is why the government is told to paly the role of parents for a nation. We, government side believes in the more ideal part of the world. Also, we stand on the side of human right, which is surely given to every human being born in the earth.

1) Human dignity

– The lives of people should not be used by any means of punishing of their criminal act.

– The death penalty violates the right to live which happens to be the most basic of all human rights.

– It also violates the right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment.

– Furthermore, the death penalty undermines human dignity which is inherent to every human being.

– No matter how heinous the nature of the crime may be, it does not make it justified to take away the most basic human rights, the right to live.

– Even if the criminal has infringed on the victim’s human rights, executing is encroaching another human rights and it would lead to just increase of this itself.

– According to Death Penalty Focus research, the vast majority of countries in Western Europe, North America and South America — more than 140 nations worldwide — have abandoned capital punishment in law or in practice.

– There are still countries which remain as the users of capital punishment.

– But the world is in the atmosphere of trying to ban and abolish the death penalty worldwide and Korea should not be excepted from this.

2) Cost

– The second point is that implementing and insisting on the death penalty system is financially a burden to the government budget.

– To kill someone, it takes a lot more complex procedure than we think. There are a lot to prepare.

– You need the facility for the execution and preservation of the dead body and this is what could make up for the budget.

– According to the December 2003 survey by the Kansas Legislative Post Audit, the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740, 000).

– In Maryland, death penalty cases cost 3 times more than non-death penalty cases, or $3 million for a single case, according to the Urban Institute, The Cost of the Death Penalty in Maryland.

– Also, there is this phrase in the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice. “In California the current system costs $137 million per year; it would cost $11.5 million for a system without the death penalty.”

– And, According to the Amnesty International, the greatest costs associated with the death penalty occur prior to and during trial, not in post-conviction proceedings. Even if all post-conviction proceedings were abolished, the death penalty would still be more expensive than alternative sentences.

– Furthermore, the death penalty diverts resources from genuine crime control measures. Spending money on the death penalty system means reducing the resources available for crime prevention, mental health treatment, education and rehabilitation, meaningful victim’s services, and drug treatment programs.

– It is not the case of Korea since Korea had stopped using the death penalty system for more than a year but this is generally what could happen. So instead of using this huge expense to kill someone it would be better and rather be meaningful to use it for another purpose. For example, many family members who have lost love ones to murder feel that the death penalty will not heal their wounds nor will it end their pain; the extended process prior to executions can prolong the agony experienced by the family. Funds now being used for the costly process of executions could be used to help families put their lives back together through counseling, restitution, crime victim hotlines, and other services addressing their needs.

death penalty2.png
(Photo Credit : https://steemit.com/writing/@eliseuy/no-to-death-penalty)
Works Cited

1. Government

Chammah, Maurice. “Six Reasons the Death Penalty Is Becoming More Expensive.” The Marshall Project. N.p., 17 Dec. 2014. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.

Mahlhousen, David. “Capital Punishment Works: It Deters Crime.” The Daily Signal. N.p., 04 Oct. 2014. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
Gibson, Kyle. “Death Penalty Repeal: It’s Necessary to Use Capital Punishment In a Free World.” Mic. N.p., 1 July 2013. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
2. Opposition
Bookman, Marc. “False Confessions and Threats of the Death Penalty.” DPIC. N.p., 6 Aug. 2013. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
Gaille, Brandon. “21 Death Penalty Deters Crime Statistics – BrandonGaille.com.” BrandonGaillecom. N.p., 20 July 2014. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
Steiker, Jordan. “A Turn-Around in Texas’s Use of Death Penalty.” DPIC. N.p., 20 June 2014. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.

[SH] #2 Interview with Family

 

by. Bong Eunseo

 

All family members gathered to celebrate annual holiday, Chuseok, together. Farming as a trend has been existing for quite a long time. My grandparents also decided to be a part of it, since they bought a small house at a small rural time in Gangwon-do last year. Although they aren’t perfectly living there, for they still have their original house at Seoul and move here from there, their life has changed a lot. To understand how is farming like and the compare and contrast living in the urban and rural area, I had an interview with my oldest family members, my grandparents.

 

Me: Good morning. This is the second morning of Chuseok holidays, and I am here with my grandparents to talk about their rural life. Would you introduce yourselves please?

Grandmother: Hello. I’m Hong Sunhwa, Eunseo’s grandmother, living in both Seoul and Gangwon-do.

Grandfather: I’m Bong Ujong, her grandfather.

Me: Thank you for attending this interview. Let’s start with the first question. Where exactly do you live?

Grandmother: Jeongseon, Gangwon-do.

Me: Would you introduce a little about the town you live?

Grandmother: It’s a very small town, known for famous Korean actors (Song Hyegyo) got married, and also as the shooting site of the well-known TV show ‘Samsisekki.’ There is a small (읍내) area, and we live in the upper side of the hill, quite deep inside, where there is only one off-road way for a car to climb.

Me: Okay, then when did you decide to live there? I’m sure you have a wonderful house here at Seoul, too.

Grandfather: Yes we do. I was the one who first came up with this idea. Since I was young, I’ve seen how a small family farm goes around, and so did my wife. Several years ago, I was involved in a kind of farming work, too. I’ve always wanted to have a house in the rural area and have a quiet, self-sufficient daily life after retiring from work. Then one of my acquaintance offered to find a good house for us. It was a good chance, and I suggested to go.

Me: I see. Did she like the idea, too?

Grandfather: She seemed like she didn’t like the idea in the first place, but I guess she thought it over and kind of changed her mind.

Grandmother: At first, I thought it would be hard work, dealing with the farm on our own. But anyway I was interested in living in rural area, too. Besides, the house was in a really great spot, and also the conditions were good.

Me: So you decided to buy a house there. But you still do have a house at Seoul, is it right?

Grandmother: Yes. As you know, moving to Jeongseon wasn’t a small change. Its very far from where my children live, and adjusting to the life without any amenities that we are already used to seemed too hard. Especially going to hospital or local administrative institute is very hard there, and we thought it would be uncomfortable. Besides, we like our own house at Seoul. That’s why we didn’t perfectly move.

Grandfather: About half a month we stay there, and we come back to Seoul for another half. Since there is no air conditioner and proper heating system, we choose to stay at Seoul for some months in summer and winter. Winter, in particular, is quite a big problem. We prepare the house in Jeongseon for the severe winter, and stay at Seoul for few months.

Me: Then what do you do when you are at Jeongseon?

Grandmother: We grow different plants, vegetables and fruits, but not for living. We just do it for us, that we can produce what we will going to eat, and share some with neighbors. We grow lettuce, carrot, tomato, cucumber, potato, and so on. In summer there are more fruits, such as watermelon and oriental melon. All of these are grown with the least amount of pesticides and fertilizers, so they are very fresh and in good quality. We eat some of them, and then share with family members, friends, and neighbors. Sometimes when we have a surplus of them, we sell them to acquaintances.

Grandfather: We also do a lot of fishing, mostly in the nearby lake. When we have visitors in our house, fish dish is a good choice for everybody. Sometimes I follow one of my Simmani friends to the mountain, help their work and receive some of the plant roots as a reward. We usually make alcoholic drinks with these roots, and keep them for few years.

Me: Basically, you produce or get food that you need on your own? Isn’t it hard?

Grandmother: I have to say it is not that easy. Its actually quite a lot of work, maintaining the house and looking after plants. We have to take care of the house and deal with problems on our own. My husband was stung by bees when he was trying to clean up a bee hive under our roof, and he had to go to local hospital. Many people did help us when we first got their, but anyway all the works were our duty. Life there was not as quite and peaceful as we thought. First few months were very busy, and we are still busy everyday. However, we are used to the busy life and we are quite enjoying it. Every harvest makes us happy, and the hard work is certainly rewarding.

Me: Would you tell us a bit more about the good sides of living at Jeongseon?

Grandfather: Well, the environment is great there. I had a chronic drying-eye problem, and my wife had rhinitis. Our symptoms got remarkably better when we started to stay at Jeongseon. Also, the nature itself is really good to live close to. Fresh air and clear sky make us feel better everyday. Also, growing our own plants and going fishing or climbing mountain together is very fun. Living at Jeongseon gives us a lot of joy that we can never find in the city.

Me: Right. I think we see the advantages and disadvantages of living in rural area now. This is the final question. Do you have any advice for those who are planning to move to rural area?

Grandmother: Well, first of all I’d like to say its a very good decision. It might be a bit crazy decision, you’ll see why, but still a very good plan. It might be somehow tough when you start living far away from city, and everything may feel new to you, but you’ll get used to it. Find someone who is an expert who can help you with things, and don’t hesitate to share what you’ve got with other people. I think that’s all I want to tell.

Me: What a nice advice! Alright, I think we will stop here. Thank you so much for your participation.

 

I didn’t know everything about my grandparents’ house in Jeongseon since I’ve been to there only twice. It was a good opportunity for me to learn about their life there. Also, I liked spending time with my grandparents. Talking in formal tone with my own grandparents was fairly awkward, but it was fun. This interview was a good opportunity, not only for me though. Since returning to farming has been a trend for some years now, I thought there will be people who are hesitating over moving or not. I hope this interview will help those people decide whether to move to rural area and start their own faring life.

 

귀농.png

(Photo Credit : http://www.gbmg.go.kr/open.content/ko/economy/return.farm/)

[SY] #1 Future of Seoul; Starbase Yorktown Appears in the New Star Trek Movie

 

by. Bong Eunseo

 

Last Wednesday, the third movie of Star Trek: Alternate Original Series(AOS)’ J.J. Abrams, the director of previous AOS movies, left the team to join the Star Wars team, and Justin Lin took the position. Although he did make a big progress on the whole series by taking the role of filming the reboot movie series, J.J. Abrams was told to be inappropriate to be a part of Star Trek because of his attitude toward the franchise⏤which made this significant change a very good news to the fans. With Justin Lin directing, the movie was However, I believe this is a good news for not only Star Trek fans, but also the whole world.

Star Trek, a big sci-fi franchise, is basically set in a future world where an ideal unification of the entire globe has come true. In fact, the earth is included in ‘United Federation of planets’ with roughly 150 planets around the universe. This background set shows what kind of philosophy does Star Trek pursues, or what message does the franchise wants to deliver; the ideal unification of the entire world. All Star Trek TV series and movies emphasizes the equality on every kind of creature, and living in cooperation. Under this theme,the main characters include black people, Asian, and LGBT. Also, Women performing in a high-rank position looks perfectly normal in the series, and the main female character is depicted as a very active, aggressive character. This is incredible, given that the first TV series of Star Trek was first on TV 50 years ago, which was 1966.

Many people worried that the reboot movie series was off the track, from the fundamental philosophy of the whole franchise. Star Trek is based on a imaginary future world where the ideal world of peace and development has come true. Most part of the whole universe it united under the control of United Federation of Planets, and they share the same goal of universal peace. There is no discrimination over any kinds and species of the universal population, and there is no gap between the rich and poor. Job is only considered as a self-realization, and everybody has the right to be free and to live in safety.

Yorktown is a fine example for illustrating this ideal society. Basically it is a starbase—not a planet—built by Starfleet, to be used as the base not only for starships to anchor and stay for few days, but also for transportation, defense, and military purpose. Any citizen under the federation can live here, although the family of crew members of Starfleet have the priority. For this place is perfectly artificial construction, its gravity is also artificially generated. Due to this, gravitational force in Yorktown works in a quite special structure, as you can see in the picture below.

Then why is this so important news to everybody, not just Trekkies? It is because our most ideal future sight of the city. In the field of science, starbase like Yorktown is a good choice for future humanity. We are already running out of space. Is it just the matter of space? Definitely no. Soon, mankind will experience severe lack of food and shelter, due to worldwide overpopulation. This kind of technology might the the answer to the upcoming problem. We are already working on finding another home planet for humans in the space. In two hundred years, I am quite sure we actually can make it to Mars or any other possible mother planet. Then we will start to explore through the milky way and soon be making space the field of human beings. Building starbases like Yorktown will solve the food and shelter problem.

Also, Yorktown is the ideal sight of our future city for its system. Unlike planets, Yorktown is a starbase where all species of creatures combine and live together. As I’ve already mentioned, there is no discrimination or conflicts between species or races. When you watch the movie, you can find various of alien species in Yorktown. Yorktown is where all these species are mixed to make one whole city, where children of human and alien grow together and citizens of different species meet. In the future, every cities of the earth should be like Yorktown, where various species and lives mix together to form one whole community, regardless of their race, homeland, or any other background they have.

Who knows if we will be actually having this kind of life in 23rd century? ‘Back to the Future’ came true, ‘Minority Report’ is becoming true, so why not Star Trek? Besides, some of the technologies from the old Star Trek series are already existing around us. Yorktown is somehow the future of our earth, maybe the future Seoul. I recommend you find out how Yorktown, our future Seoul, looks like in the theater!

 

%e1%84%8b%e1%85%ad%e1%84%8f%e1%85%b3%e1%84%90%e1%85%a1%e1%84%8b%e1%85%ae%e1%86%ab

(Photo Credit : http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Starbase_Yorktown)

 

Star Trek Beyond.jpg

(photo credit : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvq3y8BhZ2s)

[SY] #10 Debate – Death Penalty

 

by. Bong Eun Seo

 

*I served as the MC for two debates; one dealing with death penalty, and another related to sunshine policy. In this blog entry, I will focus on introducing the death penalty debate.

 

Motion : THBT Death Penalty Should Be Banned

 

1) Speakers

Government

1st speaker : Lee Sea Un (PM)

2nd speaker : Kang Ma Ri (DPM)(reply)

3rd speaker : Kim Ih Hyeon

 

Opposition

1st speaker : Jeong You Young (LO)

2nd speaker : Shin Jeong Won (LO, reply)

3rd speaker : Choi See Won

 

2) Argument

Government

  1. Life is valuable and it should not be used as a method of violating human rights.

  2. Death penalty will become a financial burden for the country

  3. Death penalty will lead to abuse of government power and it could be executed in an unfair way or to innocents.

 

Opposition

  1. Death penalty is the most effective way for eradication of crimes.

  2. Death penalty is the most appropriate way of retribution of criminal outrages and maintenance of secure society.

  3. Death penalty is the cheapest and the most effective way to reduce crime and punish criminals.

  4. Death penalty is not necessarily a cruel method of punishment.

 

3) My Judgement

Carefully listening to both sides as an MC, I want to say that the government side won the debate. They had strong arguments and specific supporting details with clear source of reference. Also the speakers were clearly presenting their arguments and they showed incredible concentration and gumption toward opposing speakers and the audience who were making Point of information. But above all, their had very sincere attitude and seemed like they were really talking from their hearts. Especially during their reply speech, I could feel the deep heart of Jeong(情) toward humanity. Feeling their sincere heart about the motion, I decided to hold the government side’s hand in conclusion.

 

Works Cited

Choi, Seewon. “Debate.” LIfestriming. N.p., 22 June 2016. Web. 26 June 2016.

Ferguson, Christopher. “Violent Crime Clinical and Social Implications.”Violent Crime. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 June 2016.

Saghafi, Kas. “THE DEATH PENALTY, IN OTHER WORDS, PHILOSOPHY.” – SAGHAFI. N.p., 9 Aug. 2012. Web. 26 June 2016.

Shin, Jeongwon. “DEBATE.” Jayslfh00. N.p., 22 June 2016. Web. 26 June 2016.

 

death penalty

(photo credit : https://prezi.com/rvne37uetohr/death-penalty/)

[SY] #9 (Project) Poem – High School Classroom

 

High School Classroom

by. Bong Eun Seo

 

Bell rings, class has started

John, stop playing with your phone

Peter, you’re sleeping all day

Stop chatting, James and Scott

Charlie, pick up the trash under your seat

Harry, wipe out the dirty window

 

The class continues, students make noise

Close your eyes and raise your arms

Your future is determined right here in the classroom

Let down your arm, only if you will be quiet

 

The class continues

Write it down; it’s important

Looking for names of students

who aren’t taking notes

 

Teachers who spend more time

on supervising children rather than teaching them

Students who are more interested

in talking and sleeping rather than learning

This is what Korean education is now

and the result of how they are brought up

How should be the future of education in Korea

 

*Original Poem

 

대한민국 고등학교 수업시간 – 진장춘

수업 시간 강의가 시작되었다.
대성아 너는 왜 크게 떠드느냐
종일아 너는 종일 잠만 자느냐
저 뒤의 수근이와 근수는 수근대지 말아라.
지득이는 책상아래 버린 휴지를 주어라
태기야 너는 교실 바닥의 가래침을 닦아라.

강의는 계속된다.
다시 떠드는 아이들
모두 눈감고 손들어
너희들의 미래는 교실에서 결정된다.
다시 안 떠들 사람만 손 내려

강의는 계속된다.
이건 중요하니 필기해라
다시 필기 안하는 학생들 찾아
교무수첩에 적는다.

가르치기보다 아이들 감시에 열을 쏟는 교사
배우기보다 떠들고 조는데 더 열심인 학생들
이것이 대한민국 교육의 현주소
그리고 대한민국 가정교육의 결과
대한민국의 미래가 어떻게 될까

 

classroom.jpg

(photo credit : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-wike-loyola/the-most-powerful-tool-in_b_6012136.html)

[SY] #8 (Project) PSA Introduction

 

Topic : Should everybody be good at studying?

 

In my Public Service Announcement video, I basically wanted to talk about “studying.” The video starts with my hand drawing a letter “A.” It means getting an A at school, and to be broad, it represents “being good at studying.” Then there are some words like “diversity” and “professionalism,” and some boxes piled up to reach a door. By all of these doodles, I wanted to talk about the meaning of A and the education now. We all try to get an A at school, but never have though deeply about the reason why we seek for A. Education that makes students aim for just an A can never help them reach the door to their dreams. Especially high schools should offer specialized curriculum which actually help students prepare for their future job. By this PSA video, I wanted people to seriously think about this problem.

A

(photo credit : http://www.ciit-ph.com/blog/k-12-a-review-of-the-new-senior-high-school-grading-system/)

 

 

<PSA Video Script>

Do you want an A? Of course we all want an A. It’s better than B!

But, there is something we should think about.

Why do you need an A? For what?

Do you need A on every subject to become a great scientist, teacher, or a football player?

There is something way more important than just getting an A.

We call it “diversity” or “professionalism.”

Let’t pretend you’re a student who wants to become a biologist.

You learn basic things in elementary school, and develop those knowledges in middle school.

Going through this procedure, you found out you like biology and you are good at it.

Now, high school should provide you with an advanced knowledge and practical experience to help you become a biologist.

However, actual high school would only give you advanced version of subjects and force you to do well in every subject, regardless of your interest or talent.

Well, this is the reason why we should consider this question; Should everybody be good at studying?

 

(URL : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8zDDoanF_I)

(My PSA video clip : 8:00-9:08)

 

[SY] #7 Midterm – Transhumansim and the Future of Humankind

 

by. Bong Eun Seo

 

Google AlphaGo, an artificial intelligence(A.I.) has made a sensation all over the world. Its victory over Lee Sedol has shown the possibility of A.I., for it was the very first step into an area where A.I. could never enter before. With the rising curiosity of people about A.I., popularity of transhumanism is getting larger, too. The term ‘transhumanism’ refers to using scientific technology to develop human’s biological defaults. It is basically merging an A.I. into a human body, making the human A.I. itself. Many people insists that transhumanism is the future of humankind. They say transhumanism will change the whole system controlling modern society. However, the other says it will only bring major problems to our society. This issue is a notable problem for everyone, since it directly connects to the future of mankind.

If the era of transhumanism comes, there will be some serious social problems coming together. First of all, overpopulation will occur because of the elongation of average lifespan. Also, the cost of technology will widen the gap between the rich and poor. There will be privacy issue, too. In order to prevent these problem, mankind needs good solutions before actually starting making transhuman. However, I have to say the only solution is to stop the whole idea of transhumanism. Once A.I. is merged with humankind, it will rapidly develop its intelligence and technology by itself. Then human can’t follow the speed of evolution, and it becomes impossible to handle problems derrived from transhumanism. If I have to come up with a solution though, I suggest we should prepare for possible problems first and then actually work with making transhuman. For instance, we should find a good solution for overpopulation like procuring more places for people to live by artificial method.

In the disequilibrium going around about tarnshumanism, the biggest problems are expected to be overpopulation, transhumans going out of control, and particular emotions vanishing. These three all comes from the three key areas of transhumanism, which are super longevity, super intelligence, and super well-being. First, overpopulation is caused because the transhumanism pursues super longevity. Aubrey de Grey, a renowned researcher in aging issue, suggests that aging is the biggest reason for most diseases, and we shouldn’t just accept the fact that we are aging every moment. He says we need to use technology to stop aging. This becomes a big problem because we don’t have any good solution for overpopulation and lack of food problem, but the population will continue to grow from the not growing number of people who die.

However, whether we like it or not, we are already transhuman, in compare to human of last few centuries. We just don’t recognize it because the change is too small and gradual. Technology will keep developing, and transhuman is not a far away story. Even people who are against tranhumanism should accept the fact that we can’t live without technology and science, and these will soon be able to actually make transhuman. Therefore, we should try to have an attitude of understanding and accepting the upcoming change, and try to find good parts of them, so that we can find a midpoint between them and us.

There is a disequilibrium going on about transhumanism, and I am against the idea for it will cause various problems in our society, overpopulation, controlling problem, and particular emotions like affection(Jeong, 情) disappering, for example. Even though we have no good solution because A.I. is way bette in any area of technology or science than us that we can never catch up their speed of development, we should try to find a midpoint between transhuman and present humankind.

 

 

transhumanism3.jpg

(photo credit : http://www.catholiclane.com/transhumanism-taking-the-place-of-our-creator/)

 

Works Cited

Bailey, Ronald. “Transhumanism: The Most Dangerous Idea?” Reason.com. N.p., 25 Aug. 2004. Web. 23 Apr. 2016. (Bailey)

Brietbart, Peter, and Marco Vega. “PostHuman: An Introduction to Transhumanism.” YouTube. YouTube, 05 Nov. 2013. Web. 22 Apr. 2016. (Brietbart)

KurzweilAI New Video Series Aims to Popularize Transhumanism Kickstarter Launched Comments. N.d., 18 Nov. 2013. Web. 23 Apr. 2016. <http://www.kurzweilai.net/new-video-series-aims-to-popularize-transhumanism-kickstarter-launched&gt;. (Kurzweil)

Pigliucci, Massimo. “The Problems With Transhumanism.” Science 2.0. N.p., 7 July 2009. Web. 23 Apr. 2016. (Pigliucci)