“I just want to live. I don’t care how,” Lincoln Six-Echo says.
“You’re not real. You’re copies of people out here in the world,” people reply.
The movie, The Island, impressed me.

Having no ceiling to limit it down, technology has continued its growth and development since its first arrival. Nowadays technology has even started to intrude the divine right of nature: People have begun to desire the creation of life. Human cloning is the ultimate destination they hope to arrive at. “To a man with a pencil, everything looks like a list. To a man with a camera, everything looks like an image. To a man with a computer, everything looks like data. And to a man with a grade sheet, everything looks like a number,” Neil Postman argues in Technopoly. If a man develops a new technology that can invent human beings, humans will begin to be seen as objects. Human cloning must never happen.
No shortcut existed in the past. One by one, word for word, people had to copy out a written document with their hands to create its replica. Pouring significant amounts of time and labor, each transcription was treated with great values in return. However, starting with the engraving block technique of Egyptian, humans developed printing technologies, such as Gutenberg’s Printing Press. Finally the development reached its destination where pressing a button using one finger is the only task required to create words and texts. No more admiration is aroused for a written edition due to its commonness. If developments in cloning humans take place, it will result in a similar sequence with insignificance and cheapness of human life.
Cloned humans would be nothing different from other people except for the fact that they are born without chronic pains of mothers. Some people claim that human-cloning should be allowed for medical usage, such as creating organs for transplant. All human beings are born or created holding natural rights that follow the privilege of living as humans. A person should never be allowed to decide the purpose of another person’s life. It is a trespass against a person’s civil liberties to create the person for certain purposes, but cloning could easily lead to this. “You’re special. You have a very special purpose in life,” says the God-like man to the clones in the movie, The Island. The clones’ “very special purpose” is to devote themselves to serve their owners by providing organs: They die for their identical being regardless of their will. Although this has not taken place in reality, it is very likely what the situation will look like if cloning becomes possible.
Another possible problem with cloning is that with emergence of identical beings, society may be situated in chaos. Loss of uniqueness will occur, and the concept of individuality will be gradually but surely be lost as well. When border lines among these individuals fade away, the whole society will sink below the manageable surface. No human is perfect; therefore potential human errors take a big role in resisting the allowance of human cloning. The possibility of a cloned human being deformed and disabled cannot be ignored. There is a case in which Dr. Wilmut of Roslin Institute of England conducted the birth of a clone sheep in 1996. At first, the experiment seemed successful; the sheep, Dolly, was healthy, and was praised as the very first mammal created by men’s hand. However, side effects began to rise up on the surface. Its abnormal speed in aging led to serious lung disease, and it had to be euthanatized. As a result, it barely complete half of normal sheep’s lifetime. This may happen during human cloning process; in that particular case, no payment can pay the price of it.
Human dignity will crash down with demise of individualism among people. Life of a person will be treated as if it is accessible effortlessly. Eventually, the existence of a human will be considered easy and cheap as a paper copy of a document. Humans are not papers. Humans are not documents that can be copied whenever they are needed.
Human cloning is the box of Pandora. It is the Eden’s apple. Once we open the box and eat the forbidden fruit, our entire species will suffer. Euthanizing a person is more serious undertaking than euthanizing a sheep. Are we ready to deal with the moral question involved?

Lately, in April 21^st, news was reported about a 40-year-old woman who committed suicide after going through melancholia due to devastating consequence of cosmetic surgery.

Humans are beautiful due to their physical diversity and mental particularity; yet the current society began losing its balance, tending to attach greater weight on the outward aspect. Present trend of empowering beauty of external features stirred up the species, especially the feminine gender, to refuse to open their eyes that look deep in people’s souls but to have visions providing glance over outer appearances only. An obsession with physical beauty has formed a twisted blind faith in which the exterior became the utmost criterion in judging people. Realizing that external beauty is only skin deep is urgently needed; the true charm of a human being radiates from one’s inward nature that cannot be transformed by any form of artificial surgery.

People receive cosmetic surgery in order to improve their appearance assuming that it will eventually compensate them with better lives. Earning confidence in daily life, gaining more self-satisfaction, and obtaining better treatment from others—these are some of the main “excuses” why people choose to put artificial objects in their faces, pull out natural part of their own body, and transform themselves into factitious creatures. Believing that such a surgery would empower oneself with confidence is fatuous; and it simply serves as just another unreliable excuse. It is not the outside of a person that brings out his or her real figure. No cosmetic surgery makes a person truly happy or confident, but trusting oneself with respecting one’s natural innermost grace. Moreover, self-satisfaction is obtainable only if a person begins to sincerely accept oneself as who he or she is.

The media is practically the one to blame for starting to establish certain standards of being beautiful neglecting the ultimate value, uniqueness. Television programs and magazines unceasingly play enormous roles in arousing “lookism” among teenagers. Celebrities are esteemed and praised for how gorgeous faces and bodies are giving impression to immature ones that having good looks equals to a significant factor that generates deep admiration and raise recognition. When one of the celebrities gain fat or turn into unpleasant forms by any chance, the media immediately attacks and gives humiliation. Being fat and ugly is severely criticized as if committing serious crime; the whole society seems to offend a person when he or she does not meet the criterion of being beautiful.

I do not condemn those who receive plastic surgery. But we all should realize an important fact. If the one cannot recognize the one’s true value, then what good will the transformed body skin bring?

Oh, no. he has done it again. He has gotten a detention for the second time. Why? It’s because he has done the serious crime: speaking his words in Korean at the school.
Walking up the stairs with my friend, talking about a foreign drama that we were watching all night, I got too excited and spoke in the forbidden language. “Maja, Maja! (??, ??!)” I said, and before I even move on to the next word, I felt someone tapping my shoulder. I looked back. A teacher (whom I never have seen before) was displaying a big evil smile on her face. She asked for my name; therefore I answered, and she wrote it down on her yellow folder, the list of criminals.
I, as a citizen of Republic of Korea, have the freedom of speech, the liberty of expression. However my personal rights and freedom had been trespassed by the school policy. No-Korean-speaking-at-school-policy shows no respect not only towards the Korean language itself, yet towards the students who owns preserved rights.
The major reason for establishing this no-Korean-speaking-rule is to encourage students to speak English so that they can prepare for their school years in American universities. However, as high school students we are capable of preparing our own future and managing our own behaviors. Those who don’t act maturely without thinking deeply will face failure in the future. Tough, but that’s real world where one should be responsible for oneself. Although guiding its students by using certain rules is one of the roles of school, imagining students’ rights cannot be considered as guiding, but controlling the students using authorities.

“I just want to live. I don’t care how,” Lincoln Six-Echo says.
“You’re not real. You’re copies of people out here in the world,” people reply.
The movie, The Island, impressed me.

Having no ceiling to limit it down, technology has continued its growth and development since its first arrival. Nowadays technology has even started to intrude the divine right of nature: People have begun to desire the creation of life. Human cloning is the ultimate destination they hope to arrive at. “To a man with a pencil, everything looks like a list. To a man with a camera, everything looks like an image. To a man with a computer, everything looks like data. And to a man with a grade sheet, everything looks like a number,” Neil Postman argues in Technopoly. If a man develops a new technology that can invent human beings, humans will begin to be seen as objects. Human cloning must never happen.
No shortcut existed in the past. One by one, word for word, people had to copy out a written document with their hands to create its replica. Pouring significant amounts of time and labor, each transcription was treated with great values in return. However, starting with the engraving block technique of Egyptian, humans developed printing technologies, such as Gutenberg’s Printing Press. Finally the development reached its destination where pressing a button using one finger is the only task required to create words and texts. No more admiration is aroused for a written edition due to its commonness. If developments in cloning humans take place, it will result in a similar sequence with insignificance and cheapness of human life.
Cloned humans would be nothing different from other people except for the fact that they are born without chronic pains of mothers. Some people claim that human-cloning should be allowed for medical usage, such as creating organs for transplant. All human beings are born or created holding natural rights that follow the privilege of living as humans. A person should never be allowed to decide the purpose of another person’s life. It is a trespass against a person’s civil liberties to create the person for certain purposes, but cloning could easily lead to this. “You’re special. You have a very special purpose in life,” says the God-like man to the clones in the movie, The Island. The clones’ “very special purpose” is to devote themselves to serve their owners by providing organs: They die for their identical being regardless of their will. Although this has not taken place in reality, it is very likely what the situation will look like if cloning becomes possible.
Another possible problem with cloning is that with emergence of identical beings, society may be situated in chaos. Loss of uniqueness will occur, and the concept of individuality will be gradually but surely be lost as well. When border lines among these individuals fade away, the whole society will sink below the manageable surface. No human is perfect; therefore potential human errors take a big role in resisting the allowance of human cloning. The possibility of a cloned human being deformed and disabled cannot be ignored. There is a case in which Dr. Wilmut of Roslin Institute of England conducted the birth of a clone sheep in 1996. At first, the experiment seemed successful; the sheep, Dolly, was healthy, and was praised as the very first mammal created by men’s hand. However, side effects began to rise up on the surface. Its abnormal speed in aging led to serious lung disease, and it had to be euthanatized. As a result, it barely complete half of normal sheep’s lifetime. This may happen during human cloning process; in that particular case, no payment can pay the price of it.
Human dignity will crash down with demise of individualism among people. Life of a person will be treated as if it is accessible effortlessly. Eventually, the existence of a human will be considered easy and cheap as a paper copy of a document. Humans are not papers. Humans are not documents that can be copied whenever they are needed.
Human cloning is the box of Pandora. It is the Eden’s apple. Once we open the box and eat the forbidden fruit, our entire species will suffer. Euthanizing a person is more serious undertaking than euthanizing a sheep. Are we ready to deal with the moral question involved?

The car chooses its driver, and the story begins. The movie Transformer illustrates the visit of robots from outer space to our planet, earth. The robots are capable of “transforming” themselves into cars or other machineries. Throughout the plot, they not only transform their outer shape, yet also alter a boy’s life and destiny of humanity. Despite its wonderful imagination, breathtaking action scenes, and entertaining plot, the heaviest theme that the movie handles is the role of government and its current situation in the United States: how it has transformed itself compared to its beginning and how it should transform for the future.

Based on certain scenes, authorities in the movie often appear rather abusive toward citizens, the ordinary people. A police officer who captures the main character, Sam, in the beginning, does not even try to listen to the innocent boy’s explanation of what has actually taken place. The policeman presumes that Sam is on drugs due to his desperate descriptions about his new car transforming into a robot, then forces him to confess so. Policemen are the ones who should pay attention to the voice of citizens, protect them from any danger, and hold their hands when needed. They are the emblem of justice, yet their actions shown in the scene are absolutely unjust and unfair. This scene clearly points out the corruption existing in the present police force. It is true that the number of incidents where police officers misuse their power upon people.

Another negative aspect that the movie revealed about the current foreign policy of US is its warlike characteristic. Without any definite evidence, the Secretary of Defense assumes its opposing country, Russia or North Korea, as the attacker who has destroyed their army base at desert and as the penetrator into US supercomputer. This behavior of the United States expressed in the film directly censures its ongoing war with Iraq. George W. Bush had claimed that his reason of invading and sending young American soldiers to Iraq was to confiscate weapons of mass destruction possessed by Saddam Hussein. However the reality was different. Iraq had no such weapons that would threat the world. Moreover, the setting in desert presented in movie where the battle occurred tries to remind the audience of how their invaluable young generation is being lost.

Despite its corruption, the government in the movie brings itself a huge change when the safety of its citizens is threatened under attacks of the Decepticons. The high officials start to listen to the voice of the young boy. They cooperate with the Autobots admitting their previous mistakes and successfully defeat their common enemy. Through their actions, the movie directly suggests that a hope still exists for American government. The ultimate peace will arise on the surface if only the government plays its true role taking care of each member of their community and merging with other cultures, represented by the Authobots in the movie.

Even though Transformer is supposed to be entertaining, it certainly depicts deeper theme beyond being just a fun movie to watch over the summer. The United States began its history under a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Unfortunately its dignity recently has been transformed; and it needs to be transformed again into a different, hopefully a finer, form.

Walking down the hallway, laughing out loud with my friends, I suddenly stopped my steps after a glance at an object hanging down from the ceiling: a candid camera. With its one eye, it was facing directly at me and my friends. Perceiving my actions, reading my lips–these were what the camera was doing. With a strong, abrupt uncomfortable feeling, I refused to act as myself. Yes, I stopped being Dabin, yet started to act as a machine that performs restricted actions forced by school.

In one science fiction movie (with a title that I cannot remember), one of the main character reveals top government secret?the satellites will be soon used by the government to observe actions of each citizen. When I heard it, I gave a snort of laughter. Invasion of privacy, I would call it. Yet with candid cameras watching over me, my friends, everyone in school, I started to think of it as a quite reasonable theory. If international schools where the authorities claim to respect their students start to invade their privacy, it only proves that the authorities suppose human nature as evil and unworthy of trust.

Although the original purpose and intention of the cameras are to prevent certain misbehaviors of students, it still feels like being a prisoner in panopticon?a specially designed prison where everything can be seen by observers.

A dictionary states a term ‘evil’ as wickedness, moral offensiveness, or anything bad. In Christian church, not following God’s words and being heretic is considered evil and bad. Being bad in normal society is little different. Actually, definitions of evil vary in every different community.
As a student, not following school rules are considered bad, but no one in the court find a student guilty and punish him or her just because he or she chewed gum during class period. People call a murder as an act that is morally wrong. Yet, several nations still perform death penalty. Government kills people—conducting a “legally protected” crime, eliminating a human life under a law.
Some group of people view an abortion as a murder. Suppose that you are someone who used to go against the idea of abortion, and your daughter is raped—and I am so sorry to mention this, but I need an extreme example—and to make it worse, she gets pregnant. Would you still disagree with having abortion? Is abortion an evil thing in this case?
Recent news that handled an issue in Islamic culture gave me a huge shock. It was about a case in which a girl was raped by five boys. This situation itself was awful and sad, but what actually disgusted me was the fact that the victim, the poor girl, was killed by her own brother after the happening. In certain nations with strong Islamic conservatism, women’s status is unimaginably low; and when this type of problem occurs, male citizens have no responsibility. Five boys raped a girl. But none of the five boys neither went to jail nor punished. I consider this unfair and evil, but do I have a right to judge them? They say its their culture and tradition.
The definition of evil depends on each situation, point of view, timing, and culture. Nothing can be determined as absolutely wrong, evil, or bad. Then, how can something possibly be evil?