How Science Changed Our Life Essay

The development of science started many centuries ago when our ancestors were exploring the world and inventing things that make our life easier nowadays. We may not even realize it; however, all that surrounds us today, all the technologies, all the goods we possess, medicine and other spheres of our life are influenced by the development of science. Imagine, what the life would be if there were to technological development, transport, internet, telephones, etc. We would just be unable to exist. However, exists another side of a medal. Not all consequences of the science development are positive. There may examples proving that the scientific advancements may have a negative impact on people lives and cause may outcomes, which pose problems. There are even very serious problems, with which we are not able to cope, unfortunately. For instance, talking about the positive side of a question, the discovery of fire and invention of the wheel have crucially changed the life of humanity and made it much more comfortable.   In the course of new technological advances were appearing, enabling people to receive cures, assistance in everyday life, etc. Take for example our medicine. In a few decades, scientists have elaborated cures for eradicating the diseases, which were considered fatal. Thanks to the prolific work of chemists and biologists, we now can fight almost all the serious and less serious illnesses. It one of the examples illustrating the positive impact of scientific development that we have faced in recent years. Talking about the negative impacts, caused by the advance in science and technology, it impossible to overlook such issue as pollution and to destroy the ecosystem. Factories pollute the air and drop the chemicals into the water and atmosphere. This dangerous issue needs an urgent solution. Due to this fact, we face a variety of problems. Our ecosystem is suffering from the negative influence of toxic fluids. The environment needs to be saved. Many animal species are endangered and face total extinction. The ozone layer is being destroyed. The ice sheets are melting and causing cataclysms. All these factors illustrate how the humanity becomes a prisoner of its achievements and developments. If we continue in this direction, our future generations will not have a chance to live at all. Development is a positive dynamic traced in the existence of certain phenomena or object. However, not always these changes have positive consequences. Sometimes the thing or achievement in any branch of science, which was supposed to bring welfare to the humanity turns into a disastrous factor. Among the adverse changes cause by science development, it is impossible to overlook. It concerns various branches of science including medicine, technology, and environmental sciences. Illustrating each of them is important. Taking into consideration the sphere of medicine, its positive dynamic in some aspects lead to problems, which we cannot fights even nowadays. Among these negative influences, it is necessary to single out the consequences caused by the usage of drugs. How science has changed our lives, particularly medicine, it is possible to illustrate on this example. The favorable impact of drugs was discovered many years ago. It helped to eliminate pain and bring relief to patients suffering from fatal diseases. Moreover, it helps to relax people who have the Parkinson disease. However, every rose has its thorns. People started using drugs as a way to get a rush. It quickly becomes a serious issue, as people get addicted to narcotics. Now it is tough to fight this problem and find a solution. This advancement in medicine has turned into a disaster. This narcotics issue is a bright example illustrative the negative side of science development. It is possible to illustrate the negative impact of the development of technique on the example of internet invention. On the one hand, the development of the internet was a breakthrough in a sphere of information exchange. Primarily, the most primitive version of the web allowed the soldiers to pass the signals, containing info, in times of war. As it proved to be the quickest and the most reliable way of information interchange, after the end of the war, people started to modernize and develop it.   Science changed our lives a lot, and now, we cannot imagine our modern life without the global net. It enables us to everything starting from the chatting, ending with doing shopping and seeing in the live view people, who are in the other parts of the world. However, exists another side of a medal. Science technology changed our lives dramatically, and we have become addicted to the social networks. Undoubtedly, science has caused the range of changes in the life of humanity. Not all of them are positive, and not all of them are negative. However, it is impossible to introduce changes to a specific sphere of life without influencing the other ones. We have to realize the fact that nothing is ideal, and we can control everything. Changes are unavoidable. Where a good there is is also always a bad. It is an unchangeable law of our world. The critical thing to realize is that we are to start looking for the golden middle. We can no longer ignore all the changes caused by the development of science and technology. There are some life aspects, which need the attention of the humanity. Here it goes about the environmental issues and questions connected with the human lives. We are to be responsible for what we do! We have to be able to solve the problems, which we have caused by ourselves! Our task is to do something until it is not late!

Atomic Threat: New Weapon of the 1940s

What follows will be a brief summary and review of three books concerning the advent of the atomic bomb, its use on Japan, the politics and diplomacy involved   and the effects that Truman and his cabinet suspected that the bomb would have on future wars and future politics.   Three authors, Gar Alperoitz, Herbert Feis and J. Samuel Walker present similar information about the development and use of the atomic bomb and the concerns that those few politicians with intimate knowledge of the bomb suspected its existence would have on future global politics. The authors speak from different perspectives and yet at points provide strikingly similar details about the events surrounding the development of the bomb.   While all three authors focus on the development and use of the bomb, each approaches the subject from a slightly different perspective.   Alperovitz focuses on diplomacy with Stalin, Walker focuses on the situation in Japan and Feis pays more attention to those involved with the development of the bomb, both politicians and scientists.   We will begin our considerations of these different approaches with Alperovitz's focus on the effects the bomb had on diplomacy and move on from there. Alperovitz book consists of a long 60 page introduction, eight chapters and four appendices describing the relations between the United States and the Soviet Union prior to and after the advent of the bomb.   He begins with Truman's concerns about the Russians when he took over from FDR. As he prepared for his first meeting with a USSR representative Truman declared that â€Å"if the Russians did not care to cooperate, ‘they could go to hell.'† A few hours later, the President expressed the same view to Soviet Foreign Minister V. M. Molotov in rather undiplomatic terms. Truman desired to continue FDR's policy of cooperation with the Russians, but his attitude when he spoke the above words were not the result of a moment's flash of temper. Problems were developing over the USSR's dealings with Poland.   Alperovitz's primary argument that the bomb had a very significant influence on American views of diplomacy with the USSR long before the bomb. The bomb was inextricably bound with Truman's strategy at Potsdam in July 1945 and â€Å"was regarded as a ‘master card' of diplomacy.† (Alperovitz, p. 1)   Alperovitz states that â€Å"†¦a major reason the bomb was used was ‘to make Russia more manageable†¦.† (Alperovitz, p. 1).   Touched upon the impact of nuclear weapons on the beginning of the Cold War. â€Å"In August 1945, Eisenhower felt that ‘before the atom bomb was used, I would have said yes, I was sure we could keep peace with Russia. Now, I don't know†¦People are frightened and disturbed all over. Everyone feels insecure again.† (Alperovitz, p. 2)   Truman and some members of his cabinet believed that Russia was attempting to dominate Eastern Europe so concerns over Poland had been chosen as a symbolic issue to force a showdown with Stalin because of Truman's concern that Stalin was had plans for all of Eastern and Central Europe.   (Alperovitz, p. 70)  Ã‚   Secretary Forrestal stated, â€Å"This difficulty over Poland could not be treated as an isolated incident.† (Alperovitz, p. 70) â€Å"Forrestal argued: ‘We had better have a showdown with them now rather than later.'† (Alperovitz, p. 70) On the surface, this showdown strategy seemed to have been a complete reversal of FDR's policy only a few weeks earlier. There were three major obstacles to Truman's firm, showdown approach. First, FDR appeared to have had a strong belief that cooperation with Russia was possible. Second was the concern that American-Soviet cooperation might be destroyed and that a separate peace accord between Germany and the USSR might be signed, a concern that was eliminated when the German government collapsed. The third concern was that a showdown with Russia might result in the loss of Soviet help in the war against Japan. While Truman's approach was one of an immediate showdown with Stalin, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill took a different approach. â€Å"He believed it might be possible to obtain additional concessions from the Russians if he could maintain the extended troop positions†¦Ã¢â‚¬  rather than withdrawing Anglo-American troops as General Eisenhower had proposed. (Alperovitz, p. 90) Churchill was prepared to use any argument at his disposal to persuade Truman to his point. Churchill cabled Truman, â€Å"‘The Russian occupational zone has the smallest proportion of people and grows by far the largest proportion of food†¦Before we move from the tactical positions we have at present achieved,' the Russians should be forced to agree that ‘the feeding of the German population must be treated as a whole and that the available supplies must be divided pro rata between the occupational zones.'† (Alperovitz, p. 91) When Truman took up the issue with his Joint Chiefs of Staff for advice, they were unwilling to use troop positions for political purposes. Even though Truman recognized that the Russians were in a strong position, he followed the showdown on Poland with a firm approach to the problem of cooperation in Central Europe. (Alperovitz, p. 93) Truman's joint action with Churchill stressed his willingness to present a united Anglo-American stand against Russia. Like General Eisenhower, various military authorities believed that this approach to the troop issue would yield negative results. By mid-May 1945, Truman's plan for cooperative control of Central Europe was faced with a direct challenge. On April 24 1945, one day after President Truman had a showdown with Molotov, Secretary of War Stimson wrote President Truman stating, â€Å"(The atomic bomb) has such a bearing on our present foreign relations and such an important effect upon all my thinking in this field that I think you should know about it without further delay.† (Alperovitz, pp. 103-04) Up to this point, President was apparently unaware of the bomb. Stimson had casually mentioned to Truman about an â€Å"immense project†¦(that) was under way–a project looking to the development of a new explosive of almost unbelievable destructive power,† Stimson had felt no compelling reason or need to fully discuss the matter with President Truman up to that time until after the showdown with Molotov. (Alperovitz, p. 104) Secretary Stimson discussed the atomic bomb with the President for three quarters of an hour and it was â€Å"assumed–not decided–that the bomb would be used.† Truman was made aware that Japan had been the target of the weapon development program and that a special Air Force group was about to leave for its overseas base. Although Stimson expressed confidence that the bomb would shorten the war, the use of the bomb against Japan was not main subject of discussion. The diplomatic implications of the atomic bomb dominated private discussion between Stimson and Truman during the last week of April and the first week of May, 1945. President Truman eventually came to agree that the atomic bomb would have decisive implications for diplomacy with Russia. By shortly after April 25, 1945, British representatives knew that a committee would be set up â€Å"to consider the whole ranged of political issues which will arise in connection with the atomic bomb.† (Alperovitz, p. 110) News of the atomic bomb first came to the average American and to most senior government officials from the newspapers. The weapon's power was disclosed in a way that produced great emotion and optimism about its usefulness as an instrument of high policy. (Alperovitz, p. 237) On August 16, 1945, after the bomb was used and the war ended, Truman told the press, that â€Å"Japan would not be divided into occupation zones, and declared †¦that as far as Japan was concerned, ‘in the event of any difference of opinion (among the Allied powers) the policies of the United States will govern.† (Alperovitz, p. 240) The atomic bomb had strengthened the American hand in diplomacy. In the â€Å"whirlwind days† â€Å"immediately after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, American diplomacy changed†¦swiftly.† Secretary Byrnes underscored the breadth and scope of the departures from typical diplomacy by saying, â€Å"Those†¦days†¦were full of action.† The sheer volume of work caused the Secretary of State to ask that the London foreign ministers' meeting set for September 1 be postponed until September 10.† (Alperovitz, p. 243). Truman declared: â€Å"The atomic bomb is too dangerous to be loose in a lawless world†¦We must constitute ourselves trustees of this new force†¦The best interests of the United States require the utmost cooperation by all concerned in keeping secret now and for all time in the future all scientific and technical information†¦.† (Alperovitz, p. 243) One week later, Truman directed that no information on the nuclear development project be released without the specific approval of the President. (Alperovitz, p. 243) Alperovitz clearly points out that the atomic bomb and the temporary American monopoly in possessing the bomb was viewed as a â€Å"great advantage to American diplomacy. In (Secretary Byrnes') view, the ‘primary task was to establish a â€Å"lasting structure of peace†Ã¢â‚¬ ¦A stable Europe, essential to world peace and American security alike, was the number-one goal. Byrnes believed that the nuclear monopoly could be maintained for at least seven years†¦within that period, with the support of the revolutionary weapon, his diplomacy could easily achieve its idealistic objectives. Thus, the weapon seemed a crucial factor in forcing agreement to an American plan for permanent peace–a plan which, ipso facto, would prevent another world war.† (Alperovitz, p. 245) Alperovitz goes on to add that Byrnes vision â€Å"obviated the danger of an arms race.† (Alperovitz, p. 245) History has shown that Byrnes was clearly wrong. Not only did the atomic bomb fail to eliminate the arms race, but it seems to have added to the race tremendously, but with all that was at stake, the bomb made going to war a much more risky proposition than it had been in the past. J. Samuel Walker's book â€Å"Prompt and Utter Destruction† focused on another aspect of the new weapon. Walker notes in his preface that, â€Å"The question of why President Truman used atomic bombs against Japan has intrigued me since I was an undergraduate history major. Indeed, it was the first issue in which the competing arguments of different scholars caught my interest†¦.† (Walker, p. ix) This statement in his preface sets up the direction for his book. Walker states, â€Å"In fact†¦Truman never faced a categorical choice between the bomb and an invasion that would cost hundreds of thousands of American lives†¦the prevailing perception (about the president's alternatives) vastly oversimplifies the situation in the summer of 1945†¦.† (Walker, p. 5) Walker points out 1) that there were other available options for a â€Å"reasonably short time† end to the war without resorting to the bomb, 2) Truman and his key advisers believed that Japan was so weak that the war could end even before an invasion began and 3) American military planners believed that even in a worst case scenario, American casualties would be far fewer than the hundreds of thousands Truman and his advisers claimed after the war. So, â€Å"Was the use of the bomb necessary at all† and if so, 2) â€Å"What exactly did it accomplish?† Walker begins by taking a look at the President. Truman won greater affection and esteem from the American people after his presidency and after he died than he had while president. He was honest, often indiscreet and blunt and needlessly offensive and â€Å"his decisiveness could lead to superficial or impulsive judgments.† (p. 7) The world was embroiled in a global war that made his arrival into the Oval Office a period of extraordinarily difficult problems and, even though he had been vice president, he came to the White House without adequate preparation. Indeed, he began his turn at the helm basically â€Å"in the dark about many of his predecessor's policies and commitments†¦.† (Walker, p. 9) The one fundamental military strategy from Roosevelt that seemed clear to Truman was his predecessor's desire â€Å"to achieve complete victory at the lowest cost in American lives.† (Walker, p. 9) After October 1941, President Roosevelt authorized a major effort to explore the feasibility of an atomic bomb. The Manhattan project began with the purpose of addressing the â€Å"bewildering variety† of scientific and engineering uncertainties connected with nuclear energy and the bomb. Once scientists had proven that a nuclear chain reaction was possible, the Manhattan Project focused on designing a bomb and producing the fuel to make it work. All of this was kept secret from Vice President Truman, so when he suddenly became President, he knew virtually nothing about the Manhattan Project or the bomb even though he had learned of â€Å"a massive and highly secret effort to build a new weapon† while he was chairman of the Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program in the Senate. However, while serving as a senator he did not receive any details. Secretary Stimson confirmed and elaborated information about the bomb to the President in a meeting on April 25, 1945, but Secretary Stimson warned, â€Å"the existence of such a weapon would create profound problems because the United States would not be able to maintain a monopoly on the technology. Further, the issue of sharing information about the atomic bomb would become ‘a primary question of our foreign relations.† (Walker, p. 13) When Truman took office, he was outraged by the Soviet conduct in Poland, but he did not want to ruin the relatively good relations between the United States and the Soviet Union. Germany surrendered on May 8, 1945, less than a month after Truman became president, but the war in Japan raged on. Americans were still upset about the attack on Pearl Harbor and had also become outraged when the U.S. government learned about how the Japanese mistreated American prisoners and released that information to the public and the Japanese were equally as disdainful of Americans thanks to the â€Å"warped stereotypes† Japanese leaders painted of Americans during the war. So, the Americans fought a â€Å"war without mercy in Japan. (Walker, p. 23) Even though the Japanese people were losing confidence in their leaders and public morale was deteriorating, the fact that Japan was on the verge of defeat did not mean that the country was on the verge of surrender. By the end of June 1945, both American and Japanese leaders, including Japan's emperor, as well as the Japanese people realized that the war would end in Japan's defeat.   On June 17, 1945, President Truman wrote in his diary that deciding between invading Japan and relying solely on bombing and blockade to end the war was his â€Å"hardest decision to date.† ( Walker, p. 35) Advisers in the Truman administration realized that â€Å"‘there was a large submerged class in Japan' that did not favor the war but would ‘fight tenaciously' for their homeland.† In a meeting on June 18, 1945, Secretary Stimson hinted that he â€Å"thought the war might end by some other means, though at this time he did not specify what the alternatives were.† (Walker, p. 37) Meanwhile, although there were some proponents who were in favor of moderating the stance for Japan's unconditional surrender, the prevailing attitude in the United States as a whole was for the unconditional surrender of Japan. By July 13, 1945, it was clear that America's demand for an unconditional surrender was the main obstacle to a settlement. So, despite the mutual desires of the American people and the Japanese people for peace and the leaders of both countries faced the same obstacle–unconditional surrender. President Truman faced choices as to how to overcome this dilemma. There were three choices, including invasions with the potentially high costs. A fourth alternative also existed, the atomic bomb. Truman and his advisers proceeded with their planning as if the bomb didn't exist because the bomb had not been tested successfully, but those in the administration who knew about the bomb hoped that a successful test would lead to their goal of ending the war at a lower cost than the alternatives. Final preparations for the atomic test, named â€Å"Trinity† proceeded amid strain, excitement, uncertainty and ominous weather forecasts, but at 8:00 AM on July 16, 1945, Secretary Stimson receive news of the successful test of the bomb. President Truman was delighted when he heard the news. Secretary Byrnes was committed to the belief that the bomb would be an instrument to advance American diplomacy, particularly in light of growing differences with the Soviet Union. On the diplomatic front, Truman took his cue from Secretary Byrnes and agreed that the bomb would serve as a valuable tool for diplomacy. Ultimately, it appears that Truman used the bomb â€Å"because he had no compelling reason to avoid using it.† (Walker, p. 95) American leaders had assumed that the bomb would be used when available and there were no military, diplomatic, political, or moral considerations contrary to that assumption. Diplomatically, it placed America in a stronger position with the Soviets and it was politically popular as a means in ending the war quickly as opposed to the dire prospects of victory without the bomb. Herbert Feis opens his work by considering how the war could be ended. In May 1945 the war in Europe was over and Japan fought alone. Japanese life and production was being â€Å"smashed and burned†. The question was, â€Å"How could (the war) be ended surely and quickly?† (Feis, p. 3) â€Å"The obvious and perhaps most certain was was to beat down the Japanese until they could no longer fight on–by enlarging the assaults on Japan and Japanese armed forces wherever they could be reached†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Feis, p. 3) Another means was by inducement and a third, the most secret, was by shock. Each of these approaches could end the war or two or three of them could do so in combination. The end of the European war made American, British and Russian troops available for use in the Pacific. As for the war in the General Marshall felt â€Å"that the hope that air power alone would be able to drive Japan out of the war was unjustified; and that the task would be the more difficult there since the Japanese were scattered through mountainous country.† (Feis, p. 9) The U.S. had planned an invasion of Kyushu, but there were concerns that America could not go further and force its way upon Tokyo. (Feis, p. 11) The Joint Chiefs adopted strategic plans for the war in the Pacific on May 25, 1945. Those plans were approved by President Truman on June 18th, but those plans included the desire to have Russian forces enter the final assault with U.S. forces. General MacArthur emphatically stated to a visitor from the War Department that â€Å"no attempt ought to be made to invade Japan proper unless and until the Russian army had been previously committed to action in Manchuria; that he though this was essential, and should be brought about without†¦delay†¦.† President Truman's tone was stern. He felt that Japanese aggression against China, the Japanese assault upon America and the Japanese cruelties during the was warranted severity and he reaffirmed his intention to carry on the war â€Å"until the Japanese military and naval forces lay down their arms in unconditional surrender.† (Feis, p. 16) On the morning of May 28, 1945, President Truman was urged to try to induce the Japanese to surrender by dispelling the worst fears of the consequences. Secretary Stimson and General Marshall concluded that â€Å"the question of what to say to the Japanese and when to say it, should be governed by whether and when the United States had the atomic bomb.† (Feis, p. 19) Others in the cabinet did not believe that Japan would heed any warnings of surrender until the Japanese were more thoroughly beaten down. (Feis, p. 19) Although the prime incentive for making the bomb was the effort to defeat Germany (Feis, p. 28), the dimensions of creating the bomb became apparent and its creators were compelled to face the fact that the war against Germany might be over before the bomb was ready for use. The number of issues surrounding the creation of the bomb included what type of bomb to make. During the creation of the bomb, those in the Roosevelt administration who knew about it believed that knowledge needed to make the new weapon could be confined long enough as to allow the United States and Britain to secure an advantage that would keep the Soviet Union from being too pushy.   When Roosevelt died, Secretary Stimson lingered after the first Cabinet meeting to tell the new President briefly about the immense undertaking regarding the bomb of which the former vice president now president had no knowledge. As Truman learned more about the weapon with time, Truman began to recognize the enormous significance of the new weapon. The President accepted Secretary Stimson's belief that â€Å"†¦our leadership in the war and the development of this weapon has placed a certain moral responsibility upon us which we cannot shirk without very serious responsibility for any disaster to civilization which it would further.† (Feis, p. 38) When plans to use the bomb were considered, one consideration was to demonstrate the bomb's power before using it, but there were concerns against its use. The possibility that a country could assure its security by increasing its nuclear armaments (as was later the practice) was viewed to be invalid. It was felt that â€Å"the safety of all nations henceforth could be achieved only if they agreed to subject their activities in atomic energy to international control. However, the chance of bringing about such an agreement would be greatly lessened by the sudden and unannounced use of the weapon against Japan. Both the diplomatic and military value of the bomb spanned a wide range of concerns. Using the bomb against Japan faced a range of concerns as evidenced by the following statement: â€Å"†¦they range from the proposal of a purely technical demonstration to that of military application best designed to induce surrender. Those who advocate a purely technical demonstration of atomic weapons, and have feared that if they would wish to outlaw the use of atomic weapons, and have feared that if we use the weapons now our position in future negotiations will be prejudiced. Others emphasize the opportunity of saving American lives by immediate military use†¦.† (Feis, p. 54) Before using the new weapon, Americans were determined to continue their assault on Japan and officials in Washington were striving to compose a statement which would tell the Japanese how we intended to treat them once they surrendered.(Feis, p. 63) Feis considers issues not discussed by the other authors. He wonders, â€Å"Whether, if the United States had pledged itself as soon as the war was over to destroy the other bombs it had and dismantle the factories in which they were made other countries would have been willing to join with it in a trustworthy system of control of atomic energy, must remain forever a provocation to the speculative historian.: (Feis, p. 190) I could be biased by this, but I certainly enjoyed each of these books, however I must admit to a great interest in many aspects of World War II, including matters surrounding the atomic bomb.   These books covered an aspect of the war that took concerns of future wars to a new and frightening level and often placed the reader right in the thick of issues and diplomacy connected with the atomic bomb and other issues of the war.   All three books discuss the global atmosphere at the time of a world in turmoil at the end of World War II and the bomb's contribution that bringing that turmoil to an end, but at the same time, each of the books focus on aspects of the politics surrounding the bomb. All reveal the mutual suspicion and mistrust between Russia and her two strongest allies in the War, the U.S. and Britain.   They reveal how this mistrust played a role in the development, use and politics surrounding the bomb.   Each book portrays different details surrounding the development and use of the bomb.   Although or perhaps despite their different perspectives, all three books are interesting and had some surprizingly similar aspects.   Each author tells his story from a different perspective, each author outlines some aspects of their story with common events and from common perspectives. Alperovitz seems to focus a lot on Truman's concern regarding Stalin's desires for Poland and other areas of Eastern Europe.   Walker focused a great deal on events in the Pacific and Feis tended to concentrate much more of his focus on the development of the bomb.   Combined, these three books present an interesting and a more comprehensive look at how the bomb developed, its initial influence on diplomacy and how politicians felt that the existence of the bomb would impact future events in Europe. Each author tells an interesting and provacotive story with behind the scenes details from a different perspective and each author lays out interesting and compelling facts surrounding the concerns, suspicions and global politics between Russia and ther wartime allies, the United States and Great Britain.   I found each of them to be interesting and compelling reading. References Alperoitz, Gar (1965).   Atomic diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam; the use of the atomic bomb and the American confrontation with Soviet power .   New York, NY:   Simon and Schuster. Feis, Herbert (1966).   The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II.   Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press. Walker,   J. Samuel   (1997).   Prompt and utter destruction : Truman and the use of atomic bombs against Japan.   Chapel Hill, NC:   University of North Carolina Press.         

Documentation of NSTP

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis page is where we would acknowledge all those who helped us with our feeding program.This is not necessarily where we would recognize loved ones who supported us during the feeding program. That would be more appropriately done in an optional Dedication page. We would like to thank Sir Mark Brinio who support and helped us in doing the feeding program for the children.Also we thank the children who actively participated in the program that we conducted. The parents who support their child to win every contest they have joined. Thank you very much.IntroductionFeeding program is an activity used to helped people in hunger, fun and other activities such as games, dancing, singing and other fun activities. This program can make people happy by serving them foods, giving them gifts and giving them fun.The purpose of it is to serve the children and make them happy by engaging them into different games or activity and then feed them properly with the food we prepared as a student.In that way, we can make them happy and at the same time, we teach them how to interact with other people like us or even with other children. By giving those winners a gift in every activity that they participated and act properly with no cheating.ObjectivesOur objectives in the program we conducted are the following:To serve them properly To serve them food that we prepared To make them happy To share our goods to them Giving them gifts Obtain disciplineProblemsThe problems we encountered during the program were the children have no control during the games and they did not maintain discipline in the first place. The other children hurt others just to win the game and some of them are cheating just to win the game.In serving food to them, we also encountered the improper behavior of the children in stealing the line. They push each other accidentally in order to have a food.Also in giving gifts to them, they keep hurting each other and try to get forcibly the gift that m y classmate throws in the ground. The others acted as a young to join in the games but they are old enough to participate in that kind of game. They are not qualified to join. Another is the improper trespassing in our boundary or in our tent. These are the problems that we have encountered during the event.Narration of experienceWe experienced fun in this activity and at the same time, we experienced being so tired because it is so hard to handle a lot of children in that program. Keeping them in the dancing center just to avoid hurting each other and to make war to other children.ReactionBased on what are we experienced in the feeding program service, we learned different things that we may apply in our daily lives. Like sharing what you have to others. In this simple way, we can make them happy. Make them smile especially children. In our program, I saw the children having fun in  playing different games or activity that we conduct and they enjoy well. Giving their best to be a ble to win the game that they joined and to obtain prizes from us.Dancing was included in our program where the children are dancing with their own step, with own skills to win the game and have a gifts from us. We observe also the parents who were watching their child in participating our program. They also participating and help us observe properly without harming each other because when we serve the food, the children are going wild. We avoid them from taking one place to another, avoiding to harm each other and learned to disciplined.

The Impact of Human Resource and Operational Management Practices on Company Productivity: a Longitudinal Study

Article 1: The Impact of Human Resource and Operational Management Practices on Company Productivity: A Longitudinal Study Dana Cuffee BSA 523 Operations Management and Analysis August 31, 2009 Dr. Woo This article talks about human resource and the operational management practices on a company productivity. This paper reports on the study that evaluates the individual and collective impact on manufacturing performance of the seven managerial practices most associated with these theoretical perspectives: empowerment, training, teamwork, total quality management, just in time, advanced manufacturing, technology, and supply chain partnering. There was little or no evidence related to a company performance in longitudinal practices to show companies that adopted specific practices to improve their performances. A study was conducted by Birdi, Clegg, Patterson, Robinson, Stride, Wall and Woo (2008), to determine the importance of psychology-based practice on a company’s productivity. They studied 308 companies over 22 years and implemented the 7 practices. As a result of the study, it was concluded that none of the operational practices were directly related to productivity. Empowerment focuses on giving individual or teams’ responsibility rather than management. Extensive training is providing employees with a wide range of skills. Teamwork is a group of employees working together on a common task. Total quality management is based on the principle that quality control should be a part of the production process. Just in time is a system for making products in direct response to internal and external demand from customers. Advanced manufacturing technology includes a range of computer based machinery, such as computer numerically controlled machines, robots, and computers aided design and process planning. Supply chain partnering is trategic alliances through long term relationships with suppliers to guarantee that the right materials and components are provided at minimum cost. The case study has three hypotheses. The first hypotheses included empowerment, extensive power and teamwork would independently enhance company performance. This is based on the theory that empowerment required extensive skills in order for it to work, thus both of t hese practices underscore the effectiveness of teams. Also, learning from extensive training requires teamwork and problem solving skills, which provides the competencies on which team performance depends. The second hypothesis was that having total quality management, just in time, advanced manufacturing technology, and supply chain partnering will independently enhances company performance. The combined practices worked as a synergy, affecting each other. Lean production adds supply chain partnering in the mix, which in turns, bolster the other practices by helping to ensure all the other components. The third hypothesis was that empowerment, extensive training, and teamwork will positively interact with total quality management, just in time, advanced manufacturing technology, and supply chain partnering to predict company performance. Stevenson (2007) also uses the seven practices in his book. Total quality management (p. 427) involves everyone in the organization in a continual effort to improve quality and achieve customer satisfaction. The just in time (p. 694) concept believes in a processing system in which goods move through the system and services are performed just as they are needed. Empowerment (p. 428) believes in giving employees the responsibility and the authority to make changes to accomplish their task. Cross training workers (p. 07) to perform different parts of a process and to operate a variety of machines adds flexibility and value to the worker. Some organizations use self directed teams (p. 329) to achieve a higher level of teamwork and employee involvement. They are empowered to make certain changes in their work processes. Stevenson has several advanced manufacturing technologies described in his book. To name a few are computer aided manufacturing, numerically controlled machine (p. 246) a nd robots (p. 247). All of them depend on the level of automation a company need. Every job wants to improve and get better over time (even the military). The military also focuses on the 7 practices of empowerment, training, teamwork, total quality management, just in time, advanced manufacturing, technology, and supply chain partnering. With the budget cuts, shortage of personnel and the concept â€Å"do more with less†; the military has to strategize just like civilian company. Normal every day function that were usually a soldier’s unit responsibility, but now the soldier is required to maintain and perform himself. In conclusion, this article, focuses on the importance of psychology based practices; empowerment, extensive training, and teamwork to sustain competitive advantages within human resource management. Once the companies fully implemented the seven practices, their overall performance did improved. References Stevenson, W. J. , (2007) Operation Management (10-ed) New York. McGraw- Hill/Irwin Birdi, k. Clegg, C. , Patterson, M. , Roberson, A. , Stride, C. , Wall, T. , & Woods, S. (2008). The Impact of Human Resource and Operational Management Practices on Company Productivity: A Longitudinal Study. Personnel Psychology, 61(3), 467-501.

Analysis Of External And Internal Environment Marketing Essay

Analysis Of External And Internal Environment Marketing Essay A small business is a business that is privately owned and operated, with a small number of employees and relatively low volume of sales. Small businesses are normally privately owned corporations, partnerships, or sole proprietorships. Every business which starts with the small capital, few members of staff and management, don’t have much branches in other areas, town or country will be called as small businesses. Small businesses often have the vision of expansion, invest more capitalisation as well as profit maximisation. Here I am taking about Fried chicken shop which is necessary to UK people. This fried chicken shop name is western fried chicken. Executive Summary: The marketing plan of Western Fried Chicken focuses on their current positioning and the effects of repositioning themselves by launching Halal Fried Chicken. With its launch, they’d also be in the list of one of the â€Å"Halal† food suppliers in UK. The main idea is to offer Halal fried chicke n in western style as well as with a few amendments in the recipe by making it spicy to make it appealing to its extended target audience i.e. Muslims that reside in United Kingdom. The reason being Muslims prefer a slightly more spicy food than the western food. The repositioning of the brand is targeted towards the extension of its target audience by allowing access to another target group i.e. a profitable population of Muslims from all over the world, living in UK. There is a high tendency of its success as Western Fried Chicken is already liked by its existing target audience and gets good reviews if anyone is a big fan of scrumptious chicken, chips and even juicy burgers. The consumers prefer WFC more than one of its giant competitors i.e. KFC. The Buzz marketing effect would be one of the best and cost free methods of promoting their chicken. The Challenge The food industry is a mammoth industry in UK and since there is a busy lifestyle, people prefer fast food take – away rather than going for fine dining. In order to survive in the food industry where there is cut throat competition with over 1, 000 individual brands and 1,700 outlets, WFC has to offer something exceptional to its existing target audience in order to retain them and also attract new ones by enabling Muslims to be carefree regarding the Halal meat and focus on providing them something according to their preferences and taste. A little effort on consumer research should be put in, in order to know about their preferences and ultimately provide better end results to them and remove chances of consumer disgust. Vision: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ To establish a world class brand. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ To be the leading and fastest growing fast food chain in UK. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ To be synonymous with quality and profitability. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ To bring innovative products and business models to customers. Mission: Providing a hot juice burger, hot testy fried wings and chips. Providing a customer nice environment and nice service. Analysis of external and internal environment of the company: EXTERNAL environment:

American History 1584-1783 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 1

American History 1584-1783 - Essay Example The introduction of tobacco, Virginias staple crop, created a demand for labor, superseding the supply of indentured servants coming to the colony. However, due to the increase in labor, an increase in skilled labor also resulted - to build houses, to make the hogsheads, to pack and ship the sugar, tobacco, or rice. As the demand for labor grew large, the rising cost of white labor tended to make slaves a less expensive source of unskilled labor than additional servants. Eventually, the majority of the bound labor force then changed from white to black. During this period, the servant became an inevitable, and necessary, source of skilled labor. Slave trade in Jamestown slowly developed as degrees of prejudice towards dark skin formed. The African slaves were continuously held to servitude as colonists considered them typically cheaper to feed and clothe and better "seasoned" for work in Virginias hot climate. As indentured European servants proved unruly and rebellious, and immigration sporadic, the planters turned to African slaves as better sources for labor. Similarities and differences between indentured servitude and slavery. The similarities between slaves and indentured servants were that both could be bought and sold. They lacked proper food and clothing, had poor housing, and had hard work. They often died from servitude, could be hunted and punished for running away, and whipped or branded. Whippings, hard labor, and lack of food and clothing were all reasons for running away. Both were abused. Both the servant and the slave were valuable economic assets to the owners. For most of the seventeenth century the lives of white indentured servants and enslaved blacks were similar. They worked together in the fields; they ate together and slept in the same part of a building. The changes in day-to-day conditions really

Chemical Industry Safety Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Chemical Industry Safety - Essay Example After review of the availed data, safety parameters in a chemical industry was reached at as the main project goal. Analysis of these parameters was divided into four categories. These are risks the chemicals impose on human lives, measures necessary to avoid chemical risks, fire and explosion prevention and general safety within the factories. The recommendation from the study was a challenge to the Saudi government to ensure relevant industrial laws are enforced. It is important to note that Saudi Arabia has made significant growth economic wise, an important aspect which can be attributed to the firm industrial base. Saudi Arabia has emerged to be among the few countries in the region that are in full support of their industrial sector. One of the beneficiaries of this support are the chemical industries which have significantly grown throughout the years courtesy of a supportive Saudi government. In spite of all these, the chemical industries have posed to be among the most delicate industries in terms of safety due to the various hazardous chemicals dealt with. A part from this being a major concern, research has proven that accidents in industries are being caused by: human errors, working environment and poor management in terms of safety. It is conclusive to say that productivity of various industries is largely dependent on the safety of employees. Safety is therefore paramount and should be handled above any other thing.