10+ Ways to Maximize Your Scrapbook Storage - My Favoriate Cheap and Efficient Crafting Storage Solutions

I love collecting crafting supplies but have only a tiny space to store them: thus my enduring interest in storage solutions that are efficient. (The fact that I'm a teacher explains the need to keep things inexpensive.) 

... Anytime I can move something off my desk and onto a wall or rod? Win! 

... Anytime I can replace one of those heavy wood craft storage units with something light and equally efficient? Win! 

... Anytime I can storage supplies in a way that keeps them visible, so I don’t forget what I have? Win!  

Here are 10 solutions I haven’t just looked up at random on the internet; they’re solutions I actually use in my own crafting space. Hope they work for you as well as they work for me!

1.      RIBBON/WASHI TAPE STORAGE for rolls.  I laugh at those heavy wood storage boxes that beautifully display maybe 6-8 spools of ribbon – who has only 6-8 spools of ribbon? I store my ribbon, washi tape, tulle (basically anything wrapped around a tube) on cheap metal curtain rods that hang from the ceiling (or between hooks on the wall) using wire. I've learned not to extend the bar all the way or else it bows under the weight of the ribbon; instead, I buy the longest ones they have. I love that this puts my ribbon & washi tape up out of the way but also leaves my collection exposed so that I can quickly see what I have.

2.      RIBBON/WASHI TAPE STORAGE for rolls (see photo).  Smaller rolls, or rolls I use most heavily, I store on those specialty hangers they make to hang multiple pairs of slacks.  Each bar lifts out of its own cradle so the rolls slide easily on/off the bars, and no roll is ever buried too deeply behind others.  Storing craft supplies on hangers frees up surface/drawer space by maximizing the use of vertical space; also, of course, it makes your ribbon & washi tape supplies easy to peruse and access.

3.     RIBBON STORAGE for remnants.  Pick up one of those specialty hangers that are made  in the shape of a bar, so that you can hang a single pair of slacks without having to "thread them" through a standard hanger.  Unscrew the "cap" that keeps the slacks from sliding off and thread your paperclips onto the bar.  Simple untie the remnant you want & leave the paperclip there to to reuse later. I store my remnants in rainbow order to make it even easier to find what I need. 

4.      YARN STORAGE.  Yarn has this way of taking up as much or as little space as you allow it! I tame mine my stuffing the skeins into faux plastic ball jars with lids – they’re light, they stack easily, and you can see the color of the wool through the transparent plastic – especially if you stack them lid-down.

5.      FABRIC REMNANT STORAGE. Buy a cooling rack with horizontal bars spaced about 1/4” apart.  Fold and drape your fabric scraps over the horizontal bars so that they hang down. You can hang the cooling rack from a hanger or hooks on the wall. 

6.      STORAGE FOR SMALL EMBELLISHMENTS. Use transparent jewelry/hardware storage boxes to store embellishments. I’ve got about 10 of them: one for wood embellishments, 3 for eyelets/brads, 2 for buttons/charms, etc.

7.     STORAGE FOR MEDIUM-SIZED EMBELLISHMENTS & STAMP-PADS (see photo).  Store larger embellishments (tags, paper flowers, etc.) in hanging jewelry organizers. Perfect for seeing everything you have in one place! 

8.     STORAGE FOR LARGE EMBELLISHMENTS (see photo). Every scrapbooker is familiar with the clear plastic 12" x 12" hole-punched page protectors that serve as the final destination for our completed scrapbook layouts.  It doesn't take too much looking to find 12" x 12" page protectors that have been divided by the manufacturer into pockets - sometimes four pockets per page, sometimes five, sometimes nine or even 25.  These make amazing storage for flat cards, embellishments, and papers.  Just slide your flat embellishments into the pockets and insert the pages into 3-hold binder for easy browsing. I have mine divided up into several binders by theme. (The photo at the top of this entry is from my Christmas binder, obviously!)   

9.     STICKER/STENCIL STORAGE. Buy inexpensive transparent top-loading 8” x 11” sheet protectors. Insert sticker sheets (or stencils, or basically anything flat) into the pockets and organize them in an inexpensive 3-ring binder, perhaps even using dividers to separate your stickers into categories.

10. MOBILE STORAGE. Forego those expensive craft supply storage carts, boxes and bags!  An ordinary tool box or tackle box from Walmart will provide much more flexible storage at a *much* more affordable price.  If you need mobility, places like Office Depot sell inexpensive rolling carts (mostly to teachers) that are wide enough to store multiple tackle boxes. I've customized my rolling cart with a combination of storage devices designed to match my actual needs - so much more convenient than 

20 Things We Should Be Worried About But We Aren't (Yet) ...

One thing this decade seems to have plenty of: stuff to worry about. Political disruptions. Climate change. Pandemics. North Korean nukes. Trade wars. Terrorism.  Opioids.  Immigration.  Genocides. Refugee crises. Gun violence.  Russian hacking.  Sexual harassment. #BlackLivesMatter. Healthcare. The national deficit. Bitcoin bubbles. Privacy. Trash gyres. Rainforest destruction. GMOs. Beehive Colony Collapse Disorder. The approaching Singularity.

Just in case you were beginning to worry that you weren’t worrying enough, I’ve compiled a list of concerns that aren’t dramatic enough for the front page, but that will do perfectly well if you’ve been getting too much healthy sleep and need something to keep you up at night.  (And if 20 nightmare scenarios aren't enough, I recommend the above book, What Should We Be Worried About, a collection of essays in which really smart people talk about what keeps them up at night.  Guaranteed to make you lose sleep.)

1. AN UNFAIR AND UNEQUAL EDUCATION. Is it a coincidence that political corruption is most rampant in states that have the lowest test scores?  I worry that state funding of education creates a system that incentivizes corrupt politicians to deliberately undermine schools.  After all, who’s more likely to continue to elect corrupt politicians – a well-educated citizenry or a bunch of kids who never developed critical thinking skills and who, therefore, are stupid enough to believe the election commercials? Unlike many teachers, I was a big fan of No Child Left Behind because it required at least some accountability for educating students.  But ever since the Supreme Court began ruling that anything that isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution isn't protected, we're a decision away from states deciding to eliminate mandatory public schooling entirely. One of the few sacrifices of a well-functioning democracy is that it requires an educated citizenry capable of making considered decisions. We need to stop forgetting that.
2. REALITY DENIAL, aka “Just a moment while I interrupt your evidence-based reality with my unsubstantiated opinions.” I worry that in their rush to ensure “fair representation,” media outlets are creating the impression that opinions deserve as much weight as reality.  There’s a famous quote by Asimov: “There is a cult of ignorance […] measured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as [valid] as your knowledge.” Every time media organizations allow newsmakers to express "alternative facts" without calling them out (or, even worse, treat these alternative facts as legitimate) they reinforce the fallacy that opinion is somehow equivalent to truth.  In a world where technology makes it all too easy for people to bypass legitimate forms of news in favor of self-validating and self-reinforcing "alternative realities," I worry that we are at risk of forgetting what "truth" is, and why it matters. 
3. KIDS THAT CAN’T PASS THE MARSHMALLOW TEST.  You’ve heard of the marshmallow test, right? You put a child and a marshmallow in the same room, then promise the child that if they don’t touch the marshmallow until you return, you’ll let them have two.  In other words, twice the marshmallow.  100% more marshmallow. And yet an alarming number of the kids, lacking the tiny amount of self-control required to resist the urge, consume the marshmallow at once. I worry that in a world where video games now incorporate “mini-games” so you don’t have to wait until the end to win something, where mature adults whine when websites take more than an instant to upload, where drivers explode into road-rage when intersections are slow to clear, and where one-day delivery still isn’t quick enough – in other words, in a world where  instant gratification has become an expectation rather than the exception – what hope is there that future generations will possess the patience and willingness to embrace near-term sacrifice in order to ensure longer-term gain?
4. GENERATIONAL HOMOGENIZATION.  I worry that current and future generations are losing their unique identities.  It’s hard to witness my little nieces and nephews watch Disney movies (some of them over 70yrs old at this point), to listen to my sons stream Spotify’s “I Love the ‘80S!” radio station as they do homework, to watch my students cycling through every unfortunate fashion trend from the past 50 years – and not worry about generational homogenization. Back when I was a kid I remember attending ‘60s parties (everyone wore poodle skirts), ‘70s parties (everyone wore hippie finery), ‘80s parties (think big hair and disco).  Then came the millennia and suddenly – thanks to DVD players, internet, and streaming sites like Hulu – teens aren’t inventing their own culture so much as appropriating all the cultures that came before them. When I’m not worrying about what the hell I’m going to wear if – God help me - I ever get invited to a ‘00s party, I worry about the lasting social and cultural impact of generations with no unique, original identity to call their own
5. Speaking of which: CULTURAL HOMOGINIZATION.  I worry that the same forces that are hastening globalization – internet, multinational corporations – are hastening the homogenization of international cultural identities. Remember when American cities like San Francisco, Boston, and Nashville used to have their own unique personalities? Now, with the exception of a few districts, these cities are practically indistinguishable, overtaken by identical chain restaurants, big box stores, and cars.  How long before every country has its own Hollywood/Bollywood, its own food courts featuring a variety of faux-ethnic cuisine, roads overrun by identical cars, store windows filled with identical fashions, radios playing identical playlists?  I weep to imagine a world in which globalization robs us of cultural diversity and identity.
6. IS IT LIVE OR IS IT MEMOREX?  I worry that we aren’t ready for the onslaught of virtual reality about to descend upon us.  Keep in mind that our brains are so susceptible to intense emotion that grief has been known to trigger heart attacks, childhood trauma to trigger life-long mental illness, and intense fear/horror to trigger PTSD.  And then there’s the flipside: brains so giddy on opioids that their owners will literally self-destruct rather than do without.  In other words, we humans are pretty fragile vessels when it comes to handling intense emotion. So what happens when super-intense virtual reality experiences inadvertently trigger these responses; or, perhaps even worse, when our species begins developing a tolerance for them? What happens when natural beauty fails to enchant as completely as virtual beauty; when actual violence fails to appall when compared to the excesses of virtual violence; when the burdens of actual life pale in comparison with the non-stop entertainment of virtual life?
7. Speaking of which: AUTONOMOUS WARFARE.  I worry that anything that reduces the social or emotion costs of war, runs the risk of perpetuating war.  There’s a reason the minds of soldiers are so easily scarred by warfare: it’s a traumatic, grotesque, and wholly unnatural act to slay a fellow human. That makes the very best disincentive for waging war, war itself.  By gradually transitioning to a system of remote warfare, where soulless drones, submarines, and long-range missile systems deliver armaments to GPS coordinates rather than human settlements, however, we have created a more politically palatable system of killing.  People are still dying horrific deaths, it’s just that we don’t have to be there watching as they suffer and die.  Whoever developed PTSD from watching a blip on a screen? By placing violence at an arm’s distance, I worry that we’re making war socially, emotionally, and politically palatable, allowing us to cling to the pretense of “civilization” even as we continue to commit barbaric acts of violence.
8. VIRAL VIRUSES.  I worry that viruses (the microscopic type, not the digital type – though they can be lethal too) are going to take us out.  In case you’ve forgotten everything you learned about viruses in 7^th grade, let me remind you that these are scary dudes. From the standpoint of evolution, they were here before us and they've used that lead time to figure out how outlive pretty much everything else.  They laughed off the last five mass extinctions as if they were hiccups. Unlike bacteria, viruses hide inside your cells so your immune system has difficulty finding them. They mutate rapidly, making them a moving target, they can't be killed by antibiotics because they're not living organisms, and they're wicked contagious because the only way they can propagate is to constantly infect new hosts ... all of which enables them to sweep through populations like tsunamis - sudden, violent, unstoppable (see: flu, HIV, ebola). I worry that in our natural state of hubris, we humans aren't taking viruses seriously, at our peril. 
9. Speaking of which: LONGEVITY.  I worry that people are living too long.  Sure, immortality sounds great, and it would solve that nagging problem of how to explore space when the shortest trip to a habitable planet takes longer than the average human lifespan – but in practical terms, immortality would be a disaster in almost every conceivable way.  How can we possibly control Earth’s growing population if new babies continue to be born but no one dies? How do we find jobs, homes, food, water for all those extra people?  More abstractly, how do we grow socially, creatively or intellectually as a race unless we keep innovating – which process which requires a steady turnover of new brains entering a given field?  (See also: Cultural Homogenization.) How does natural selection continue to improve the survivability of our species if our birthrate slows to a crawl?  How do we find the money to research the diseases of youth if most of the Earth is ruled by elders who have the power/money to divert medical research to their own needs?  How do we meet the health and social needs of aging populations without burdening their children – essentially robbing them of their chance to live independently because, from the age of ~40 on, they’re tethered to the needs of elderly relatives? How do we fill all that extra time in a meaningful way, so that everyone doesn’t go bonkers from boredom?  Plus, in the immortal words of Queen, who wants to live forever when love must die?
10. SPACE JUNK. I worry that if we keep launching stuff into space, it’s going to become impossible to ensure the safety of the satellites and other objects up there that we rely on to do important stuff like facilitate satellite communications, track major weather events, and make GPS work.  I get that space is vast, and the chances of collision are small.  However, I’m also betting our satellite systems don’t have a lot of built in redundancy, especially since nearly all of them were built by the lowest bidder.
11. Speaking of which: GPS HACKING.  Has anyone been paying attention to just how much we’ve come to rely on GPS? It helps guide airplanes to airports, fishermen to where the fish are, and weapons to where the enemies are; it sets our clocks; it supports accurate mapping of weather phenomenon; and it keeps us from getting lost when our doctors relocate to new office buildings.  And yet, the system is so antiquated and vulnerable to hacking that even the U.S. military is urging its branches to develop their own backup systems. Think about all the money we’re spending on “smart weapons” that require GPS guidance; now consider that all those weapons could be rendered unusable by $20 worth of electrical components available from Amazon
12. THE IMPENDING MAGNETIC SHIFT.  I worry about what happens when Earth’s magnetic poles decide to swap – as in, the north pole becomes the south pole and visa versa.   This has happened periodically throughout Earth’s history and, geologically speaking, we’re overdue for next shift.  In fact, there’s ample evidence that a switch is coming: the magnetic north pole has been shifting up to 5miles per year, a traditional sign that polar shift is imminent.  This is a much (much) bigger deal than just having to recalibrate all the compasses in the world. Earth’s magnetic “shield” is all that’s preventing deadly subatomic particles from pelting all life on earth to extinction. And while the shield doesn’t actually disappear during polar shifts, it does becomes significantly weaker, meaning some stuff is going to slip through.  I’m not sure tinfoil hats are going to be enough.
13. Speaking of which: ANTICS IN ANTARCTICA.  I promised myself I wouldn’t mention climate change here, since everyone’s worried about climate change. What bothers me is that I don’t hear anyone talking about what happens when Antarctica melts.  Is anyone paying attention to what’s underneath all that ice? Copper, iron, oil, coal, silver, gold, platinum and … wait for it … stores of unexploited rare earth minerals, the ones that facilitate our advanced electronics. At various times countries as diverse as Argentina, France, Australia, Chile, Norway and the U.K. have claimed ownership of bits and pieces of the continent, before they all buried the hatchet and signed The Antarctic Treaty in 1959 agreeing that no one would make any more territorial claims. How long do you think everyone’s going to keep holding hands and humming It’s A Small World once those gold deposits defrost? A hint of things to come: Russia is already fortifying their "research stations" with troops. 
14. TOO MUCH CONNECTIVITY.  I worry about what happens when we connect all our important systems to a single grid and then the grid goes down. While the whole Y2K thing was much ado about nothing, I worry that we’ve too quickly forgotten the reason we were worried – that as our communications systems (satellites and internet), banking systems (encrypted trading systems running over wireless), navigation/weapons systems (GPS) and social systems (smart phones) become increasingly interconnected, the collapse of any one of these systems might bring them all down. Forget North Korean nukes – I fear we’re one well-aimed computer virus away from the collapse of civilization as we know it.
15. Speaking of which: WHO’S BACKING THIS ?#$ UP?  I worry about what happens to all that lovely digital data if the electricity goes out.  Recently I was at a presentation by one of Nook’s designers, who happened to mention, in passing, that individual servers in server farms have a three year life span. Think about that. Servers have to be replaced every THREE years.  Which means one year of inadequate electrical supply could wipe out one third of all our bits and bytes; two years might put paid to up to two thirds of our cumulative digital wisdom, and a third year could wipe it all out entirely.  If young adult authors are to be believed, three years sans electricity isn’t even reaching when it comes to potential dystopian futures.  Just in case, I’m hoarding books and printing out my photos.
16. Speaking of which: WHO CONTROLS OUR DIGITAL CONTENT?  Even supposing our data survives a digital apocalypse, we’re still not out of the woods. I’m not talking about digital hacking, which is on everyone’s radar and thus fails to qualify for this list. I’m talking about the more nefarious forms of digital alteration, perhaps introduced under the guise of profit (“I bet we’d sell more copies of literature classics if we omit the boring chapters!”), political correctness (“Rather than risk causing any emotional distress, let’s just remove ALL the scenes that might trigger people”), or patriotism (“If we release those statistics about civilian deaths, popular support for this war might wane).  The problem with digital information is that it’s so easily modified, that modifications are so incredibly difficult to detect, and that excuses for engaging in digital modification may present as innocent, possibly even logical.  I worry that as our society moves towards digitizing every form of communication – from journals to journalism, from interpersonal communications to entertainment, from commerce to conversations – “digital alteration” may gain the power not just to alter our perception of reality, but reality itself.
17. SCIENCE FICTION: NOT JUST FOR NERDS.  I worry that we’re not paying enough attention to science fiction writers. These guys think about the future for a living, and if past experience is any guide, they often do a scarily good job of projecting potential outcomes of current technology trends.  Take Isaac Asimov, who back in the 1940s invented the 3 Laws of Robotics that still guide robotic engineering today.  (Seriously: look them up.)  Take Ray Bradbury’s short story, The Sound of Thunder, from which the Butterfly Effect derives – a precept that has come to shape the way we think about time travel into the past.  Take 1984 and compare its use of surveillance and news jargon to what exists in the world today (“alternate facts!”).  More importantly, look at predictions that have been made by these guys that haven’t yet come true but that should serve as precautionary tales if we let them: Arthur C. Clarke’s Dial F for Frankenstein, in which a telephone network gains consciousness and gradually takes over the world’s financial, transportation, and communication systems; the implicit warning of Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park against the hubris of assuming we can control nature (or, substitute the implicit warning in his Prey against the hubris of assuming we can control nanotechnology, genetic engineering, and AI); or what Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 has to say about the dangers of eliminating texts that make us feel “uncomfortable” (think trigger warnings). Science fiction isn’t just a genre, it’s a think tank of great minds devoted to predicting possible future.  That’s why smart people read it, and why more of us should probably heed it.
18. Speaking of which: ROBOT SHORTAGES. While everyone else seems to be worried about too many robots, I’m worried we won’t have nearly enough – at least not enough of the sort capable of doing the work that actually needs doing.  Every time I turn on NPR, someone’s talking about how U.S. jobs are being replaced by robotics. Don’t worry about closing the immigration tap: those unfilled jobs will replaced by robots. Don’t worry about the U.S.’s unsustainable productivity figures: robots will take over when humans can’t keep up. My question is: who’s making all these robots? Moreover, who’s making them cheaply enough that it’s going to be affordable to put them to work landscaping, doing construction, and working at McDonalds?  It’s far more likely that robots will be taking over skilled jobs, the ones that pay the good money, leaving it to us humans to perform all those manual labor jobs.
19. A MORE PERFECT UNION? I worry that in our patriotism-fueled enthusiasm to spread Democracy throughout the world, we give up looking for other forms of government that might be better.  Consider: in a democratic system, every time a majority party wins an election, there’s a whole minority party in the background feeling royally resentful. If recent politics have taught us nothing else, we’ve learned just how resentful (and destructive) those minorities can be. European countries have tried dealing with this by implementing coalition systems, but is a compromise where no one gets what they want any better than at least some people getting the government they wanted? There’s got to be a better way, and I’d like to believe someone’s still looking for it.
20. THE DEATH OF CONTEMPLATION. Finally, I worry about the death of contemplation.  The problem isn’t that we’re working longer hours; the problem is that we now have an enormous choice of entertainments with which to waste away our remaining spare hours. Remember back in the “olden days,” when people with time on their hands engaged in such past-times as strolling, gardening, reading, playing music, writing letters, doing needlework, sitting by the fire getting warm?   All these occupations had one thing in common: they left time for thinking.  For letting the mind wander where it will. For musing, examining, questioning, conjecturing, imagining, evaluating, reasoning, reflecting.  Time for allowing ideas not just to stash themselves away for later retrieval, but to wander around a bit before arriving at their ultimate destination, allowing for the creation of fanciful juxtapositions and the discovery of curious connections.  The kind of reflection that leads not just to life-long learning, but to the development of wisdom.  I worry that in our rash to gain and share knowledge, we are forgetting the importance of giving ourselves to reflect upon what we’ve learned and thereby gaining wisdom.

50+ Ethical Questions Associated with Recent Scientific Discoveries

Was recently discussing with science teacher colleagues the extent to which we have a responsibility to teach not just science, but the ethics of science.  

It's easy to agree that we all have a moral obligation not to let bias intrude upon our presentation of facts.  On the other hand, how do we talk about climate change while pretending not to editorialize about mankind's responsibility to preserve the earth for future generations? How do we talk about genetic engineering without awkwardly skirting the potential risks of interfering with the gene pool? How do we talk about stem cell research funding without stumbling into a discussion of which diseases/disorders are "highest priority"? See what I mean?

Naturally, the first thing I had to do was rush off and compile a list of ethical issues that my curriculum brushes by on its way from September to June. The following 50+ issues don't even scratch the surface, which gives you an idea of the vastness of the potential issue.  Time for us to consider mandating a course in ethics as part of the high school curriculum?

1.      Thanks to CRISPR, we can now grow "designer babies" with whatever traits we want. Should we?

2.      A scientist uses CRISPR to modify a gene that can be used to implant a desirable trait: for instance, a resistance to heart disease. They want to patent the gene and sell it like a medication. Should they be allowed to do this?

3.      Thanks to cloning, we may soon be able to clone human beings. Should we?

4.      Some parents are having babies in hopes of finding organ or marrow donors for siblings with cancer or other diseases. Should parents be able to “force” these babies to donate organs or marrow to their siblings?

5.      Using "biologicals" to cure cancer may soon become a possibility - but the technology is sure to be super-expensive. Health insurance companies would go bankrupt if they had to cover these procedures for everyone. So, who should have access?

6.      Genetic testing now makes it possible to know if a baby is going to be born with a high risk factor for a particular disease. Under what circumstances, if any, do we use this information to decide whether a baby should be “allowed” to be born?

7.      Should we allow organisms to go extinct? Under what circumstances?

8.     We have reached the point where we can use DNA to bring back to life organisms that have gone extinct. Should we?

9.      We have reached the point where we can genetically engineer new organisms - organisms that have not been tested by Darwinian forces.  Should we allow them lose upon the earth?

10.  Should health care be an essential human right?

11.   Given that there are limited research dollars to spend on research, should we spend the money on saving lives or improving quality of life?

12.  Drug companies spend millions of dollars on researching drugs that never prove marketable. Should they be allowed to “recoup” this money by charging more for drugs that do prove marketable?

13.  To what extent should we require drug companies to develop therapies for diseases that are so low-incidence (maybe only 100 cases per year), knowing that they will never be able to sell enough to make back the money they spent on research?

14.  While we've gotten better at stockpiling antidotes for major toxins, there's rarely enough for everyone. If the U.S. is hit by a plague or biological attack, who should get the antidotes? Who shouldn't?

15.   Some drugs for fatal conditions (like cancer) work so well in preliminary animal tests, patients dying of these diseases would like to be able to use them before they have a chance to be tested for safety in humans. Should we allow this?

16.  Thanks to fitbit and other medical devices, health insurance companies now have the ability to monitor your personal habits. To what extent should they be allowed to determine coverage based on decisions you make about maintaining (or not maintaining) your health?

17.   Should health companies be able to determine the rates people pay for health insurance based on their genetic probability of developing expensive health issues?

18.  We are coming close to the day when we might be able to indefinitely postpone death. Should we?

19.  Thanks to genetic engineering, it may soon become possible to "enhance" the athletic ability of athletes - for example, equip them with blood cells that hold more oxygen. Should this be allowed? Should these athletes then be allowed to compete professionally?

20. In the interests of learning more about how viruses work, scientists have the technology to create "superviruses" - strains that are immune to all known antibiotics or antidotes. Should scientists be allowed to develop these strains of superviruses and, if so, under what conditions?

21.  What responsibility (if any) do we have to preserve the earth for future generations?

22. Technologies to mitigate the impacts of climate change - such as seawalls and desalination plants - are sure to be expensive. What do we take funding away from to fund these projects?

23. Science has proven that nuclear energy is a relatively "clean" power source, in that it emits no CO2. However, it does create spent nuclear rods, which are a huge environmental danger. Also, there's always the risk that an unforeseen event will trigger a massive radiation leak. Do you switch your country from gas to nuclear?

24. Thanks to the impacts of climate change, crop and water shortages may soon drive up the cost of essential resources - food, water. How do we decide who gets what?

25.  Some island countries will disappear when sea level rise due to climate change inundates low-lying landmasses.  What happens to the citizenship and rights of the citizens of these countries?

26. Cutting a major forest will provide enough jobs and money to make a community self sustaining; however, habitat destruction will result in the extinction of several species. How do you weigh the needs of the people against the potential risks of extinction?

27.  In the Potomac River, an invasive fish (Snakehead) population is destroying the community of organisms native to the river. Scientists discover another species that feeds only on Snakeheads, and propose that we add this species to the Potomac River so they can fix the problem. Is this a good idea?

28. Large cities produce lots of light pollution. This light pollution interrupts natural sleep cycles and makes it difficult to see the stars. Should we fix light pollution? 

29. If climate change-related disasters lead to the disappearance or destruction of entire countries, then what will happen to citizens of those countries? What rights should they be granted (or not granted)?   

30. Models show that eventually Earth will reach its carrying capacity with respect to the number of humans the planet can sustain. Do we try to prevent this from happening? If so, how do we go about it?

31.  One day soon we may be able to land humans on planets where life already exists. Do we have the right to take over other worlds? Under what circumstances, if any, might we not have that right?

32. 3D virtual reality games "feel" just like the real thing. Knowing this, should we allow people to create and market super-violent video games? What about super-intoxicating pleasant experiences?

33. Scientists discover a "violence gene" - a gene that, when dominant, can trigger violent rages.  Do we put such people in jail before they commit a crime? Do we allow them to use this as a mitigating circumstance (like mental illness) in a court trial?

34. We are close to the point where we can incorporate "truth-sensing" technologies into everyday devices such as Google glasses. Should we do so?

35.  Research is continuing to reveal that animals possess more intelligence and emotional depth than we ever imagined. Should we continue to use animals in drug testing? Should we continue using them as food?

36. We're very close to "synchronicity" - the moment at which robots become sentient. When they do, should they be granted the same rights as humans enjoy?

37.  Three countries still have samples of "smallpox." Should smallpox ever be weaponized?

38. We've created nuclear weapons with the capacity to kill millions of people at once. Should we use them?

39. The day when everyone has access to self-driving cars is approaching. If someone dies in a collision, whose fault is it? How many "accidental deaths" are we willing to accept in exchange for the convenience of this technology? 

40. Hackers have figured out how to hack into medical equipment. To what extent is it justifiable, during a war, to disable the medical equipment (pacemakers, etc.) of the enemy? 

41.  Science has played a role in creating a number of non-lethal weapons systems, to include laser missiles, blinding weapons, pain rays, heat rays, disabling malodorants, etc.  Some of these may cause lasting health consequences. To what extent should we deploy these weapons in war?  

42. Sending robots (drones) into battle means sparing humans the ordeal of having to kill others with their own hands. Is this a good idea?

43. We now have medications that may be able to "soften" the horrible memories that trigger conditions like PTSD. Should we use them?

44. You're working on an amazing new technology that might cure cancer. Unfortunately, the results of your first trials have not been unambiguously positive. For this reason, your sponsors want to withdraw your funding. You're SURE your solution will work given more research. Do you "fudge" your results to keep your funding?

45.   A person of average intelligence is asked if they want to participate in a highly complicated clinical trial. The explanation of what's going to be done to them is far too scientific for them to completely understand either the benefits or risks. Do you allow them to give consent?

46. An island nation is slowly dying of starvation. You develop a technology that will allow them to survive on algae from the surrounding ocean; however, you also know that in a few years, when the algae runs out, not only will the people die, but all the organisms that relied on algae for food or dissolved oxygen will die as well. Do you implement the technology?

47.  NASA has proposed a manned mission to Mars.  Should we allow any citizens who colonize the planet to have children? If so, what nationality would they be, and what rights would they have?  

48. Soon we may be able to travel back in time. Should we try to fix mistakes that we've made in the past (like allowing the Nazis to come to power), or should we leave things the way they are/were?

49. We have recently invented particle colliders capable of creating anti-matter. Should we do this?

50. Thanks to the undoing of net neutrality, service providers can now "throttle" the bandwidth of specific websites - to include websites that compete with them, or even websites that endorse political opinions with which they disagree. To what extent should this be allowed (or controlled)?

51.  Bandwidth and spectrum are not unlimited. How do we decide who does (and doesn't) get to access these resources?

52.  Improvements in surveillance systems like Google Earth may soon make it possible to track people's movements. Should this be allowed? If so, under what circumstances?