Description Philosophers of Technology have often argued that technologies are value-laden rather than being merely value-neutral. One reason for thinking so is because the act of building or making always presupposes value-judgments about what we think is worth building or making in the first place. Put another way, what we make or build often reveals what we think is worth doing: making and building reveal what we take to be a problem, and whether that problem is worth solving. In Paper 1, you wrote about how introducing new technologies into different cultures require their people to adapt or change their lifestyles, including the sphere of life we might call the political (that is, how and where they work, how they think, how they live, how they form organizations and institutions, etc.). In Paper 3, you will do the same kind of analysis but with your senior project in mind. Give an account of your own values infrastructures (see the reading by Cook) that explain your intentions behind the design of your senior project. Assume that your senior design project is going to be adopted in a country outside the US and Canada. Consider the potential for conflict at the level of differing values infrastructures between you as a designer and the adopting population as end users. In your write up, be sure to: 1. Describe what you are building for your senior project. 2. Explain: why you are making it?; how are you making it?; for whom are you making it? 3. Assume that your design will be adopted in a country outside the US and Canada. Pick one country only. 4. Give an account of your own values infrastructures that best explain your intentions behind your senior project. Consider the intentions behind your design and the intentions of your targeted end users. Can you anticipate or foresee unintentional consequences in your design? Can you foresee whether your design will be used ethically or unethically? Are there any ways you would not want your design to be used at all?