Get moving lah!
Argument points for art can be as useful as it can be beautiful
• Interior decoration of all sorts
• Furniture
• Landscape Gardening
• Architecture
• Public sculpture
• Bridges
• Cuisine and presentation
• Clothes and fashion
• Receptacles e.g. pottery
• Advertising
• Engineering
• Jewellery
• Photography that raises awareness of contemporary issues
• Could mention art as therapy
The connection between ecological conservation and the economy has been a subject of severe disputation for decades. Market analysts and policymaking committees of every vantage point seem to concur that a strong linkage prevails between environmental protection and the fiscal state; the controversy arises over the sign of the correlation coefficient. Conservationists contend that environmental protection facilitates economic growth and generate employment whereas detractors argue that environmental protection tends to be adverse towards economic development. In the latter case, environmental regulation stands accused of precipitating an extensive array of disadvantageous monetary consequences and resulting in a loss of global competitiveness. The conviction that ecological conservation gravely impairs the economy has become the centrepiece in the series of attempts of late to annul environmental legislation which aims to amend environmental quality. Concurrently, there is some significance in these animadversions of environmental policies. This essay intends to examine a diversity of claims concerning the economic costs as well as financial profits of ecological conservation. I champion for ecological conservation although it comes with several short-term sacrifices of economic returns. In the long run, the merits of ecological conservation should outweigh the fiscal loss and it is wrong to consider ecological conservation bad for the economy.
Each claims that environmental regulatory expenditure does significant economic detriment rest upon the hypothesis that the costs are substantial. After all, relatively minuscule environmental funding would not give rise to association with negative implications. However, there are numerous possible interpretations of the term “large regulatory budget”, determined by the context. One definition of the term is compliance figure that is disproportionately astronomical to lead to retrenchment, plant closures, and enervate international competitiveness. This clarification involves hefty regulatory funding approximate to the economic influence of firms. Critics chronically assert that conservation expenditure is overly substantial in a macroeconomic gist, deviating considerable state fiscal resources from productive pursuits into abiding by ecological policies. On the contrary, evaluation of states’ estimated ecological investments amounts to negligible single-digit totals respectively. Allocating two to three per cent of gross domestic product on ecological conservation is implausible to give rise to any major detrimental economic implications.
Bearing in mind the dire conditions of the ecology, environmental expenditures aggregate to a trivial amount relative to similar national priorities such as health care, education and military defence. Developed countries budget an average of 25 per cent of respective gross domestic product to protect individual health and the security of states, therefore it is pathetically meagre to invest only two to three per cent in the health of the ecosystems upon which the economy really depends. Considers surface since certain benefits such as enhanced quality of life derived from conservation efforts are non-quantifiable whereas there are perceptible tangible economic costs. Nevertheless, despite sizeable environmental protection costs, these regulations collectively yield significant counterbalancing advantages to society. In addition, characterizing these admittedly substantial funding indefinite values as a drain on the economy, siphoning off capital that could be consumed prolifically elsewhere, is off the mark. It is more accurate to infer these expenditures as the outcome of citizens’ demands for ecological quality ameliorations. Apportioning resources to meet the market for environmental regulations should not be surmised as economic inefficiency. Hence, given that ecological conservation produces considerable offsetting benefits and is publicly appealed for, the state should revise its disapproving standpoint.
As ecological conservation entails enduring efforts and financing, transitory drawbacks are to be expected in the short run. When governmental bodies embark on protection schemes in the early stages, implementation of laws and measures such as sound development and consumption of water resources, agricultural restructuring, biodiversity conservation, as well as urban forestation and landscape upgrading will lead to layoffs and plant closures. Firms, primarily pollutive and energy-intensive money guzzlers, will be displaced to countries with less binding guidelines. Furthermore, the high preliminary capital elemental to reform pollutive practices will inflate the cost of manufacture of exports hence enervating the competitiveness of local sectors in the global marketplace. For example, logging restrictions in the Pacific Northwest region in the United States has irrefutably retrenched the masses in the indigenous timber industry. However, it would be ill-advised to forgo introducing ecological conservation programmes due to several intermediate challenges. Thus, ecological conservation should be pursued despite the primary economic deficit.
Therefore, traditional economics shows that ecological conservation does not prompt irrevocable pervasive detrimental fiscal effects contrary to conventional wisdom. Nonetheless, detractors of ecological conservation raise moderately factual polemics. Pinpointing and deciphering these problem areas would be a laudable objective in ecological conservation hereafter. Administrations should repetitively scrutinize the marginal costs and benefits of ecological conservation course of actions as means to increase their net merits. There is undeniably leeway for development in ecological conservation but it is mercifully not the economic Frankenstein some would have us believe.
Some argue that everyone’s opinions are equally valuable because every human is equal and different. This is based on the ideal of the democratic process, where everyone’s opinions are given equal weight, and this collective wisdom is used to arrive at a reasonable decision or output. Such can be applied to a democratic voting process, where all citizens above a certain age are eligible to vote to decide a government, to the voting for a contestant in a talent competition, to the eyewitness identifications of a suspect, or even to simple, everyday affairs such as deciding on the place for lunch. Because every person is different and unique in their own way, and have different preferences and perspectives, they come from various viewpoints that may all be important for a certain matter at hand. For instance, a classic example that illustrates the effectiveness of collective intelligence is English statistician Sir Francis Galton’s 1907 observation of a contest in which villagers attempted to guess the weight of an ox. Although not one of the 787 estimates was correct, the average of the guessed weights was a mere one-pound short of the animal’s recorded heft. Since each person adds or contributes to the process in this own different/unique way, each opinion is of equal value and is equally considered for the enhanced, most comprehensive consensus/decision to be made.
However, in reality, while it is true that opinions are different, the accuracy of the opinion is also an important factor in deciding its value. Hence, not all opinions are equally valuable. Specifically, those given by people who are supposed to be more knowledgeable/professional, are generally considered to be more important, while those opinions by the layperson are less valued. Opinions are one’s subjective thoughts, not necessarily based on true facts or knowledge. But, if these are given by experts in a certain field, their opinions are inevitably given more weight, because they are more likely to be evidence-based, hence true and accurate. Compared to the layperson, who may not actually know much about the subject at hand, their opinion hence becomes less valuable because these may not be true or applicable to the situation. This is also one of the most common criticisms of the democratic process; when done on a large scale involving a nation or a state, should all really be considered equally to decide the government? It is only ideal if every citizen is well-informed and capable of searching and sieving for information that is accurate or true of their country, and such is made even more uncertain with the regulation and control of the media and other information sources that may only present bias views on a certain aspect. Untrue, biased, or irrelevant opinions may detrimentally affect the final decision made, so such opinions are considered less, or phased out, and hence not everybody’s opinion is of equal value.
Furthermore, in certain situations, differing opinions are, in reality, not desired. In fact, in a decision-making process, the different or conflicting views, especially if given by a minority population, may not matter as much. This is most true if the group is large, and many people are involved. Such is known as the phenomenon “groupthink”, wherein the group, participants will strive for consensus. Such will cause those with different or opposing opinions to cast away their ideas and adopt the opinion of the rest of the group. Instead of voicing their opinions, they remain quiet to keep the peace rather than disrupt the uniformity. This psychological response automatically means differing opinions are not even considered at all (as they are not said for consideration), and loses its real value in the decision-making process, even though it may have been a crucial factor. This psychological response has a physiology aspect to it as well. From the Emory University’s neuroscientist Gregory Berns, he found that when people take a stance different from the group’s, the amygdala, a small organ in the brain associated with the fear of rejection, is activated. He calls this “the pain of independence.” Hence, if individuals instinctively mimic others’ opinions and lose sight of their own, their opinion, realistically, loses all its value, and as such, not all opinions are of equal value.
Lastly, opinions are not of equal value, because in reality, every human is actually not equal. Society inherent discriminates against certain groups of people, causing their opinions to become repressed and unheard. On the other hand, if it comes from a person in power or status, such opinions may be given more weight. This factor sometimes even overrides the accuracy aspect of the opinion. This is especially true in rigid societal systems with the hierarchical or patriarchal organization. For instance, in a hierarchal system, the population is separated into classes by birth, and the lowest classes are inevitably discriminated against and ignored. In India, this is prominent with the presence of the deep-rooted caste system in their society, causing the existence of the class known as Dalits (untouchables). Even though the Dalits were also human like the rest of Indian society, they had the poorest standard of life, and were heavily discriminated against; for instance, they were not allowed to drink from the same wells, attend the same temples, or drink from the same cups in tea stalls. Now, with certain societal progression and bans against discrimination, many Dalits have improved quality of lives, and broken professional barriers, but many more are still trapped in repulsed jobs, such as disposing of dead animals and cleaning sewers. In 2017, around 90 sewer-cleaners, all Dalits, were fished out dead from India’s drains, an activist group reports. Such shows that Dalits’ needs, opinions are still not entirely met for and heard, due to long-standing discrimination and repression. As such, not everybody’s opinions are of equal value; depending on who it comes from, values are assigned accordingly.
The word failure is employed in a few ways within the education system – it may be used as a concept to reflect the academic performance of a student, to grade a physical assignment or test, and even as a spoken criticism used by teachers on underperforming students. Education’s purpose, broadly speaking, is to transfer knowledge to students, and a means to gauge the degree to which the student has gained knowledge is through these tests and assignments. The use of this term failure is important, nonetheless, as part of education – it is important as a grading standard to both students and the school, and also serves as a means for students to improve. Its eradication then loses its benefits and also creates new problems for education systems.
Opponents of the term’s use would claim that its use as a concept is unfair because there have been many instances where children have been cast aside as “failures”, though they grow up to succeed eventually. However, the concept of failure is an important one because it is an invariable constant in everyone’s lives – teaching children of it and getting them to experience it is the first step to exposing them to the real world, as one cannot hope to succeed in all their endeavours. The blow to students whenever they encounter failure increases with time because stakes increase – not only is a matter of a single assignment but also rejection from job interviews, relationships and the like. Besides, the concept of failure does not vanish merely because the word is used – rather failure is something that permeates through all things competitive. Instead of fearing the word “failure”, the grade “E” becomes the replacement for it, which covertly refers to the failure of the student in that test. Having understood that failure cannot be avoided throughout life, dealing with it head-on by introducing the concept openly to students will teach students to confront their fears, and to improve themselves to prevent another “failure”. The concept of failure is something that must be embraced by students as life’s constant, and they must learn to deal with it appropriately – education cannot seek to hide these important concepts of life from students if it is to achieve its goals of transferring knowledge.
Critics would assert that grading assignments as a “failure” deal too great an emotional blow to growing children, and teachers should refrain from using the term within the educational structure. This would purportedly cause students’ academic performance to drop instead. Despite this claim, the importance of the grade supersedes the emotional loss. the value of the term is most evident in its meaning. Assignments and tests are meant to guide the process of education because it serves as a measure of the proficiency of the student in a specific area. For instance, a biology test tests the ability of the student to synthesise information given to him about the human body, to interpret graphs, and be able to identify certain traits and symptoms. Hence, a student who is deemed a “failure” in the test has not succeeded in obtaining the skills deemed by his teachers to be important. Not only does this mean that labelling the work submitted by the student to be a “failure” is a fair decision, but it also alerts the student to his insufficiency. Thus, using “failure” to grade a piece of work is fair and beneficial.
Some would continue to argue that teachers must act as a form of encouragement for their students, and should not label their students as failures, which would cause them to be shunned. Instead, they should give encouraging grades which would instil positive attitudes. While it is true that teachers should not be careless with criticisms, most teachers are responsible with their words, and more often than not the word is meant as a tool for incentivising greater effort from students for them to attain better performances. On the other hand, the elimination of the term “failure” only generates the problem of grade inflation and decreased standards of education. To relieve themselves of the conundrum of having to give low scores, teachers would decide to reveal answers before a test, give more marks than is due, and award passing grades to even the lowest of scores. Keeping students blind to the world’s requirements is a huge problem especially in today’s hyper-connected, globalised world that requires competition with not just the local students but also those from all around the world. Hence, the forced removal of the term “failure” causes success and achievement to lose its relative meaning, and instead only fosters false hopes that will harm students in the future.
Only when we acknowledge our failure, can we identify reasons for our insufficiency and resolve these problems. Education should guide us in this direction, for failure is an inescapable situation that will exist, whether or not we use it as a word on assignments or on students’ performance in general. Its absence, however, only generates falsified confidence in students, beckoning them towards failure once they leave school. Therefore, failure should be used in education, both taught as a concept and as a remark to push students towards bettering themselves.
The First World War was supposed to be the ‘war to end war’. Just one hundred years ago, millions died in one of the deadliest conflicts in history. World War I did not bring the end of warfare. World War II had similar casualties but nothing really changed. With the rapid advancement of technology, the spread of questionable religious beliefs and growing inequalities, the world has witnessed even more bloody conflicts in the 21st century in Syria, Libya and Yemen. One must acknowledge that people and countries place self-interests first, and would result in whatever means to fight for their rights or gain dominance. It is evident that international peace and stability is unattainable in this highly interconnected world of today.
One may naively presume that with more international cooperation, wars would ease. However, some conflicts are driven by religious beliefs makes it all the harder for international peace to be attained despite cooperation in international trade. Furthermore, countries always strive to show their dominance to the world and tend to employ violence to satire their selfish interests. All countries face a constant struggle to survive and will indiscriminately threaten others to pacify national interests. Territorial disputes are the best manifestation of conflicts due to self-interests. These disputes are still prevalent today, among two or more countries in a bid to preserve their sovereignty.
The quest for international peace and stability today is also a futile once because inequalities still prevail all over the world, and marginalised groups often take to violence to fight for their rights, or are in fact victims of violence why the majority. The truth of the matter is that, when countries came to a consensus on human rights, there was much ambiguity, and thus, we currently live in a world where international peace is practically impossible because governments themselves do not exactly know what rights to grant to their people, and as a result, there are factions who feel that they are deprived of their rights. The sheer scale of inequalities in the world, from the racial discrimination in the US to the sexual discrimination in Nigeria to the vast income disparity plaguing both nascent and developed nations, conflicts are inevitable. Hence, international peace and stability is not totally attainable today.
However, the natural corollary to the aforementioned arguments would be for apologists to contend that while international peace is largely unattainable today, there is a hint of hope. This could be attributed to the fact that international cooperation has been happening at unprecedented levels, and hence countries might turn to negotiations instead of violence to settle disputes. Furthermore, the establishment of regional bodies could mean that countries will be less motivated to use force and instead settle their conflicts peacefully so that they can enjoy perennial benefits from that regional body. The notion of international peace may seem like a plausible one. However, one must also understand that some countries are only effective insofar as the countries are willing to accept aid and understand the significance of preserving peace in that region.
Nonetheless, one could still assert that with the rise in surveillance technology today, it would be easier for governments to spy on clandestine groups who are planning a war, thus making international peace possible. The Patriot Act in the US also makes it legal for the government to access electronic accounts such as email accounts of suspected terrorists. However, to presume that this could lead to the complete establishment of world peace would be highly ignorant, because terrorist groups, for example, have bases all over the world and it would be technically impossible for technology such as drones to track down these terrorists.
The notion of international peace is a multi-faceted one. There have been numerous developments over the 21st century that proved hope for a better tomorrow. However, an indubitable fact of humanity is that we are all actually myopic individuals who only want to satisfy our own needs. Furthermore, there are still countries living in a dystopia, where violence is rife. Their governments have too many issues on the plate to resolve, and so there are still factions in those societies who feel that they are deprived of rights and thus turn to violence. It is naive to believe that war may one day become a thing of the past.
Some argue that the punishment should be the purpose of the system. For the one who committed the crime, payback should be brought back to him/her via the justice system. This form of retributive punishment also marks an objective expression of abhorrence towards violations of law. The degree of punishment should be determined by the severity of the crime. For instance, petty crimes which are should involve a fine, counselling or a short 30-day jail term. While more serious crimes, which involve violent crimes like murder, rape and other aggravating crimes should incur many years or a life sentence. Punishment should clearly enforce the concrete message that crime is wrong and that criminals, who violate the law, will be brought to order. If there is no punishment, then it means there are no consequences for the wrong that has been committed. Under the causality principle, every cause has an effect, and every action should have a consequence. This should be especially true for the actions of criminals, which violate and detriment the laws or rules of society out of their own choices or decisions. Hence, punishment, being the thing that most clearly and concretely illustrates the abhorrence towards and payment or consequences of crime, should be the purpose of the justice system.
Critics may disagree with the above stand. If punishment is the purpose of the system, the only message it is sending out is that the justice system is an unforgiving one, which will ultimately lead to its own stagnation and demise. Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye will eventually make the whole world blind.” In a situation as that of a crime committed, with punishment, nobody benefits. What has happened has already happened. It is a lose-lose situation, not capable of bringing true comfort to the victims of crime, nor giving the perpetrator of the crime his/her appropriate closure. On the other hand, if there are developments towards rehabilitation, at the very least, with a forgiving mindset, the criminal is given the potential to possibly fit back into society and redeem oneself again, and that could be a possible benefit out of the entire situation. While punishment is still necessary to some extent to show that wrongdoings have consequences, but, in the end, can the criminal gain anything out of it? The practical answer is, No!
Defenders of punishment argue that punishment should be the purpose of the system, because it also has deterrent properties, and can subsequently best maintain order in society. With the presence of punishment, it prevents potential criminals from becoming actual criminals. Even for offenders are less likely to repeat their crimes again, as they become “Once bitten, twice shy”. Since prevention is better than cure, punishment, being able to prevent crime, thus best maintains law and order in society, and should be the purpose of the justice system. Specifically, with punishment, it spells out what is acceptable and unacceptable within the law, serving as the “threat” as to what will happen if the law is breached. Countries like Singapore that maintain a strict system of punishment have clearly demonstrated that punishment does help contain crime, particularly socially damaging crime like drug trafficking. Punishment should be the main purpose of justice. It is a simple and effective message.
Technology has never before played such a large role in our lives. So far, that role has mostly been positive — largely thanks to advances in technology, we have never been more prosperous, there have never been more of us, and we have never been more at peace. But the mistaken idea that technology can be relied on to solve all of our problems on its own has become more and more common thanks to these trends. The question is: will those trends continue to hold, or is it just a coincidence that technological advancement has correlated with our well-being?
The idea that technology might be more trouble than it is worth, or that it may have catastrophic consequences down the line, is nothing new. It is a widespread theme in post-apocalyptic and dystopian science fiction, genres which dominates sales both in the bookstore and at the box office. The Hunger Games, Maze Runner, Terminator and Divergent series are just a few examples from last year. It is also a favourite theme of fringe ideologies, from radical environmentalists to religious fundamentalists. But mainstream culture, despite being inundated with dystopian SciFi franchises, still sees tech as its starring protagonist. How people use their time and money shows this: they spend their limited resources on what they value most. Three of the top five most valuable companies on earth are tech companies. The majority of people spend almost their entire waking life with tech: data from last year showed that Americans use electronic media for more than 11 hours a day on average.
When almost everything you do on a daily basis involves tech, you are far more inclined to hero-worship than criticism. And since the most common sources of tech alarmism are either blockbuster franchises or paranoids toting protest signs, anxiety over tech’s role in our future can seem about as rational as worrying about aliens or magic. So the idea that tech might be doing more harm than good is easy to dismiss. Meanwhile, both because it is been advancing so quickly and because we get so much value from it in our daily lives, tech’s capacity to solve our problems can seem infinite.
Environment has been damaged by humans in a myriad of ways. Despite efforts to save the environment, it is believed the efforts are not enough to preserve the environment. This brings us to the question that if the environment can ever be saved by human efforts. The answer to the question is complex and requires an examination at multiple levels including local, national, and international efforts. Given the circumstances it seems like that saving the environment is a difficult task, however, people should not lose hope and give up on the efforts to save the environment because with collective effort environmental damage can be minimised if not completely reversed.
At an international level, there has been a constant debate about who should bear more responsibility to save the environment. There has been a constant tussle between the developed and developing nations each expecting the other to take significant steps to save the environment. The developing nations believe that the developed nations are the one who have caused most damage to the environment with rapid industrialisation. On the other hand, the developed nations believe that the developing nations should bear the responsibility because countries like China, India and Brazil are currently causing the most environmental damage and pollution. Despite this tussle both developed and developing nations are putting in joint efforts to save the environment. For example, China, a developing nation, considered to be responsible for major environmental damage has invested in clean technologies and has also committed to reduce carbon emissions. Thus, the gap between the developed and developing nations is narrowing and shows that they are committed to tackle the issue of environmental degradation with combined efforts. Thus, we should not stop our efforts in saving the environment.
Pessimists believe that saving the environment is a lost cause because economic growth and environmental conservation cannot go hand in hand. They point out the fact that if developing nations save the environment they would have to give up on economically friendly resources that cause the most damage. For example to save the environment many industries would have to reduce or prevent the use of fossil fuels, which are responsible for carbon emissions. They believe that it is not possible to protect the environment when many countries require copious amounts of energy to meet the increasing needs of growing populations and their goals of economic growth. However, their views are not completely correct because it is definitely possible to save the environment without compromising on economic growth. For example, countries like Indonesia in recent years have embraced green growth policies that place great emphasis on the value of natural resources and the environment, on the eradication of poverty through the creation of jobs, while at the same time ensuring equitable and sustainable economic growth. In developed nations like Europe, people are constantly working towards reducing the environmental damage by investing in alternative energy and people adopting environmental friendly practices. This clearly shows that the belief that economic growth and environmental conservation are mutually exclusive is false. Countries today are taking conscious efforts to save the environment and bring about change without sacrificing the economic growth and progress of the nation. Therefore, we should not give up hope in efforts to save the environment because one does not have to sacrifice economic progress in doing so.
Many believe that green technology is the solution to all the environmental problems.Green technology in the form of biofuels, solar panels and turbines though efficient are not feasible because of the high costs attached to them. Countries like Germany and the US who have invested in green technologies have not seen a significant decrease in carbon emissions. Again proving that green technologies are not enough to save the environment. However, this should not be the reason to lose hope in saving the environment. This is because there are other green practices which countries could adopt to save the environment. . An example of this can be the World Wide Fund for Nature in Australia, Fiji and New Zealand, which has introduced blockchain technology to track the migration of tuna, allowing scientific researchers an insight into global fishing, vessel traffic, and the potential effects of overfishing. Similarly countries like Canada have tried to protect the environment by investing in climate-friendly technology leading to energy efficiency and sustainable urban transportation. These small steps ensure that environmental damage does not exacerbate. Thus, we should continue to save the environment by collaboration and joint efforts.
It is difficult to save the environment when political entities are not willing to show commitment to the cause. Countries that have only economic interests in mind, cannot think beyond financial gains and political gains. As a result, politicians are not very keen to put in place policies and laws to protect the environment. An example of this can be Iraq, which is considered one of the most environmental degraded nations. The condition of land and water has severely deteriorated in Iraq due to poor governance, war, corruption and political neglect. Similarly in countries like the US, Donald Trump’s administration has been criticised for practices that are not environmentally friendly. An example of one such practice is the revision of the National Environmental Policy Act, the revised rules would allow builders of highways, pipelines, and other major infrastructure projects to no longer consider climate change when assessing their impact. Such countries lead people to believe that not much can be done to save the environment. However, there are other local political parties that are very environmentally friendly in their outlook, an example of such politicians include Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who have placed environmental advocacy at the forefront of their political agenda and have shown willingness to solve pertinent environmental issues. Similarly, in 2019 The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) party, headed by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, launched the world”s first environment friendly election campaign which measured the total carbon released to the atmosphere from all vehicles bringing politicians, security officials, and supporters to rallies will and trees were planted in every district to offset carbon emission. Such efforts prove that if there is enough political will, saving the environment becomes an achievable task. Thus, we should not stop our efforts in saving the environment.
In conclusion, while humans have been cruel in destroying the environment, they also hold the key to mitigate the effects of environmental damage. This is possible through change in mindset, implantation of environmental friendly policies and eco-friendly and sustainable practices at a local level. With combined efforts of various stakeholders the environment can be saved and one should not give up on the cause because of the obstacles.
Environment has been damaged by humans in a myriad of ways. Despite efforts to save the environment, it is believed the efforts are not enough to preserve the environment. This brings us to the question that if the environment can ever be saved by human efforts. The answer to the question is complex and requires an examination at multiple levels including local, national, and international efforts. Given the circumstances it seems like that saving the environment is a difficult task, however, people should not lose hope and give up on the efforts to save the environment because with collective effort environmental damage can be minimised if not completely reversed.
At an international level, there has been a constant debate about who should bear more responsibility to save the environment. There has been a constant tussle between the developed and developing nations each expecting the other to take significant steps to save the environment. The developing nations believe that the developed nations are the one who has caused the most damage to the environment with rapid industrialisation. On the other hand, the developed nations believe that the developing nations should bear the responsibility because countries like China, India and Brazil are currently causing the most environmental damage and pollution. Despite this tussle, both developed and developing nations are putting in joint efforts to save the environment. For example, China, a developing nation, considered to be responsible for major environmental damage has invested in clean technologies and has also committed to reducing carbon emissions. Thus, the gap between the developed and developing nations is narrowing and shows that they are committed to tackling the issue of environmental degradation with combined efforts. Thus, we should not stop our efforts in saving the environment.
Pessimists believe that saving the environment is a lost cause because economic growth and environmental conservation cannot go hand in hand. They point out the fact that if developing nations save the environment they would have to give up on economically friendly resources that cause the most damage. For example to save the environment many industries would have to reduce or prevent the use of fossil fuels, which are responsible for carbon emissions. They believe that it is not possible to protect the environment when many countries require copious amounts of energy to meet the increasing needs of growing populations and their goals of economic growth. However, their views are not completely correct because it is definitely possible to save the environment without compromising on economic growth. For example, countries like Indonesia in recent years have embraced green growth policies that place great emphasis on the value of natural resources and the environment, on the eradication of poverty through the creation of jobs, while at the same time ensuring equitable and sustainable economic growth. In developed nations like Europe, people are constantly working towards reducing environmental damage by investing in alternative energy and people adopting environmentally friendly practices. This clearly shows that the belief that economic growth and environmental conservation are mutually exclusive is false. Countries today are taking conscious efforts to save the environment and bring about change without sacrificing the economic growth and progress of the nation. Therefore, we should not give up hope in efforts to save the environment because one does not have to sacrifice economic progress in doing so.
Many believe that green technology is the solution to all the environmental problems. Green technology in the form of biofuels, solar panels and turbines through efficient are not feasible because of the high costs attached to them. Countries like Germany and the US who have invested in green technologies have not seen a significant decrease in carbon emissions. Again proving that green technologies are not enough to save the environment. However, this should not be the reason to lose hope in saving the environment. This is because there are other green practices that countries could adopt to save the environment. . An example can be the World Wide Fund for Nature in Australia, Fiji and New Zealand, which has introduced blockchain technology to track the migration of tuna, allowing scientific researchers an insight into global fishing, vessel traffic, and the potential effects of overfishing. Similarly, countries like Canada have tried to protect the environment by investing in climate-friendly technology leading to energy efficiency and sustainable urban transportation. These small steps ensure that environmental damage does not exacerbate. Thus, we should continue to save the environment through collaboration and joint efforts.
It is difficult to save the environment when political entities are not willing to show commitment to the cause. Countries that have only economic interests in mind, cannot think beyond financial gains and political gains. As a result, politicians are not very keen to put in place policies and laws to protect the environment. An example of this can be Iraq, which is considered one of the most environmentally degraded nations. The condition of land and water has severely deteriorated in Iraq due to poor governance, war, corruption and political neglect. Similarly in countries like the US, Donald Trump’s administration has been criticised for practices that are not environmentally friendly. An example of one such practice is the revision of the National Environmental Policy Act, the revised rules would allow builders of highways, pipelines, and other major infrastructure projects to no longer consider climate change when assessing their impact. Such countries lead people to believe that not much can be done to save the environment. However, there are other local political parties that are very environmentally friendly in their outlook, an example of such politicians include Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who have placed environmental advocacy at the forefront of their political agenda and have shown willingness to solve pertinent environmental issues. Similarly, in 2019 The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) party, headed by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, launched the world’s first environment-friendly election campaign which measured the total carbon released to the atmosphere from all vehicles bringing politicians, security officials, and supporters to rallies will and trees were planted in every district to offset carbon emission. Such efforts prove that if there is enough political will, saving the environment becomes an achievable task. Thus, we should not stop our efforts in saving the environment.
In conclusion, while humans have been cruel in destroying the environment, they also hold the key to mitigate the effects of environmental damage. This is possible through a change in mindset, implantation of environmentally friendly policies and eco-friendly and sustainable practices at a local level. With the combined efforts of various stakeholders, the environment can be saved and one should not give up on the cause because of the obstacles.
The conception of an education system came with the aim of equipping students with the necessary skills to fill the jobs in the economy to make the country more productive. This form of education is most efficacious when there is a fixed set of rules for those that comprise it – it guarantees an entire batch of workers able to work efficiently on the assembly line. As society develops, so has the system of education, which aims to meet society’s needs. In a world where societies are becoming increasingly meritocratic, education has become less about knowledge and more about students’ achievements and grades, compelling people to avert from “the road less taken”. As a result, education restricts one’s choices and ends up developing multiple individuals who are good at abiding by rules but lack personal voices and interests.
It is claimed by some that the education system has diversified, allowing a vast array of choices for students – we can now choose what school to attend, and what courses to take. The choices individuals make, they argue, would be reflective of the differing qualities and characteristics of each person. Theoretically, this argument may hold true, but education today is not just as simple as they suggest. Granted, it may be true that there is now a larger variety of choices for a student, but the overwhelming need to conform to expectations overcomes it. On the most basic level, students need to conform to the most basic school rules or risk punishment. For instance, a large number of schools mandate a uniform appearance – all students of the same school have to wear the clothes of the same design, and there are rules about every single part of one’s appearance. Not only is this inherently an expectation to conform, but it also conditions young minds to think that their actions will represent that of the school, so anything that catches others’ attention is deemed to be “bad”, and is frowned upon. This means that students are discouraged from taking up courses commonly associated with unsuccessful people. For example, Korean society expects its crème de la crème to study engineering or medicine in university, although that may not be everyone’s cup of tea. This is because they buy into the concept that people should practice what others before them had done because that is thought to be the “safe” route to success which guarantees a stable income.
Opponents of the thesis argue that effective teachers can instil a sense of interest in learning in their students. As a result, students will have a life-long thirst for knowledge. Despite the claim, the truth remains that the system of education today creates obstacles for teachers, which limits their ability rather than help them teach effectively. Most education systems around the world today have national exams because it is deemed necessary in order to determine the standard of the students. In the face of these inevitable examinations, teachers rush to prepare students for the multitude of questions to be tested. In such a circumstance, even a teacher who believes in developing the interests of students has no choice but to focus the bulk of his or her lesson on the curriculum to be tested. This is because the education ministry gauges the ability of teachers based on how much improvement students make in terms of grades, and focuses less on students’ holistic, all-rounded development, something that cannot be measured accurately. In Singapore’s case, parents that traditionally adopt the “kiasu” mindset fret over finding tuition classes for their children sitting for the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), GCSE “O” Levels or “A” Levels examinations, while teachers feel pressured to get as many “A”s in class as possible.
Effectively, the requirements of education as set out by the country’s government limits the ability of teachers, even good ones. Furthermore, it would be idealistic to argue that all teachers are as effective as opponents claim them to be – in many cases teachers are more focused on getting students to do well in order to get a raise in pay, as compared to trying diligently to help develop each individual student based on his or her needs and interests. Anything outside the declared curriculum is seen to be “unnecessary” or “irrelevant”. In addition to the fact that teachers are limited by the requirements of the system, the school also has to be accountable to society. Parents send their children to school with the expectation that the latter group will gain knowledge and learn some morals, and this expectation falls on the teachers and the school. Schools tend to err on the side of caution because they are paid to take care of the needs of students, so they are unwilling to take risks. However, creating a system actively promoting individual development hinges on not just the curriculum and the school rules – it comes with a large amount of risk. Encouraging individuals to find out more about themselves necessarily means that teachers do not advise students on what they should do – teachers let children develop without interference. When a system is lax, it cannot identify children who are acting abnormally and help them. As a result, if a child grows up in a poor living environment, he is likely to be negatively influenced, and this is where a hands-off system fails. It is exactly this that many schools are afraid of, compelling them to hold a tighter leash on students and forces them to conform to the rules, thereby limiting students’ ability to explore and develop their interests.
Critics would argue that individuals can spend time on their own outside of the school gates in order to develop their own passions because they are still able to choose what extracurricular activities to take up and what activities they should pick up in their free time. However, this is increasingly untrue in a world where the burden of students keeps increasing. Students of today recognise that their future choices hinge upon their grades – even with an outstanding co-curricular portfolio, it all comes to nought if they cannot manage their academic grades. This is because educational achievements are the determining factor of the nature of one’s future – when hiring employees, many corporations today look at the school the applicant attended his grades, the scholarships he received and so on. Hence, the students of today go to school not to gain new knowledge about topics they are interested in, but rather in a mad paper-chase to build up their portfolios. This generates an interest to focus more on academics, equating to a heavier workload. This results in individuals unwilling to spend time nurturing their own passions and interests – the time spent on learning a musical instrument is thought to be better spent on revising more past-year physics papers. Even if students pick up an activity that they are interested in, for example, a sport, it would take a backseat in students’ lists of priorities. When push comes to shove, most students would rather drop their sport when the national examinations approach, because the sport is unlikely to define their future lives, unlike good grades achieved in exams. Hence, even outside the school gates, students are compelled to conform to society’s expectations of them, instead of developing their own personal passions.
The idea of rules is central to all forms of education – people need rules to teach them the limits of what they can and cannot do. For instance, a person cannot be allowed to search up the steps needed to make a pipe bomb because the information can cause great harm if misused. However, as are most things in society, rules are double-edged swords. While it protects people from others, it also limits the areas of interest because people avert from testing boundaries, making them conform to what the government or society deems as “safe”. Ultimately, while some can still have that personal space to develop themselves, and indulge in their interests, education systems largely warn individuals against challenging social norms and force them to make decisions that may not be the best for every individual in society.
