ENDANGERED SPECIES AND HUMAN INTERVENTION

“Some people believe that society should try to save every plant and animal species, despite the expense to humans in effort, time, and financial well-being. Others believe that society need not make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered species.”

The issue in hand asks; whether or not humans should try to save endangered species, at the cost of all the time and financial efforts involved in the process? Darwin’s theory of fittest survive has clearly stated that, it is due to the course of natural selection that a species becomes extinct. However, the recent development in industrial civilization has brought in various changes in the atmospheric and ecological balance of planed. These human imposed changes further affect the delicate balance of life. Thus, it is a protocol to protect the damage caused by human intervention. Therefore, I believe it is our duty as higher beings to support the endangered species, which has reached to the "endangered" status because of humans.

Earth since its origin and formation of species, has underwent about 4 to 5 mass extinction. Some scientists believe that present chemical changes are an onset of another mass extinction. The important thing about this mass extinction is that the climatic changes have been brought by human intervention with the natural course of nature. Carbon emission, cutting down of trees, destruction of natural reserve has turned out as destruction of habitat for a large number of species. Even minute change in global temperature can rule out the existence of many species. Moreover, the in the process and selfish chores of industrialization by using up resource is directly related to destruction of habitat. However, human often neglect the fact that the destruction of species would disturb the delicate balance of environment and would ultimately rule out life.

All the species are interdependent on each other in various ways. For example, consider the interdependence in food chain. Any ecosystem is based on a food cycle that includes plants, herbivorous, carnivorous, omnivorous and microbes. Different species perform different roles in the food chain and if one step of the chain is hindered or eliminated the whole cycle will collapse. For instant, if herbivorous animal is extinct in an ecosystem, the population of plants would increase exponentially and the carnivorous animal would starve to death. Later when carnivorous species are extinct the microbes would not exist anymore. That would ultimately decline the plant population, because of lack of assistance of external pollinating agents.

Nevertheless, we know extinction and survival of species is the backbone of evolution. However, the natural course of evolution should not be affected by human intervention, as it has been in past century. Extinction of dinosaurs was a natural phenomenon but, endangered status of tigers is solely caused by destruction of habitat and global climatic changes. Had it been a natural phenomenon we might have had no concern associated and the fittest would have survived as per the natural law. Since the present day elimination of the species is not natural selection we must try to save the species of animal and plants that have reached endangered status due to human intervention, despite of the cost associated to protect natural reservoir.

However prevention is a better cure. Thus, finding ways to reduce carbon emission, controlling population and stopping habitat destruction would reduce the cost associated in long run. As far as efforts are concern, there is plenty of wastage that we do on war, tobacco and porn industries. If we consider the cost associated with it, it is worth as far as well-being and sustainability of life is concern.

Ultimately, climatic changes, destruction of forest land and pollution are the causes associated with extinction of species in present times and unfortunately they are caused by humans. Thus, to conclude human intervention with nature would unbalance the unique ecological balance and would in turn affect sustainability of humans. Hence society should try to save plant and animal that has been endangered because of human intervention, despite the expense to humans in effort, time and money for mankind’s own well-being.

WOULD YOU RISK IT?

“People should undertake risky action only after they have carefully considered its consequences.”

Can we take a blunt risk? Would not it be like playing dice! In contemporary world our actions cannot be dependent on uncalculated probability of our randomness. Therefore I strongly agree that people should undertake risky action only after they have carefully considered its consequences. A calculated risk would provide us with the extremes of the result and if we can consent the worse it is always a win-win situation.

To start with let us take an example of medical sciences. There are a number of cases where the conventional treatments cannot be performed due to unknown cause of illness. However, doctors never leave the patient unattended.  Special medical research teams work for such cases to fight with the disease, by attempts to find the cause and treatment, for the present case as well as consider the future patients. The appointed medical team takes calculative risks to an extent that would not decline the present health status of patient.

In the field of business calculated risk has most significance, while investing on any commodity a business person or entrepreneur often calculate the risk involved. Calculating and considering risk gives them a better range of expected outcome gives a better picture of the contemplated action. Thus only after considering the risk involved a better action can be taken. There are many such examples of entrepreneurs and business people such as bill gates and mark zukerrberg who took calculated risk before taking actions.

Considering risk involved is not just limited to research and business, it also has implication in politics and government. Before passing a bill or amending any law government often consider the reaction of its people. Only if the reaction subjected to welfare and peace of the general people the government takes action. History is evident that the risk taken by government without considering the consequences had created pandemonium amongst its people.

To conclude I concede with the statement “People should undertake risky action only after they have carefully considered its consequences.” It is evident that this approach is practiced in many fields from research to business. Thus, the statement is it is a better approach to undertake risky action only after they have carefully considered its consequences, it always provide us with range of outcome, If the lowest of range or the worst of outcome can be accepted the action can be undertaken.

TECHNOLOGY TIMELINE

“The luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life prevent people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals.”

The contemporary life is all about technology. These days human possess technology to make life easy. This is done by the help of the changes in the way human being employ their energy, there has been a significant shift in the monotonous manual work,  that was previously accomplished by human themself, to the machines. This development has in turn made life full of luxuries and conveniences. Thus, in my view it has not hampered people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals, it indeed have provided time to get involved in more productive tasks.

The luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life is a product of human success. The need of luxuries and conveniences raised when, most of the time of people was consumed into doing the daily chores of monotonous jobs. Let us take an example of basic conveniences of washing machines and dishwasher these machines have reduced human effort and made time available for other jobs. The time saved here can be employed to some more innovative work which better fits the lifestyle of contemporary individuals.

The issue in hand claims that the luxuries and conveniences prevent people from developing truly strong and independent individuals. However, it does not take into account that the definition of truly strong and independent individuals changes with time. In old days the alpha male was one who was physically stronger and could produce equally stronger offspring and was a desired suitor. But, over the time this has changed man with a stable job is considered as a better suitor in matrimonial prospective. Similarly, now-a-days the truly strong and independent individuals are one who works on bases of contemporary lifestyle and gain professional success.

Every technology or innovation has its pros and cons. one ideal example is nuclear power, it has the potential to fulfill entire energy needs of the word and also possess the power to destroy it. It is the way this technology is used that matters. Likewise the luxury that this contemporary life style provides can cause some serious health concerns due to lack of required physical work. However, recent development on gym and other exercise sources can take care of that all. Thus the need of physical work required on daily basis can be done in gym in a new and recreation manner!

Lastly with the conveniences and luxury contemporary life has opened new scopes for development and has made individual flexible enough to take out time for other activities to fit in contemporary life and live a healthy life.

PUBLIC OPINION

“Some people believe that in order to be effective, political leaders must yield to public opinion and abandon principle for the sake of compromise. Others believe that the most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently committed to particular principles and objectives.”

The present issue portrays two different aspects of a political leader. The first one is "Political leaders must yield to public opinion and abandon principle for the sake of compromise." and the second one claims " The most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently committed to particular principles and objectives." both the prospective are presenting opinion on an ideal leader. Leader is someone who leads people and takes society to a better level by understanding the present condition and problems and guiding a society to optimize its resource and power.

Democracy is selecting a political leader by the people on the basis of majority. People select a candidate who they relate to in aspects like political, social, moral and cultural grounds. In present times of democracy, any political leader should consider the opinion of majority while taking up any issue in hand. The basic idea of democracy is to make the member of any society more actively involved in social and political issues. As we encounter during election political parties present their opinion on certain issue, to make their party’s policies clearer. On the basis of their opinion we cast our votes, to make sure our involvement in the regime.

Since public opinion is considered by the opinion of the majority of people and majority of people, also moral and cultural principal of any particular region or societies generally the same amongst its people. In the first opinion, to be effective, political leaders must yield to public opinion and abandon principle for the sake of compromise, is putting up principle on the stalk and taking up public opinion as the up most priority of the leader. However the two (i.e. majority or public opinion and the principal of leading party) go hand in hand.  This opinion therefore, is self-contradicting. While considering any issue the opinion of the majority of people would be based on the principle that majority follows.

The second opinion, the most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently committed to particular principles and objectives, is an autocratic way of leading up a society. In democratic society the leader has to be flexible. Contemporary time is the era of democracy and any political leader must have the ability to take public opinion into consideration while taking up any issue in hand. This way the principal of the society would not be ignored.

Thus any political leader in democratic world should consider public opinion as it is the source of his power. Political leaders are elected by the public to represent them in the social and political affairs.

MEDIA SCRUTINY

In this age of intensive media coverage, it is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero.

If Napoleon Bonaparte would have been here in contemporary world he would have faced imposed scrutiny of media. Just as contemporary celebrity in business, sports, politics does. It is well evident from cases like Tiger Woods, former president and Mark Elliot Zuckerberg that these days’ people face intensive media scrutiny. Faux pas or fashion crime on red carpet, string operation or any other form of defame that evolves due to media coverage leaves a long lasting impact on our minds. With the passage of time all the quirkiness that media shows us become so called identity of the individual.

Celebrities like Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan are hardly on news for what they should be. The media coverage crosses the boundaries of their personal life and presents us the picture, which if we would not have seen we would have had a different picture of them in our minds. Media has a power to manipulate our perception, by presenting both negative and positive reports about any celebrity. However these reports often hamper the possibility of society regarding them as a hero.

Media in contemporary days has power to deteriorate or enhance the image of any individual in public eyes. Media presents coverage in order to create awe, hype or defame any individual. Anything that would attract people would help media channel to increase its TRP.  The news that has potential to attract business; it would make a way to be telecasted.  It is evident that no potential hero is spared from media scrutiny.

However, certain countries, the do not have free media. The Medias in such countries is controlled by government. Due to political reasons such nations do not get as extensive judgmental news as other nations with no such blocking. With lack of free media, news is often manipulated for sake of politics, wealthy or personal belief. Blocking media channels by government is in no way stopping public scrutiny, it is just another way of manipulating the public for certain cause.

It is evident that media can make or break public opinion, by the daily dose of arcane quirkiness of public figures or by glamour coated and scripted reality. Thus, the claim that "In this age of intensive media coverage, it is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero." stands true for most of the cases.

POINT OF VIEW

In any situation, progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view.

How would the world be, if there would be no discussion amongst the people with contrasting view? Imagine a world of no harmony, trust and mutual understanding. If we do not share our views the world would not make any progress. It is because of mutual discussion that we are living in a cultural and technically advanced society. Thus discussion amongst people with contrasting points of view is highly essential.

One of the problems faced by the physicist of late 1900 was discord in the two most popular theories of physics, quantum mechanics and gravitational physics. Physicist supported one or the other of the two theories. However, the two could not go hand in hand with one another. It was only considering the two contrasting works the contemporary physics came up with string theory.

Yet another example is the nature of light. Initially light was considered as wave. However, when further examined it was empirically seen that light was behaving as particle. Science experts held one view or the other claiming that opponent's opinion about nature of light is arcane. It was only after mutually considering both sides the scientist came up with the dual nature of light. 

In politics, all the members of any nations' political system discuss issue in hand with diligence and come up with an ideal solution. The overall capacity of a group is certainly more than that of an individual. People with different outlook can anticipate the various aspect of issue in hand. Contrasting opinion presents various pros and cons of the situation. Only discussion is a way to optimize conclusion by brainstorming of everyone’s opinion.

In judiciary many times the lack of harmony between opponents’ hamper with their capacity of mutually discussing their postulates. Such cases turn more intricate due to lack of discussion. More than offer these complicated cases takes a lot of time to untangle. However, cases where the opponents find mutual settlements by discussion cannot be solved very effectively and easily.

To conclude I believe that “progress require discussion amongst people who have contrasting point of view". It is evident from the field of law, research and government that situations, which are considered with mutual discussion amongst the people with different viewpoints, are always fruit full.

IMPEDING RESEARCH

Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development.

There are number of scientific research going on in various countries, from Large Hadron Collider to Fighting with HIV, Cancer, and other potential harms. Man has been to moon, thanks to the scientific research and development, and returned. Solved the age old mysteries and still in process or unearthing many. It is well known that restrictions hamper the process of development. Thus I strongly agree that Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development.

Scientific research is often difficult to predict. The outcome is being considered by the process of experiments. These experiments are conducted in various fields of science from physical science, chemistry and medical sciences for the welfare of human race and planet earth. Some studies are centered to unravel the mysteries of universe others are conducted to find cure for deadly diseases. To sum the scientific research are being held to sustain life on planet.

Nevertheless, government or authority restricted on scientific research and development from the very start of civilisation. Any Idea that challenged the belief was impeded by authority and disregarded. History is evident great scientist like Galileo and Charles Darwin were restricted by authority to approach radical but scientific truths. However, they were proved right by further studies. History is full of evidence when scientific research was hampered by restriction.

Although, the time has changed now people are more flexible for radical scientific ideas and we no longer live in the world where radical and noble thoughts are considered as blasphemy! Scientific research faces significantly less restriction. Even though the research and development is highly accepted it needs some ethics to be considered such as testing and experimenting on animals, conducting nuclear tests that are potentially dangerous for environment. (One such test was conducted by India in 1990's, the test resulted a success but, it jeopardized plantation and distorted environmental conditions that year) this kind on tests should be seriously restricted or asked to be done in any harmless manner.

Lastly the lack of funds is the most common drawback in the field of scientific research and development. It is an alluring way of impeding research. Thus government should consider the benefits of scientific research and development and spare the budgets for the same.

To conclude it is evident from history that scientific research and development has worked to the upliftment of human race and helped to understand and sustain our universe and planet respectively. Thus, Governments should avoid restricting scientific research and development provided that it is harmless to, the present conditions and living beings. Government should in fact bolster research. 

ENTHUSIASTIC APPROACH

“In any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions.”

The issue claims that in any field of inquiry, a beginner is more likely to make important contribution then an expert. However generalization of such a statement cannot be done.
There is no acceptable basis that takes hold of the statement. Considering the probability of the reverse, Experts making more contribution then a beginner, is more likely. As an expert is experienced and has seen many problems being untangled. However, there is no such statistics that can predict the contribution on the basis of person being a beginner or expert.

The field of inquiry or research in any endeavor requires a person to have full theoretical and practical knowledge of the concept which, comes with experience. Experience in turn has no substitute. It can only be acclaimed with constant work in the concern field for considerable time. With the passage of time and dealing with the problems related in that field one gain an insight and unravel or untangle what so ever paradox is in hand.

Let us take two contrasting example: Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg. Steve Jobs who worked for years to take apple to the present acme was an expert at his field on the other hand Mark is a beginner and attained success in short span. The presented example forfeits any generalization on contribution on the basis of expertize or beginner. However, what they both had in common was a willing and enthusiastic approach towards their endeavors.

As one grows his/her incite, his /her interest and knowledge in the more minute details of the field is increased and this in turn leads to more innovations. Thomas Edison has made a great deal of contribution in many zones of innovation .With the expertise and experience Thomas Edison having high patent on his name. Hence, to contribute in research field a consistent work and persistence is required along with a great deal of enthusiasm.

Thus to conclude; the statement that "In any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions." is irrational. Research or inquiry work needs a persistent attitude and enthusiastic approach to contribute. . As Einstein said "imagination is more important than knowledge". Likewise, who so ever possess the right attitude will be more likely to make a grand contribution.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future.

Precautions are better than cure! The issue claims that government should take care of the present time problems rather than trying to solve anticipated problems of future. However i think government should not forget about any of the problem may it be immediate or anticipated.

The problem that we face today, if neglected, becomes grander in future. In general all the anticipated future problems are somehow related to the present. The solution we chose to solve the immediate problem becomes a problem for future. Usage of nuclear weapon may solve military or war crises for that time. But, it will cause mutation in the gens of organisms of the target location in an irreversible manner.

The problems that we face today if neglected can turn even bigger problems. Considering the example of air pollution faced now a days. During the era of industrialization and auto industries’ booming phase, i.e. during late 19th century, today’s environmental crises could have been anticipated. Earth today is at an edge of global warming and if only we could have anticipated the carbon/hydrocarbon emissions while it was not in the present state of alarm. Then it could have pacified the environmental degradation. However, it is a basic human tendency to avoid problems till it reaches an alarming state. Nevertheless, anticipating a future problem and trying to avoid it, is essential criteria for sustainable development.

Sustainable development is a new way of using resources that claims to make the resource available for long run, by using it wisely. However, if we avoid this approach and try to solve all our problems on the basis of the present need of resource. We will end up with no life support in near future. For example the net population of word today is rising at an exponential rate to support such a high population we need large energy resource. If we use up all the resource to support present population the future is doomed. Hence we have to deal with today’s problem while keeping in mind the problems that might arise due to the course of act we selected for the immediate problem.

Conclusion is that the problems, present or future, should be taken into consideration as both might be interrelated. We should take care of the immediate problem and never forget to anticipate the result of our solution. Nevertheless both problems should be solved in an optimized manner so that the solution to today's problem does not become a problem tomorrow.

FIELDS OF STUDY

“Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.”

No one is born on earth with predefined set of special talents. We gradually learn whatever are interested in and with the long process of learning we gain perfection. I do not think that the educational institutions have any right to decide, if some student will be successful or not. It is like trying to predict future. Hence I disagree with the topic that it is a responsibility of an education institution to dissuade a student from pursuing fields in which they are unlikely to succeed.

An educational institute has no valid way to detect the success of a student in any field. It will be impossible to keep track on each individual student in the institute and maintain records on whether the field is fit for them or not.

Let us take an example of slow learners say, ‘dyslexic’ student. Once a school finds out that a child is dyslexic, it will be inappropriate if the school dissuade the child from perusing the studies. On the contrary the school should employ special technics to help the dyslexic child learn.

The role of an educational institute is to impart knowledge and educate to the students in the area of their interest. We did not learn walking straight away when we were young. Likewise we never master any skills straight away. Success comes with an iterative process of failing and learning from one’s own mistakes. Sometimes we win and sometimes we lose, but our defeat should not be taken as some way to anticipate our future failure.

Both victory and defeat imparts an impression on our mind and it should be left upon the student whether he/she wants to peruse the field of study or not. The role of education institute is to train the students in their selected field and teach them the key skills required to succeed in the discipline. Also if the institution finds that the student is showing no improvement then instead of dissuading the student the institute needs to give them an extra coaching to succeed.

However there might be a case of lack of “interest” in particular field of study. Such cases generally arise when the student is under parental or peer pressure to pursue the field of study. In such cases the educational institute must council the student to pursue the field of interest. (It may require the student and parents mutual counselling to find out the area of interest.)

Conclusion; the educational institute must encourage students to pursue the area of study that interests them; also they should motivate and guide the students to work harder if he/she is not doing well.

Every rock has beautiful sculpt inside it, all it needs is an artisan to cut it in right shape and bring out its beauty. Likewise every student has the same potential all he/she needs is a good teacher to bring out the perfection.