You are the parent of an average scoring child, one that is more of an athlete, and has okay results at school. One day, your child comes home with another mediocre report card. Seeing this report card, you find yourself frustrated. “Why can’t my child do better?”, you think. This sudden anger motivated you to send your child to tutoring classes to boost her grades. Day after day, your child is tutored in many subjects, and you see her grades slowly improve. Thinking that tutoring is helping, you continue to send her to this tutor. However, you don’t know the full story. Are there implications for your child as she continues to grow up and mature, more important than just grades on a report card?
For schools and communities around the world, tutoring is a big issue. Industry reports show that at least 5 billion dollars are spent on tutoring classes every year. In addition, in a survey of 35 eighth grade students in Singapore, 80% of them attend tutoring classes outside of school. These statistics are especially relevant because they show that tutoring is a relatable topic for many people around the world, one that many have opinions about. On one hand, some say that tutoring helps children gain a deeper understanding of subjects taught in school, and even get ahead of the school curriculum. These people also argue that tutoring can help build confidence, and ensure success. Although this may be true, myself and others argue that although tutoring reaps benefits in the short term, in the long term, students become overly dependent on a tutor, are too focused on a grade, and lose time which could be used to develop other passions at a young age.
Firstly, attending private tutoring classes creates dependency on a tutor, which translates into a lack of problem-solving skills in the future. One example of this comes from an inter-school survey of 26 students conducted at the United World College East Campus in Singapore. Seventy percent of these students go to a tutor more frequently when they have a test coming up. This points to how students are dependent on tutors to achieve the results they want. These children are accustomed to tutors supplying them with the information to achieve high results, and by contrast do not develop problem-solving skills if they were to try and understand something themselves.
In addition, Dr. Hirsh-Pasek, a professor of psychology at Temple University, Philadelphia provides another perspective. “Enrichment tutoring may be never ending ; for instance, if your child needed help to pass a gifted test, she is likely to require help to do well in her advanced classes.” (Paton) At the college level and beyond, there is less of this support, and when children are accustomed to it at a young age, they may struggle without it. By learning to solve problems without the help of someone by their side, students develop resiliency that allows them to overcome problems later on in life.
This experience of self-teaching not only makes students less dependent on a tutor, but develops many skills that are useful in the future. Although this experience is harder, it has been proven that the process of trying to grasp a concept is invaluable to a child’s future. Osama Sajid, an undergraduate student in 2013, and writer for the Express Tribune, commented, “I do understand that such measures of self-study are difficult and students can easily get confused – or worse, distracted. There were instances when even I became unsure of whether I was on the right track or not, but this where my true learning took place.” (Sajid) This resilience developed from a young age is essential in many facets of life even outside of studying, because we all deal with adversity at some point. Inside the classroom, students are able to work hard to understand something they necessarily don’t, and outside, this could translate into knowing how to work through a problem with parents, or with friends. When handed the facts for every test, students do not learn how to face challenges that come up in their lives, including in the classroom, and feel dependent on a tutor.
On the other hand, however, many argue that without tutoring, children may not learn the concepts as well, therefore not developing a strong foundation for further learning in other grades. These critics argue that self-teaching a topic is not as beneficial as tutoring may be. This is sometimes true, however what many do not realize is that self-teaching can be a starting point, from which a child can branch off and do one-to-one tutoring if necessary. By attempting to learn something themselves, students know how to be resilient and deal with adversity, equipping them to deal with problems in the future.
In addition to increasing dependency on a tutor, having tutoring as an option can make students overly focused on a grade and lack passion for a topic. Further data from the survey conducted at UWCSEA revealed that 42% of students go to tutors to get the grade that they want. This number is relatively small, in comparison to the other reasons why people are tutored. However, with tutoring, students feel pressure to get a grade, and lose sight of actually learning a concept. A student, Ishaan Singh, describes Divesh tutoring in Singapore, “[having] challenge problems for levels 6 and 7” and “[having] previous tests”. These challenge problems are commonalities within tutoring centers that may make students very focused on just the grade, not the process of learning to achieve the grade. As a student myself, I know that when studying in this manner, simply with the grade in mind, you do lose sight of your actual goal: to learn. Ishaan provided further insight into this topic, commenting, “Self-teaching allows you to understand something, and then by result you will get the grade. With a tutoring center, there is more of a focus on the grade itself.” When using sites such as Khan Academy and other possible resources, students are less likely to feel so connected to a grade. These children may see the grade as a reward for taking time to learn and understand a concept deeply.
By limiting the emphasis on a grade, students also develop passion, curiosity and a love for learning. As Ng Chee Meng, the Singapore Education Minister commented, "We want to cultivate a generation of young people who grow up with a sense of curiosity and a love for learning... asking both the 'whys' and the 'why nots'." (Teng) By learning on their own, students are given a chance to explore, which helps them develop a passion for learning. By flipping through a book, there is a much higher chance that students feel more engaged and enjoy what they are learning. A love for a topic combined with curiosity is a deadly combination that can result in innovation and eventually enable children to make a difference in the world. Without this, children may find that they struggle to dive deeper, understand concepts and feel motivated.
By contrast, many argue that people of this generation have to be focused on grades, claiming that these results are what will ensure success in college and careers. Although this is true, as parents, we must remember the long-term consequences of our actions. What will these tutored children do when there is no grade? When constantly handed facts in a tutoring center, students are not necessarily able to follow their passion, which enables them be analytical in the future when their work may not be so straightforward.
In addition, tutoring is very time-consuming, and this takes away time that can be used to develop other talents. Initially, it seems that the tutoring is only 2 or 3 hours a week, leaving plenty of time to develop other talents outside of academics. However, according to many communities around the world, this is not true. A large majority of tutoring centers give homework. When asked about tuition homework, Adhvay Krishnan, a student at UWCSEA East, said, “Kumon gave 7 booklets for 7 days of the week. Each booklet was 4 pages.” When asked about homework at other tutoring centers, Adhvay replied, saying it is “Usually more”. In addition, only 40% of students at UWCSEA fully enjoy tutoring classes. Taken as a whole, this evidence suggests that a majority of students are spending large amounts of time that they do not enjoy on tuition classes, up to 5 or 6 hours a week. At such a young age, shouldn't they be using this time to develop other passions? When the children of this generation have the task of juggling a job and a family, they will have much less time to develop other skills. Shouldn’t we give them this chance now?
Similarly, Ng Chee Meng, Singapore Education Minister, also seems to agree. “Let's help our children make good use of their time to branch out to explore other interests and passions and to pursue what they want to do in life.” (Teng) These passions developed outside of the classroom are essential to a child’s developmental well-being as they continue to grow up and mature. When playing an instrument or a sport, for example, skills such as collaboration and creativity are developed, which are not necessarily developed in the classroom learning environment. When participating in these activities, students are able to develop as a full person, rather than just academically.
On the other hand, however, many feel that learning something on your own is more time-consuming than tutoring is. When someone is teaching you information, many agree that it is much faster than reading a book, or looking at a website. It is true that this “self-teaching” method will take more time, but there is a hidden, yet powerful advantage to self-teaching - students may enjoy it more. As mentioned before, with this sense of curiosity, there is an increased chance students are more engaged. This time spent is then well enjoyed, as opposed to when it may not be with tutoring.
All in all, tutoring is a highly debatable issue, one that strikes a chord for many people around the world. Although tutoring can be very beneficial to many people, tutoring results in long-term implications of dependency, limited time to develop other talents, and an overemphasis on grades.
As a parent, one possible step is to assess the impact of tutoring on your child, as we are all different. If it is negative, possible steps would be to only using these classes sparingly or use tutoring as a back-up. Also, students may use sites such as Khan Academy, or check out any resources from the local library to clear up any confusion. This initiative will help to develop problem-solving skills and fuel passion and curiosity that is useful later in life.
Works Cited
Krishnan, Adhvay. "Tutoring - Your Example." Telephone interview. 1 June 2016.
Paton, Graeme. "After-school Tutoring 'is like Child Abuse', Says Top Head." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 27 Dec. 2014. Web. 12 June 2016.
Sajid, Osama. "8 Hours of School and Then Tuition: Is Your Child Learning Anything?" The Express Tribune Blog RSS. N.p., 29 Oct. 2013. Web. 12 June 2016.
Singh, Ishaan. "Tutoring - Your Experience." Telephone interview. 28 May 2016.
Teng, Amelia, and Calvin Yang. "Going beyond Grades: Evolving the Singapore Education System." The Straits Times. The Straits Times, 16 Apr. 2016. Web. 12 June 2016.
Monday, June 13, 2016
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Globalization - is it helping us or hurting us?
Globalization. What is this large, complex-sounding issue about? It is the process of integration between the variety of people, governments, and companies in our world, powered by trade and the exchanges of information technology. But the key reasons globalization is so important is because it is already changing our world, and we do not yet know what the long-term effects will be. Conflicts over resources, cultures or ideas can be resolved by a unified, global system, not to mention how much it develops the economy. Even though technologies like TV, internet, and entertainment are removing cultural boundaries and promoting the ‘ideal’ ordinary citizen, it is the conflicts between different cultures and nations that could start a world war. In short, globalization could solve many of the world’s issues, like bringing developing countries out of poverty and solving these problems may be a bigger priority to keeping the diverse cultures of today.
Globalization could boost the economy, consolidate politics, and promote unity between nations. Many of the world’s issues of today are based on differences between countries’ political, environmental, and social structures. According to the Global Policy Forum, “laws, economies, and social movements are forming at the international level”. What this means is countries are increasingly forming more alliances and connections, thereby creating a unified ideal value system that citizens from all over the world agree with. Countries are also allowing more trade and opportunities across borders, exposing various cultures to different people and giving nations a clear idea of what the rest of the world is doing. What these points add up to is an increase in economic and political potential, as nations can find new and better ways of running the world together, whether through money or politics. Some believe that globalization is only helping the developed, powerful countries in the world and creating a bigger wealth divide, but what they don’t realize is this divide is also allowing developing countries to be introduced to new economies. For example, after India was freed from the British, the effects they had on India forced India to close its borders to international trade. “In 1980 India had more of its population in urban centers than China did (23% versus 20% for China). But by 2005 China had 41% in cities, where wages are higher; India’s urbanites had grown to only 29%,” says Robyn Meredith and Suzanne Hoppough from Forbes, proving how internationalism can help national and local economies, as well as provide the basis for society to develop.
Globalization is removing cultural boundaries and promoting the ‘ideal’ ordinary citizen. As globalization allows for more circulation of ideas and values, we find ourselves drawn towards the glorified Western values and beliefs, as that is what worldwide entertainment promotes. But this kind of cultural undermining is not new at all, in fact, there are traces of it dating all the way back to the Roman Empire. Many European civilizations have attempted to conquer the world, and all have had the firm belief that their way of life is the only one, the best. Of course, in today’s world, this isn’t necessarily true of the West. But it has become “an idea, a lifestyle only accessed through that brand,” as stated in No Logo by Naomi Klein. While No Logo is about globalized branding, it rings true to how we idolize Western life and therefore classify it as the goal for any citizen, family, or community. Some may argue that the exposure and openness of cultures is slowly removing the diverse set of cultures we have, as people tend to migrate towards a globalized citizen lifestyle, but what actually happens is the more people don’t understand or accept a different lifestyle, the more conflicts and hostility there is.
Globalization could either help us or hurt us, depending on how we use it. While some may argue that globalization would hurt rather than help countries, what actually happens is it gives room to boost their GDP, resources, and spread a unified world. Our species is developing more and more technology, as well as spreading science and knowledge throughout the world. We may lose our cultural diversity, but that might as well be the price we have to pay for the spread of technology and information, for globalization.
Meredith, Robyn, and Suzanne Hoppough. "Why Globalization Is Good." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 30 Mar. 2007. Web. 12 June 2016.
Gemma, Will. "Impact Of Globalization: The Good, The Bad, The Inevitable." Udemy. Udemy Inc., 7 May 20114. Web. 9 June 2016.
Mishra, Pankaj. "The Dead End of Globalisation Looms before Our Youth | Pankaj Mishra." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 25 Aug. 2011. Web. 12 June 2016.
VEGANna take over the world
You’re waking up in the morning on an average school day. You head towards the kitchen grabbing your breakfast, skim milk and lucky charms, yum. What if I told you that the colored marshmallows in your lucky charms are made of leftover animal bones, skin, cartilage, beaver anal glands and even coal tar. Or your skim milk contains an unsettling amount of cow pus and bacteria, really appetizing, right? Our planet is dying, 40% of Americans are obese, nine billion chickens are being killed in the US every year and we are spending fives times more than our defense budget on healthcare. If only there was one simple way we could solve all of these world issues. Well, I’m here to tell you that in fact, there is a way. Eating a plant-based vegan diet is able to save the planet, save our health and save our animals by drastically decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, saving water, not clogging our arteries with cholesterol, decrease chances of heart disease and not having to kill innocent beings to consume at our dinner table.
Do you know where 51% of green house gas emission comes from? Not cars, not burning of fossil fuels, but animal farts and manure. Surprisingly, cows produce methane in their digestive cycle. Methane is thirty times more powerful than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere. Methane is also found in chicken and pig manure. Although there are many ways to control this methane such as changing the feed or even killing the bacteria inside the stomach, this would demand even more chemicals in the animal’s body. The real solution is to switch to the vegan lifestyle. 150 acres of the amazon forest is getting cut down every minute of the day! 90% of that is to either plant food for livestock and cattle or to place more animals there. A substantial amount of water is required for cows. In fact, one is able to drink up to 250 litres of water a day living in a warm environment. You might be thinking, what can one person become vegan actually achieve? Well, every day on a vegan lifestyle you save 1100 gallons of water, 45 pounds of grain, 30 square feet of forested land, 20 pounds of carbon dioxide and 1 animals life.
Despite the countless benefits of a vegan lifestyle, only 7% of US citizens are vegan. Adopting the vegan lifestyle may still be out of the question for you as you’re probably concerned about protein. Unprocessed Plant-based foods are all low in calories, and all contain protein. It isn’t possible to be protein deficient without being calorie deficient. Another downside to consuming animal products is that they are very high in fat which leads to 40% of American adults and 1 out of 5 American children being obese. Cholesterol levels are higher than ever, Heart disease is at its best. Every human and animal have a cholesterol lining their veins. Dietary cholesterol is unnecessary and only found in animal products. A vegan blood test is 100% healthy and not deficient in most cases.
Let me blow your mind, we are herbivores. Our physiological features match those of a herbivore. It’s very important for a given animal to eat what they are physiologically and anatomically designed to eat, to improve the chances of survival and health. By connecting the dots, you notice that a vegan lifestyle is what you need to adopt in order to have optimal health. Over 9 billion chickens are killed for food in the US only, some people refer to this as "animal holocaust". The USDA doesn't have a definition for "free-range". Animals are living creatures too and should be able to live their lives. Milk is for baby calfs to double their weight in 6 months, today most calfs don't even taste the milk of their mothers as they're separated at birth.
Sexism Rooted in Religion and in Society Today
It may be true that society has changed so much over the years and have benefitted everyone. But has it really? People have gotten discriminated against harshly in the past. Most of them women. This may be because of the gender norms and religion beliefs from the past that have over time, modified the way we see different genders. It has affected how different occupations treat women in economic and social ways, and how the media portrays women in society. Religion and gender stereotypes of the past have negatively influenced the sexist behavior (gender inequity) in society today.
Religion may be one of the root causes to gender stereotypes and profiling. In many religions, women have less of a job and men are more powerful. “The religions themselves practice overt discrimination against women within their own institutions. They are run by men for men.” (The roots of sexism in religion) For example, in Christianity, many leadership roles such as the pope, bishops, priests etc are only allowed to be run by men. This shows that already in the past, there weren’t that many women figures. In some other religions, women were just seen as objects that were used for sex or chores. Another example, in the Islamic religion, women are meant to be feminine figures and men masculine. Although this may be sometimes true in the physical sense, that doesn’t mean that all women should be seen in this way. Not everyone has the same idea on how women should be perceived. This is one of the reasons why there are stereotypes that follow this belief.
Stereotypes rooted from religious and social norms of the past have made it harder for men and women to be equal in economic and social terms today. Women have been idealised to do jobs with ‘less brain power’ and more caring, ‘easy’ jobs. Who’s to say that men can’t do them either? Even when men and women have the same job, they still get treated unfairly. “The median earnings of men with full-time, year-round jobs were $50,033 last year, [2013] compared to $39,157 for comparable women.” (The Wall Street Journal, 2013) That’s about a $10,000 difference. Referring back to the earlier point, this may be because men were/are viewed as more powerful therefore sometimes getting paid better.
Sexism has been going on for as long as we can remember. Another example of a time where sexism was a common occurrence was in Salem, Massachusetts in the early 1690s. This was the time of the Salem Witch Trials. Many young women were being accused of harnessing witchcraft and many of them were hanged, even if they were innocent. “ If well-respected men observed the young accusers and reported that their fits were real, then the court would be heeding not just a girl, but an established man.” (Witch-Hunt: Mysteries of the Salem Witch Trials, Marc Aronson) Society chooses to see the good and bad in people. Sometimes they choose to see the good or bad in certain people. Back then, they chose to see the greatness in men and women were just in the shadows. In the quote above, it says
Men and women are being portrayed differently in the media giving society false ideas. The media’s job is to manipulate people’s brains into thinking that they want or need something. For a long time, they have been using people to sell their product or services but in different ways. “I guess the sexism kind of morphed, it didn’t go away or necessarily get better.” (Buzzfeedyellow, 2015) Women usually get exploited to get men’s attention. You may be familiar with the saying “sex sells”. The media certainly believe so and so must the viewers because now there is more of a demand for ads of this genre because companies keep producing them.
The ad to the left is from the 1950s and shows a woman serving a man. The caption reads “Show her it’s a man’s world” This is saying that men are dominating in the world and women are just servants to the men. The ad on the right shows a male and a female advertising the same shirt. The man is casually wearing the shirt but the woman is sexualising it. The object of the ad was to show that the shirt can be worn by men and women but it looks as though both ads are directed to get men’s attention. The media is using people to meet the sexual craving to sell their products and women don't deserve to be treated as an object.
People who practice religion may believe that stereotypes have many other possible roots and that there is nothing to be done about it. It’s understood that people have different opinions on the subject but because of the beliefs of religion and the stereotypes that have formed because of it, sexism is still a problem in society today. Women (and sometimes men as well) are being taken advantage of in media, in economic terms and just in general and it needs to be stopped.
The Issue With Consumerism And The Linear System
Around the world people are constantly consuming and manufacturing products with one thing in mind, money. We are taught from a young age that being different and innovative will make us successful, and although some may disagree most of us thrive for success in order to achieve wealth and to be at the top of the system. Yet what value would money have when we run out of resources? Our resources rule the world, they allow capitalism to work. Many do not realise we are extremely dependant on our resources and that we're constantly taking them for granted. This has caused the capitalist market society to today become a linear system that manipulates the middle class and millennials, is not obligated to end poverty, does not benefit the middle class and is not bound to work forever.
We’ve all probably experienced receiving an email about sale or offer in the mail that just seems perfect for your needs, or maybe you have been drawn into a shop by a big sign saying “SALE’. Whether it is through social media, sale signs, newspapers, emails, the post and most of our entertainment, we are constantly under manipulation by major and minor companies who want us to endorse in their product. A decade ago, Target begun “Pattern analysis to explain human behaviour”. This allows them to create a consumerism cycle that they can keep on adding too and is never ending. Charles Duhigg explains in ‘Habits’, “Every year, millions of shoppers walked into Targets 1,147 stores and handed over terabytes of information about themselves. They used their customer loyalty cards, redeemed coupons they had received in the mail, or used a credit card, unaware that target could link their purchases to an individualized demographic profile”. Target hired people to analyze data on their consumers so they knew exactly what news and offers to send to them to draw them back into their shops. This is a method used by many associations today, and although some may find this convenient, this cycle also motivates us to purchase more than we need only to benefit the higher class while exploiting the lower class. This is just one form of manipulation, there is a whole other world on the internet with a system set to manipulate millennials.
Millennials are at their spending peak, they rely on reviews and research to find out what products to endorse in. Millennials review and recommend products over social media. What they endorse in is majorly impacted by social media influencers. These people are celebrities who are role models for many millennials and teenagers. 18-year-old internet sensation Essena O’Neill had been making thousands of dollars secretly, modeling on Instagram and sharing her pictures with 580,000 followers. On one of her instagram posts she writes “I know of many online brands that pay up to $2000 per post. This photo had no substance, it was not of ethical manufacturing. Be aware of what people promote, ask yourself, what’s their intention behind their photo”. This form of unethical target marketing lets companies focus on a target market that can be easily influenced and manipulated. 93% of marketers use social media for business and 70% of marketers have used facebook to successfully gain new customers. The companies and the social influencers benefit from this, while we are manipulated to believe that social media is a platform created for us to use for entertainment while it has turned into just another way for major businesses to manipulate us. This also occurs in holidays such as christmas (70% from a survey by mccrindle research think christmas has become too commercial) or valentine's day and even birthdays. Crucial things that make us human are manipulated for one ‘important’ reason, money.
Why is it that money has today become the most valuable resource of all? Is there a price to how much our lives are worth or how much our environment or whole ecosystem is worth? In a documentary by curiosity it is mentioned that “The core indicator of a country's health is the GDP, it’s the total market value of goods and services produced in a single year. Social impact is not considered, the environment is not relevant, the health, happiness and fulfillment of its citizens does’nt matter. Financial metrics are all that count”. This is relevant because the fact that money has become such an important thing to people around the world is extremely depressing. The fact that the core indicator of a country’s health is the GDP is bitter as it should matter more if we are healthy, happy, living well yet still playing our part in society. At the end of the day we are human, and although we have progressed through innovation and medication, what makes us human today is a lot less meaningful than what made us human in the past.
Imagine everyone else in the world had a million dollars, including you. At first you may think, ‘yes, equality and yay we are all rich. Unfortunately, with our capitalist system in place this would simply not work. Who would be doing the unpleasant labour the lower class are currently doing, no one would want to do this, as everyone has money now. Therefore, no one would be manufacturing products for you to buy, including things essential for people to live. The capitalist market society is not obligated to end poverty, yet we still have a great deal of charities in place and fight for equality, while we do not realise that companies we endorse in are exploiting the lower class. Mark Trotzuk (boardroom of eco apparel) says quote “When you go and manufacture something and you import it, they add in a duty rate. In countries like Bangladesh there is no duty rate, because of that you can save a lot of money, so what companies do is manufacture in a lot of these countries”. The major companies exploit the lower classes and their countries into bad and cheap labour conditions all in order to save money and manufacture as quickly as possible. So not only is the lower class exploited off, most of them are also fastened in poverty for as long as the system will exist.
Not only are we unaware that we are manipulated by almost all major and minor companies, we are also unaware that there are laws in the market established that is rather harmful to us. Ever wonder how it is that the ice cream cone from mcdonalds only costs 80 cents? The answer is simply the caveat emptor. The standard of the caveat emptor is part of all purchase transactions. Under this idea, a businesses’ only responsibility is to provide a product or service at a fair price. It is the responsibility of the consumer to research products and look out for their own interests. Due to the caveat emptor companies like mcdonald's are able to sell such awful and unhealthy foods if they sell it for a cheap price, no matter how poor the quality is. So next time you enjoy some $4 chicken mcnuggets, ask yourself what they must contain in order to be so cheap.
The capitalist market society has today become a linear system. This linear system is made up of consumerism and manufacturing. The system begins with a design, then resources are used to manufacture the product, then we endorse in the product, after a while we throw away the product and endorse in something new and because the product was not recyclable it becomes waste. This linear system is not bound to work forever as eventually we will run out of resources to manufacture with. The term ‘sustainable society’ is becoming more and more attractive to people. The simplified Brundtland definition of a sustainable society is “A sustainable society is a society that meets the needs of the present generation, that does not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In which each human being has the opportunity to itself in freedom within a well-balanced society and in harmony with its surroundings”. Although some may argue that the current system allows easy innovation with the use of unsustainable resources, a sustainable society would still allow the intended effects of capitalism to work such as innovation and the market society, this is supported by the 1997 Coomer definition on sustainable societies, “The sustainable society is one that lives within the self-perpetuating limits of its environment. That society is not a “no growth” society. It is rather, a society that recognizes the limits of growth [and] looks for alternative ways of growing”. The only thing stopping us from transforming into a sustainable society is the load of time it will take to make the change and the upper class not being ready to give up their extreme wealth, therefore we must demand for change.
As consumers we play a crucial role in allowing the capitalist system to work. Most of us want our products fast, whatever the quality, we do not acknowledge or are not aware of the consequences. While we should not aim to end and wipe out capitalism, we should end the linear system. We begin by demanding for sustainable products and manufacturing in order to save our ecosystem and improve billions of lives around the world. Many may fear that if they take the risk of becoming a sustainable individual they lose their chance for success. However we do not have to diminish or stop our progression and if we do not create a sustainable crib to crib system the beautiful and capable human kind will not be on this earth for a countless amount of years. A sustainable community will benefit us by allowing us to live life to the fullest and enjoy our short time on earth. It will take a very long time nevertheless, we can transform the capitalist linear society into a sustainable capitalist system that is not manipulative, is obligated to end poverty, benefits every social class, the environment and i bound to work for ever.
Around the world people are constantly consuming and manufacturing products with one thing in mind, money. We are taught from a young age that being different and innovative will make us successful, and although some may disagree most of us thrive for success in order to achieve wealth and to be at the top of the system. Yet what value would money have when we run out of resources? Our resources rule the world, they allow capitalism to work. Many do not realise we are extremely dependant on our resources and that we're constantly taking them for granted. This has caused the capitalist market society to today become a linear system that manipulates the middle class and millennials, is not obligated to end poverty, does not benefit the middle class and is not bound to work forever.
We’ve all probably experienced receiving an email about sale or offer in the mail that just seems perfect for your needs, or maybe you have been drawn into a shop by a big sign saying “SALE’. Whether it is through social media, sale signs, newspapers, emails, the post and most of our entertainment, we are constantly under manipulation by major and minor companies who want us to endorse in their product. A decade ago, Target begun “Pattern analysis to explain human behaviour”. This allows them to create a consumerism cycle that they can keep on adding too and is never ending. Charles Duhigg explains in ‘Habits’, “Every year, millions of shoppers walked into Targets 1,147 stores and handed over terabytes of information about themselves. They used their customer loyalty cards, redeemed coupons they had received in the mail, or used a credit card, unaware that target could link their purchases to an individualized demographic profile”. Target hired people to analyze data on their consumers so they knew exactly what news and offers to send to them to draw them back into their shops. This is a method used by many associations today, and although some may find this convenient, this cycle also motivates us to purchase more than we need only to benefit the higher class while exploiting the lower class. This is just one form of manipulation, there is a whole other world on the internet with a system set to manipulate millennials.
Millennials are at their spending peak, they rely on reviews and research to find out what products to endorse in. Millennials review and recommend products over social media. What they endorse in is majorly impacted by social media influencers. These people are celebrities who are role models for many millennials and teenagers. 18-year-old internet sensation Essena O’Neill had been making thousands of dollars secretly, modeling on Instagram and sharing her pictures with 580,000 followers. On one of her instagram posts she writes “I know of many online brands that pay up to $2000 per post. This photo had no substance, it was not of ethical manufacturing. Be aware of what people promote, ask yourself, what’s their intention behind their photo”. This form of unethical target marketing lets companies focus on a target market that can be easily influenced and manipulated. 93% of marketers use social media for business and 70% of marketers have used facebook to successfully gain new customers. The companies and the social influencers benefit from this, while we are manipulated to believe that social media is a platform created for us to use for entertainment while it has turned into just another way for major businesses to manipulate us. This also occurs in holidays such as christmas (70% from a survey by mccrindle research think christmas has become too commercial) or valentine's day and even birthdays. Crucial things that make us human are manipulated for one ‘important’ reason, money.
Why is it that money has today become the most valuable resource of all? Is there a price to how much our lives are worth or how much our environment or whole ecosystem is worth? In a documentary by curiosity it is mentioned that “The core indicator of a country's health is the GDP, it’s the total market value of goods and services produced in a single year. Social impact is not considered, the environment is not relevant, the health, happiness and fulfillment of its citizens does’nt matter. Financial metrics are all that count”. This is relevant because the fact that money has become such an important thing to people around the world is extremely depressing. The fact that the core indicator of a country’s health is the GDP is bitter as it should matter more if we are healthy, happy, living well yet still playing our part in society. At the end of the day we are human, and although we have progressed through innovation and medication, what makes us human today is a lot less meaningful than what made us human in the past.
Imagine everyone else in the world had a million dollars, including you. At first you may think, ‘yes, equality and yay we are all rich. Unfortunately, with our capitalist system in place this would simply not work. Who would be doing the unpleasant labour the lower class are currently doing, no one would want to do this, as everyone has money now. Therefore, no one would be manufacturing products for you to buy, including things essential for people to live. The capitalist market society is not obligated to end poverty, yet we still have a great deal of charities in place and fight for equality, while we do not realise that companies we endorse in are exploiting the lower class. Mark Trotzuk (boardroom of eco apparel) says quote “When you go and manufacture something and you import it, they add in a duty rate. In countries like Bangladesh there is no duty rate, because of that you can save a lot of money, so what companies do is manufacture in a lot of these countries”. The major companies exploit the lower classes and their countries into bad and cheap labour conditions all in order to save money and manufacture as quickly as possible. So not only is the lower class exploited off, most of them are also fastened in poverty for as long as the system will exist.
Not only are we unaware that we are manipulated by almost all major and minor companies, we are also unaware that there are laws in the market established that is rather harmful to us. Ever wonder how it is that the ice cream cone from mcdonalds only costs 80 cents? The answer is simply the caveat emptor. The standard of the caveat emptor is part of all purchase transactions. Under this idea, a businesses’ only responsibility is to provide a product or service at a fair price. It is the responsibility of the consumer to research products and look out for their own interests. Due to the caveat emptor companies like mcdonald's are able to sell such awful and unhealthy foods if they sell it for a cheap price, no matter how poor the quality is. So next time you enjoy some $4 chicken mcnuggets, ask yourself what they must contain in order to be so cheap.
The capitalist market society has today become a linear system. This linear system is made up of consumerism and manufacturing. The system begins with a design, then resources are used to manufacture the product, then we endorse in the product, after a while we throw away the product and endorse in something new and because the product was not recyclable it becomes waste. This linear system is not bound to work forever as eventually we will run out of resources to manufacture with. The term ‘sustainable society’ is becoming more and more attractive to people. The simplified Brundtland definition of a sustainable society is “A sustainable society is a society that meets the needs of the present generation, that does not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In which each human being has the opportunity to itself in freedom within a well-balanced society and in harmony with its surroundings”. Although some may argue that the current system allows easy innovation with the use of unsustainable resources, a sustainable society would still allow the intended effects of capitalism to work such as innovation and the market society, this is supported by the 1997 Coomer definition on sustainable societies, “The sustainable society is one that lives within the self-perpetuating limits of its environment. That society is not a “no growth” society. It is rather, a society that recognizes the limits of growth [and] looks for alternative ways of growing”. The only thing stopping us from transforming into a sustainable society is the load of time it will take to make the change and the upper class not being ready to give up their extreme wealth, therefore we must demand for change.
As consumers we play a crucial role in allowing the capitalist system to work. Most of us want our products fast, whatever the quality, we do not acknowledge or are not aware of the consequences. While we should not aim to end and wipe out capitalism, we should end the linear system. We begin by demanding for sustainable products and manufacturing in order to save our ecosystem and improve billions of lives around the world. Many may fear that if they take the risk of becoming a sustainable individual they lose their chance for success. However we do not have to diminish or stop our progression and if we do not create a sustainable crib to crib system the beautiful and capable human kind will not be on this earth for a countless amount of years. A sustainable community will benefit us by allowing us to live life to the fullest and enjoy our short time on earth. It will take a very long time nevertheless, we can transform the capitalist linear society into a sustainable capitalist system that is not manipulative, is obligated to end poverty, benefits every social class, the environment and i bound to work for ever.
RELIGION VS SCIENCE, WHAT'S THE TRUTH?
Ever since science and religion started drifting away, both have been trying to subsume each other. Many people believe in either religion or science, and firmly. Between these two extremes there are still a few who are both scientific and religious, but don’t know whether a bridge can ever cross the divide. Most theists use God as an idol for them, a divine being who knows the answers to everything and can solve all the world's problems, or maybe even create some. But does God really know everything? Can He solve all our problems? Maybe he can, but in this moment of time we have no idea where God is, where he resides or even his physical features. Although there are various holy scriptures describing him in much detail, we can’t merely trust them and they may just be some man made nonsense. In
The start of the universe, a time when all organisms started their journey of evolution has been debated heavily amongst religion and science. This dispute is more intriguing because even science can almost never know how the universe was created and can just go as far as to find various compelling pieces of evidence. A few religions, such as
“Matthew 7:7, Ask, and it will be given to you.” God claims that whatever prayer you say to Him will come true that’s also the main reason why people pray. To put this in context say you have a test coming up and you’re stressed out, many would take God’s name so that he will make all your wishes come true and help you do well on this test. But is that always the case? The answer is no. If something does go well after reciting any sort of prayer it could merely be a coincidence or just an incident of good luck. It could be reasonably contended that God only listens and answers prayers that are of good intention and that will help for the better, but then why would God claim to answer every prayer. Many scientists and historians have also found that various holy scriptures may just be man made books that ordinary people have created, and definitely not a divine being. According to The Daily Squib, religious texts are just “man-made nonsense.” Their findings lead to the conclusion that it is odd that almost all religions created their writings in a very limited period of human history.
Religion is also seen to be the main cause
But religion can be beneficial for us too. Prayer is seen to be healing to the soul and even cure illness’. A study was conducted by a team from the Indiana University who believes there is more to this. They found a case regarding an elderly woman, “who could not see a person's hand when they held two fingers up in front of her face from a foot away.” She was cured after a well wisher placed their hands on her forehead and recited some prayers. In less than a
As a species who are complex, we must take into consideration the consequences that may be if we don’t understand both sides of the situation, science and religion. Even though it isn’t wrong to think religion may have some truth to it, we must take into account that science has more substantial practical application. Science has also proved religion to be inaccurate in quite a few circumstances.
**I'm not completely finished
Our Society and Slavery
In the First World, we think of slavery as dead. Over. Gone. We think of it as an historic aberration, a blemish on the past, but certainly not something that still exists in modern times. Yet over 27 million people are still enslaved today, and that number isn’t decreasing. Slavery is not dead at all, we just don’t notice it, and our failure to acknowledge its existence,it allows it to continue unchecked. To truly abolish slavery we must take down a system that is already in place, and has been in existence for thousands of years. Slavery is deeply ingrained into many sections of society, and to eradicate it we must change society.
The most challenging part of stopping slavery is giving up our reliance on it. Unseen slavery powers many parts of the world economy, and so we all rely upon it, knowingly or unknowingly. The list of major companies that use slave labor is long, and shockingly includes many iconic brands such as Nike, Apple and Disney. The fact that we in the First World allow anyone, especially such high profile, successful companies, to get away with exploiting people is truly atrocious and shameful, and most of us are shocked to learn about it. So how does it come about? What is modern slavery?
Slavery relies on systems of bondage, discrimination and exploitation that have been in place for thousands of years and have continued to grow and evolve throughout history. Modern slavery is also fueled by globalisation. The movement of people, money, and information throughout the world, and the spread of production, supply, and distribution chains has allowed modern slavery to grow, and enabled it to stay out of the grasp of authorities. Of course Nike, Apple and Disney don’t directly enslave people, but their suppliers do, which makes them, the companies and us, their customers, ultimately responsible for the exploitation of slave labor.
Modern slavery exists in many forms, the most common of which is debt bondage. Debt bondage occurs when people are encouraged to borrow money, often on the promise of a better job, or a better life elsewhere. The debt they are subsequently forced to pay back is massively inflated by interest and other charges, so these people end up working for years with no reward, in short as slaves. Sexual slavery, where people, usually women and children, are forced to work in the sex industry is also flourishing in modern times. As is domestic servitude, where the normal and legal practice of live in help is used to cover the exploitation and control of another person, and contract slavery, where people are deceived into slavery by a false employment contract. So you can see that while the traditional chattel slavery, where a person is legally owned by another, may be virtually extinct, slavery itself is alive and well.
How is it that this abhorrent and illegal practice is so widespread today? Put simply, it is because we aren’t doing enough to stop it. Kevin Bales, president of Free The Slaves, says that the fact slavery is still thriving comes down principally to ignorance about the institution and lack of resources directed at eradicating it. This is particularly true in first world countries where we are often not aware that slavery is not exclusively a thirld world problem. Many people in first world countries believe that slavery is nothing to do with them and that they are powerless to prevent it. Nothing could be further from the truth. We all benefit from the slave trade, only the slaves themselves do not.
Slavery may be illegal in every country in the world, but that does not mean it doesn’t exist. Between 14,000 and 17,500 people are trafficked into the United States each year. Most are forced into the sex trade, domestic servitude, or agricultural labor. At any one time, between 52,000 and 87,000 are in bondage. We don’t notice these people because we don’t realise what they are, we simply don’t perceive them as slaves. David Batstone, the author of ‘Not For Sale’ describes how he had, unknowingly, been dining at a restaurant staffed by slaves. “That’s the paradox: slavery is in reality not invisible, Except in rare circumstances, slaves toil in the public eye. The truth is that we do not expect to find it in “respectable” settings.” he writes.
We may prefer to think of slavery as a thing of the past, but in doing so we turn a blind eye to the crime of slave trading and we fail to acknowledge the suffering of the slave. David Batstone also writes that
“Many people bristle to hear the word slavery used to describe the modern practice of exploitation. Deeply ingrained in the collective psyche of Western culture is the notion that slavery ended in the nineteenth century. It is not unusual to read a newspaper account of “slavelike conditions” in a copper mine in, say, Bolivia. The laborers were kidnapped, coerced to work without pay and prohibited from leaving the mine. So why would the writer ferfer to the laborer’s conditions as “slavelike”? Because the writer buys into the cultural myth that “real slavery” was vanquished long ago.”
If we continue to deny the suffering of these millions of people, nothing will change.
Slavery will only be eradicated if we all take responsibility for its existence. All sections of society must acknowledge their reliance on slavery and take active steps to cease this unhealthy dependency. It is no good pleading ignorance and shifting the blame onto others. We must all stand up to be counted and reject slavery in its entirety. We must boycott products and services produced by slave labour, even if this means paying higher prices. We must lobby our governments to enforce anti slavery legislation, to end human trafficking and to help other nations tackle the endemic poverty, corruption and violence which allows slavery to flourish. We must provide better opportunities for those at risk of exploitation and we must work to overturn cultural norms which encourage and condone the exploitation of others. Slavery is a scourge on humanity and it is the responsibility of all humankind to work towards its abolition.
Discrimination or Defence?
Most people use flight, as an easy, fast, form of transport. Whether it be for business trips, vacations, visiting family, the enjoyment of travelling, as an occupation or for religious reasons. In fact, according to the IATA, The International Air Transport Association, “8 million people globally fly on airplanes every day. ” Unfortunately, on aeroplane flights today, there is still the contingency of a terrorist attack. Terrorist attacks are still prevalent, leading to some questioning if airport profiling could be used as an effective and efficient tool in identifying suicide bombers in airports, therefore lowering the risk of a potential terrorist attack. Does airport profiling violate the rights that everyone should be seen with equal respect, and that we shouldn’t accuse without personal evidence proving them guilty? Or are we threatening the lives of others safety without airport profiling, letting possible suspects breeze through security. Airport profiling is an useful tool to prevent terrorist attacks based by the given statistics and terrorist profile, however, it does not have a place in our daily lives and should be a form of defence not discrimination. Airport profiling should be used because it is efficient, cost effective and is more reliable than without.
Airport profiling is when security look more closely at certain people based on their religion, ethnic group, race, behaviour, age, gender, and background to spot if they fit the terrorist profile. Looking at the statistics from the U.S Department of State, “in 2013, a total of 9,707 terrorist attacks occurred worldwide.” ‘According to the U.S Department of State National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism’, “out of ten of the highest perpetrator groups with the most attacks worldwide, 7 were muslim groups, the highest being the Taliban with a total of 641 attacks in 2013.” A clear trend from these statistics shows vast majority of terrorists have been recorded to trace from the middle east, a likelihood of males with ages fitting from eighteen to thirty five, originating from a predominantly muslim country. Therefore it is common sense to check somebody who fits the terrorist profile more closely. It is fair to say that “most muslims are not terrorists,” however, “most terrorists are muslim.” Some argue that airport profiling violates human rights, and it is discrimination to suspect some people more closely based on how well they fit the profile. However, it should be highlighted that airport profiling is not due to race, ethnic or religious biases, or any other factor, but is based on the supporting statistics.
Since many disagree with airport profiling and feel that it “is a form of inequality,” the importance for airport profiling should be emphasised with more stress. On September 11th 2001, a group of terrorists hijacked four airliners and carried out suicide attacks against the United States. “Over 3,000 people were killed during the attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C., including more than 400 police officers and firefighters.” Had the security been able to spot these terrorists using airport profiling, hence 3000 unnecessary deaths would have been prevented, and many of those victims of 9/11 may still have been with us today. Airport profiling will prevent future terrorist attacks, like 9/11, from happening again.
There is dispute that many terrorists have a diverse range of exceptions to the terrorist profile leading to airport profiling to be counterproductive. That airport profiling will miss somebody like Timothy McVeigh, an American terrorist responsible for the bombing in Oklahoma City, 1995. However, as Deroy Murdock, a syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University, says “looking more closely at certain people that fit the crime profile does not mean ignoring everyone else.” Even though there are exceptions to the terrorist profile, records show that the majority of terrorists have aspects of the terrorist profile. If there was a bombing at an abortion clinic, it seems fair to suspect a white, middle aged christian man. If there was a terrorist attack on an aeroplane, it seems fair to suspect a young, muslim man, from the middle east.
While some feel that airport profiling would become counterproductive and ineffective, however, an interview on the daily mail with security expert Philip Baum, he says that airport profiling is ‘more successful than “too predictable” checks and scans.’ The security specialist says that ‘To prevent another 9/11, airport security should be focussed on behavioural analysis and not “throwing things in the bins.”’ He warns that “Everything is very much focussed on items, rather than the individual,” showing that not only should airports focus on what the passengers carry, most of the times weapons on terrorists are found hidden in the terrorists themselves. It is believed that during the attack of 9/11, the hijackers found a way to pass through security with weapons that were supposed to be restricted. This shows that airports may need to use more than just security checkpoints and as editor of Aviation Security International, Philip Baum said, airport profiling seems to be an effective tool to identify hijackers.
Airport profiling is when security look more closely at certain people based on their religion, ethnic group, race, behaviour, age, gender, and background to spot if they fit the terrorist profile. Looking at the statistics from the U.S Department of State, “in 2013, a total of 9,707 terrorist attacks occurred worldwide.” ‘According to the U.S Department of State National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism’, “out of ten of the highest perpetrator groups with the most attacks worldwide, 7 were muslim groups, the highest being the Taliban with a total of 641 attacks in 2013.” A clear trend from these statistics shows vast majority of terrorists have been recorded to trace from the middle east, a likelihood of males with ages fitting from eighteen to thirty five, originating from a predominantly muslim country. Therefore it is common sense to check somebody who fits the terrorist profile more closely. It is fair to say that “most muslims are not terrorists,” however, “most terrorists are muslim.” Some argue that airport profiling violates human rights, and it is discrimination to suspect some people more closely based on how well they fit the profile. However, it should be highlighted that airport profiling is not due to race, ethnic or religious biases, or any other factor, but is based on the supporting statistics.
Since many disagree with airport profiling and feel that it “is a form of inequality,” the importance for airport profiling should be emphasised with more stress. On September 11th 2001, a group of terrorists hijacked four airliners and carried out suicide attacks against the United States. “Over 3,000 people were killed during the attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C., including more than 400 police officers and firefighters.” Had the security been able to spot these terrorists using airport profiling, hence 3000 unnecessary deaths would have been prevented, and many of those victims of 9/11 may still have been with us today. Airport profiling will prevent future terrorist attacks, like 9/11, from happening again.
There is dispute that many terrorists have a diverse range of exceptions to the terrorist profile leading to airport profiling to be counterproductive. That airport profiling will miss somebody like Timothy McVeigh, an American terrorist responsible for the bombing in Oklahoma City, 1995. However, as Deroy Murdock, a syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University, says “looking more closely at certain people that fit the crime profile does not mean ignoring everyone else.” Even though there are exceptions to the terrorist profile, records show that the majority of terrorists have aspects of the terrorist profile. If there was a bombing at an abortion clinic, it seems fair to suspect a white, middle aged christian man. If there was a terrorist attack on an aeroplane, it seems fair to suspect a young, muslim man, from the middle east.
While some feel that airport profiling would become counterproductive and ineffective, however, an interview on the daily mail with security expert Philip Baum, he says that airport profiling is ‘more successful than “too predictable” checks and scans.’ The security specialist says that ‘To prevent another 9/11, airport security should be focussed on behavioural analysis and not “throwing things in the bins.”’ He warns that “Everything is very much focussed on items, rather than the individual,” showing that not only should airports focus on what the passengers carry, most of the times weapons on terrorists are found hidden in the terrorists themselves. It is believed that during the attack of 9/11, the hijackers found a way to pass through security with weapons that were supposed to be restricted. This shows that airports may need to use more than just security checkpoints and as editor of Aviation Security International, Philip Baum said, airport profiling seems to be an effective tool to identify hijackers.
Airport profiling can be useful to stop future terrorist attacks, however should never be used as a form of discrimination. On one hand, it is unfair and very offensive however on the other hand airport profiling could save the lives of some in danger on the airplanes. When used for the purpose of other passengers safety, airport profiling is good form of defence.
Should Children Be Prosecuted For Their Actions?
There are an estimated 250,000 child soldiers in our world today. They are recruited through the government as well as rebel groups. But not all children are used for combat but they are used for a type of some other job such as cooks or spies. Children are recruited because they are easy recruitments. Children are nowadays being forced to become a child soldier as they have lost their families and have nowhere else to go. During the children's time as a child soldier they are influenced into taking drugs and killing. As a result they are forced into combat by their commander. On one side of the argument, many believe that child soldiers are not responsible for the actions they perform. On the other side many believe that child soldiers are replicas of child criminals; child criminals are prosecuted. Over the course of the past decades child soldiers have been responsible for some of the most brutal acts in wartime. Tackling this issue is hard as most of the countries containing child soldiers don’t have a functioning government that is willing to take action. Thus child soldiers should not be prosecuted for their actions.
Children are easy recruitments as they do not have power against rebel groups so that makes them easier to transform them into child soldiers. According to SOS Children's village large amounts of children are being kidnapped and once they reach military bases they have to follow all orders from the commander or else they will be killed. Child Soldiers International states that children are more vulnerable to recruitment if they are poor, separated from their families, displaced from their homes, living in a war or combat zone or have a limited access to education. In some cases children have lost their families and they seek help from military bases but then are pushed into the act of being a child soldier. However many children “volunteer” often as a result of economic or social pressures that have been created during war or they believe that they group offers an income, food or security if they become a child soldier. There are many consequences of being a child soldier that could potentially be life threatening. This includes being killed or receiving a serious injury that could affect your body for the rest of their life. One other reason why rebel groups choose children is because they do not have a sense of danger unlike adults which makes it easier for them to be in war as they do not fear anything.
Children are put in very difficult situations during this time and it is hard for them decide what to do because they have no support from family or friends. Their option is to seek help from military bases because they believe that the group will offer basic needs such as food, water and shelter. But they get tricked into becoming a child soldier. They can’t turn back from the option because they don’t have a family to go back to or a place where they can be safe. Imagine if you saw your family being killed and the only thing you could do is watch them die. Your first reaction would be shock and then you go to a military base because that is the only place you can go. You were taken away and transformed into a child soldier. The only thing you would see is guns and brutal violence. Would you want to be in a difficult situation like that. An example of this is Ishmael Beah, an ex child soldier. He faced a challenge similar to this. He had gone to a military base to seek help for his family. As he made his way back home he was stumbled upon the civil war in Sierra Leone. When he arrived at his house he saw that his house was burning down and he knew that there was no chance of his parents being alive. He was furious, all he could think about during his time as a child soldier was his family. Even Though these children are put in difficult situations and they are forced into being a child soldier. Some may argue that these children have made their decision on becoming a child soldier and joining rebel groups. They join rebel groups as an act of patriotism or to level out their family’s deaths. So not all children are forced into war. Children such as these knew what they were doing thus should be taken into custody.
When children are kidnapped they are influenced by the acts of taking high dosages of drugs and alcohol. This means that they are not in control of their actions. They are a completely different person to what they were before. This is caused by the children being forced to child soldiery.
“The commander forced us to watch Rambo to prepare us for war”. -Ishmael Beah
This means that the children are not just influenced but forced into violence. With all these problems another challenge that the children face is they way that they are attached to violence that is around them. More often than not children have no say in whether they enlist or not and once recruited the children become brainwashed through the use of drugs and alcohol. The drugs and alcohol make the children become more compliant enabling them to commit atrocities which they never would have before. Sometimes the children are not just influenced but addicted to drugs and alcohol. This means that that they are not in control of themselves.
In conclusion children should not be prosecuted for their actions because they are easy targets. They do not have power over the commanders. Two they are being forced because of social or economic pressures. Three they are influenced by high dosages of drugs and alcohol. Which means that they are unaware of their actions.
When children are kidnapped they are influenced by the acts of taking high dosages of drugs and alcohol. This means that they are not in control of their actions. They are a completely different person to what they were before. This is caused by the children being forced to child soldiery.
“The commander forced us to watch Rambo to prepare us for war”. -Ishmael Beah
This means that the children are not just influenced but forced into violence. With all these problems another challenge that the children face is they way that they are attached to violence that is around them. More often than not children have no say in whether they enlist or not and once recruited the children become brainwashed through the use of drugs and alcohol. The drugs and alcohol make the children become more compliant enabling them to commit atrocities which they never would have before. Sometimes the children are not just influenced but addicted to drugs and alcohol. This means that that they are not in control of themselves.
In conclusion children should not be prosecuted for their actions because they are easy targets. They do not have power over the commanders. Two they are being forced because of social or economic pressures. Three they are influenced by high dosages of drugs and alcohol. Which means that they are unaware of their actions.
Why Sexism? No Gender Equality?
Imagine the world, where everybody is equal. There will be no discrimination, no conflict and no assault. We all once dreamed that it will be what the world is going to be, but unfortunately, that is not what the world wants to be. Not everybody is nice as we think, and they will make obstacles to stop our dreams from happening. Discrimination, sexism, things that stop the dream we all long for it to be true. Religion and cultures have their own practises, but that does not mean that there cannot be a female priest, female that take the roles that are stereotypical male roles. At the current rates, the world is changing, with the first lady of the United States, Michelle Obama, and the first female resident in the world, Marma Estela ‘Isabel’ Martinez Cartas de Peron of Argentina.Even though those people have broken walls of gender discrimination, there are still many barriers made from culture beliefs to religion. Every female should have a right to education, to learn even the basics of how to read and write, that girls can play any sport they want, even if it is a boyish sport like contact rugby, and women should have the same wage as men for the same jobs.
People say that ‘education is a right, like the right to have proper food and a roof over your head.’ For many, it is funny that girls do not need to go to school, and part of the reason is that they do not have a choice. They might not have enough money, or their parents do not want them to go to school, and instead helping the farm etc. Many girls in the world are rejected for what they want to do, going to school. According to the book ‘I am Malala’, she was shot in the head for what she wants to do. Yes, the talibans have their reasons, but people in the opposite sex are humans as well. And it is normal for humans to go to school. In other countries, girls can go to school without people shooting their head because they go to school. They face a different obstacle, things like pregnancy, child marriage, poverty and school based violence. In worst case scenarios, those people get discriminated because they are trying to get through those obstacles that others might not realize. They are discriminated because they are different than the other students around them.
According to the UN, there are 7 main advantages for girls having a good education. (some not relevant)
- Education beats poverty. One extra year of schooling increases a person’s earnings by up to 10%. 171 million people could be lifted out of poverty if all students in low-income countries left school with basic reading skills. This explains that education is proven to help people to get out of poverty. - - Education can help people to get out of those harsh rural areas with bad living conditions to the great white way.
- Education promotes gender equality. Women who went to school understand the danger in processing a child, and this helps them to control how many children each family can have. For example, in Mali, a women with at least a secondary education have an average of 3 children, while those with no education have an average of 7 children. This explains that with education there will be a decrease of population, and the world will not be so overpopulated, and that people will not produce a lot of children knowing the dangers of producing a lot of children.
- Education contributes to provide maternal health. Women with higher levels of education are more likely to delay and space out their pregnancies, and to seek health care and support.
- Education helps combat HIV, malaria and other preventable diseases. This facilities access to treatments and fight against stigma and discrimination. This means that education can decrease the world’s death rate, whether it have a positive effect or a negative consequence.
- Education helps global development. ‘An estimated $16 billion in aid is needed annually to reach the EFA goals in poor countries. However, in 2008 poor countries received only $2 billion aid for basic education. The worldwide military expenditure for 2009 was $1.5 trillion.’
Stereotypical girls, do they have to sacrifice of what they want to be in the future just because of their gender? This theory applies for jobs. One of the main streaks of employment discrimination is gender. Why can’t girls work as an engineer? Rejecting a female because of her natural habitat? Rejecting a female just because… because she is a female? The world can create any kind of nonsense they want us to face.
(Unfinished)
Sports. Either its rugby, baseball etc, many debate that girls should not play boy sport. Firstly, how will you define boy sport? A sport that only boys can play? Can’t all girls play boy sport? Why not just make a girl team? Many say that girls are not as physically strong as boys, but girls can play what sport they want to play. Girls are generally stereotypically at home, as the men are stereotypically known as wiser. Sports like football, contact rugby and baseball are generally known as boy sport. Some people have to give up what they love because of what they are born into. Girls are just as good as the boys. Maybe with longer hair, silkier skin, slightly shorter, a little less masculine, they are just the same. Some girls could possibly have equal skills perhaps even better. Having their own rights is like having a cupcake that was yours, and was given not by choice to another person. Girls could be tougher than the boys who think they are the best at sports.
Personally, I play quite a lot of sports, but people judge me because I am smaller, shorter and look like I have no muscle at all. Little did they know that I was trained for a long time, and even if I have already showed them that I can play that sport 10 times better than them, they still believe that I am a total brat that is nothing but showing off. Women have their own skills and qualities, but if they wanted to play boy sports, then let their dreams come true. I have also been there when boys discriminated of what sports I should like and what sport I shouldn’t. I have always liked playing sports like badminton, basketball, touch rugby and many other sport, and yet I am still this small. People do not usually believe that I even play sport, generally commenting on the size that I am in. Only a few people see that I always have tanned skin and spotable muscle on my legs and arms. People have to understand that we girls can play whatever sport we want, and might not have to be the same team as the boys. The teams does not matter as much as enjoying the sport itself.
In the world, there are lots of confusions. Disagree or not, those rules have been set to make the world better. Even if there are many people that follow those rules, there are people out there that disagree of what it is made for the better. What we are living now is only the beginning. There are many other challenges in the future that is waiting for humanity to face. We are only solving the first pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. The world need to stop discriminating people. Be the change you want to see in the world. Follow your dreams. Support gender equality.
People say that ‘education is a right, like the right to have proper food and a roof over your head.’ For many, it is funny that girls do not need to go to school, and part of the reason is that they do not have a choice. They might not have enough money, or their parents do not want them to go to school, and instead helping the farm etc. Many girls in the world are rejected for what they want to do, going to school. According to the book ‘I am Malala’, she was shot in the head for what she wants to do. Yes, the talibans have their reasons, but people in the opposite sex are humans as well. And it is normal for humans to go to school. In other countries, girls can go to school without people shooting their head because they go to school. They face a different obstacle, things like pregnancy, child marriage, poverty and school based violence. In worst case scenarios, those people get discriminated because they are trying to get through those obstacles that others might not realize. They are discriminated because they are different than the other students around them.
According to the UN, there are 7 main advantages for girls having a good education. (some not relevant)
- Education beats poverty. One extra year of schooling increases a person’s earnings by up to 10%. 171 million people could be lifted out of poverty if all students in low-income countries left school with basic reading skills. This explains that education is proven to help people to get out of poverty. - - Education can help people to get out of those harsh rural areas with bad living conditions to the great white way.
- Education promotes gender equality. Women who went to school understand the danger in processing a child, and this helps them to control how many children each family can have. For example, in Mali, a women with at least a secondary education have an average of 3 children, while those with no education have an average of 7 children. This explains that with education there will be a decrease of population, and the world will not be so overpopulated, and that people will not produce a lot of children knowing the dangers of producing a lot of children.
- Education contributes to provide maternal health. Women with higher levels of education are more likely to delay and space out their pregnancies, and to seek health care and support.
- Education helps combat HIV, malaria and other preventable diseases. This facilities access to treatments and fight against stigma and discrimination. This means that education can decrease the world’s death rate, whether it have a positive effect or a negative consequence.
- Education helps global development. ‘An estimated $16 billion in aid is needed annually to reach the EFA goals in poor countries. However, in 2008 poor countries received only $2 billion aid for basic education. The worldwide military expenditure for 2009 was $1.5 trillion.’
Stereotypical girls, do they have to sacrifice of what they want to be in the future just because of their gender? This theory applies for jobs. One of the main streaks of employment discrimination is gender. Why can’t girls work as an engineer? Rejecting a female because of her natural habitat? Rejecting a female just because… because she is a female? The world can create any kind of nonsense they want us to face.
(Unfinished)
Sports. Either its rugby, baseball etc, many debate that girls should not play boy sport. Firstly, how will you define boy sport? A sport that only boys can play? Can’t all girls play boy sport? Why not just make a girl team? Many say that girls are not as physically strong as boys, but girls can play what sport they want to play. Girls are generally stereotypically at home, as the men are stereotypically known as wiser. Sports like football, contact rugby and baseball are generally known as boy sport. Some people have to give up what they love because of what they are born into. Girls are just as good as the boys. Maybe with longer hair, silkier skin, slightly shorter, a little less masculine, they are just the same. Some girls could possibly have equal skills perhaps even better. Having their own rights is like having a cupcake that was yours, and was given not by choice to another person. Girls could be tougher than the boys who think they are the best at sports.
Personally, I play quite a lot of sports, but people judge me because I am smaller, shorter and look like I have no muscle at all. Little did they know that I was trained for a long time, and even if I have already showed them that I can play that sport 10 times better than them, they still believe that I am a total brat that is nothing but showing off. Women have their own skills and qualities, but if they wanted to play boy sports, then let their dreams come true. I have also been there when boys discriminated of what sports I should like and what sport I shouldn’t. I have always liked playing sports like badminton, basketball, touch rugby and many other sport, and yet I am still this small. People do not usually believe that I even play sport, generally commenting on the size that I am in. Only a few people see that I always have tanned skin and spotable muscle on my legs and arms. People have to understand that we girls can play whatever sport we want, and might not have to be the same team as the boys. The teams does not matter as much as enjoying the sport itself.
In the world, there are lots of confusions. Disagree or not, those rules have been set to make the world better. Even if there are many people that follow those rules, there are people out there that disagree of what it is made for the better. What we are living now is only the beginning. There are many other challenges in the future that is waiting for humanity to face. We are only solving the first pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. The world need to stop discriminating people. Be the change you want to see in the world. Follow your dreams. Support gender equality.
Government Censorship: Harmful or Helpful?
There's a new movie out, but in your country, you’re not allowed to watch it. There’s a big event that happened recently, but when you search for it on the internet there’s seemingly no information being broadcasted about it. There’s something controversial on your mind, but you’re not supposed to talk about it. These restrictions placed on people around the world are caused by the government’s censorship of its people, the media, and history. This topic is very disputed as many argue that government censorship can protect vulnerable members of society and prevent public disturbances. However while doing so, it prevents freedom of speech, public awareness and has the ability to be exploited by authorities who may use it for manipulation. Therefore despite its positive impacts, government censorship has negative repercussions that can cause damage to society and long-term harm to the citizens who are impacted by it.
One reason government censorship is harmful is that it prevents the freedom of speech of its citizens. One country with a prime example of this is Canada. In 2006 when Stephen Harper was elected Prime Minister, restrictions were placed on what scientists were and were not allowed to publish. According to Lesley Ogden of the Nature Publishing Group, “On numerous occasions over that [time period], government officials had forbidden [a scientist] from talking to the press or the public about her work on the genetics of salmon.” (Ogden, 2016) Due to censorship by the government, this scientist could not publish her work simply on the genetics of salmon, a topic not opposing the ruling party. This ridiculous censorship completely stripped the scientist in question from her right to an opinion and her right to free speech. Canadian scientists were not alone, corporations and unknowing civilians also had their freedom taken from them. CNET, a leading publisher of technological news, reports that “[Google] said it had received more than 1,000 requests from governments around the world to remove items such as Youtube videos and search listings.” (Musil, 2012) This illustrates that governments are trying to control everyday citizens who post content on a platform famous for free speech, the internet. It is a place where everyone should be able to enjoy the same freedoms without having to worry about persecution from the government due to a non-compliant material being published.
However despite this, censorship is not necessarily always a harmful thing. Many use a reasoning described in Tony Blankley’s 2009 book, American Grit, stating that “a temporary reduction of personal media freedoms is an acceptable price to pay in order to lessen the chance that [terrorists] will commit further atrocities.” (Blankley, 2009) This argues that censorship can prevent terrorism and help keep citizens safe from groups aiming to participate in violence. Indeed, to some extent, it can help to restrict those aiming to commit violent crimes and prevent them from recruiting more people. It can help create a safer world by limiting the reach of violence and can help the government to persecute those involved in it. Yet while all this may be true, is government censorship really effective enough for all the negatives to be overlooked? Indeed, it is highly unlikely that the small boost censorship provides in preventing terrorism is enough to make up for the complete loss of freedom that comes along with it.
Government Censorship is also harmful because it prevents the general public from being fully aware of what is happening in their own country. During the period of scientific censorship in Canada, “it was an incredible rigmarole to try and get the most innocuous bit of information to media or the public.” Ogden, 2016) and “it was like an iron curtain was drawn across communicating research to Canadians.” (Ogden, 2016) The people of Canada were completely oblivious to information that may have concerned them because of the censorship of the media. The citizens of a country have the right to know what is happening within their own borders. For it to be so difficult to communicate research, not even an opinionated piece, to the people that it is affecting surely cannot help in any way.
Next door in the United States, censorship was beginning to take place in schools. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group of school districts set up a board to select a curriculum with “parameters put forth will give students a false impression of [the United State’s history]” (Lindberg, 2014) including the exclusion of topics that would “encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law.” (Lindberg, 2014) Their goal was to prevent anything that promoted going against the government from being taught in a classroom. If this curriculum was successfully implemented, students would receive an education missing influential parts of their history. Upstanders such as Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks who disregarded authority to protest for change fit the description of topics that may be discluded. Some of the greatest moments in human history have come via those who challenged the government, but now would be ignored by teachers because they didn’t comply with the new guidelines.
Yet censorship can also be used to maintain a more peaceful society. “During an emergency, [censorship] helps in controlling panic and rumours throughout the nation.” (Pillai, 2016) This was observed in India in 2008, during a terror attack in Mumbai. Stories about what happened flew around the country with no one being sure which to believe, causing widespread panic. Censorship helped to remove false stories and leave only the true ones for the public to see. As well as this “Book may be used to portray wrong information about individuals or groups that could incite violence.” (Pillai, 2016) False information could encourage unrest and spark violence. Censorship would remove the false information and prevent citizens from ever being able to see the incorrect versions, thus maintaining order in society. However on certain controversial topics, who has the authority to draw the line between what is true and what isn’t? In these cases, whatever the government regards as correct is generally regarded as so and remains in circulation for the general population, be it the truth or not.
Thirdly, censorship can easily be exploited for government manipulation. For example, after the 1989 massacre at Tiananmen Square in China, the Chinese government went to great lengths to erase the event from history altogether. In the 2014 book, the People’s Republic of Amnesia, author Louisa Lim explains that “The government tried to saturate the country with its version of events” (Lim, 2014), wanting the Chinese people to only believe what the authorities were saying happened. They did so to retain control over their large population, in fear that if their people knew the truth it would spark a rebellion against their only recently established stable government. Yet this censorship caused a large impact on the population they claimed to be trying to protect and became “a massive secret that has become a massive vacuum, like a poison that has contaminated the air [they] breathe and [their] whole life and spirit.” (Lim, 2014) Pretending that something didn’t happen in order to pretend it doesn’t exist is hard to do without making those that do remember, feel outcasted and alone.
It was not just countries with newly stabilized democracies whose governments felt the need to use censorship for manipulation. The reason behind the censorship against scientists in Canada was due to the government's need to hide the environmental atrocities that came at the cost of their choice to focus on boosting the economy. It is not uncommon for governments to “use censorship to promote a flattering image of themselves and [to] remove any information that goes against them.” (Pillai, 2016) However does it really make that big of a difference? Surely “topics that promote patriotism, respect for authority and free enterprise” (Lindberg, 2014) can only help to increase the stability of a society. It is true that the censorship used for manipulation can, in fact, be used in a good way. Some examples of this are preventing violence or promoting peaceful interaction between citizens. However more often than not the manipulation is indeed used for harm, and that risk is one too large to take in return for the positives that the censorship offers.
Indeed, government censorship is bigger than just whether or not an individual feels it is morally wrong. It is the question of how much power we give our governments. While it is necessary for some form of government to prevent society from slipping back into a state of nature, a line must be drawn between what is required and what is too far. The role of the authorities should not be taken for granted, yet their use of censorship is clouding the judgement of many members of society, whether they are aware of it or not. At the end of the day, whether it is in a country's constitution or not, a freedom of speech, a freedom to access information and a freedom of opinion should be a universal human right, not one dictated by which country one lives in or the stability and confidence of its government.
Bibliography
Blankley, Tony. “BLANKLEY: Yes, We Need Censorship.” Washington Times. The Washington Times, 12 Feb. 2009. Web. 29 May 2016.
Pillai, Prabhakar. "Pros and Cons of Censorship." Buzzle. Buzzle.com, 5 Apr. 2016. Web. 24 May 2016.
Musil, Steven. "Google Sees 'alarming' Level of Government Censorship."CNET. CNET, 17 June 2012. Web. 18 May 2016.
Ogden, Lesley Evans. "Nine Years of Censorship." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 3 May 3016. Web. 07 May 2016.
Lindberg, Maya. "The Danger of Censoring Our History." Teaching Tolerance. Southern Poverty Law Center, 25 Sept. 2014. Web. 07 May 2016.
One reason government censorship is harmful is that it prevents the freedom of speech of its citizens. One country with a prime example of this is Canada. In 2006 when Stephen Harper was elected Prime Minister, restrictions were placed on what scientists were and were not allowed to publish. According to Lesley Ogden of the Nature Publishing Group, “On numerous occasions over that [time period], government officials had forbidden [a scientist] from talking to the press or the public about her work on the genetics of salmon.” (Ogden, 2016) Due to censorship by the government, this scientist could not publish her work simply on the genetics of salmon, a topic not opposing the ruling party. This ridiculous censorship completely stripped the scientist in question from her right to an opinion and her right to free speech. Canadian scientists were not alone, corporations and unknowing civilians also had their freedom taken from them. CNET, a leading publisher of technological news, reports that “[Google] said it had received more than 1,000 requests from governments around the world to remove items such as Youtube videos and search listings.” (Musil, 2012) This illustrates that governments are trying to control everyday citizens who post content on a platform famous for free speech, the internet. It is a place where everyone should be able to enjoy the same freedoms without having to worry about persecution from the government due to a non-compliant material being published.
However despite this, censorship is not necessarily always a harmful thing. Many use a reasoning described in Tony Blankley’s 2009 book, American Grit, stating that “a temporary reduction of personal media freedoms is an acceptable price to pay in order to lessen the chance that [terrorists] will commit further atrocities.” (Blankley, 2009) This argues that censorship can prevent terrorism and help keep citizens safe from groups aiming to participate in violence. Indeed, to some extent, it can help to restrict those aiming to commit violent crimes and prevent them from recruiting more people. It can help create a safer world by limiting the reach of violence and can help the government to persecute those involved in it. Yet while all this may be true, is government censorship really effective enough for all the negatives to be overlooked? Indeed, it is highly unlikely that the small boost censorship provides in preventing terrorism is enough to make up for the complete loss of freedom that comes along with it.
Government Censorship is also harmful because it prevents the general public from being fully aware of what is happening in their own country. During the period of scientific censorship in Canada, “it was an incredible rigmarole to try and get the most innocuous bit of information to media or the public.” Ogden, 2016) and “it was like an iron curtain was drawn across communicating research to Canadians.” (Ogden, 2016) The people of Canada were completely oblivious to information that may have concerned them because of the censorship of the media. The citizens of a country have the right to know what is happening within their own borders. For it to be so difficult to communicate research, not even an opinionated piece, to the people that it is affecting surely cannot help in any way.
Next door in the United States, censorship was beginning to take place in schools. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group of school districts set up a board to select a curriculum with “parameters put forth will give students a false impression of [the United State’s history]” (Lindberg, 2014) including the exclusion of topics that would “encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law.” (Lindberg, 2014) Their goal was to prevent anything that promoted going against the government from being taught in a classroom. If this curriculum was successfully implemented, students would receive an education missing influential parts of their history. Upstanders such as Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks who disregarded authority to protest for change fit the description of topics that may be discluded. Some of the greatest moments in human history have come via those who challenged the government, but now would be ignored by teachers because they didn’t comply with the new guidelines.
Yet censorship can also be used to maintain a more peaceful society. “During an emergency, [censorship] helps in controlling panic and rumours throughout the nation.” (Pillai, 2016) This was observed in India in 2008, during a terror attack in Mumbai. Stories about what happened flew around the country with no one being sure which to believe, causing widespread panic. Censorship helped to remove false stories and leave only the true ones for the public to see. As well as this “Book may be used to portray wrong information about individuals or groups that could incite violence.” (Pillai, 2016) False information could encourage unrest and spark violence. Censorship would remove the false information and prevent citizens from ever being able to see the incorrect versions, thus maintaining order in society. However on certain controversial topics, who has the authority to draw the line between what is true and what isn’t? In these cases, whatever the government regards as correct is generally regarded as so and remains in circulation for the general population, be it the truth or not.
Thirdly, censorship can easily be exploited for government manipulation. For example, after the 1989 massacre at Tiananmen Square in China, the Chinese government went to great lengths to erase the event from history altogether. In the 2014 book, the People’s Republic of Amnesia, author Louisa Lim explains that “The government tried to saturate the country with its version of events” (Lim, 2014), wanting the Chinese people to only believe what the authorities were saying happened. They did so to retain control over their large population, in fear that if their people knew the truth it would spark a rebellion against their only recently established stable government. Yet this censorship caused a large impact on the population they claimed to be trying to protect and became “a massive secret that has become a massive vacuum, like a poison that has contaminated the air [they] breathe and [their] whole life and spirit.” (Lim, 2014) Pretending that something didn’t happen in order to pretend it doesn’t exist is hard to do without making those that do remember, feel outcasted and alone.
It was not just countries with newly stabilized democracies whose governments felt the need to use censorship for manipulation. The reason behind the censorship against scientists in Canada was due to the government's need to hide the environmental atrocities that came at the cost of their choice to focus on boosting the economy. It is not uncommon for governments to “use censorship to promote a flattering image of themselves and [to] remove any information that goes against them.” (Pillai, 2016) However does it really make that big of a difference? Surely “topics that promote patriotism, respect for authority and free enterprise” (Lindberg, 2014) can only help to increase the stability of a society. It is true that the censorship used for manipulation can, in fact, be used in a good way. Some examples of this are preventing violence or promoting peaceful interaction between citizens. However more often than not the manipulation is indeed used for harm, and that risk is one too large to take in return for the positives that the censorship offers.
Indeed, government censorship is bigger than just whether or not an individual feels it is morally wrong. It is the question of how much power we give our governments. While it is necessary for some form of government to prevent society from slipping back into a state of nature, a line must be drawn between what is required and what is too far. The role of the authorities should not be taken for granted, yet their use of censorship is clouding the judgement of many members of society, whether they are aware of it or not. At the end of the day, whether it is in a country's constitution or not, a freedom of speech, a freedom to access information and a freedom of opinion should be a universal human right, not one dictated by which country one lives in or the stability and confidence of its government.
Bibliography
Blankley, Tony. “BLANKLEY: Yes, We Need Censorship.” Washington Times. The Washington Times, 12 Feb. 2009. Web. 29 May 2016.
Pillai, Prabhakar. "Pros and Cons of Censorship." Buzzle. Buzzle.com, 5 Apr. 2016. Web. 24 May 2016.
Musil, Steven. "Google Sees 'alarming' Level of Government Censorship."CNET. CNET, 17 June 2012. Web. 18 May 2016.
Ogden, Lesley Evans. "Nine Years of Censorship." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 3 May 3016. Web. 07 May 2016.
Lindberg, Maya. "The Danger of Censoring Our History." Teaching Tolerance. Southern Poverty Law Center, 25 Sept. 2014. Web. 07 May 2016.
Bad Fact Checking, Negativity Bias and Fake Cancer Cures, the Deteriorating Quality of the News and What It Means To It Readers
Imagine living in the countryside, miles away from a city. You would have no idea of what was going on around you, completely separated from the rest of the world. If you wanted to find out what was going on in the world, you would have to wait weeks until you heard of anything, and even then it might not be reliable. That changed as the news was developed. Information about the world was more readily available, and as global networks developed, so did our awareness of global events. Without the news, the public would still be stuck in those dark ages, the years where no one had any idea of what was happening around us. Scandals such as Watergate would never have been discovered, and the Boston Globe would never have pushed the issue of the sexual abuse of Catholic minors into the limelight. However, even though the news has done a lot of good for us, it has also started to become lax in its coverage, and this has had profound effects on its reader’s. The news has started to appeal to our inner-nature, our nature that is more attracted to violent and extravagant news, to hook readers and sell more copies of their paper. This doesn’t always have large effects on the reader, but it can have an impact on what the readers think can help and harm them, their readers mental state and physical health, and even their positions on certain topics.
The first negative impact extravagant news has on its readers is making them believe fictitious health cures. One large example of these “wonder cures” is cancer. Throughout the years almost everything has been linked to curing, or causing, cancer. Garlic, Wine, Leeks, Broccoli, Kale and even housework have been, by blogs and major newspapers, said to cure cancer. On websites across the internet, news website shout about how, “wine may prevent cancer,”; and “almost all vegetables from the Allium and Cruciferous families completely stopped growth in the various cancers tested.” Since it was in a newspaper, it must be correct, right? However, according to Ben Goldacre, author of Bad Science, a Sunday Times Best Seller, “there are many ways in which journalists can mislead a reader with science: they can cherry-pick the evidence, they can pit hysteria and emotion against cold, bland statements from authority figures.” (Bad Science) According to Ben Goldacre, journalists can, and will, edit and sensationalize headlines and evidence to “pit hysteria and emotion against cold, bland statements” (Bad Science) from scientific leaders. They will take scientific studies with little evidence, and little credibility, and use them to create articles proclaiming a cure to cancer. Now, one may say that these bold statements have no impact on its readers, and that the extravagant claims don’t hurt the news readers, because who believes these articles? Well, the answer is that a lot of people do believe these articles, even if they aren’t rooted in fact. In the same way, their belief in the news and its articles might cause them to act on their belief, turning down chemo in favour of leeks. From there things only get worse and, in most cases, someone’s cancer or ailment gets worse because of these so-called “superfoods.” Now, if they stumbled across the cure in a blog, nothing more might come of it. However, if this patient read about the cure in a newspaper, they might suddenly lose trust in the news. From there things only get worse, and suddenly the world isn’t a nice place to them. Their life might crumble before their eyes, all because of a news article. Although this is the worst case scenario, this could, and probably has, happened to some poor news reader. But, it doesn’t have to happen again.
Think of the last time you went on a news website. Was the news mainly happy or a sad. According to a study by the Media Research Center, more than half, 61%, of the coverage of the Iraq war was negative, and only 15% of articles had a positive slant. Why was all the news negative. Well, it has been proven that humans are attracted to bad news. A study conducted by Outbrain, a company focused in content delivery, found that using negative superlatives in the title attracted 30% more people to the article. Another study by the BBC found the same findings. People were more likely to click on a news article if it is negative. The news makes its articles negative because everyone is more likely to click, or read, news that is negative. The more people click on, or read an article the more money the news companies make. Taking this at face value, it would seem that nothing is wrong with this, everyone needs to make money, no? Well, according to the Cultivation theory “people who are heavy consumers of television, especially news, tend to view the world as more violent and "unsafe" than those who aren’t heavy viewers.” The news likes to report more negative news, and this leads to the people who are “more heavy consumers of television, especially news” believing the world that is portrayed on screen. Now, you may be saying that these people only say the world is negative because that is the way they were raised, and you may be right. However, the adult social group who watches and reads the most news, middle-aged and elderly women, are most likely to test highly for this kind of negative thinking. Now, with this evidence, you may be thinking that because the negative lean of the news has negative impacts on us, everyone should just cut stop watching the news. Although this may create some positive short term benefits, the public's need to be aware of the world around us, or it will suddenly be back in those times without news. Bad things do happen, and everyone's need to know about them but, to limit the negative impact of this the news needs to balance the reporting between good and bad news.
Whenever we, as a human race, don’t know or fully understand a point, they look to those knowledgeable about the topic they are looking into, so these people, can tell us about the topic, and give us stance to start to support. This happens a lot, and one of those knowledgeable people we turn to when we don’t understand a topic is the news. In 1999 two teenage boys when on a rampage in Columbine High School. In the first hour of the attacks it was common knowledge that only one or two people were behind the attacks, but “two hours in, the Trench Coat Mafia were to blame” (Colombine) by the media. Most of those who had witnessed the attacks were not citing the Trench Coat Mafia, but the media still reported it. By the end of the day “the number of students… citing the group went from almost none to nearly all.” (Columbine) If the Trench Coat Mafia weren’t behind the attack, then why was everyone saying they did? Well, as the students who witnessed the attacks got themselves to a T.V, “they ‘knew’ the TCM was involved because witnesses and news anchors had said so on T.V.” The people who are on the news can’t be wrong can they? This is just one example of what can happen when the news repeat a point without properly checking its veracity. It is repeated and repeated until it is fact, and once it is fact it is hard to argue against. Luckily, in Colombine, the misconceptions repeated by the media didn’t have a large impact following the first myths. Although, the early myths repeated by the media are still accepted as fact, it has stopped justice from being served. Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case. It took the media 7 hours to make the public believe something is true, that wasn’t. Following this, it isn’t hard to believe that because of bad media coverage, coverage that wasn’t properly fact-checked or verified, they have stopped justice from being served. The media need to check their facts, or else, next time there is a large event such as this, reporting from the media might not have such as small impact.
The first negative impact extravagant news has on its readers is making them believe fictitious health cures. One large example of these “wonder cures” is cancer. Throughout the years almost everything has been linked to curing, or causing, cancer. Garlic, Wine, Leeks, Broccoli, Kale and even housework have been, by blogs and major newspapers, said to cure cancer. On websites across the internet, news website shout about how, “wine may prevent cancer,”; and “almost all vegetables from the Allium and Cruciferous families completely stopped growth in the various cancers tested.” Since it was in a newspaper, it must be correct, right? However, according to Ben Goldacre, author of Bad Science, a Sunday Times Best Seller, “there are many ways in which journalists can mislead a reader with science: they can cherry-pick the evidence, they can pit hysteria and emotion against cold, bland statements from authority figures.” (Bad Science) According to Ben Goldacre, journalists can, and will, edit and sensationalize headlines and evidence to “pit hysteria and emotion against cold, bland statements” (Bad Science) from scientific leaders. They will take scientific studies with little evidence, and little credibility, and use them to create articles proclaiming a cure to cancer. Now, one may say that these bold statements have no impact on its readers, and that the extravagant claims don’t hurt the news readers, because who believes these articles? Well, the answer is that a lot of people do believe these articles, even if they aren’t rooted in fact. In the same way, their belief in the news and its articles might cause them to act on their belief, turning down chemo in favour of leeks. From there things only get worse and, in most cases, someone’s cancer or ailment gets worse because of these so-called “superfoods.” Now, if they stumbled across the cure in a blog, nothing more might come of it. However, if this patient read about the cure in a newspaper, they might suddenly lose trust in the news. From there things only get worse, and suddenly the world isn’t a nice place to them. Their life might crumble before their eyes, all because of a news article. Although this is the worst case scenario, this could, and probably has, happened to some poor news reader. But, it doesn’t have to happen again.
Think of the last time you went on a news website. Was the news mainly happy or a sad. According to a study by the Media Research Center, more than half, 61%, of the coverage of the Iraq war was negative, and only 15% of articles had a positive slant. Why was all the news negative. Well, it has been proven that humans are attracted to bad news. A study conducted by Outbrain, a company focused in content delivery, found that using negative superlatives in the title attracted 30% more people to the article. Another study by the BBC found the same findings. People were more likely to click on a news article if it is negative. The news makes its articles negative because everyone is more likely to click, or read, news that is negative. The more people click on, or read an article the more money the news companies make. Taking this at face value, it would seem that nothing is wrong with this, everyone needs to make money, no? Well, according to the Cultivation theory “people who are heavy consumers of television, especially news, tend to view the world as more violent and "unsafe" than those who aren’t heavy viewers.” The news likes to report more negative news, and this leads to the people who are “more heavy consumers of television, especially news” believing the world that is portrayed on screen. Now, you may be saying that these people only say the world is negative because that is the way they were raised, and you may be right. However, the adult social group who watches and reads the most news, middle-aged and elderly women, are most likely to test highly for this kind of negative thinking. Now, with this evidence, you may be thinking that because the negative lean of the news has negative impacts on us, everyone should just cut stop watching the news. Although this may create some positive short term benefits, the public's need to be aware of the world around us, or it will suddenly be back in those times without news. Bad things do happen, and everyone's need to know about them but, to limit the negative impact of this the news needs to balance the reporting between good and bad news.
Whenever we, as a human race, don’t know or fully understand a point, they look to those knowledgeable about the topic they are looking into, so these people, can tell us about the topic, and give us stance to start to support. This happens a lot, and one of those knowledgeable people we turn to when we don’t understand a topic is the news. In 1999 two teenage boys when on a rampage in Columbine High School. In the first hour of the attacks it was common knowledge that only one or two people were behind the attacks, but “two hours in, the Trench Coat Mafia were to blame” (Colombine) by the media. Most of those who had witnessed the attacks were not citing the Trench Coat Mafia, but the media still reported it. By the end of the day “the number of students… citing the group went from almost none to nearly all.” (Columbine) If the Trench Coat Mafia weren’t behind the attack, then why was everyone saying they did? Well, as the students who witnessed the attacks got themselves to a T.V, “they ‘knew’ the TCM was involved because witnesses and news anchors had said so on T.V.” The people who are on the news can’t be wrong can they? This is just one example of what can happen when the news repeat a point without properly checking its veracity. It is repeated and repeated until it is fact, and once it is fact it is hard to argue against. Luckily, in Colombine, the misconceptions repeated by the media didn’t have a large impact following the first myths. Although, the early myths repeated by the media are still accepted as fact, it has stopped justice from being served. Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case. It took the media 7 hours to make the public believe something is true, that wasn’t. Following this, it isn’t hard to believe that because of bad media coverage, coverage that wasn’t properly fact-checked or verified, they have stopped justice from being served. The media need to check their facts, or else, next time there is a large event such as this, reporting from the media might not have such as small impact.
The news media is something that has the power to enlighten and connect the world. Without the media there is no doubt that the global world we take for granted today, would not be the same. However, what started as a great thing has slowly now done harm across the world. Through a mixture of bad fact checking, extravagant titles made to gain money and a negativity bias that changes our perspective of the world, the news has, and will continue to impact its readers negatively, unless something is done. The news needs to fix the errors in its order, to fix the course that has been set. We need the news, we need to understand what is going on in the world, who is behind it, and what can be done to fix it. But, if the news continues to deteriorate as it is right now, the news we read, won’t be what we need.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)