Posted by Unknown on 09:56
I think that the question about whether a zoo has a useful purpose is one that is open for debate. Nowadays, it is a topical question. Some people believe that zoos are essential while other people believe that a zoo has no useful purpose and that people should observe wild animals in their natural habitat. Personally, I think that both aspects of this situation have their relative advantages. In the following paragraphs I will analyse these points and present my own view in favour of animals being allowed to stay in the wild.
From the one side, a zoo has many benefits for people. First of all, children can learn about animals not only from books and TV programs but from actually observing them "live". They can see animals, touch them and even feed them. I think it is an amazing experience for a child. He gains more knowledge and experience from this "communication" with the animals. Second of all, a zoo is a perfect place for people to see many animals that most do not get the chance to see during their lifetimes.
However, I keep asking myself "what kind of benefits do wild animals get from a zoo?" and unfortunately, I cannot find a single one. I think that wild animals should live in their natural environment. Moreover, I think that we should learn about them through TV programmes whilst sitting in our favourite chairs, or people who like danger should try to observe them in their native environment. I strongly believe that animals are not toys. I know that most zoos try to keep their animals in an environment similar to their native one, but they cannot give these creatures as much freedom as Mother Nature intended.
To sum up, I think that wild animals should not be kept in a zoo. Personally, I enjoy watching "Discovery Channel" far more than watching a black bear trying desperately to hide from the scorching sun in a Texas zoo.
Posted by Unknown on 09:55
Youth drug abuse is a serious problem nowadays in many cultures. Not only is illegal drug use on the rise, but children as young as 10 years old are experimenting with alcohol and tobacco. The reasons for this behaviour are unclear, but certain sociologists blame the examples set by their elders.
Parents who drink and smoke to excess are, in effect, telling their children that it is acceptable to abuse their bodies with drugs. Consequently, children may have a similar view towards illegal drugs, even if their parents are against their use. In addition, drug use shown on television and in films can only confuse children who are also taught at school that drug abuse is wrong.
The pressure on young people to perform well at school in order to compete for jobs is a possible cause of the problem. Many believe they cannot live up to their parents' expectations, and feel a sense of hopelessness. Also, the widespread availability of drugs means teenagers are faced with the temptation to experiment. Drugs are used as a means of expressing dissatisfaction with the pressures they face in society.
The effects of drug abuse are well known. Many young people's talents are wasted, and addiction to hard drugs can cost a user his or her life. Furthermore, those who drink and drive may be involved in fatal road accidents. The cost to society is great, and enormous amounts of money are spent on convicting drug dealers and on education programmes.
To conclude, I recommend that the only sensible way to solve this problem is to educate young people about the dangers of drug use, and to take steps to reduce the pressure of competition placed upon them.
Posted by Unknown on 09:54
There is no doubt that some students in schools behave badly and their behaviour causes difficulty for others either because it has a negative effect on the group or because ordinary students find it difficult to study with them.
One solution is to take these students away and teach them on their own. However, if we simply have them removed after one or two warnings, we are limiting their educational opportunities because it seems to me that a school which caters for difficult students is a sort of "prison" whatever name you give it and the people who go there may never recover from the experience. This can then cause problems for the wider society.
Perhaps we need to look at why the disruptive students behave badly before we separate them. Disruptive students may be very intelligent and find the classes boring because the work is too easy. Perhaps these students need extra lessons rather than separate lessons. Or perhaps the teachers are uninspiring and this results in behavioural problems so we need better teachers. On the other hand, most students put up with this situation rather than cause trouble, and some people argue that we have to learn to suffer bad teachers and boring situations and that students who can't learn this lesson need to be taught separately.
So before we condemn the students to a special school, we should look at factors such as the teaching, because once the children have been separated, it is very unlikely that they will be brought back.
Posted by Unknown on 09:53
The issue of children doing paid work is a complex and sensitive one. It is difficult to say who has the right to judge whether children working is ‘wrong’ or ‘valuable’. Opinions will also differ as to ‘learning’ benefits: no doubt teachers and factory owners, for example, would have varying concerns.
An important consideration is the kind of work undertaken. Young children doing arduous and repetitive tasks on a factory production line, for example, are less likely to be ‘learning’ than older children helping in an old people’s home. There are health and safety issues to be considered as well. It is an unfortunate fact that many employers may prefer to use the services of children simply to save money by paying them less than adults and it is this type of exploitation that should be discouraged.
However, in many countries children work because their families need the additional income, no matter how small. This was certainly the case in the past in many industrialized countries, and it is very difficult to judge that it is wrong for children today to contribute to the family income in this way.
Nevertheless, in better economic circumstances, few parents would choose to send their children out to full-time paid work. If learning responsibilities and work experience are considered to be important, then children can acquire these by having light, part-time jobs or even doing tasks such as helping their parents around the family home, which are unpaid, but undoubtedly of value in children’s development.
Posted by Unknown on 09:51
It is certainly true that the position of women in society has undergone a dramatic change in the past twenty years but I do not feel that this is a direct cause of the indisputable increase in juvenile-related problems during this period.
It is now accepted that young women should find work on leaving school; indeed to rely totally on their parents' financial support is no longer an option in many families. Likewise, once they get married, the majority of women continue working since the financial pressures of setting up a house and establishing a reasonable standard of living often require two incomes.
Twenty years ago it was common for women to give up work once they had children and devote their time to caring for their children. This is no longer the general rule and the provision of professionally-run child care facilities and day nurseries have removed much of the responsibility for child rearing that used to fall to mothers. However, these facilities come at a cost and often require two salaries coming into a family to be afforded.
I do not believe that the increase in the number of working mothers has resulted in children being brought up less well than previously. Indeed it could be argued that by giving mothers the opportunity to work and earn extra money children can be better provided for than previously. There is more money for luxuries and holidays and a more secure family life is possible. Of course there are limits as to the amount of time that ideally should be spent away from home and the ideal scenario would be for one of the parents (often the wife) to have a part-time job and thus be available for their children before and after school. It is important to establish the correct balance between family life and working life.
Posted by Unknown on 09:50
Social welfare is an essential element of an advanced society. Good systems are always abused, but that does not mean they are faulty. In my opinion, the two main reasons why welfare payments are necessary are as follows:
First of all, critics forget that there are many forms of welfare besides payments to the unemployed. Their negative opinions harm those who are not capable of earning a wage, such as single-parent mothers, the disabled, and the sick. Moreover, the unemployed have the right to an income, too. They are not always at fault for not having a job, and in most cases the tax they have paid in the past entitles them to assistance.
The second reason is that crime increases when people have no means of support. The desperately poor inevitably turn to crime, which is not only dangerous but costly. Policing the streets is more expensive than providing welfare. A policeman's wage is four or five times higher than a "dole" payment.
Certain members of society believe that people should look after themselves. They point out that welfare increases dependency on others and destroys dignity. This may be true, but in the case of the unemployed, the relief payments are usually temporary. It is surely the fault of the government if there are long-term unemployed. Welfare critics also believe that it is the responsibility of a victim's family to provide financial assistance. However, it is too expensive to provide complete help for a severely disabled person.
To conclude, it is vital to understand the need for welfare in a modern democratic society. Without welfare payments the poor are destined to become poorer. The first duty of a government is to provide a financial safety net for all disadvantaged persons, and that includes those without work.
Posted by Unknown on 09:49
Anyone who lives in a city is aware of the increasing number of cars on the road and the kinds of problems this creates: traffic jams, air pollution and longer commuting periods. As economies grow and access to cars spreads to increasing numbers of people, this trend is likely to worsen. The solution, it would seem, is for governrnment to encourage the use of public transport in urban areas, thus decreasing dependence on the car.
One way to stimulate public transport use is to make private car use more expensive and inconvenient. The introduction of tolls along urban motorways has been successfully employed in many cities. Other such measures are high-priced permits for parking in urban areas and the restriction of parking to a limited number of cars. Faced with high costs or no place to park, commuters would perhaps be more willing to abandon their cars in favour of buses or trains.
There are also less punishing ways of spurring public transport use. The construction of free carparks at suburban train stations has proven successful in quite a number of countries. This allows commuters to drive part of the way, but take public transport into the central, most congested, urban areas.
Indeed, making public transport more comfortable and convenient should work to attract more commuters and decrease traffic congestion. Public transport that is convenient and comfortable retains its passengers, much like any business that satisfies its customers. The more commuters committed to taking public transport, the less congestion on city streets.
Posted by Unknown on 09:48
Overall, I disagree with the opinion expressed, I would like to begin by pointing out that ‘traditional skills and ways of life’ are not automatically of one country, but of a culture or community.
In many ways, the history of civilisation is the history of technology: from the discovery of fire to the invention of the wheel to the development of the Internet we have been moving on from previous ways of doing things. Some technologies, such as weapons of mass destruction, are of negative impact. Others, such as medical advances, positively help people to live better or longer, and so very much help traditional ways of life. Surely, few people would seek to preserve such traditions as living in caves.
Interestingly, technology can positively contribute to the keeping alive of traditional skills and ways of life. For example, the populations of some islands are too small to have normal schools. Rather than breaking up families by sending children to the mainland, education authorities have been able to use the Internet to deliver schooling online. In addition, the Internet, and modern refrigeration techniques, are being used to keep alive the traditional skills of producing salmon; it can now be ordered from, and delivered to, anywhere in the world.
In conclusion, without suggesting that all technology is necessarily good, I think it is by no means ‘pointless’, in any way, to try to keep traditions alive with technology. We should not ignore technology, because it can be our friend and support our way of life.
Posted by Unknown on 09:47
It has been around forty years since television was first introduced into Australian households and people today still have mixed views on whether it has a positive or a negative influence on the society.
Many people believe that television damages culture. It promotes the stronger cultures of countries such as Britain and North America and weakens the cultures of less wealthy countries. This is because the stronger, wealthier countries are able to assert their own culture by producing more programs that are shown widely around the world. These programs then influence people, particularly young people, in the countries where they are shown.
Also, because television networks need to attract large audiences to secure their financial survival, they must produce programs which are interesting to a broad range of people. In Australia this range is very broad because we are a multicultural society and people of all ages like to watch television. To interest all these different people, most television programs are short in length, full of action and excitement, do not require much intelligence or knowledge to understand, and follow universal themes common to all cultures, such as love and crime. Television programs which concentrate on or develop themes pertinent to one particular culture are not so successful because they interest a smaller audience.
Nevertheless we much acknowledge that television does have some positive effects on the cultures within a society as well. People who do not live within their own culture can, in a limited way, access it through the multicultural station on the television. For example, Aboriginal children who have grown up in white families, or migrants and international students living in Australia, can watch programs from their own culture on the television.
In conclusion, I hold the view that television promotes and strengthens those cultures that are wealthy and influential while it weakens the cultures that are already in a weakened position.
Posted by Unknown on 09:46
Televisual media has become a pervasive force in the lives of families around the world today. Yet, a central question remains regarding whether watching television is harmful or beneficial for children. An analysis of this question reveals that television programs present three major concerns in the case of children, including depictions of violence, the use of profane language, and the representation of poor moral role models.
Television programs that portray violence are a paramount concern for parents nowadays. Recent research has shown that children may commit acts of violence because they wish to emulate the behaviour that they see on television. This is especially true when violent acts are committed by well-known action “heroes.” In addition, television programs show cartoon figures, as well as actors, committing violent acts. Using comic situations to depict violent themes causes further problems with the way in which young people view violence.
Television programs that contain profane or disrespectful language also worry parents with young children. Because censorship laws have relaxed over the past few decades, it has become very common for television programs of each and every kind to show characters expressing impolite, rude, and insulting utterances to one another. Bearing resemblance to the case of portrayals of violence, children unfortunately often try to imitate these actions they watch on their television screens.
Finally, some parents are upset about the moral behaviour depicted on television. As they struggle to teach their children moral and ethical values, parents might despair about the lack of morals and ethics represented in some of the so-called role models on television. For instance, certain characters not only have no remorse for their immoral actions, but also frequently go unpunished by larger society.
Because of these factors, many parents believe that television programs send their youth the wrong kinds of messages. The emulation of this poor behaviour by their children is something they wish to avoid at all costs, and they have accordingly decided to ban television in their households for these reasons.
Posted by Unknown on 09:45
The spread of telecommuting is sure to have far-reaching effects on society. By itself, telecommuting refers to office workers spending much of their time working from home and using electronic technologies to communicate with their employers. The broader implications of telecommuting, however, may involve changes to corporate structure, workers' lifestyles and even urban planning.
The most obvious changes may be apparent in the `normal' offices of companies, governments and other organisations. If even half the working week is spent telecommuting from home, then we would initially expect many empty desks in the office. As offices grow smaller, workers coming in for the day would be expected to share desks with their absent colleagues. This, in turn, may affect the social atmosphere of an organisation, however, as less social contact with one's colleagues could harm morale and loyalty.
For the individual office worker, telecommuting would mean spending more time at home. For a parent with young children, this may be a blessing. Moreover, many telecommuters would be able to work the hours they wished: having a nap in the afternoon, for example, but working some hours in the evening. One substantial benefit for all telecommuting workers is that there will be no need to travel to work, allowing more free time.
The structure of urban life is also likely to be affected by telecommuting. We would expect to see fewer cars on the road during peak hours and, eventually, a smaller concentration of offices in cities' central business districts. In short, people will have less reason to travel to city centres from outlying areas. As more people work and live in the same location, shops and cultural events will likely relocate themselves out of the city centre.
In summary, telecommuting will serve not only to change the way we work but also the way we live.
Posted by Unknown on 09:44
These days, many people are afraid of nuclear technology because of the dangers associated with its use. In my opinion, although it is true that nuclear weapons pose the greatest threat to life, the use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes also carries some serious risks.
Nuclear power stations provide an important source of cheap power for many industrialised nations and some developing countries. However, there is always the danger of radiation leaking from these plants. Even though safety precautions are taken, there have been numerous disasters such as the explosion of a nuclear plant in Russia not long ago.
Nuclear technology is even used to help cure some diseases such as cancer. Radiation can be applied to the body to burn away cancerous cells. This is, however, a dangerous procedure, and the application of radiation is almost always painful and not always successful.
The most worrying aspect of nuclear technology, though, is its use for military purposes. Enough atomic bombs have already been built to completely destroy the planet, and the real danger is that one day some country will start a war with these weapons. Too many countries now have the technology required to make such bombs, and there is currently much debate about how to control the situation.
In conclusion, nuclear technology certainly has positive uses, but is, nonetheless, dangerous. However, it would have been better if it had never been used to create nuclear weapons. If life on Earth is to continue, all the nuclear nations of the world should agree to disarm as soon as possible.
Posted by Unknown on 09:43
The last two decades have seen enormous changes in the way people's lives are affected by IT. Twenty years ago few people had access to a computer whilst today most people use them at work, home or school and use of email and the Internet is an everyday event.
These developments have brought many benefits to our lives. Email makes communication (particularly overseas) much easier and more immediate. This has numerous benefits for business, commerce and education. The World Wide Web means that information on every conceivable subject is now available to us. Clearly, for many people this has made life much easier and more convenient.
However, not all the effects of the new technology has been beneficial. Many people feel that the widespread use of email is destroying traditional forms of communication such as letter writing, telephone and face to face communication. With ever increasing use of information technology these negative elements are likely to increase in the future.
The huge size of the Web means it is almost impossible to control and regulate. This has led to many concerns regarding children accessing unsuitable websites. Unfortunately, this kind of problem might even get worse in the future at least until more regulated systems are set up. Yet perhaps the biggest threat to IT in years to come will be the computer virus – more sophisticated or more destructive strains are almost inevitable.
In conclusion, developments in IT have brought many benefits, yet I believe developments relating to new technology in the future are likely to produce many negative effects that will need to be addressed very carefully.
Posted by Unknown on 09:42
Overall, I disagree with the opinion expressed, I would like to begin by pointing out that ‘traditional skills and ways of life’ are not automatically of one country, but of a culture or community.
In many ways, the history of civilisation is the history of technology: from the discovery of fire to the invention of the wheel to the development of the Internet we have been moving on from previous ways of doing things. Some technologies, such as weapons of mass destruction, are of negative impact. Others, such as medical advances, positively help people to live better or longer, and so very much help traditional ways of life. Surely, few people would seek to preserve such traditions as living in caves.
Interestingly, technology can positively contribute to the keeping alive of traditional skills and ways of life. For example, the populations of some islands are too small to have normal schools. Rather than breaking up families by sending children to the mainland, education authorities have been able to use the Internet to deliver schooling online. In addition, the Internet, and modern refrigeration techniques, are being used to keep alive the traditional skills of producing salmon; it can now be ordered from, and delivered to, anywhere in the world.
In conclusion, without suggesting that all technology is necessarily good, I think it is by no means ‘pointless’, in any way, to try to keep traditions alive with technology. We should not ignore technology, because it can be our friend and support our way of life.
Posted by Unknown on 09:41
Food is a basic part of life, so it follows that improved methods of food preparation have made our lives better. Nowadays we can prepare meals much faster than we could in the past. We can also enjoy a greater variety of food and eat more healthfully, all because of modern methods of food preparation.
Microwave ovens have made it possible to prepare delicious food quickly. People these days rarely have time to shop and prepare meals the old-fashioned way. We live very fast lives. We are busy working, caring for our families travelling, playing sports, and many other things. Because of microwave ovens, we have time to enjoy a good meal with our family and then play soccer, go to a movie, study, or do anything else we want to afterwards.
Modern methods of preserving food have made it possible to enjoy a wide variety of food. Because of refrigerators, freezers, canning, and freeze-drying, we can eat fruits and vegetables that come from far away places. We can prepare a meal one day and save the leftovers in the refrigerator or freezer to eat at another time. We can keep different kinds of food in the refrigerator. It is easy to always have food available and to be able to eat completely different meals every day.
Healthful eating is easier now than it ever was. Because of modern transportation methods, fresh fruits and vegetables are available all year round. Modern kitchen appliances make it easy to prepare fruits and vegetables fro cooking. Bread machines make it possible to enjoy healthful, home-baked bread whenever we like. We can eat fresh and healthful food everyday because modern methods have made preparation easy.
Our lifestyle is fast, but people still like good food. New food preparation methods have given us more choices. Today we can prepare food that is more convenient, healthier, and of greater variety than ever before.
Posted by Unknown on 09:39
Computers are a relatively new invention. The first computers were built fifty years ago and it is only in the last thirty or so years that their influence has affected our everyday life. Personal computers were introduced as recently as the early eighties. In this short time they have made a tremendous impact on our lives. We are now so dependent on computers that it is hard to imagine what things would be like today without them. You have only got to go into a bank when their main computer is broken to appreciate the chaos that would occur if computers were suddenly removed world-wide.
In the future computers will be used to create bigger and even more sophisticated computers. The prospects for this are quite alarming. They will be so complex that no individual could hope to understand how they work. They will bring a lot of benefits but they will also increase the potential for unimaginable chaos. They will, for example, be able to fly planes and they will be able to co ordinate the movements of several planes in the vicinity of an airport. Providing all the computers are working correctly nothing can go wrong. If one small program fails disaster.
There is a certain inevitability that technology will progress and become increasingly complex. We should, however, ensure that we are still in a position where we are able to control technology. It will be all too easy to suddenly discover that technology is controlling us. By then it might be too late I believe that it is very important to be suspicious of the benefits that computers will bring and to make sure that we never become totally dependent on a completely technological world.
Posted by Unknown on 09:38
There have been immense advances in technology in most aspects of people's lives, especially in the field of education. Nowadays, an increasing number of students rely on computers to research for information and to produce a perfect paper for school purposes. Others have decided to leave the original way of learning to get knowledge through online schools. These changes in the learning process have brought a special concern regarding the possible decrease of importance of teachers in the classroom.
Some people believe the role of teachers started to fade because computers have been helping some students to progress in their studies quicker than when compared with an original classroom. For example, in the same classroom, students have different intellectual capacities, thus some would be tied to a slow advance in their studies because of others’ incapacity of understanding. In this way, pupils could progress in their acquisition of knowledge at their own pace using computers instead of learning from teachers.
However, the presence of a teacher is essential for students because the human contact influences them in positive ways. Firstly, students realize that they are not dealing with a machine but with a human being who deserves attention and respect. They also learn the importance of studying in group and respect other students, which helps them to improve their social skills.
Moreover, teachers are required in the learning process because they acknowledge some student's deficiencies and help them to solve their problems by repeating the same explanation, giving extra exercises or even suggesting a private tutor. Hence, students have a bigger chance of passing even the most difficult subjects.
In conclusion, the role for teachers in the learning process is still very important and it will continue to be in the future because no machine can replace the benefits of human interaction.
Posted by Unknown on 09:36
Parents shape their children from the beginning of their children's lives. They teach their children values. They share their interests with them. They develop close emotional ties with them. Parents can be very important teachers in their children's lives; however, they are not always the best teachers.
Parents may be too close to their children emotionally. For example, they may limit a child's freedom in the name of safety. A teacher may organize an educational trip to a big city, but a parent may think this trip is too dangerous. A school may want to take the children camping, but a parent may be afraid of the child getting hurt.
Another problem is that parents sometimes expect their children's interests to be similar to their own. If the parents love science, they may try to force their child to love science too. But what if the child prefers art? If the parents enjoy sports, they may expect their child to participate on different teams. But what if the child prefers to read?
Parents want to pass on their values to their children. However, things change. The children of today are growing up in a world different from their parents' world. Sometimes parents, especially older ones, can't keep up with rapid social or technological changes. A student who has friends of different races at school may find that his parents have narrower views. A student who loves computers may find that her parents don't understand or value the digital revolution.
Parents are important teachers in our lives, but they aren't always the best teachers. Fortunately, we have many teachers in our lives. Our parents teach us, our teachers teach us, and we learn from our peers. Books and newspapers also teach us. All of them are valuable.
Posted by Unknown on 09:34
It is certainly very understandable that some governments should start looking at ways of limiting their populations to a sustainable figure. In the past, populations were partly regulated by frequent war and widespread disease, but in recent years the effects of those factors have been diminished. Countries can be faced with a population that is growing much faster than the nation's food resources or employment opportunities and whose members can be condemned to poverty by the need to feed extra mouths. They identify population control as a means of raising living standards.
But how should it be achieved? Clearly, this whole area is a very delicate personal and cultural issue. Many people feel that this is not a matter for the state. They feel this is one area of life where they have the right to make decisions for themselves. For that reason, it would seem that the best approach would be to work by persuasion rather than compulsion. This could be done by a process of education that points out the way a smaller family can mean an improved quality of life for the family members, as well as less strain on the country's perhaps very limited, resources.
This is the preferred way. Of course if this does not succeed within a reasonable time scale, it may be necessary to consider other measures, such as tax incentives or child-benefit payments for small families only. These are midway between persuasion and compulsion
So, yes, it is sometimes necessary, but governments should try very hard to persuade first. They should also remember that this is a very delicate area indeed, and that social engineering can create as many problems as it solves?
Posted by Unknown on 09:33
If a person appears to be relatively wealthy, perhaps owning an expensive car, living in a nice house and generally enjoying a high standard of living then moist people would say this person is successful. This may indeed be true but there are certainly numerous other ways, in my view, in which success can be achieved or measured.
First of all, in terms of education, passing exams or completing a course can be considered successful activities. If A levels, a diploma or a degree are attained then this is recognized as a successful achievement, yet qualifications such as these do not necessarily lead to riches.
Another type of success can be achieved in work situations simply by doing one's own particular job effectively. Furthermore, job satisfaction and career fulfillment are also indications of success, yet do not necessarily mean being in in highly paid employment. For example, a voluntary worker for an aid agency in a developing country who has helped to construct buildings or improve facilities has been part of successful project.
I also believe that success can be achieved in domestic life such as raising and supporting a family. On a personal level it might also simply mean putting up shelves for the first time or winning a local sporting competition.
In conclusion, there no doubt that in today's society people often regard success purely in terms of wealth or materialistic values, but in my opinion this does not account for the variety of other ways that success can be achieved. Ultimately, measuring success might depend on an individual's personal goals.
