Practice Essay #10: TV Distortion of the World

Question: Television almost always distorts the way we see the world. Describe a specific situation in which television might not distort the way we see the world. Discuss what you think determines when television distorts our perception of the world.

Answer:

The way we view the world or our perception of it is greatly influenced by number of things including our upbringing, the experiences that we go through, and also the portrayal of it by the media including television. The statement suggests that television almost always distort our perception of the world and of reality. Seeing as to how television has become such a daily part of everyday life, it is not difficult to image the dramatic impact that it can have on the way we see the world. The more we watch television and the more we continually see something repeated over and over, the more it becomes accepted as normal and part of reality. An example of this would be commercials of cleaning products. Taking out the influence of society as a whole, it is interesting to note that a majority of these commercials have a female figure using the product.

Television, however, does not always shape how we view the world. One of the purposes that television serves is as a source of entertainment. There are things that are shown on it that are fiction and/or quite absurd that we can quickly and easily separate it from reality and view it solely for its entertainment values. This is the case when we are watching some sort of science fiction show. The types of science and technology shown on these shows are extraordinary, imaginative and might someday be possible in the future but for the time being they are viewed as a cure of our everyday boredom and escape from reality.

The way we view the world is affected by numerous things. One of which being television and the media in general. Television has firmly established itself in our society that what we see upon it comes to distort our perception of the world. Not everything that we see upon it, however, gets accepted and interpreted as being normal and a part of reality. When we can differentiate what we see as purely for entertainment, its effects on our view of the world is greatly diminished. Therefore, what seems to determine whether television affect or distort our perception of the world is whether what is shown is rooted in reality and is relevant or relatable to the viewer.  

Practice Essay #9: Aid to Underdeveloped Nations

Question: Developed nations have an obligation to provide aid to the underdeveloped nations of the world.  Describe a specific situation in which a developed nation might not be obligated to provide aid to an underdeveloped nation.  Discuss what you think determines when developed nations have an obligation to provide aid to underdeveloped nations.

Answer:
The statement suggests that it is the duty of developed nations to help those nations that are less fortunate or underdeveloped. This is assuming that the developed nations are indeed better off than the underdeveloped nations. It is only natural for us as humans to want to help out those who do not have what we have and to help those who are less fortunate. It is comparable to the feeling that we get when we pass a beggar on the street. Although it is not always possible for everybody to provide aid to the beggar due to various reasons, there is a natural tendency that compels us to help the beggar out when possible or at least have pity for them.

Providing constant aid, however, does not always lead to the improvement of an underdeveloped nation. As the saying goes, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” If a helping hand is always available, the underdeveloped nations can become dependent upon the aids and not learn how to survive on its own. In such a case, the developed nations are in fact helping those underdeveloped nations but are only doing so in the short term. A good example of this would be the situation in Africa. For the most part, it can be said that the country remains as a whole pretty much underdeveloped even though it has received a fair amount of aid from other nations over the years.

It only seems right for developed nations to provide aid to underdeveloped nations. It is part of human nature to want to help those who are less fortunate. There are certain situations, however, where providing such a helping hand does not lead to the improvement of those underdeveloped nations. In the short-term sense, the aid does temporarily alleviate the conditions of the nation but in the long-term sense conditions might return back to normal or become worst. So when deciding whether developed nations should be providing aid to underdeveloped nations, it should be determined whether providing such aid would help the underdeveloped nations truly improve, become independent, and be able to survive on its own afterwards. It should address the underlying problems and not just be a temporary bandage.

What IFs

Life is full of choices.  Every day we are constantly faced with countless decisions that we have to make; from the time we wake up in the morning to the time that we go to bed at night.  We have to decide what kind of clothes we want to wear for the day or not to wear anything at all.  Then we have to decide what we want to eat for breakfast (if you wake up late, then you have to think of what to eat for lunch).  This pattern continues throughout the whole day.  With every decision that we make and every action that we carry out, there are consequences which can be seen or unforeseen and that are immediate or far off in the future.  Often times, we don't give much thought to them since those are unimportant and/or irrelevant and so can be ignored.  

There are various choices that are more significant, either considered so at the time or in retrospect, that it leaves us with a linger question of what if no matter what we have decided upon.  It is with those kind of choices that seems to haunt me the most.  I tend to over analyze the situation and think too much about all the other available options and possible outcomes associated with each option.  I know that not everything will turn out as planned or expected.  I know that sometimes the many paths that you choose will end up at the same destination.  Even though I keep these things in mind, the what ifs still constantly pops up in my mind.  It is like an annoying alarm that won't seem to shut off.  

So how do I turn off such a nuisance?  I really don't have a clear answer for this question.  I guess all I can really do is accept that which has already been decided.  You can't live life by dwelling on the past.  The past is the past, don't let it consume your present and future.  If the outcome wasn't the one you were looking for either set about to correcting it or learn to not repeat it again.

Practice Essay #8: Technology

Question: Technology solves many problems, but in the process often creates new problems. Describe a specific situation in which a technology might not create a new problem. Discuss what you think determines when a technology’s benefits outweigh its potential problems.

Answer:
Technology is often times a double-edged sword for it is the solution to many problems but at the same time the creator of other new problems. A prime example of this would be the invention of cars. The development of cars revolutionized the way we travel making it more quick and efficient to get from one place to another. In the process of doing so, it also helped to increase the sanitary conditions of city living associated with horses and horse-drawn buggies. An unforeseen consequence of cars, however, is the pollution generated from the emission of byproducts from the use of fossil fuels in the combustion engine. While this problem is not as great as it was before due to other advancement in technology, the problem still remains a big concern.

This, however, should not make us fearful of and deter us from technology in general. There are certain situations in which technology is solely the solution to the problem and not the creator of any new problems. In such instances, it is quite advantageous to utilize that technology to our benefit. Technology that comes to mind and fits into such a category would be those used in the medical field to aid in the detection of diseases or to be used in surgery. It is through the continuous advancement of the technology that is used that improvement in accuracy and precision is obtained. And it is through those advancements that countless lives have been saved. 

Technology solves many problems but in the process often give rise to new problems. Not all technology, however, give rise to new problems or only give rise to problems that are minute or minor that it could be neglected. When evaluating the use of technology, it is best to weigh the benefits versus the potential problems created by such use. It is vital to look at the importance of both the problems that technology seeks to answer and the importance of the potential problems that can be created through the use of technology. This can be done by examining whether such solutions offered or created by technology are temporary or long-term, minor or major issues to be addressed, reversible or irreversible, and/or life threatening or not.

Practice Essay #7: Violent Revolution

Question: No matter how oppressive a government, violent revolution is never justified. Describe a specific situation in which violent revolution might be justified. Discuss what you think determines whether or not violent revolution is justified.

Answer:

The statement suggests that a violent revolution is never the answer to bringing about the end of a government no matter how oppressive that government may be. After the collapse of a government, a state of anarchy often times ensue which leaves the country in worst shape than it was under the oppressive government. Another possible outcome is that the government that is established right after the collapse of the first one is sometimes equal to or even more oppressive in nature than the one before it.

Not every violent revolution have a bleak outcome likes those mentioned earlier. There have been various examples throughout history where a violent revolution was a stepping stone that was necessary for the establishment of a better government. A good example that comes to mind is the American Revolution which freed America from the oppressive rules of Britain. Over taxation and under representation in the running of the government were two reasons, amongst a few other reasons, why Americans wanted to break away from British control. The American Revolution did not start out as a violent revolution, however, but ended up as such. Other means were sought first to bring about changes in the ways in which the British govern America such as voicing their opinions in Parliament and through boycotts of various items such as tea.

There is various times where violent revolution is not justified no matter how oppressive the government may be. A violent revolution often will leave the country in a more chaotic and a worst state than when it was under the oppressive government. There are certain situations, however, where a violent revolution is justified. This could be seen by just looking at the history of our own country. What seems to determine whether or not a violent revolution is justified then is if the revolution is a way to permanently end an oppressive government and to bring about the establishment of a better government. While it is not necessary to consider, looking at whether or not other means (not through the use of violence) to bring about a revolution were sought after first before resorting to the use of violence might help in the determination of whether the revolution is justified or not.

Practice Essay #6: Books vs Practical Experience

Question: Education comes not from books but from practical experience.  Explain what you think the above statement means.  Describe a specific situation in which books might educate students better than practical experience.  Discuss what you think determines when practical experience provides a better education than books do.

Answer: 
A lot of the information and facts that we obtain through school and the countless number of books that was used during those school years are soon forgotten in a matter of months or years. Retention of all those materials is nearly impossible. Practical experience, on the other hand, is a better educator or teacher than books as suggested by the statement. It is when we get first-hand experience that the importance of the information presented can be seen and reinforced. Education through practical experience, thus, would carry more weight and will be remembered more long-term. Practical experience is also a better educator because the information in books might not be all inclusive and might be outdated.

There are, however, many situations in which books are better at providing an education as opposed to practical experience. This is especially true when practical experience is not applicable or when the information presented is only theoretical. In such case, getting hands-on experience would be either impossible or impractical. Some examples of such situations include astronomy, physic concepts, and microbiology. While it might be possible for some to actually go into space to study things on a more up-close and personal experience, the majority of people, however, will never have that opportunity and so must rely on books for their source of information.

Practical experience is usually a better educator than books. When information is merely obtained from reading books, the retention of all that material that was presented will soon be forgotten. It is when that information is seen through practical experience does it get reinforced and the importance of it seen which allows for better learning and retention. There are certain situations where practical experience is not applicable or is impractical. In such cases, books would be a better source for the information. The determining factors to be looked at in deciding whether practical experience is a better at providing an education than books would be whether practical experience is feasible.

Practice Essay #5: Scientific Inquiry

Question: Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated.  Explain what you think the above statements means.  Describe a specific situation in which a threat to human life might be tolerated in the pursuit of scientific discovery.  Discuss what you think determines when the pursuit of scientific discovery is more important than the protection of human life.

Answer: 
The thirst for knowledge and scientific discovery compel numerous scientists and scholars to go to great length in order to obtain it. The statement brings into question the moral aspect of such a pursuit for scientific discovery. What is the extent or the limit to which the discovery should be pursued to? The statement above suggests that no discovery is to be considered important enough when a human life is threaten in the pursuit of it.

The world, however, is not as black and white or clear cut as the statement makes it out to be. There have been many experiments and researches throughout history that involved human subjects with their lives potentially at risk. Results obtained from these experiments and researches have led to countless discoveries that helped to improve the understanding of the human body, how it functions and the disease/disorders that can impact our body and to advance the medical treatment of such disease/disorders. A good example would be the use of vaccines. Before its discovery, countless lives would be lost every year due to such diseases as smallpox, diphtheria, mumps, or the flu. It is, thus, hard to deny the benefits of such a discovery.

There are certain times where the pursuit of scientific knowledge pushes the envelope and are brought into question whether such a pursuit is warranted especially when it puts a human life at risk. A moral question such as this is quite a tough call to make. The thing that should be looked at in such a dilemma is the risks versus benefits, both short-term and long-term, of the scientific discovery and the pursuit of it being questioned. Only when the benefits greatly outweigh the risks should its undertaking be considered.