The modern invention brings many disadvantage to society, do you agree or disagree?
The evolution in science has picked up pace like never before, now a days we are inundated with the new inventions which promise to be the best so far and make our lives better but at the same time there are quite a few people who argue that new inventions have caused more problems to us by making us totally materialistic in approach with utter disrespect for human values. They opine that these so called new inventions have made the pace of life extremely fast and have not left any leisure time for us to enjoy.
It is undoubtedly true that modern inventions have brought lot of benefits to our society and these inventions have made our lives better, its hard to imagine how life would be without these inventions such as mobile phone and internet which allow us to remain connected with whole world the entire time, the wealth of invaluable information on every conceivable topic is available at the touch of few buttons using internet. It has also allowed little known people to be heard all over the world by integrating social media. These are just a few examples of how well modern inventions have served us and this list is countless. Therefore, it is easy to conclude that modern inventions have served us really very and helped us evolve over these years.
Conversely modern inventions have also brought their own set of problems to us for example because of fast pace of life our lives have become more stressful as pressure to achieve more is takes heavy toll on our life it has brought to the fore many diseases unheard of, furthermore easy availability has made us lazy and aloof as gadgets have taken over the place of leisure time. Also excessive use of social media over internet is waste of time that could have been used for other meaningful activities.
Countries should try to produce all the food and import as little food as possible. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Food is the basic need of everyone and hence is very important commodity for every nation. Insufficient availability of food can make a nation vulnerable to external threats such as high import price, restlessness and insecurity in general public etc., therefore it is generally suggested that countries should produce all the food and import as less as possible. I majorly support the notion of local production of food items instead of depending on imported food and limiting it as much as possible.
First reason in support of local food production is that food productions locally offers a sense of security to nation and safeguards interests of its population because if the food is grown at country level then it does not have to depend upon any other nation for its food needs which may take undue advantage of this situation. Hence a country should try to cater to its food needs at a local level for this reason.
Secondly, if a country produces food, then it will help its economy in the form of employment generation and will also keep food prices under check because government can formulate a policy to regulate the food prices so that they remain affordable for its general population for example India has policy of distributing food at subsidized price to poor people though public distribution system at quite low price. Hence producing food at local level is good for population of a country.
However, in certain situations it may be inevitable to avoid food import such as in cases of draught, flood or any other disaster beyond human control. Hence in these cases it is prudent to import food to tide over the crisis at hand, therefore import of food should be allowed in such situations.
Thus, to conclude, in my view, a nation should import food only if it has no choice, but in general it should try to produce food locally as much as possible.
Many school children and students today are taught to push themselves to try and be better than their classmates, rather than to work together for everyone’s benefit. Do the advantages of training youg people to be competitive out weigh the diasavantages.
Both competition and cooperation play a large role in the advancement of society, both in business and non-business areas. Competition forces people to improve their products or services hence benefits the recipients of these products or services. Co-operation helps in development of individuals and the society as a whole because it drastically increases the scale of these improvements. Thus, I believe that children should be taught to co-operate more than to compete.
Pushing children rigorously all the time is unfair, as we might kill their innocence and in extreme cases thrust them to the brink of something as drastic as suicide. However, this would not happen if children are taught to co-operate because with co-operation everyone will be treated equal and children will have chance to grow and learn at their own pace. Moreover, we must remember that our most of lives are spent in the company of others such as friends and family, hence due to our need for co-existence, it is desirable to have co-operation.
Conversely, competition is not to be despised because it forces us to do well and helps both children and adults. It propels us to discover new ideas, test new methods etc. For example, competition in any business such as Microsoft and Google would push them to produce new products and services which would benefit consumers. Likewise, in other areas such as sports, competition again is the key for betterment. Therefore, I think it is good idea if children, learn to compete because it would serve as precursor, showing them the way for future.
In conclusion, admittedly, competition cannot be wished away because at some point of time one competes with others, this being the necessity of modern day complex life, however my view is that co-operation is somewhat more effective in helping individuals and societies to develop, because it benefits not only individuals, but also society as a whole, therefore children should be encouraged more to co-operate than to compete with each other.
Some people believe that success in life depends on hard work and determination, while others believe that other factors like money and personal appearance are important. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Success is the valued highly since it gets one respect, financial freedom and sense of freedom but it depends on so many factors that different people have divergent views on how to achieve success. There are some people who think that success is derivative of hard work and determination while others think that money and personal appearance are key factors in swinging success to your side.
To begin with success is a function of hard work and determination to a large extent because world is full of examples of people who have been able to achieve success due to sheer hard work and determination though they had limited resources when they started out. One great example of such extraordinary success is story of Apple computers which started off in a garage of its founder Steve Jobs who had no money but due to his great efforts and determination Apple has become the most valued brand in the world today. Therefore, hard work and determination definitely play a key role in success.
Money also plays an important role in success and without it success would not be possible either. It’s because to carry out any activity whether it is business venture or say awareness campaign about some social cause, money is the foremost requirement. For example if one wants to start a new promising business venture, then he/she must have money to start off the business activity . Hence money is also definitely one of the key requirements for success.
Personal appearance on the other hand though is important for certain professions such as acting and modeling but cannot be said to be a key factor for success for other professions because though having good personal appearance is desirable but except modeling and acting its not a pre requisite for any other profession. For example some of very successful persons such as Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela had hardly great personal appearances but were hugely successful, while same rule would not apply on actors and models for whom personal appearance is everything.
To conclude, I believe that success is a combination of many synergetic activities. But key components that contribute most to the success are hard work, determination and money because without them most of the activities would simply not be possible, on the other hand personal appearance though is desirable but is not a deciding factor in success except for few selected professions such as acting and modeling.
Some people think that it is necessary to travel to other places to learn about other cultures. Others say that books, films and the Internet can be used as a source of information about different cultures. Do you agree or disagree? Give your opinion.
Cultures are quintessential part to our society and in the present day scenario, it has gained even more importance, because ,we are now interacting with people of different cultures even more , due to advancement in communications and our need to conduct business with people from different cultures. There is seeming debate between the people who think that traveling to experience the culture is best way to learn it while others think we should use books, films and internet. In my opinion, both the views have their own merits and should be considered by individuals on his/her requirements.
There is no doubt, that traveling is best way to learn culture first hand because it’s the authentic way to experience it. Also, when a person travels to place of culture he/she is able to experience it directly and learn more about it by simply being more engaged in the whole experience. For example when a person travels Brazil to experience carnival it’s altogether a different experience vis a vis watching it on internet or reading books about it. Therefore, traveling offers more in depth and lasting learning experience.
On the other hand, time is a luxury in this fast paced life and one may not have enough time to travel to the place of culture about which he/she is interested, hence relying on books, internet and films for guidance makes more sense. Furthermore, traveling may involve significant expenses which one may not be able to afford, hence he/she can use books, internet or films which hardly cost anything in comparison to real travel cost. Consequently, learning from non travel sources is advisable and practical solution.
To summarise, I think that if one has the time and money to travel, then undoubtedly this is best way to learn about the other culture but if time and money are a constraint one should use other sources such books, internet and films.