Cautious vs. Ridiculous

Is there a line between being cautious about something and being flat-out unreasonable? There have been many different topics over the years that have explored this line. One of the most recent situations with genetic engineering. Many people, like Chet Raymo, argue that genetic engineering is bound to be a disaster and "hemmed with peril", and he has good reason. The discovery of radium, for example, started out as an amazing discovery and everyone used it. However, it turned out to be fatal to many people and ended up a catastrophe.

But that was 30 years ago. We now have many more regulations on things such as new drugs and biotechnologies. Before something new is allowed to be sold on the market, they pass multiple clinical trials first. If a new technology is invented that can help prevent cancer, it won't immediately be used by the whole nation before it has been determined that it is safe. Or at least the risks of using it will be made completely known to the public, like it is with vape nowadays. Although vaping is definitely not healthy, the dangers of doing it is known, so it is up to each individual to decide if they want to do it or not. Nevertheless, there are definitely less unknown dangers that dwell in new medical products. Also, radium is used in some treatments to actually cure cancer, so perhaps the "disaster" that struck 30 years ago isn't even as bad as Raymo makes it out to be.

Being cautious is always good, but there is a point where being too cautious only hurts the furthering of society.

Impossibly Certain

Can you ever be truly certain? Even if you very strongly believe that you are correct about something, how can you be certain you are certain? This thought came to me when I read an article last week about college admissions.

The article interviewed someone that worked for a tutoring company that offered "special services" for a little more cash after the recent Operation Varsity Blues scandal, a conspiracy in which many rich families bought their way into top universities. These services included one on one consulting about college essays, help editing one's application, and much more. In other words, you could pay people to write your college application for you, and it's not an extremely uncommon occurrence, either. Sometimes, these people don't even need to interview you. They create passions, achievements, and stories out of nothing. Now, that's not to say that the people that write these applications are completely soulless human beings. Many of them simply write them as a means to earn money. They hate the kids that pay them, hate the fact that those that don't deserve to get into good schools can buy their way in. But in a world so focused around money, they believe that if you have the writing skills to do that, what else can could you possibly do? They are able to craft characters from green paper bills that are so lifelike and full of passion that it's impossible to tell the difference between those characters and real humans. Money can create a version of you that you didn't even know existed.

So, if you can't even be certain that someone's college application, which was literally created so you could showcase your own skills and personality, is truly their own work, what can you be certain about in this world?

Expectations

Expectations are something that everyone has. You perform an action, and before any results are actually observed, you automatically come up with what you think the results will be. Sometimes these expectations can be very accurate, but sometimes they can also be way off. I experienced the latter this past Thursday when we peer graded each others in-class essays. I personally had thought that the essay I wrote was one of my better essays, and was pretty interested to see what my peers would think of it. However, at the end of class when I looked at it again, my classmates had given me a grade much lower than I had expected. My first reaction was shock - had I really performed that badly? But as I continued on the read the comments they left, I realized that I had made one fatal mistake: I forgot to cite one of my sources. This resulted in me only having two quoted sources in my essay, rather than the required three, and bumped my score down quite a bit.

This unfortunate mishap made me think about expectations as a whole. Is it better to have high expectations or low expectations? If someone has very high expectations, they would experience tons of satisfaction if it can actually be fulfilled. Conversely, though, if these high expectations can't be reached, they might feel very disappointed in themselves. On the other hand, if someone always has very low expectations, it would be much easier to attain, but it wouldn't provide the same levels of happiness and satisfaction as the goal they reach wouldn't be that hard anyways. I guess my best answer to this question is that everyone has their own unique point between the two, and that different levels of expectations may be best for different situations.

The Bigger Picture?

Everyone has probably heard the phrase "look at the bigger picture" before, usually whenever something doesn't go the way you wanted it to. It is meant to comfort you, to be an assurance that everything happens for a reason and in the end, it will only improve your future. But every single time I find myself wondering what exactly that big picture is. Is this saying referring to your life in one week, or your life in 20 years? I feel like this saying can honestly be a bit distracting sometimes. Sure, you will always learn a thing or two when you do not win, but to immediately brush it off afterwards and believe that it will just contribute to the "bigger picture" is not the most effective way to think. To merely accept with everything that occurs, to be "content with life" just like a day moth, just doesn't develop someone as much as possible. A picture does not just contain one single idea, but rather many smaller ideas that all work together, bouncing off of each other. Each of these individual ideas should be polished and fully understood before we back up and view the whole thing, or else the end product may end up looking like a jumbled mess with no true purpose. In my opinion, looking at the bigger picture shouldn't always be a top priority; rather, focusing on each individual step first and then bringing it all together afterwards will result in a more satisfying and fulfilling future.

Human Morals

Efficiency is something that many people strive for. It means getting the most out of a process in a particular time frame. This term is often applied to economics and society, and countries should always strive to be as efficient as possible. However, there are a few obstacles that frequently prevent an economy from achieving that goal. One such obstacle is our human morals, which can be both a good and bad thing.

Can you imagine if morals didn't exist today, meaning people wouldn't be able to judge the difference between the good and the bad? Many things would be drastically different. Countries would use different means to become more efficient. Perhaps criminals would no longer be pitied and be sentenced to very severe punishments, or maybe they wouldn't be punished at all, as long as their actions improve economic efficiency. Cattle and pets might be bred in even worse living conditions, just to make as much money as they can. Even babies and children could be turned into a "delicious nourishing and wholesome food" if they become too much of a burden on our society, like Johnathon Swift suggested in "A Modern Proposal". The fact that morals exist can't be seen as only positive or negative, as it contributes to both sides. But if you had the ability to somehow alter one's morals, would you do it? Would it be too big of a risk to change something that has been molded and shaped into our brains over thousands of years?

The Colosh

There is this interesting story that someone once told me, and I think that now would be a good time to share it. Maybe the person got it out of a comic book or a TV show, but it's pretty interesting. Here's how it goes:

Once upon a time, there was this country named Colosh. In this country, they hosted a series of competitions every year. It was a rather long competition, lasting for most of the year, and the competition consisted of many different events. Some of these events were really popular, like running races and sports tournaments, but other events were less well-known, like seeing who could stare at something the longest. These events were "so numerous that people forget what [some of] their purposes [are]", but no one dared remove them entirely. It was common knowledge among the citizens that the more events you won, the better of a person you were. Because of this, lots of people attempted hundreds of different events, but if they didn't think they won enough of them, they simply stopped attending and were never to be seen again. A few select individuals excelled at many different events, and were seen as godly figures among their peers. However, these people were small in numbers, and as a result others tried their hardest to be like them. As time went on, this competition held in Colosh became more and more of a negative impact on its competitors'. Many of those who couldn't win at a specific event believed they weren't as special, and lost hope in their lives. However, despite the fact that the competition obviously wasn't healthy for them, they still attended year after year, simply because they wouldn't be accepted by Colosh society otherwise.

And that is pretty much it. Nope, there is no happy ending. But it makes me think, why should single competition decide their status and what others think of them? Couldn't these people just realize that not everyone has talents in the same areas, and that a mere competition doesn't necessarily showcase such skills?

Dumpster Living

This week in class, we read a really interesting essay about dumpster diving. The author argued that while many people have very negative views on dumpster diving, it actually has many benefits. Our society has become so wasteful that one man can live off of another man's waste, and although this may not be the best form of living, it goes to show how not everything can be done only one way.

This idea isn't only limited to dumpster diving. The biggest thing it reminded me of was technology in today's society. Almost everyone I know has a phone, and probably 90% of them are all Apple. I'm not hating on Apple or anything, as I have an iPhone too, but I wonder if all of these people that have iPhones really like them or not. Everyone has different needs, and there is a plethora of other phones out there that would most likely suit them better than an iPhone could. Another major factor is the price of these products. Nowadays, iPhones go for anywhere from $800-$1200. You could pretty much buy a computer with that money! However, a lot of people that buy iPhones are only interested in their price tags. There are even some individuals who buy solid gold phones just so they can tell their friends how expensive it was. Obviously, if you really have the spare money to go out and buy things like that, though, no one can really stop you. But for the general population who have "normal" iPhones, perhaps there are better alternatives out there that are cheaper and match their personal lives better. The same can be said for things like shoes, earbuds, and many other products. All of this just makes me wonder how much more efficient our society could actually be if everyone didn't worry about what other's would think about their belongings and just bought things based on their own interests.