id
stringlengths 8
39
| argument
stringlengths 233
6.83k
| source
stringclasses 3
values |
|---|---|---|
c2ce8788-2019-04-18T16:46:27Z-00001-000 | Cats make better pets than dogs.
I will make the argument that cats make better pets than dogs. Cats are more self-reliant and independent. They know how to bathe and can have their own alone time while still showing you affection when they want to. I would argue that they are not as needy and emotionally dependent as dogs. They are less time-consuming than dogs who need greater care by walking them outside, and who need constant attention. Cats are cleaner and can even be trained to use the toilet http://www.wikihow.com... If cats were people, you would respect them more because they are more independent, less exhausting, and less emotionally dependent. Dogs can be be taught many tricks, but so can cats. You can even teach a cat to fetch http://cats.about.com... Dogs can be used to protect your home, but let us not forget that tigers, lions, panthers, and leopards are also cats that make a much more fearsome bodyguard than even the biggest Rottweiler. So in conclusion, unless someone can refute any of these claims I think we will have to conclude that cats make better pets than dogs. | args_me |
824f3fe8-2019-04-18T16:00:05Z-00001-000 | Dogs are better than cats.
I believe that dogs are better than cats for a couple of reasons. First of all, they did not receive the title "Man's Best Friend" for nothing. They may not live as long as cats, but dogs are more useful and loyal. Examples: 1. Dogs can be used by hunters to retrieve birds that are shot 2. Dogs are used to find drugs 3. There have been cases where dogs have saved their owner's life Also, dogs are a main part of a lot f books, including Old Yeller. They can also be trained, unlike cats. | args_me |
35c9d066-2019-04-18T11:25:57Z-00001-000 | Cats are the best pets!
Cats are dumber, according to science, in a new study found out in about December 2017 has concluded that dogs are more intelligent than cats. Well, I can say that cats are more cuter but dogs are tougher and more able to listen than cats. Cats are more lazier than dogs. Dogs are popular, more than cats. | args_me |
35c9d066-2019-04-18T11:25:57Z-00003-000 | Cats are the best pets!
Despite me agreeing that Cats are the best pets. I will argue against why CATS are the best pets. 1. Dogs are named as mankind's best friend. The phrase "Man's best friend" is a common quote relating to dogs. Fredrick the Great even said one of his Italian Greyhounds as a best friend. 2. Dogs can be trained easier than cats. According to petsworld.in, you can easily teach dogs how to do stuff, like not to eat people or do tricks. It is a very popular reason why dogs are over cats. 3. They can be trained to protect homes. Dogs can be trained even to protect homes, a cat cannot protect a home, since cats are very scared of strangers, so cats run away to hide. 4. Dogs listen more than cats. Dogs would tilt their heads, possibly a sign that the dog is listening to the owner. Cats in the other hand, ignore and take a nap. 5. Exercise! Like the 3rd reason, they can be trained to do exercise, even walking a dog is very common. Walking is a very good exercise, so dogs too listen when the owners tells the dog to do walking. 6. Cats have private baskets, preventing cats to go. Note: If the owner wants to take for a ride, a dog will sit next to the owner, while cats will not go with the owner or go on the private basket. That's 6 "short" reasons why dogs are better than cats, they tend to be referred as man's best friend, easier to train, they protect homes, they listen more than cats, they do exercise with the owners and dogs follow you. I conclude by saying you have some cat reasons but I got ideas, such as reducing a heart attack if you own a cat, that's a few reasons why I say dogs are better than cats. These are a few examples, expect more in the rounds coming. | args_me |
35c9d066-2019-04-18T11:25:57Z-00004-000 | Cats are the best pets!
Cats are better than dogs. They remove and eat pests, are much more funny but mysterious at the same time, and keep themselves clean. Plus, they come potty trained and they don't chew on anything. AND THEY WERE ONCE WORSHIPED AS GODS! THAT BEATS DOGS! | args_me |
aa8f5ec0-2019-04-18T18:25:55Z-00006-000 | Dogs are better pets than cats
I will be arguing the pro side. Dogs make great pets. They're loyal, friendly, and social. Cats, on the other hand, tend to be anti social, "moody", and don't express any form of "loyalty" to its owner. | args_me |
c9601da-2019-04-18T18:35:47Z-00002-000 | Dogs are better than Cats
Well, First thing on the agenda is I would like to refute your arguments if you would allow me....First: Cats can act the same as a dog. They can be loyal? They can stick by someones side if that owner was a very loving and caring owner? A cat can be loyal but comparing dogs and cats would be like comparing apples and oranges. They both are tasty in a differnet way so to speak. What im saying is that cats have their own type of loyalty. Cats version of loyalty is that it can be very helpfull around the house or anywhere they are needed. For example, a cat can help you get rid of mice that are in the house.Second: Cats can also be trained to do the things that dogs can do. If you are saying that dogs (but not cats) can do these things than you can also be refering that ONLY alligators eat meat and crocodiles are not allowed to?Third: Though dogs have keen abilities, that can be at some disadvantage. Cats are quiet, patient and never beg. But, dogs are mean, sometimes rabid, and they can definitly hurt someone. So although dogs can hunt down prisoners and tackle them to the ground, that is one one way you can use the dogs rabid senses and abilities to assist and now injure.Now it is time for my agrument.....Less work?Now although dogs are sometimes very nice and always want your attention, that does come with some disadvantages. Dogs are always hungry, they cannot ever get enough food sometimes and they would sometimes hurt you just to get it. But on the other hand, cats love to live in solitude so you just have to leave some food and a litter box and you can pet him whenever you want without having to be hurt whenever you pat him or stroke their fur.That sadly, has been the end of my debate and I hope you guys liked my arguments. :)Source(s):Truth that cat owners have better degrees:http://www.telegraph.co.uk...Loyalty difference: http://www.helium.com... | args_me |
c9601da-2019-04-18T18:35:47Z-00005-000 | Dogs are better than Cats
There will be no abuse of semantics which is by definition of this debate, one definition per word will exist and will not be bent according to technicalities or any other definition a dictionary has to provide. There will be no abuse of using dictionaries such as an argument stating that cats are better than dogs because C (first letter of the word Cat) comes before D (First Letter of the word Dog) in the dictionary. By definition of the word "better" I define it as a word which means that the dog is more loyal, behaves better with proper training, and is used for a wider variety of things. My position for this debate is dogs are better than cats. | args_me |
38604d5c-2019-04-18T13:50:31Z-00005-000 | Dogs make good friends.
First of all not all dogs can be good friends it can take from weeks to years of training and some dogs just cannot be trained. Whilst dogs do make good friends it would depend on the dog breed and their characteristics you would be talking about. I would prefer cats as they are not very strong or lethal unless you get bit[my opinion] Dogs attacking people has been far more common than the cats attacking people. Whilst dogs make good friends it depends on the breed and characteristics my opinion | args_me |
ac4c53c8-2019-04-18T11:59:54Z-00000-000 | dogs are better than cats
Dogs sure are cute but they are a bit dumb. I mean, they can follow orders, but so can anyone. Actually, people consider that one of the main flaws of the education system is that is teaches children to follow orders but not to be independent. Cats are very independent, and I know because I have three. I never had to teach them how to go to the bathroom nor what they shouldn't eat of of the floor, and they do follow me sometimes. I can also leave them to walk around the neighbourhood freely and be worry free because I know they will come back home. Dogs, however, are so high maintenence, they will destroy your house, you have to walk them, even if it's raining or they will do their bussiness in your house and most owners keep them restrained so they don't run away. | args_me |
824fc006-2019-04-18T15:00:34Z-00001-000 | Dogs are better than cats
What you say is true; dogs can be very loving companions and express that love in a lot of ways. But if dogs are that way, why not cats? Cats, as you probably already know, pur when they are delighted or happy. Is that not a show of affection? Is it not the way they say, "I'm happy"? You see, your argument is made of stereotypes. As I said before, not all dogs are angels and not all cats are demons. | args_me |
e66c98f8-2019-04-18T17:10:01Z-00005-000 | Dogs make better pets than cats
Dog are far more a better pet then Cat. first of all to put all the obvious stuff first. Cat does not act nearly as happy as a dog when they see you, and as human we are the world most social animal, if anything that we need the most it would be a dog, you can not play a lot of sports with a cat, you might need to teach it before. for dog sometime it almost seem they can actually understand human behavior, maybe they do i'm not sure, but when a human is in trouble a dog will notice this, and they will do all they can to safe a human, cat would just run away to safe themselves, cat can not defend a human from lets say a wolf, or even tiger, they are very protective of them self, a dog does not care who it is about to attack, making them much more brave then a cat. and when it comes to beauty a dog would win this by a far rang, once you see one cat you have seen them all, but a dog comes in so many form, colors and shapes, making them a perfect representation of us human. i grow up with cats and dogs, and i remember mostly the dogs today, because the cats never came on the field to play with us, these dog acted like they knew their position in the family,and they loved it, i cannot say the same about the cats, they where sometime fun to play with but only when everyone is home and tired from playing. Cat is only for people who are not active, don't like go out, don't like games, and just stay inside all day long. | args_me |
e66c98f8-2019-04-18T17:10:01Z-00003-000 | Dogs make better pets than cats
you are proving my point here friend. like i said you can not play a lot of games with a cat, a string game, i believe that a cat would love it,not all human like playing with string, can a cat play basketball,soccer, or even as seen on YouTube, skateboard, play tag, you will have to teach a cat to do these things, which comes naturally to Dog. the scenario of a dog defending from a tiger is absolutely possible, and can a cat safe you from drowning? can you use a cat to pull you in the coldest weather on earth, can a cat guide a blind person. can you use a cat to detect dangerous thing from a criminal's car, house cloth etc? dogs have been saving humans life for many years and they still are today, dog have work all the up the rank of trust till we human even trust them with some very dangerous jobs. today they with police officer, and those dog are more then qualify for the title as pets. they are Heroes, they have done some thing a Cat can never do,and if it does it would years of training and money. Dogs are truly loyal to human, and you can see that in the guide dogs. they give up their play time, freedom to help a blind human 24/7, think abut that. And have you ever heard a cat cry? which is more convincing? dog cost more money because they are absolutely better then cat, and yes there more responsibility because dog are almost like a human child. And i would rather be waken my a nice happy dog who give you energy and joy to start your day then waking up by an alarm, cause a cat would never bather to wake you up. | args_me |
e66c98f8-2019-04-18T17:10:01Z-00004-000 | Dogs make better pets than cats
You can actually play with a cat as they are pretty active creatures they like a good game of string. I don`t think that in any scenario that you will need a dog to defend you from a bear or a tiger. Cats are good for relaxing with and quiet time. If you have a dog that is so active and annoying you can get quite sick of it. You can also train your cat to do nearly anything. Also dogs cost money ,dogs cost over 1,800 dollars a year. This includes getting them council approved, de sexed, vaccinated, deflead, food, shampoo, brushes, clippers , leads and a whole lot more.That is quite a lot of money you could be spending on power or water remember going to my friends house and my friends dog was jumping on me and being so obnoxious that I was pretty sick of it. Another thing is that cats smell better than dogs. Dogs have a particular smell that stays on your clothing . Cats are smell free as they clean themselves regularly. Dogs are hard work to maintain,clean and take for walks. Unless you are super active and a triathelete I think you would prefer to sleep in on mornings than have to get up to have your dog jumping on your bed and licking your face hurrying you to feed it, take it for a walk and clean up its waste that is , most probably done on the kitchen or lounge floor. | args_me |
ac4c52ef-2019-04-18T14:18:50Z-00000-000 | dogs are better than cats
Cats are better than dogs, why? Well cats are not nearly as messy as dogs, and they enjoy to snuggle with you, such as when you are reading a book they will curl up on your lap. Big dogs cant curl up on your lap, and they can destroy furniture way easier than cats. Cats are less expensive to feed, and they have cute little whiskers. Dogs drool, cats don't so you can see why Cats are better that dogs. | args_me |
ac4c52ef-2019-04-18T14:18:50Z-00001-000 | dogs are better than cats
Dogs are better than cats. Why? firstly, dogs can help us by guiding the blind, helping police and be our friends. They have sensitive noses too. They are also cute animals from bull dogs to chiwawas, who are loyal and understand our feelings. They can sacrifice their lives for their owners, and are "man's best friends". They are very touching animals and help us a lot. | args_me |
862a2084-2019-04-18T16:07:06Z-00002-000 | Dogs are better than Cats
My opponent argues solely using his opinion. However, is it an actual fact that dogs are better than cats? There are evolutionary advantages and disadvantages to both of them. Dogs are, sometimes, more "fun and energetic", yes, but cats have their advantages. Cats are great at fighting and defending themselves against snakes, while a dog would be easily bitten. A cat does not need to go outside to excrete feces. Other than your opinion, how are dogs better than cats? Cats are, actually, often better at hunting than dogs are. Let's compare their wild counterparts: a lion and a wolf. Which is going to hunt more efficiently? Most likely, the lion will be faster, more agile, and more deadly. Also, it depends on the breed of dog you are talking about. Not all dogs are for hunting. | args_me |
862a2084-2019-04-18T16:07:06Z-00003-000 | Dogs are better than Cats
I strongly believe that dogs are better than cats because dogs are way more fun, energetic and useful to have than cats are. Firstly, what's so fun about a cat. They do hardly anything all day but eat, sleep and go to random places, but dogs are way fun, energetic and they love to play. Secondly, Imagine hunting with a cat. They would be hopeless at it, but dogs are great at hunting and they are really useful at other stuff too. | args_me |
5749c8e1-2019-04-18T19:34:39Z-00001-000 | Dogs are Better than Cats
ugh, whatever, I don't really care anymore. I have better stuff to do then to debate about cats and dogs, and who is better than the other. I actually love both of them, and I'm petting a kitten in my lap right now. I believe we have both good arguments. thanks for the debate! It's up to the voters now :D | args_me |
862a2ab0-2019-04-18T11:13:01Z-00004-000 | Dogs are better than Cats
A better topic for this debate might be: Dogs are more intelligent than Cats. However, Here is the thing, The cats are definitely smarter and more intelligent than dogs. While dogs are dumb enough to crawl beside you when you are a poor man who lost his home and had to beg for money in the subway station, It will always remain by your side; the cats will run off, Eat foods you can never imagine, Drinking milk from other families, Or even just have intercourse with another cat or two. Thus, Cats are better. | args_me |
t3_1gpr3o | I think Elon Musk is 10 times the entrepenuer, revolutionary, innovator, and human being that Steve Jobs ever was..CMV
A compare and contrast of these two would go on forever. Basically, most people know the accomplishments of Steve Jobs and Elon Musk. To sum it up Steve Jobs was basically a prick that reinforced consumerism, while Elon Musk makes you believe anything is possible.. | cmv |
t3_3nk0ra | CMV: Elon Musk is a genius and a genuinely nice guy that is trying to change this world for the better. Tesla and SpaceX are going to revolutionize this world.
Hey everyone,
I think I am very biased when it comes to reading about Tesla and Musk. "We see what we want to see". But at the same time I have never really heard or read anything negative about Musk as a person or about the companies. I mean, the battery to go completely off-the grid, Tesla cars, Hyperloop transportation, etc. Sure he can make a nice profit but he also seems to really want to reduce the carbon footprint. The only recent negative thing that I can remember was the failed SpaceX launch but that was due to a mechanical failure of some sort. Is there anything that I am missing? Am I just drinking the kool-aid here? Is there a hidden agenda that I am not seeing? | cmv |
t3_6enua1 | CMV: If oil and gas execs on Trumps council are prone to conflict of interest; so is Elon Musk's on alternative energy.
So let me be clear up front - I love Elon Musk as a Trump advisor; I think its good to have technology leaders as council and he seems to be all around excellent - I dont want him to leave and I am all for him giving his opinion - thats his job after all; I do not need convincing there. I guess I am trying to find a thought process where it isn't hypocritical to criticize and someone with an oil/gas background (Rex Tillerson perhaps) supporting (what he thinks is good for the country) a pro energy deregulation for conflict of interest but not think the same for Elon Musk. My thoughts being Tesla has obvious ties to electric/renewable and he has major financial stake in that.
I will not be swayed by any argument along the lines of: they want money - Elon wants whats best for the country - since its basically impossible to know intent. Perhaps both want money; or think both policies are best for the country.
I do not want to debate policy - I just think that Elon Musk supporting alternative energy is basically the same as any oil and gas exec supporting big oil. Please CMV (for my own piece of mind.) | cmv |
t3_3yc6cp | CMV: Elon Musk is proof that private companies will outshine government advances.
Elon Musk has founded some of the most successful tech startups of the 21st century. SolarCity is making bounds in solar technology and energy storage, Tesla is revolutionizing all-electric cars by making them affordable. SpaceX just re-landed a rocket after a successful delivery of 11 satellites into space. While he is a very rich individual, his funding is nothing compared to what governments pump into projects. The other notable difference is the efficiency seen in results of Mr. Musk compared to the efficiency of agencies like NASA. Private industry has constantly surpassed government in areas like science, technology, and agriculture. Tack onto that Musk's direction and view for his companies (i.e. genuinely wanting to make the world better while still being able to turn a profit, a win-win for everyone,) and there's almost no doubt that private individuals like Musk will always outpace government agencies. | cmv |
t3_2wrrb7 | CMV Modern society will collapse in 15 years and humans will be extinct by 2100. Tesla is a wet dream and Elon Musk gets worshipped for no reason.
By now everyone wants to live like Americans. We have billions of people buying electronics, cars, countless everyday items, and using systems like industrial farms, factories, military equipment, transportation and homes all made or built directory from oil.
There is no replacement for oil or diesel cars with a feasible return amount of energy all the paints, manufacturing, tires and transportation is oil based . The electric batteries are made from precious metals that America's enemies have or from underdeveloped countries. The charging systems has depleting returns and is copper based which would take trillions to run. The farms we have are fertilized, insecticide, transported, refrigerated from oil and are about to become dust bowls or the amount of co2 and feces had contaminated the environment. Basic electricity has only alternative being wind and solar which is made from plastics from petroleum and requires certain conditions to use which we can't transport without diminished return.
Even if we could live like our ancestors from the 18th century we are still fucked from climate change. We could have stopped it 20 or 10 years ago but even if everyone lived at optimum performance it wouldn't save us. The current leased oil will release 2000 gigatons of co2 and we can only release about 555 gigatons for a post apocalyptic mad max society. We will have mass migration, plague, famine, sea levels destroy 90 percent of population centers within 100 miles of the ocean, storms able to tear down whole cities and the extinction of most animals.
The last time there was this amount of co2 in the air humans didn't exist, trees were the size of red woods and oceans were 800 feet higher. There is no hope. | cmv |
t3_39sd8s | CMV: Highly successful individuals such as Elon Musk or Bill Gates are not as superhuman as they are portrayed to be
Highly successful people are frequently the object of worship. My view is that their public image is distorted by the media and other sources of information, and possibly by the way the brain works.
Successful people are generally hard working, mentally sound and very intelligent, but there are millions of people with such traits spread all over the world. Luck is the discriminating factor : you need to have the system on your side, be at the right place and time, know the right people, and countless other factors. People are essentially the product of their genes, upbringing and environment.
“Society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I’ve earned. If you stick me in Bangladesh or Peru, you’ll find out how much this kind of talent will produce … I work in a market system that rewards what I do well – disproportionately well.” — Warren Buffett
Similarly, there would be no Facebook if the hardware and the network speeds hadn't been up to par, no paypal if the bubble had blown too early, etc. Enormous success is contingent on so many things. Heck, you can even become a billionaire if you happen to be the right person's college roommate at the right time. There's more on this in Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers, for example, athletes born in specific months or moguls born in specific years.
There is also the snowball effect : a person who is successful early on will have many more opportunities, in fact there will be a geometric increase in success. It's much easier to make a million if you already have a billion. Musk is a good example of this. Had his earlier projects not panned out, it's very likely he wouldn't have been able to do the rest.
The media illusion : extremely successful people are only the most visible cog in a large machine. Their primary ability lies in marshalling other people's efforts for their own projects. Nobody can build a large company alone, however, the media will exclusively report on the founder or the figurehead because that is what will interest people the most. The brain cannot process information about thousands or millions of people, so it's preferable to make shortcuts such as Jobs = Apple's success. Historical figures are portrayed in this way as well : Napoleon single handedly fought all those wars, Hitler and Mao were solely responsible for all those deaths, Einstein came up with his theories all on his own... etc.
What to make of all this? My point isn't that we should denigrate such individuals or smugly think that they just got lucky. All of these people have obvious talents and skills. However, my view is that it is a mistake to worship them or consider all of their thoughts to be gold. This happens often on reddit : people will ask about Musk's reading list in the hope that by reading the same books they will be wealthy too, or they will have favorable views towards a singer's social commentary because of perceived competence. They might think that poor people don't work hard, or that they themselves achieved things entirely on their on without society's help.
tl;dr People are the product of the system, not the other way around. Beware hero worship and the halo effect. Be careful when trying to analyse the cause of success and the lessons to be learned from it. | cmv |
t3_231kk9 | CMV: Certain human lives are more valuable than others
I believe certain people bring more value to the world than others and thus have more valuable lives. For instance, Elon Musk is trying to tranform our transportation infrastructure to become fully sustainable in the next decade, while at the same time trying to majorly cut costs to space exploration so humans can reach mars soon.
It doesn't even need to be a dramatic example. A highschool teacher at a local school who is universally known by students, parents, and teachers as a person who is dedicated to helping and passionate about helping kids has inherently more value in my eyes than a person who sits around doing nothing all day.
In my view, if that guy who sits around doing nothing all day and the teacher both need an organ transplant or theyll die and there is only one organ, I'm giving it to the teacher every time.
CMV
After having read everyone's views, I have to say that my opinion on the matter hasn't changed. However, I accept that the actual implementation of judgement will not be possible unless you are an all-knowing being or you are judging people who have already died and whose actions in life are known, thus no future uncertainty in potential. Also, the metric in which "value" is defined by is shaky since everyone can have their own definition of what value is, but for my specific utilitarian-esque vision of what value is, I believe that you can absolutely see a difference in value between someone like Kim-Jong vs Martin Luther King. | cmv |
t3_69c16e | CMV: Unless there's a technological advance that hasn't been made public yet, Tesla Inc's "Boring Company" is dead in the water.
Basically, [the neat little video that Elon Musk released a few days ago](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5V_VzRrSBI), while likely only to keep [his speculators happy as he reports a bad earnings report](https://seekingalpha.com/article/4069002-teslas-earnings-miss-emperor-musk-clothes), is all fantasy and zero reality. Some of the issues I'll address [below are mentioned in this Popular Mechanics article](http://www.popsci.com/elon-musk-boring-company-traffic-trouble), but I think that just scratches the surface. I'll go step by step in this video:
* First off, each "terminal" looks like it will have about 4 holes in the ground that go down to the tunnels below. Digging these access tunnels isn't as easy as just using an excavator. You have tons of utilities to worry about, including (sewer, water, electricity, fiber optics, internet, etc.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_location) All of these will have to be reinforced and routed around the space that Tesla's elevators take up. Each hole could cost tens of thousands of dollars.
* If we use the 4 spaces above, and multiply that by a bunch of "terminals" in a given city, that results in a lot of places that you can no longer park cars. And in cities like Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and NYC, parking spots can bring a city pretty significant revenue. For example, each space in [SF is worth about $38,000/year to the city](https://sf.curbed.com/2016/6/8/11890176/it-costs-38000-to-create-one-parking-space-in-sf) Could add up to like a hundred per city, which is a not-small cost of $3,800,000/year. In NYC, [it's even higher.](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/12/us/12parking.html)
* Not only will these vertical tunnels have to go around utility locations, they'll *also* have to go around existing underground tunnels.
* There's a lot more engineering that goes into tunnel boring than Musk is aware of. You have to calculate stresses based on the strata, the amount of dirt above, the water table, you have to account for skyscrapers, etc. Each tunnel takes precise engineering, so you can't just let a tunnel machine loose until it makes a hole in the ground.
* Apparently each of those sleds is *also* the cover of the hole. So what happens when it rains? Or snows? Or some kid falls in? Or a car? The maintenance on these elevators will be massive. Think about how often the elevators are out in your mall or office building. Now, imagine that with cars.
* Each one of those sleds is going to require individual maintenance as well, and will also require complicated electrical lines to power them. Again, not just "boring" and concrete, but an entire system built into the bed of the underground roadway.
* Those tunnels look like they're pretty tight. What happens if you need to evacuate people? Or send in repair crews? Or send in rescue vehicles? How do the sleds move out of the way if there's a blockage in front?
* The use of these tunnels isn't going to be free, and it's going to be several times the cost of a bus or train. In a place like NYC or Boston, most people use mass-transit. In Hong Kong it's like 90% of people. Why would they switch from cheap mass-transit to high cost single-car Tunnel transit? Think of the costs: the cost of a car, plus daily tunnel fees, plus the cost of parking.
* The queue at the top could get pretty lengthy, especially during rush hour. Each elevator can only handle one car per time, and it probably takes a while to get down to the bottom safely. Not only that, but you're going to have a back-up of sleds because during peak times, like rush hour, you're going to have most people going in one direction. That means lots of empty sleds will be traveling around underground without any cars in them on one end, and long lines waiting for return sleds on the other end.
* Conversely, if there's a popular terminal, you're going to have to wait at your destination until all these elevators bring the rest of the cars to the surface. And remember, [elevators aren't cheap](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-cost-of-an-elevator).
* In the last scene, I count about 30 different tunnels for one city. This is absolutely insane. It's so preposterous that I'm embarrassed that some people actually think this will come to fruition.
So to recap: it's an expensive and impossible idea. [About 60 years ago Walt Disney came out with this propaganda film about highways in the US](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwA7c_rNbJE). I wager that in 60 years, we still won't have tunnels like the ones presented in this video.
Thanks everyone! | cmv |
t3_69pnkd | CMV: It's not just ordinary people who splurge, the majority of wealthy people splurge too.
I constantly hear people saying things like, "Look at Warren Buffett, he's rich but he drives a regular car, lives in the same house and wears simple clothing. Therefore if you're wearing clothing from fashion brands like Louis Vuitton then you are definitely not wealthy because the truly wealthy live very simple lives and never splurge."
I disagree, I believe that the majority of wealthy people are just like us, they like to splurge on things they enjoy too, that's what humans do. Sure it might not be the same things that we splurge on but everyone has things they like to spend extra money on.
For example - Mark Zuckerberg. He gets praised for wearing the same thing despite being wealthy, but what if he's not splurging on clothes because he's not into fashion? Didn't he pay more than $100 million for that oceanfront estate in Kauai? Maybe he's splurging on property instead because spending $100 million on a property doesn't sound very simple to me.
Similar situation with Elon Musk, he dresses like an ordinary guy despite being wealthy. So we know he doesn't splurge on fashion, but is it possible that he splurges on something else? Remember that McLaren F1 that he crashed whilst it was uninsured? Is a McLaren F1 the first thing you think of when you think of a simple life? I doubt it.
To CMV, prove to me that the majority of wealthy people don't splurge on anything and that the majority of wealthy people live simple lives because I'm just not seeing it. | cmv |
t3_4i5luh | CMV: Elon Musk is not a hero. He's a parasite, feeding off the taxpayer to front his research and development costs. I argue the public should have control of all the technology that comes out of SpaceX and all of his other government funded enterprises.
Apologists for "laissez-faire" free-market capitalism assert that entrepreneuers are entitled to their profits because they front the cost of research and development for their products and they shoulder the risk that these products won't be successful.
I'll leave aside the fact that shouldering risk does not create wealth, and I'll also leave aside all of the arguments that most socialists make against private ownership of the means of production.
The **current system we have is not "laissez-faire" free market capitalism.** Rather, we have a **state capitalist** system in which the bold, daring entrepreneurs get the public to front the costs of research and development before moving in to privatize the profits.
[This](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419720/crony-king-elon-musk-doesnt-know-extent-his-reign-sean-noble) article discusses how Elon Musk is receiving a total of $5.0 billion in government subsidies for his projects. These subsidies mean that Musk is shifting the risk off of himself and onto the taxpayer.
The Argument:
I argue that because the taxpayer is shouldering the risk, the taxpayer should reap the benefits. **Rather than having Musk sell us back the technology that we've already paid for**, the goverment should use the technology for the public good.
Musk Fan-boys will likely make the following counter arguments:
1) If we don't subsidize Musk, none of these technologies would exist! We would never go to Mars!
Let's assume going to Mars is in the public interest. Why aren't we doing this through NASA? Well NASA is underfunded. Then fund NASA, don't give the money to this guy so he can keep all of the technology.
2) Privatization will be more efficient and will get us the results faster!
You can't defund the institution that we created for space research and then claim that private ownership is more efficient. The only reason it seems more efficient is because we've hollowed out the organization that is supposed to be doing our research for us.
EXACTLY the same situation happened in the UK with the privatization of the railroads. Margaret Thatcher defunded the publically funded railroads. Then they stopped working and became inefficient (wow huge surprise). Then after [starving the beast](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast) she moved to transfer control of the railways from public hands to private hands.
And what happened? A disaster happened. The UK had to re nationalize the railways. Back to square one.
Closing statements:
Musk is a PERFECT example of entrepreneurial spirit in the United States. The vast majority of micro-electronics, computers, software, hardware, and high tech innnovation is developed in the[ state sector.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KP7KZ4C1Gc)
If we're going to be consistent, then we should have ownership of these technologies. Elon Musk is not fronting the risk and he's not shoulder the cost of research and development. He is entitled to zero profit when these research projects are completed. The public deserves all of the technologies that the public pays for. | cmv |
t3_34vo2k | CMV: Tesla's new home battery, the "Powerwall," will invigorate the market for sustainable energy technology and lead to a revolution in how energy is distributed.
So I watched the [announcement by Elon Musk of the new home energy storage solution, the Powerwall](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKORsrlN-2k&spfreload=10). I'm certainly not a tech expert, and I know that this technology isn't revolutionary, but it really does seem to be a well-packaged, reasonably priced piece of technology that is the first of it's kind to be marketed in such a way.
I think this will have a similar affect on the market for home batteries as the iPhone did for smartphones (not necessarily to the same degree). Like the iPhone, it is not necessarily revolutionary technology in itself, but it is constructed in such a way that it may be capable of being the product that makes people realize that they want a battery like this. And even if it isn't economically feasible for a lot of people right now, it will stimulate demand and initiate competition in the field so that prices will drop and value will increase.
Ultimately, I think that this could be a big, big step towards the feasibility of sustainable energy like solar and wind being domestically produced and consumed on large scale. | cmv |
t3_70ojbr | CMV: space colonization would ruin any planet we settled on, or change it for the worse.
Lots of articles in futurology talk about the idea of colonizing mars, or even terraforming it. Many people talk about how great it will be when humanity can spread across many planets into the grand cosmos, and Elon Musk has said he wants to live on mars. All of these imaginings of the future involve intense colonization of mars and beyond, but that sounds terrible to me. To me, colonization of other planets will just lead to the destruction of the natural beauty of those planets. Looking at human settlement of places around the world, it has always been accompanied by the extinction of native species and exploitation of resources. When New Zealand was first colonized by polynesians in the 1300s their arrival lead to the extinction of the Moa and Haast's eagle. The same thing happened to the dodo bird when humans came to mauritius. In West Virginia they have a mining practice for coal called mountaintop removal, where they literally remove the tops of the mountains and turn them into strip mines. There are already so many examples of how humanity has destroyed the natural environment to the point that it's unrecognizable to what it used to be. I don't want to see in the future that there was life on mars but we didn't detect it at first and it was destroyed by earth bacteria, or hearing that a mining company has decided to remove the mountain top of olympus mons because there's a rare mineral in the mountain. Replacing the desolate orange dirt and mountains of mars with drab skyscrapers and terraformed greenery seems like such a sad thing. I do think that scientific expeditions to these planets should be allowed because we can learn a lot of interesting things about what our solar system is made of and how it works, but any mission should strive to leave as little as possible behind. Any colonization beyond small scientific research stations shouldn't be allowed, anything more than that would bring ruin to the untouched beauty of the solar system. If anything these planets should be turned into sort of natural parks where they are protected against people seeking to develop on them, and the same should be done for all the various moons and asteroids in our solar system and beyond. We haven't learned how to live sustainably on our own planet, we're in no position to colonize other planets. | cmv |
t3_17z1fd7 | CMV: Elon Musk is a man child and a conman
In the past I thought he was a cool guy. He had a certain mystique to him that I think a lot of people liked. As of today I don't like him. From hearing about the working conditions of his employees to the unhinged shit he says and does online I just don't like him. He comes off as a pseudointellectual developmentally stunted man-child, and every time I hear about him I like him less.
I also see him as arrogant. He can't even manufacture his cars that aren't riddled with production errors, and he wants to put chips in people's brains. With the way he's handled twitter, I think that this is also a disaster waiting to happen. He says he's vehemently against censorship, but that really only applies when it supports his agenda. I could see neuralink leading to a lot of ethical issues and manipulation of large populations: that is, if it doesn't just lead to the maiming and death of it's users like it did with the monkeys he tested on. | cmv |
t3_16lc5e2 | CMV: Elon is using Twitter for power, not money
I apologize if this has been brought up before, but the discussions on Musk and Twitter are probably missing the main point. Musk is using Twitter for power, it doesn't matter how much money it's losing. Running Twitter lets him exert outsized influence in world affairs without ever having to be elected. Hell, it even lets him wave his Lil Elon around without having to be a very good businessman (I don't know enough to say whether he is or isn't btw).
Also, all of his decisions with checkmarks, and bans, and renaming are flexes. People may complain, but they're not leaving. All the impotent hate probably amuses him and stokes his shitty ego.
And I can bet he will continue using his fortune to keep on subsidizing Twitter even if it's losing money. In the greater scheme of things, keeping it is probably good for his bottom line. In that sense, Musk isn't running Twitter into the ground, he's running it to exactly suit his needs. Musk is history's first billionaire influencer. | cmv |
t3_17llow9 | CMV: Conservatives do not, in fact, support "free speech" any more than liberals do.
In the past few years (or decades,) conservatives have often touted themselves as the party of free speech, portraying liberals as the party of political correctness, the side that does cancel-culture, the side that cannot tolerate facts that offend their feelings, liberal college administrations penalizing conservative faculty and students, etc.
Now, as a somewhat libertarian-person, I definitely see progressives being indeed guilty of that behavior as accused. Leftists aren't exactly accommodating of free expression. The problem is, I don't see conservatives being any better either.
Conservatives have been the ones banning books from libraries. We all know conservative parents (especially religious ones) who cannot tolerate their kids having different opinions. Conservative subs on Reddit are just as prone to banning someone for having opposing views as liberal ones. Conservatives were the ones who got outraged about athletes kneeling during the national anthem, as if that gesture weren't quintessential free speech. When Elon Musk took over Twitter, he promptly banned many users who disagreed with him. Conservatives have been trying to pass "don't say gay" and "stop woke" legislation in Florida and elsewhere (and also anti-BDS legislation in Texas to penalize those who oppose Israel). For every anecdote about a liberal teacher giving a conservative student a bad grade for being conservative, you can find an equal example on the reverse side. Trump supporters are hardly tolerant of anti-Trump opinions in their midst. | cmv |
t3_18m0ula | CMV: Mr. Beast is no different from Elon Musk. Both are delusional millionaires who think they're saving the world.
Title says it all.
People who let the money go to their heads should not be trusted. Yet they are. So many people believe in retarded rich people like MrBeast and Elon Musk who do nothing but gain revenue from actual peoples' suffering and use it to promote their products/opinions, with MrBeast advertising shitty, uncooked burgers and Musk espousing right-wing arguments.
"People suffering gives me views, I'm not doing it[pressing a button to end world hunger]." https://youtube.com/shorts/jdRZwajE0VU?si=k5OrOi2B3RsYliNC
I think this line of fictional satire sums up my opinion nicely, from an AI generated video no less.
Rich people should act like regular people living their lives, not like superheroes trying to save the world. | cmv |
t3_12jyh1o | CMV: Elon Musk has been paid off billions by the wealthy and powerful to destroy Twitter and take the PR hit
Every social media platform has unique strengths. Twitter is very powerful and most effective when it enables individuals to share news in real time.
No massaging the headlines. No spinning the story. Or trying to fit an agenda into a story. Just simple, easy, few lines of news propagated across to millions of people. Case and point, the Arab Spring.
So, it starts to make sense when you look at Twitter’s biggest stakeholders. Foreign companies and powerful wealthy companies.
The internationally wealthy and powerful have all the money they can ever want, billions of dollars.
So this is a case of a simple problem solved by a simple solution. As a billionaire, or ruler of an authoritarian country, afraid that one your citizens may share embarrassing stories about your inhumane practices, why not just make the problem go away?
But banning Twitter from your country makes you look like the bad guy, the authoritarian, and it may even make other countries react against you for trying to silence your citizens.
So why not make the problem go away another way? A way that doesn’t make you look bad?
Pay a CEO billions of dollars to buy this annoying weapon, constantly being used against you (even if it is rightfully so), and have him break it. It can’t hurt you anymore.
From that perspective, Elon Musk is cosplaying as the CEO of Twitter, as he happily smashes the company into pieces. Any other business owner would be horrified to lose so much money.
Elon surprisingly is not. Or maybe not surprisingly? Why would you care if you’ve already been given billions of dollars upfront, by country leaders and corporations intent on destroying it, what happens to some random flailing social media platform?
You don’t. You’re given money to do demolition work, that’s literally what you were hired to do. And so you do it with a smile! | cmv |
t3_zutc95 | CMV: Elon Musk just bought Twitter to get access to all Twitter conversations for training his TeslaAIBot
Today's AI systems need huge ammount of training data. It was well known for early image recognition and later well documented in interviews around DeepMind projects. Microsoft bought Github just to have trainig data for their coding AI. Some years after the acquisition they released it, and made text-to-code functionality publicly available. Tesla Bot will have to communicate with real people, so it has to be trained on authentic conversations. Buying an underpriced social media company with many users and historical conversations is the best option for this. Having too much bots on a platform is also not an issue if you want to promote free speach, but it is an issue if you are looking for authentic conversations. Elon and his team have to clean not just the current userbase, but the old conversations as well, to have good data to train on. So in a nutshell, the Twitter acquisiton was not for free speach, but for a core feature, interacting with humans and profitability of Tesla Bot. | cmv |
t3_zg3o5w | CMV: There's no myth in the whole "myth of self made billionaires".
I have looked into it closely but i am really unable to see exactly where the myth is. Let's take three examples that are often cited in the conversation of "myth of self made billionaires".
Bill Gates - people cite that he comes from a well connected family and his mother play a role in his initial days because of her connections. i mean sure but how does that negate the fact the he literally founded Microsoft, the company that made him a billionaire. his mother's contacts didn't make Microsoft for him, he made it himself. If he was just a weird idiot who's just going to lose money for IBM, the partnership with IBM won't have lasted as long as it did.
Jeff Bezos - the classical "but his friends and family lend him 300k and hence he's not a self made billionaires". I seriously don't understand where this idea of self made became synonymous with being a dumpster diver making pennies by begging and secretly coding at night on a laptop that's being powered through a borrowed power switch.
the idea of Amazon was his, the webstore is his and I don't think that most people, even with 300 million dollars can replicate what he did.
3. Elon Musk - this one is especially hilarious. "Government made you a billionaire by giving contracts and subsidies" and "you're not the founder of Tesla". it's hilarious because it's like saying that the guy who turned a lemonade stand into a soft drink corporation isn't a founder because he didn't setup the lemonade stand.
also, i don't really think the subsidies were made available with a secret plan of "let's make Elon a billionaire". they were given in order to make electric vehicles more accessible and popular. suggesting that they were made to help Elon particularly is like saying the guy who won a 400m race is a cheater because rest of the runners simply didn't bother to run.
also, the myth of self made billionaires is a myth because people like Mark Cuban, Steve Jobs, Evan Speigel, Dhirubhai Ambani, Gautam Adani, Oprah, Rihanna etc exist. | cmv |
t3_ygo1qg | CMV: If you support free speech, you should not be happy about Elon Musk buying Twitter
Something I do not understand is why Elon Musk buying Twitter is seen as a win for free speech. All that is happening in the management of Twitter is being transferred from one opinionated group to another. People can easily be biased and corrupted. There is absolutely nothing to say that the same mindset that made the previous employees of Twitter so controlling, will not happen to whoever Elon hires. The root claim and appeal of free speech is an unmoderated area with no overarching authority, which simply won't change with this new ownership. Also, the claim that Twitter is to be the virtual equivalent of a public square is not promising toward free speech. In a public square in Iran, you can get killed for peacefully protesting the headscarf, so how are we sure that this public square is the "right kind"? I don't know what the correct solution to Twitter is, but all this seems is like slapping lipstick on a pig. | cmv |
<ICLE-PO-POZ-0027.2> | The nuclear power issue has always aroused a fierce debate in the world. The supporters of the idea of using nuclear energy point out that it is less damaging to the world than energy generated from fossil fuels and that there is no threat of nuclear fuel running out. On the other hand, others warn that nuclear power and the radioactive waste and the radioactive waste of nuclear power plants may eventually cause the extermination of plant and animal life. The awareness of the risk nuclear power plants pose to the environment, of the increasing problems with nuclear waste, and of the costs connected with the plants, as well as of the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons makes more and more people convinced that the disadvantages of nuclear power plants are greater than their advantages.
First of all, nuclear power industry is dangerous to people and their environment. Nuclear power plants are never really safe because small amounts of radioactive substances always leak from reactors into the air, soil and water. What is more, a serious nuclear accident, whether during transport or production, can cause a major catastrophe resulting in the contamination of large areas around the reactor for several hundred million years. The radiation could then lead to genetic changes and abnormalities in wildlife and people, to changes in the life of organisms and to the increase of fatal diseases in people.
Second, nuclear power plants produce large quantities of radioactive wastes for which no safe disposal exists. They can remain radioactive for thousands of years, and the y are lethal.
Third, the costs of building and exploiting of nuclear power plants are extremely high. A nuclear power plant costs about twice the cost of a conventional power station. Even more must be spent to dispose of nuclear waste and dismantle old power stations. It is also very expensive to reduce the effects of nuclear accidents, for example, the Soviet Union had to pay up to 10 billion pounds to clean up the contaminated zone around the destroyed power station.
Fourth, it is now evident that there is a link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Nuclear power plants provide armies with plutonium and other radioactive materials for building nuclear bombs. The expansion of nuclear power raises the risk of the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
In spite of all these disadvantages, some point out than nuclear power plants have advantages.
First, nuclear power is less damaging to the environment than energy generated from fossil fuels as far as the emission of greenhouse gases is concerned. Nuclear power plants release about twenty five times less carbon dioxide than coal-fired stations.
Second, nuclear power plants fuel will never run out. Uranium, for example, exists in large enough quantities to last for at least another five thousand years, while oil is being consumed at such a rate that its known reserves will run out in about forty years.
Although nuclear power plants have some supporters, the number of their opponents is still growing. It is because with each new piece of information on radio or TV people become more and more aware that nuclear power industry is dangerous, inefficient and expensive. For example, if you take into consideration radiation after nuclear power plant accident and its long-term effects for the environment, the fact that nuclear power plants release about twenty five times less carbon dioxide than coal-fired stations, becomes an unimportant one. Nuclear power is dangerous not only to the environment, but also to the world's peace. It is nuclear power plants that provide materials for building nuclear bombs. There is no point in investing huge sums of money to build such a dangerous and inefficient industry. It is true that there will be no problems with providing fuel for nuclear power stations because its reserves are ever-lasting, but it should also be pointed out that nuclear fuel could easily be replaced by sun, wave or tidal fuel. This type of fuel is much safer than nuclear power which can spell a complete disaster for the environment if not properly controlled. | essays |
essay185 | Fossil fuels will soon be replaced?
Although renewable resources of energy are elements of the current and future energy strategy, as far as I'm concerned, these new forms of energy cannot soon replace fossil fuels such as gases, oil, and coal.
Firstly, due to the limitation of technology renewable resources are relatively expensive. Researches in renewable energy cost a huge amount of money which developing countries cannot afford. On the other hand, fossil fuels are abundant and inexpensive in many areas. For example, it is estimated that China has the largest deposit of coal in the world and the government does not want to invest too much money on new forms of energy, say expensive solar batteries and wind farms. Thus the plan of renewable resources of energy may face challenges in that not every country can afford the reforming.
Besides, although utility companies claim that renewable energy is environmentally friendly; these new forms of energy may not be as clean and green as we think. Latest studies have shown that these renewable resources of energy are problematic as well and they are very likely to pose long-term environmental hazards. For example, the dams built for hydroelectricity influence the water flows of the rivers and sometimes cause drought in areas in front of the dams. This damages the habitats of many valuable fish and wading birds. More importantly, the accumulation of heavy metal in the silt on the bottom of the rivers behind the dams is extremely difficult and expensive to clean up; leaving problems for the following generations. Thus renewable resources are not as reliable as we think.
Admittedly contemporarily fossil fuels cause serious environmental conundrums such as acid rain, deduction of ozone layer and global warming; these problems can be solved by improving efficiency of the mechanism and reducing emissions. For example we can use chemicals to desulfurize the emissions from plants and vehicles to avoid acid rain. These improving methods are often cheaper and simpler compared to the high-tech of renewable energy. With these solutions fossil fuels seem more sustainable.
In conclusion as promising as renewable resources of energy sound, there is no way those new forms of energy will replace fossil fuels soon. | essays |
essay197 | Cheap air travel should be encouraged?
In recent years, many airlines offer to their customers more and more number of cheap flights. People have various different views about cheap air travel. Although there are good arguments in favour of this trend should be encouraged, I personally think that cheap flight can make many serious problem.
It is undeniable that cheap air fares have broadened travel possibilities for many people, particularly for the lower income group. These days, millions of people can travel around the world for work or pleasure. They can develop their careers, broad their knowledge, and interact with many other people from varied cultural backgrounds. Moreover, travels also help to promote the tourist industry development, boost the economy and job markets of many countries.
On the other hand, growing of cheap flights really have negative impact on environment. Apparently, more flights could mean bigger and busier airport that may be grown the air pollution for people who live and work close to it. However, the biggest concern is the effect on global warming. Burning plane fuel can releases carbon dioxide into environment that cause the Earth to heat up. In fact, while many efforts are being made to reduce CO2 emissions from cars and factories, nothing is being done to reins the airlines.
In conclusion, I would argue that the drawbacks of cheap air fares outweigh the benefits. However, it does not mean that air travel should be more expensive. Instead, people should be aware of their responsibility to reduce the emissions caused by their lifestyle choices. | essays |
essay039 | Why should human beings travel to outer space?
For many centuries, outer space has been one of the most favourable realms of study. Space expeditions have been launched and many have been successful. However, a lot of people still consider space exploration as an act of wasting money, to illustrate, astronauts only brought useless rocks back to planet earth despite the large sum of money spent on their equipment. On the other hand, there are some reasons for human beings to travel to outer space.
Firstly, many facts about solar system can be discovered. For instance, a picture of planet earth proved that the earth is round, not flat. Another example is that it is the earth which goes around the sun, not vice versa. If it was not for the space exploration, we would never know these facts.
Secondly, people can know more about the planet earth itself. By observing planet earth from outer space, people can find out ample things for example about the atmosphere of the planet earth. With this knowledge, people can work on something to prevent earth hazards such as global warming.
Finally, a great deal of sophisticated technology can be invented. As astronauts need to travel to outer space which does not have any oxygen to breathe in, scientists are compelled to do research on the oxygen tanks. Oxygen tanks, for instance, are proved useful not only in outer space but also underwater. Moreover, spaceships, communication satellites and space pens also contribute a lot to the society.
As a conclusion, I personally think that human beings should travel to outer space. In spite of costing a fortune, space exploration has given aforementioned benefits. | essays |
essay044 | Government should make more effort to promote alternative sources of energy
The increasing population and the technological advancements demand more energy than in the past. It is believed that there are various other resources such as the nuclear and solar which are abundant and eco-friendly. I will analyze these areas in the essay.
Firstly, the major source of energy today is water. Although there is a lot of water shortage to generate electricity many countries still rely only on this source. To generate such a vast energy the fundamental resources are falling short. Thus, during summer there will be a lot of power cut in the developing countries such as India. If the government encourage the use of nuclear, solar or wind energy there might not be any problem in distributing the required amount electricity. Therefore, it would be a good implication by the government to generate electricity from other available sources.
Secondly, the sources most widely used currently to generate power releases extensive amount of gases into the atmosphere which increases global warming. For example, the use of a solar cooker instead of an electric cooker would certainly reduce the global warming. In the same way, the use of nuclear energy as an alternative to the hydro-kinetic energy causes less atmospheric pollution.
To conclude, it would be a better implication by the government to promote other sources of energy. This can make use of the available natural resources which in turn would reduce the global warming. Further, government should motivate and encourage the people to use alternative sources such as the solar and the nuclear energy. | essays |
essay095 | The popularity of news media
Nowadays news media have become more and more popular. Many people consider that the drawbacks of this phenomenon outweigh its merits. However, it is possible that this idea is not completely true. It is widely seen that news media not only brings people entertainment, but also polishes up people' knowledge. Therefore, it seems not unreasonable to suggest that this is a positive development.
First and foremost, today entertainment is easier for people to enjoy than ever before. The fact is that such news media as televisions, radios, or newspapers are bringing many news on entertainment sector from all over the world to everybody. People can sit in front of their televisions and watch whatever they want, from musical concerts to live football match. This is a convenient way of relaxation after hard work. Obviously, the popularity of news media is beneficial to human beings.
In addition to this, news media help people broaden their knowledge. It is clearly seen that mass media provide people with a variety of global news on all fields, including political situation, economic change, global warming, and so forth. Hence, there is a strong likelihood that today people are able to know the world better. This is particularly essential when the globalization process has been permeating into all areas of society. Indeed, the fast growth of news media is helpful for people worldwide.
In conclusion, the development of news media has been making great inroads into the lives of all people. It relaxes people with plentiful entertainment news. It enriches people's knowledge with worldwide information. It also positively affects the way people live in many other aspects. Therefore, the progress of news media is an advantageous development. | essays |
essay200 | Some people believe that the Earth is being harmed by human
Whether human activity is making the Earth a better place to live or damaging it is a debatable issue. Some people advocate the idea that human activity is advantageously influencing to the Earth. However, I strongly believe that human activities are having a bad effect upon our planet, for human are polluting the Earth's environment, exhausting natural resource and threatening the living of other species.
People are corrupting their ecosphere. In recent decades, concurrently with the increase of human consume, the waste discarded by human also multiplies. These wastes including household waste and industrial waste are so big that a "new" continent is now being formed in the sea from garbage. Furthermore, the industrial exhaust gases are adulterating the air, causing the insalubrious phenomenon such as acid rain, global warming or climate change.
Besides, people are draining the Earth's natural resources. These resources such as oil, coal are vital for human activity, therefore nowadays, the exploitation activities of these resources are increasing dramatically to adapt to the infinite need of people. Researchers indicated that most of natural resources are un-recyclable and only several decades after, the Earth's natural resources are totally exhausted. At that time, human activity will be seriously affected due to the dependence on these resources.
Also, people are endangering other species' live. Hunting has been a fundamental activity of human for having food. Through million years of hunting, especially in recent centuries with the innovation of rifle and dynamite, people have killed many animals and even have made some kinds of them become extinct. Moreover, people, suffering from the population pressure, are expanding their living area; consequently, the living area of other species narrowed. This narrowing of living region is pushing many creatures to the brink of extinction.
All in all, from discussed reasons, we can conclude that human activity are gradually destroy the Earth since it is polluting the Earth environment, depleting the resource and imperiling other species' lives. | essays |
essay304 | Human needs vs saving land for endangered animals
In the past centuries the population steadily grew and now, for the first time in history, is exceeding seven billion. As a result more and more natural environment had to be vanished to make room for housing, feeding and industry. But isn't it important to preserve the land to maintain the other species living on our planet? In my opinion, we clearly have to change our attitude towards the environment because of several reasons.
First, the natural diversity is very important for further generations. If we don't change our behavior we will extinct many species living for millions of years on the planet. As we destroy the natural habitat, like forests, jungles and lakes, to make place for our industry and farmland, we rob the ecosystem. To illustrate, every day a massive part of the Rainforest in South America is destroyed to provide wood and farmland. If we don't preserve this important part of our ecosystem many endangered animals will loose their natural habitat and go extinct. As a result, further generations will never have the opportunity to see and study these animals.
In addition, a stable and sustainable environment is essential for the weather. Our behavior causes pollution, which heavily affects the weather conditions on planet Earth and causes the undoubtedly Global Warming. This not only affects the endangered animals, but also the humans because we are affected by the increasing sea level and the climatic changes. For example, recent studies from the United Nations Organization have shown that, till 2050 the sea level will increase over one meter in the average. This will dramaticly affect all people living near the coast and change the global climate.
In conclusion, there is to say that, given the arguments above, we definitely have to change our behavior towards the environment, not only to preserve the endangered animals but also to preserve our own living conditions. | essays |
essay254 | Environmental protection vs Economic developments
Environmental protection and economic developments might be the biggest issues in the 21st century. They are both important because they are vital to human's future and welfare. However, since the budget and the recourse are limited, governments must choose between these two issues. In my opinion, I believe that tackling down environmental problems is of the first priority rather than economic developments. The following are reasons why.
First, environmental protection is far more urgent than economic developments. All the living creatures live together on our mother Earth and she is the only one. Without Earth, whatever great civil constructions and economic achievements will end up in vain because we will all perish as she's gone. Just like a man that needs a healthy body, all the living creatures as a whole needs a strong planet as well.
Second, the influence on environmental problems are boarder and more profound than economic issues. Environmental problems are global rather than local, which means that no countries can be spared from these problems. Take global warming for example, when the temperature increases, the whole globe is affected, suffering the hotter weather together. The melting ice mountain not only jeopardizes habitats of animals living in the polar region, but its effects of the rising sea level also endangers the residents living in the small island near the equator, since the rising sea water could drown them. Environmental issues can not be divided by nationality because all humans are simply entwined together by our only home-Earth.
Some people might argue that economic issues are global and critical as well thus can not be put aside. They may say that if the economic is in a very bad situation, people would revolt instantly, while environmental problems seem to be more like chronic diseases that would not burst out right away. However, the truth is that we've been encountering so many sighs and warnings of global climate anomalies and other environmental crisis right now. It would be unwise to still deny the truth and keep focusing on economic developments and unfortunately, usually the economic developments are even the causes of environmental damages.
In conclusion, environmental conservation is more essential than economic developments in the aspects of urgency and ranges of influence. As mentioned in the second paragraph, how can a man live happily if he is unhealthy? Similarly, how can we live safely and joyfully when our home is devastated by, ironically, by ourselves? | essays |
essay281 | Governments should spend money on space exploration or for basic needs of people
Although developing technologies to discover amazing thing in galaxy is interesting, there are many people in the world are in poverty or starvation. Thus, these technologies mean nothing if people lack of prosperity. Therefore, in my opinion, I accede with notion that government should pay attention on basic needs of people first.
First, as you can see that after great economic recession, many people in many countries were unemployed. Then, many people did not have money. When people did not have money, They had to rob other people. There were increasing in criminal rate in many cities. Consequently, quality of life were dropping and this make people unhappy. So that, government should invest to create more jobs. When people have jobs, they did not have to steal money. Therefore, criminal rate were drop. Thus, people have a good quality life.
Second, environment is also important issue that everyone depend on it. Nowaday, industrial in many countries still emit high intense of carbon dioxide, which caused of greenhouse effect. Greenhouse effect causes of climate change. These impact on every living creature in the world. So, government take care of this issue by declare regulate to control emission of carbon dioxide. In addition to controlling emission carbon dioxide, government should invest in alternative energy such as using solar energy instead of coal energy. If we lived in good environment, our life would be better.
Lastly, family is a root of society. If everyone in family did not have time to spend with each other, that family could have problems, If family had problems, it mean society could have problems. When society had problems, it could impact to a nation. Thus, government should create campaign to fill love to family. For example, setting event once a week to gather everyone in family to spend time with each other. When family understand each other, it mean society and a nation will not have much trouble.
In conclusion, I personally agree with statement that government should spend money on basic people needs. The basic needs: jobs, good environment, and love in family. These three issues are the most important basic needs of people in my opinion that government should pay attention on to improve quality life of people. | essays |
essay162 | Cheap air travel should be encouraged?
In recent years, many airlines offer to their customers more and more number of cheap flights. People have various different views about cheap air travel. Although there are good arguments in favour of this trend should be encouraged, I personally think that cheap flight can make many serious problem.
It is undeniable that cheap air fares have broadened travel possibilities for many people, particularly for the lower income group. These days, millions of people can travel around the world for work or pleasure. They can develop their careers, broad their knowledge, and interact with many other people from varied cultural backgrounds. Moreover, travels also help to promote the tourist industry development, boost the economy and job markets of many countries.
On the other hand, growing of cheap flights really have negative impact on environment. Apparently, more flights could mean bigger and busier airport that may be grown the air pollution for people who live and work close to it. However, the biggest concern is the effect on global warming. Burning plane fuel can releases carbon dioxid into environment that cause the Earth to heat up. In fact, while many efforts are being made to reduce CO2 emissions from cars and factories, nothing is being done to reins the airlines.
In conclusion, I would argue that the drawbacks of cheap air fares outweigh the benefits. However, it does not mean that air travel should be more expensive. Instead, people should be aware of their responsibility to reduce the emissions caused by their lifestyle choices. | essays |
essay201 | Spending money on supporting art or protecting environment
If I had the opportunity to help a company make a decision on spending money either on supporting the arts or helping the environment, I would choose the latter without hesitation for the reasons below.
First, conservation is more urgent now than at any time in history. According to a statistic conducted by the International Animal Preserving Association, we have only ten percent of the animals that have ever existed, which means that the biodiversity of our home is grievously endangered. What's more, rising sea levels, caused by global warming, have reached a level that is threatening human's life in many countries. If we continue discharging carbon dioxide with non-environmentally friendly cars, nations like Japan will be submerged and weather patterns could change, causing flooding, drought, and an increasing amount of damaging storms. In short, the ecosystem is in its worst condition ever and if we didn't take harsh measures now, we never will.
Furthermore, supporting environment protection will benefit the company eventually. Nowadays, an increasing amount of people pay more attention to conservation; therefore, sponsoring conservation is a more efficient method of advertising. Just imagine if the project your company is sponsoring effectively improves the environment, then your company would be known as an environmentally-friendly company and benefit from it in this consumer-oriented society.
Finally, conservation leads us to a higher standard of living. I confess that art is one of the best ways of entertaining human beings, but, with exhaust fumes and acid rain, we do not have the energy and enthusiasm to appreciate the paintings or photographs. Biodiversity and a more beautiful nature are not only the results of abetter environment but also are the necessities of photography and other types of art.
To sum up, although supporting art will benefit the human beings and the company in short-term interest, I still hold the environment protection for long-term interest. | essays |
essay341 | Do you agree that the traditional skills will die out?
With the development of technology, whether or not it is still necessary to protect the traditional skills and lifestyles leads to a drastic controversy which is becoming a public concern, especially considering the significant impact taken by technology. As far as I am concerned, the importance of traditions should be valued and paid attention to.
Traditional skills and lifestyles play important role in modern society, in terms of healthcare, environmental protection and cultural inherit. Although technology takes convenience to humankind, it also contributes to unhealthy behaviors of life, like sedentary lifestyle. Instead, traditional ways of life is a great complimentary for modern life and highlight the importance of work life balance. Meanwhile, due to the fact that traditional skills rely little on fossil energy, it is more environmentally-friendly, which should be promoted to reduce the threat of climate change. Furthermore those tradition-related things convey traditional culture and values. These are important foundation of modern civilization. Protection of tradition can provide the possibility to better understand ancient culture and utilize them to tackle modern problems.
Some people who hold different viewpoints may advocate that protecting traditions consume too much financial budget compared with the incoming it takes. In spite of the fact this kind of business bring limited contribution to government finance, it should be emphasized that the expense is trivial compared with the potential value of traditions. Therefore the government authorities and education institutes should work closely together to promote the traditional skills and ways of life, so as to make people to realize the value of them.
All in all, protection of tradition is not only important for the entire society currently, but also contributes to the next generation. | essays |
essay044 | Government should make more effort to promote alternative sources of energy
The increasing population and the technological advancements demand more energy than in the past. It is believed that there are various other resources such as the nuclear and solar which are abundant and eco-friendly. I will analyze these areas in the essay.
Firstly, the major source of energy today is water. Although there is a lot of water shortage to generate electricity many countries still rely only on this source. To generate such a vast energy the fundamental resources are falling short. Thus, during summer there will be a lot of power cut in the developing countries such as India. If the government encourage the use of nuclear, solar or wind energy there might not be any problem in distributing the required amount electricity. Therefore, it would be a good implication by the government to generate electricity from other available sources.
Secondly, the sources most widely used currently to generate power releases extensive amount of gases into the atmosphere which increases global warming. For example, the use of a solar cooker instead of an electric cooker would certainly reduce the global warming. In the same way, the use of nuclear energy as an alternative to the hydro-kinetic energy causes less atmospheric pollution.
To conclude, it would be a better implication by the government to promote other sources of energy. This can make use of the available natural resources which in turn would reduce the global warming. Further, government should motivate and encourage the people to use alternative sources such as the solar and the nuclear energy. | essays |
essay083 | The nuclear power provide clean and cheap energy
The topic of nuclear technology frequently generates a heated debate with proponents maintaining that nuclear power provides a source of efficient and economical energy while opponents argue that atomic technology is uncontrollable and very dangerous to handle. As far as my opinion is concerned, I find myself aligned with opponents of the usages of nuclear power. I have several reasons to believe its disadvantages outnumber the few advantages.
First and foremost reason is that pursuit of nuclear technology one way or the other leads towards atomic weapons. Last century has witnessed the horrors of such weapons. If each country pursues the fusion and fission process some of them may try to mold it for military usage.
Another reason to fortify my opinion is that even civil usages of atomic power pose a dire threat of radio activity. For example recently there has been an incident in which an atomic power house leaked tons of radio active material into air when an earthquake hit the surrounding area. This unfortunate event proves that no matter how much careful we are such accidents are inevitable.
Last but not least, while generating energy from any source be it hydro power or oil there always is some wastage and so is the case with nuclear power. Safely getting rid of nuclear waste is a daunting task and there has not been any permanent solution of it. This waste is many times more lethal to our environment than any of the other hazardous material.
To sum it up, from above mentioned facts it can easily be deduced that nuclear power may appear silver bullet for energy crisis but its disadvantages far outweigh the advantages. Thus I suggest that use of nuclear technology should be discouraged even for civil purposes. | essays |
essay044 | Government should make more effort to promote alternative sources of energy
The increasing population and the technological advancements demand more energy than in the past. It is believed that there are various other resources such as the nuclear and solar which are abundant and eco-friendly. I will analyze these areas in the essay.
Firstly, the major source of energy today is water. Although there is a lot of water shortage to generate electricity many countries still rely only on this source. To generate such a vast energy the fundamental resources are falling short. Thus, during summer there will be a lot of power cut in the developing countries such as India. If the government encourage the use of nuclear, solar or wind energy there might not be any problem in distributing the required amount electricity. Therefore, it would be a good implication by the government to generate electricity from other available sources.
Secondly, the sources most widely used currently to generate power releases extensive amount of gases into the atmosphere which increases global warming. For example, the use of a solar cooker instead of an electric cooker would certainly reduce the global warming. In the same way, the use of nuclear energy as an alternative to the hydro-kinetic energy causes less atmospheric pollution.
To conclude, it would be a better implication by the government to promote other sources of energy. This can make use of the available natural resources which in turn would reduce the global warming. Further, government should motivate and encourage the people to use alternative sources such as the solar and the nuclear energy. | essays |
essay083 | The nuclear power provide clean and cheap energy
The topic of nuclear technology frequently generates a heated debate with proponents maintaining that nuclear power provides a source of efficient and economical energy while opponents argue that atomic technology is uncontrollable and very dangerous to handle. As far as my opinion is concerned, I find myself aligned with opponents of the usages of nuclear power. I have several reasons to believe its disadvantages outnumber the few advantages.
First and foremost reason is that pursuit of nuclear technology one way or the other leads towards atomic weapons. Last century has witnessed the horrors of such weapons. If each country pursues the fusion and fission process some of them may try to mold it for military usage.
Another reason to fortify my opinion is that even civil usages of atomic power pose a dire threat of radio activity. For example recently there has been an incident in which an atomic power house leaked tons of radio active material into air when an earthquake hit the surrounding area. This unfortunate event proves that no matter how much careful we are such accidents are inevitable.
Last but not least, while generating energy from any source be it hydro power or oil there always is some wastage and so is the case with nuclear power. Safely getting rid of nuclear waste is a daunting task and there has not been any permanent solution of it. This waste is many times more lethal to our environment than any of the other hazardous material.
To sum it up, from above mentioned facts it can easily be deduced that nuclear power may appear silver bullet for energy crisis but its disadvantages far outweigh the advantages. Thus I suggest that use of nuclear technology should be discouraged even for civil purposes. | essays |
essay117 | Can technology alone solve the world's environmental problems?
It is irrefutable that progress in technology leads to environmental problems. Some individuals are of the opinion that if people live a simple life and do not use the things that technology has brought us then these problems can be solved whereas others opine that only technology can solve these problems. In the following paragraphs, I intend to discuss both viewpoints.
Some people say that if humans stop using technology and lead a simple way of life then only we can save the environment. They argue that it is the luxuries people use which damages the environment. If people don't use air conditioners, automobiles and other such things that technology has brought us, then naturally there would be less pollution and natural resources like fossil fuels would be saved and all this would save the environment.
On the other hand there are people who say that technology alone could save the environment. They opine that now we have come so far ahead in technology that there is no going back. We cannot ask the people of the jet age to go back to the age of the bullock cart.
There are a lot of advances going on technology which are helping the environment a lot. One prime example is finding solutions to water problems in developing countries such as Africa. By pressurising sea water to produce vapour jets and filtering them through carbon nano tubes, we can get clean drinking water from sea water - an almost inexhaustible resource. Furthermore, Japan is working to build a working space solar power system by 2030. By drawing on the colossal energy of the sun, it could meet the entire world's electricity requirements indefinitely without nuclear or GHG emissions. If successful, the impact on the world would be monumental. It would mean energy for schools, hospitals, and homes. It would mean another industrial revolution.
To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, technology alone can solve the world's environmental problems. We are finally entering an era where engineering and technology are making the world a better place. It would be highly unpractical to ask people to adopt a simpler way of life. | essays |
essay020 | Air pollution
Air pollution is an issue threatening the environment in many different ways such as causing holes in the ozone and affecting global heating in the negative way. I believe that more responsibilities should put on private individuals and companies such as paying to clean up air pollution.
First, in most industrialized countries, there is a number of companies that holds heavy factories in their constitutions. The waste products and harmful gases produced by these factories cause a significant amount of air pollution. While these companies make a huge amount of money from their businesses, most of them are not considering to take precautions to reduce the amount of air pollution. If these companies were obliged to pay to clean up the air pollution, they would at least make an effort to reduce the amount of air pollution they cause.
Second, private individuals cause air pollution in several ways such as inessential use of cars and house heating. As house heating is a major need in the winter time, some households do not consider to use filters to reduce the amount of pollution that the heating causes. Instead of this, some expensive vehicles cause a huge amount of pollution. In my opinion, by charging private individuals for causing air pollution, that will at least contribute to reduce the amount of the pollution.
On the other hand, I believe that governments should restrict the use of products that cause air pollution for both individuals and companies. Governments also should use an amount of money from their budgets to clean up the air, instead of putting all the responsibility to companies and private individuals.
In conclusion, due to the fact that governments are responsible to provide a healthy environment for their inhabitants and they should be responsible from cleaning up the air pollution, both companies and private individuals should take the main part to clean up the air pollution. | essays |
essay392 | The environment problems facing today's world are so great
Nowadays, many countries are concerned with the environment problems. There is a viewpoint that the government and big firms should assume the responsibility to protect the environment and normal citizens have nothing to do for that. Personally, I think both government and common people should have the responsibility for the environment, but we need to analyze some specific situations.
On one hand, solving some environmental problems needs large budgets and various technologies, and the government and corporations have the ability to deal with these problems. For example, air pollution and water quality has concerned many countries, and the government is able to implement some policies and invest money to reduce air pollution, while companies also can enhance their technologies to curb emission of contaminated water and substances. However, individuals are unable to cope with these things.
Besides, the government and firms could have significant influences on environmental awareness of people. It is necessary for every citizen to have the awareness and knowledge of environment protection. This means that we should convey corresponding policies and knowledge to the public and society, and the government controls many influential media, such as TV stations and newspapers, which can provide plenty of environmental knowledge and related policies to citizens.
On the other hand, it is possible for ordinary people to participate in some actions of environment protection, and they also can benefit from the improvement of environment. For instance, many people driving private cars could cause air pollution, and overusing plastic packages would affect the environment. If people can gradually change some lifestyles in these daily activities, this will have many significant impacts on environmental improvement.
In conclusion, the government and corporations should take more responsibility for addressing environmental issues, but every citizen also can contribute to the environment. | essays |
<ICLE-IT-TOR-0039.3> | Nowadays, modern medicine gives the opportunities to those couples who want to have a baby and who are not able to have one, to opt for the artificial insemination. This modern technology seems to be the perfect answer to the dreams of those women who are unable to become pregnant. Thanks to the semen of an unknown donor a patient can become pregnant and give birth to a child.
According to the most recent studies, the demand for this medical treatment is increasing to a great degree, not only among married women, but also among singles. There are many examples of unmarried women appealing to medicine for their desire of having a baby. Should they be allowed to do this? What is more, should both married and unmarried women be permitted to give birth to a creature as if this were a matter of science and medicine only?
Many people think that single women should not be allowed to receive artificial insemination because they believe that what is better for children is to grow up in a complete family, not in a situation lacking of the male counterpart. They do not argue against the artificial insemination itself, but they approve it only when the demand for it comes from a couple, not from a single. They are not worried about all the moral and ethical implications an artificial insemination may imply. They are concerned with the social context in which the result of these treatments - the baby - will grow up and the child is thought by them to live well only with the presence of both parents.
Other people go further these considerations and argue firmly against the artificial insemination. They believe that the fact that Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus without a sexual intercourse does not mean that man can feel himself ready to act as an earthly Holy Spirit! In their opinion medicine and science cannot intervene and manipulate human nature. Should this people be blessed? Do they give too much moralistic beliefs and judgements or are they recognizing and taking into account the real value of human life and the moral and ethical consequences such a free attitude toward birth manipulation may have?
What is sure is that the extreme decisional power a woman can have, thanks to artificial insemination, may lead to a situation in which children no longer are the product of love between a man and a woman, but the result of human egoism, of the belief that man can create and control everything, even a birth. An example of this is the case of a sixty-six years old Italian woman who succeeded in having a baby, with the help of the artificial insemination, in order to supply the death of her son, died at the age of 23, with a new son. Is not this decision the fruit of egoism? Is not she a woman who wants to benefit herself, not the baby, condamned to live with a grandmother instead of a mother?
The storm caused by artificial insemination has involved not only moral judgements, questions whether this method is right or no, but also considerations about the semen banks. This is due to the fact that the great demand for this medical treatment has caused the dangerous increase of illegal banks where donors are payed to give their semen which is not tested at all. One may imagine the danger for a woman who buys here the semen in order to have a baby as soon as possible!
What is absurd in this desire to give birth to a baby at all costs is that all over the world there are million of children without parents closed in orphanages or alone in the middle of a street, whose biggest dream is to be adopted, to find someone who loves them. Why should women create a life artificially while so many children need them? Where is the aim and the necessity to move against nature and God, to manipulated human birth and to forget the possibility of an adoption?
One can believe progress and human intelligence have not to be stopped, but progress also means respecting pretexts for giving birth to a baby at all costs. Vergin Mary was Vergin Mary and we are neither God nor the Holy Spirit! | essays |
<ICLE-FIN-HELS-0008.1> | To dream is human, and imagination is the one thing that has got us where we are today. To say that there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination in this brave modern world of ours is to say that we have reached the end of the line, that we have no place left to go. Human beings will always continue to momentarily gaze, eyes unfocused, into foggy nothingness or distant horizon, and dream. Actually, the advanced technology gives us a better change to this than anything ever before. TV, videos, computer games, to name just a few, are all tickets to imaginary worlds. Dreams for sale. And the book, the novel, is not dead either, quite the opposite in fact.
Dreaming and science are in symbiosis with each other. Without the former there could surely not be the latter. If the ancient Greeks had not dreamed about Icarus, would we have airplanes? If Columbus had not dreamed that there is land beyond the sunset, land to west of West, would anyone have found any reason to sail there? There will always be great soulful men with grand visions and dreams, and there will always be great men of science, who burn to prove that those visions and dreams are true or false. Men had visited the moon in their dreams thousands of times before it was actually done, and it has been dreamed thousands of times after that. Science fiction authors imagine unlikely futures, and to everybody's surprise the technology catches up, and afterwards those same writers, or the next generation, dream unlikely futures based upon the new discoveries. Of course, most of those dream futures stay just that, dreams, but few drive scientists into brilliant frenzies of creation, and the cycle goes on and on, to infinity. When William Gibson wrote his novel "Neuromancer" less than ten years ago, it was just another science fiction book. But today Virtual Reality, people being able to enter computer generated worlds via special helmets, is no longer just science fiction. Imagination is fuel to science, and vice versa.
Though times change people continue to dream. Even the basic subject of dreams stays almost the same. Granted, we no longer entertain ourselves with imaginary stories about quarrelsome gods of Olympus, but even though faces and settings change the essence of the tales does not. Not that all those old heroes and divine beings are gone. They might have been through more than a few changes during the years but Thor and Morpheus, to name just two, still go on in their continuous monthly adventures in comic books, if no where else. And are monsterous terminator cyborgs and godlike artificial intelligences of today's science fiction, or Batman and the other caped crusaders of comic books, or the Bold and the Beautiful really all that different from wrathful gods, devious dragons, knights of the round table, or the creatures of Fairyland? Heaven and Hell might have changed into virtual reality but in the Theatre of Dreams of this modern era the tales of love, hate, lust, war, sacrifice, revenge and redemption are still going strong. In a way we are fortunate that we have such a rich mythological base, accumulated through ages, to draw upon. Dreams shift and change, merge and split, turn into something new, but they never really die or disappear without leaving at least faint echoes rippling through the waves of time. Vampires and werewolves might have changed their capes and canes into boots and leather jackets, and their hoods and jewellery into sunglasses and computer wiring, but they still haunt our imagination.
Imagination is what makes us human. We have lived without technology but never without dreams. It might even be that in distant, or not so distant, future science and technology reach the point where they have been taken beyond the understanding of the common man. We dreamed when we still thought that fire was magic, and we will dream when we think so again. Come what may, people will continue to dream. Imagination has taken as this far, and it will take us to wherever it is that we are going. As for that, my imagination tells me that to say that the sky is the limit is to be too modest. | essays |
<ICLE-BG-SUN-0102.1> | Today many people believe that education is a very good investment. A high University diploma can become the basis of your bright future. Therefore, every summer, the brighest students are shaking nervously, before the results are announces. How much tension and excitment!
I do still remember the time I applied to "St. Kliment Ohridsky" University. I thought the time had stopped and the day on which the results had to be announced never came. I could not eat, I could not sleep - I lost my desire to do anything, before "that day". And all this - in the name of the Good Future! Certainly, with a high diploma, you will find a good job and your life will be a dream. Or at least my parents say that. And probably there are many other people, who share that idea of theirs.
Even poor people save their last money and send their child to a University, dooming themselves on misery. They hope their child's life will be better than that they lead. It is true, that the Bulgarians have never made savings from education. Moreover, in the times of the Ottoman influence, when their life was incredibly hard, they sent their sons either to Bukurest or to Moscow to study. Knowledge and education are among the values, which the Bulgarians keep so jealously.
Nowadays some things have changed. We study, winged by the idea of the bright future, which is in store for us. Sometimes I ask myself what I shall do, after I get my diploma. Shall I dive into the deep water of business? With my only ambition to succeed? Will I be able?
Little by little you realize that life is not only scales, figures, letters and theoretical grammar. It is something abstract and complex, where everything is connected and interchangeable. Unfortunately, you can not realize it while at the University, but too late - when you have already entered the real world. And you must act as good as you can - the rivalry is merciless. What you have learned in a University will not help everytime and to succeed, you must involve your ambition, senses and wit. The most precious is the fact, that you solve the problems yourself.
Some philosophers share the idea, that you are your own self, after you graduate from University and enter the real life. Since at the University you are taught how to study and what to do, you are not yourself. You are put in a kind of frame, where you should be just a student. Yes, it sounds vulgar, but it is - you are nothing, but a faculty number!
In three years I will be getting my diploma M.A. degree! How it sounds only! Master of Arts! Brilliant! Even thrilling! But will I manage to work and to get on with all those people? I doubt, since I lack experience! I am not sure, that in the beginning I will be able to use everything I have learned at the University and apply it, so that I could get the best of it.
Actually, I don't think, that lacking experience is a fault of any University. Even more - the University does its best to prepare us for the life and to make us skilled specialists. But in many cases it confesses its own incompetemce. The problem (if there is such) is that here at the University, we live in an artificial world. Everything is arranged and prepared for us and we engulf the knowledge at big goes. At the same time we are attached from the outer world, where exept for intelligence, honesty and friendship, there is misery, starvation and crimes.
Of course, I do agree with those who say that University is a miniature of the whole world.
But I dare say - only the best part of it. The things we do improve our talents and ideas, but we never run into things, we do in the real world. The real world teaches you things, you have never dreamed of. Even my grandmother often says "life will teach you things, that no one else will teach you!" And she is right. Experience shows you how to cope with different situations and to make the most of them. On the other hand the University diploma is of a great value - you use what you have studied and apply your knowledge to that particular situation, when deep knowledge and understanding of the matter is needed.
After all, I do not think that my University diploma will be of a very little value. On the contrary - it is a kind of warrant for my qualities as a specialist. Without these things, I am learning here, I won't be able to work and to be useful both for my family and my country. Experience can be obtained in the process of working. And I am thankful to Sofia University "St. Kliment Ochridsky" for everything it does for its students. | essays |
<ICLE-FR-UCL-0025.2> | One of the modernist novel's characteristics is the attention paid to the inner life, feelings and emotions of the characters taking part in the story. This may be regarded as an indirect result of the uncertainty dominating during the beginning of the twentieth century. Freud edited his theory about the interpretation of dreams, and explained that something irrational exists in us, that the human being is not a rational being, as thought up to that time. He excerced a certain influence on literature at the beginning of the century : the Modernists tend to pay much attention to the inner life of their characters : the main character is actually the narrator himself, who knows everything that happens in their minds. The external appearance loses thus importance, for the benefit of a more psychological point of view.
In Crome Yellow the dominating idea may be summarized as follows : isolation, separation. This appears clearly in the first chapter already, as Huxley describes the garden as being cut into two areas : the first one, facing the terrace, is well-ordered with geometrical shapes (given by the trees). The other part of the garden has grown naturally, and is therefore wild, couloured, lively : Huxley here introduces the separation between two aspects of the human nature : between the body and the mind. He deplores this lack of unity in the human being.
The motive of separation between soul and body, but also between the individuals, will be present from the beginning up to the end of the story. Denis illustrates this idea very well, as he says : <*> . We live next to each other, but the true, the deep relation will never be possible. We will never meet the others authentically. The contact may be constructive if we accept to open ourselves to the others, if we cease to live in the abstract, which we scarcely do : we are too self-centered.
Denis regards himself as a romantic poet (but the concept "romantic" corresponds to the eitghteenth century, and in 1923, we are far from this period!). He isolates himself from the concrete reality of life : he believes in beauty, which, according to him, is related to goodness and truth. He is convinced that beauty will lead him to a transcendental world, the infinite.
Denis is only one example amoing many others in <R> : each character is a straight line, parallel to the others. These people don't really communicate, each of them lives in a sense cut off from the reality of the others : Sir Hercules obviously refuses to open himself to people who are different from him : he is a dwarf, and only accepts people who are like him, who correspond to the picture of the world he draws : he creates a world corresponding to his sight. He marries a dwarfish woman, who gives birth to a "normal" child. Sir Hercules can't stand being faced to such a cruel reality : he eventually commits suicide with his wife. The absence of communication here has tragic consequences and Sir Hercules can't survive to this physical, then spiritual isolation from the external world.
Mary, the intellectual, appears as a snobbish, conceted person : she frequents avant-garde artists, intellectuals, and avoids being in the presence of second-rate people. Her way of isolating herself from other people is based on social and intellectual criteria, in opposition to Sir Hercules, who could no longer suffer from his handicap.
Mr Barbecue-Smith shows a certain analogy with Denis, as he too writes pamphlets in which he expresses what he knows about the human mind, and its connection with the infinite. He is self-centered and is always talking about himself : this prevents him from a true, real relation with the people living around him. But his lack of interest in the others is not as strong as Scogan's. This man is a significant example of the "parallel line" described by Denis : through his categorical, even shocking views, he inevitably distinguishes and isolates himself from his environment, he hates nature, he doesn't believe in art as such, but as "artefact", as a product of the human mind. That is why he loves Crome : this castle does not make any compromise with nature, being totally artificial. He shows no sign of loving or understanding the young people, and prefers to make fum of them. He does not believe in "love" but in "amour", thinking that our times are more cheerful than the niniteenth century because we can now speak about sex openly. This man is a conceited person : he compares himself with the Kaiser, being convinced that he could have been such an important person in the past, if circumstances had served him. Unfortunately, he is nothing today ... but he can explain why : people in the past were powerful thanks to their personality, their qualities. Today it is the crowd which is raised to the top : real qualities are no longer praised : these are the times of the crowd, the collective, the man. He does not hesitate to criticize the democracy and lives totally outside reality. His isolation is reinforced by his political views. Scogan deplores that our world is not ruled by the reason any more, as it was the case during the previous centuries, and for this reason he feels he belongs to the past : he would like a rational state to be created, by men of intelligence . In such a state, directing intelligences would be powerful. Men of faith would be the instruments of the power, acting at the service of the authority. The other citizens would be assured that there is no happiness outside work and obediance.
We could thus regard Huxley's <R> as a story about separation, and more particularly about "spiritual isolation", which is embodied in diverse ways according to the characters who are described :<*> : we all live outside Reality, we refuse to open ourselves to the others' views and our realities will probably never meet. | essays |
<ICLE-SW-LND-0017.4> | A friend of mine some year or so ago said: <*> What she meant was that the future - as the concept of which we used to associate it with - has more or less sneaked up on us and here, all of a sudden, we are. Right in the middle of it. The friend who said it is of a rather artistic/philosophic nature, which perhaps explains her utter surprise of the really existing fact that "the Future" at last has arrived.
The fact that she has an artistic/philosophic mind is perhaps important to emphazise the contrast between the more "organic" intelligence of humanbeings compared to the "synthetic", or as it is labelled in some areas; "artificial intelligence", of machines. The fear that computers, robots and machines would conspire and in a gigantic mutiny overthrow the humanbeing, make the human-power inferior to the artificial and the people slaves to the machines, is a much portrayed proto-type-prejudice. One of the most known novels to establish this fear is Aldous Huxley s "Brave New World". The latest contribution to the common fears of what technology can do, which almost everyone agrees to is wrong, is the film "Jurassic Park" where advanced genetechnology makes it possible to resurrect the old lizards who vanished from the face of the earth some 50 to 60 million years ago.
Those are fearfull thoughts of what technology can do that is wrong. There is however as usual two sides of the coin. On the other side is progress within scientfical, medical, cultural, and other areas. The usage of technology to simplify and improve.
Which side of the coin that should come up is up to us; the humanbeings. It is up to our common sense to see to that technology never will replace "the organic feeling" totally. That it should be a mere complement to human achievements in whatever area it is used.
We have a moral obligation to maintain the aesthetical/sensuous aspect in creativity and not let the analythical/technological one get to rule completely. They might be combined - as they are now in many "cultural areas" with word processors, computers with holographical, virtual realities, and so on - but shouldn't be treated as competitors in a game of which one we need the best (with the intention of neutralizing the other one). If we completely excluded imagination - dreams, poetry, films, music, etc - then we would also exclude the human factor; the soul. We would be transformed into machines - "they" would have won. If we completely excluded technology we would be transferred back to the l9th century - which some perhaps would consider to be better - but then we would also lose our comfortable and convenient way of living.
So the main-principle would therefore be that technology is goood as an industrial assistant but can never fully replace the human touch.
William Burroughs once reflected upon the human race and our chances of survival. His opinion was that if we don t blow this planet to smithereens, we would for sure colonize the moon. He also suggested that the sensibility-perception would be a main-ingredient in avoiding destruction and therefore should be cultivated right from the start; he wanted schoolkids to become familiar with expressing themselves via the usage of language. That it should be obligatory with prose and poetry from an early age.
Of course one could use word-processors in this modelling. As long as it was presented in the right way; it s all about communication between people. The future will be very cerebral and here lies a great responsibility for the humanities, the arts. We must see that the human conscousness and spirit also follows the rest of the human mind into the 21st century.
So perhaps my good friend was right; the future is here now. We are the future respecting the past. | essays |
<ICLE-GE-AUG-0046.1> | Toasters that tell you when your bread is crisp, alarm clocks that stop buzzing at the wink of an eye, and cars that inform your incompetent soul that the lights are still on. Yes, modern technology combined with the wit and ingenuity of eager young employees and a sense for what's important make it possible. The computers are becoming more like their creators every day. They can think like your wife, sound like your mother-in-law and replace man's best friend the dog as a source of entertainment. But how human are these qualities really?
Just how emotionally touching is the personalized computer junk mail you pull out of the box every morning: "Dear Mr. Ettel, this offer is especially for you ..." written in clean cursive, the replaceable name mysteriously darker in print than the rest of the letter. Thanks, but no Thanks. Worse than Junk Mail are computer written letters from friends - what was once an intimate hand-written piece of art is now a business-like, official looking piece of information printed with surgical precision on bleached white perforated paper. Of course the cute little images of clowns and hearts that can be added at random make up for everything entirely.
Let's face it computers are more efficient than we are. They are machines programed to do the same things as we humans do, only faster, better and with less noise. People are losing their jobs to computers faster than you can say "Megabyte". The unemployment rate is constantly on the rise the economy is going down the drain, but computers are now able to replace up to 50 people at a time. What a breakthrough! But then again they don't talk back, they don't take long coffee brakes and don't "borrow" office supplies.
More than one lonely office worker has established a humanlike relationship to his computer. It has a name, he buys expensive "extras" to keep it interresting when he works overtime, staring into the deep green writing on the screen. He talks to it, he even screams at it when it keeps secrets from him in form of a flashing "access denied" signal on the screen. Finally, at home, the father of two children is too tired to talk with his young ones, but they're busy anyway, playing "Mutant Turtles from outer space" on their Ninetendo Gameboy computer. Well, what comes around goes around.
If there is one saying that validates the fact that computers are indeed close to the species of homo sapiens it is definately: "to err is human". Computers may be efficient, but at the same time they are efficiently stupid as well.
After being billed twice for the same item I had bought, I found myself on the telephone with an employee who kept telling me: "the computer says so, the computer says so". No information as to where there could have been a misunderstanding, just the plain facts over and over again.
How often have I found myself dropping meticulously counted coins into a machine with an angrily blinking "exact change only" phrase on it, only to find out later (after reading the instruction manual on the side in small print) that a blinking sign means that the machine is out of order. So much for my learning experiences with a computer.
The most frightening contradiction between artificial intelligence and human incompetence has got to be the fact that the U.S. Government spends billions of dollars annually for the most advanced high-tech computerized and up-to-date missiles and stations them in the american mid west under the control of a U.S. Army member with a High School Diploma. What a combination.
Although computers can be programmed to resemble the human being in some ways, and may be able to think on their own someday, they still remain a box full of wires and no soul - a machine.
Computers are very human - NOT! | essays |
<ICLE-SP-UCM-0029.4> | 1. Importance of the work.
2. Computer generation.
3. Time for leisure.
4. Man and machine.
5. Person in the society after the development of science.
6. Comparison with previous societies.
The development of science and technology has led our society to a new generation of men and women without originality. Imagination and dreaming seem now less important than before and our world is a world governed by the idea of material progress, but personal.
The aim of the present paper is to show technique has changed the society. In order to do so, the main emphasis will be placed in the effects of that man calls progress.
Human being has transformed Nature and also himself by work and the technologycal effort has been the base for the growth of human achievements. Thus, intelligence has been employed as a way to promote the explotation of sources and as a instrument to create several types of prototypical males and females.
The old and medieval societies conceived the progress as a lack of starvation and suffering guided by the power of religion. Then, as a result of separation with God, man starts a great age of discoveries related to the universe, the body and occasionally the soul. But it's with the origin of the industrialisation and the increase of population when individuals begin the work in chain; consecuently, particular and daily objects become so artificial that lose their primitive charm.
Nowadays, the huge cities are the laboratories where we can confine the effects of the technologycal development that have resulted in a society of consume.
People work extremely hard. The obssesion for work is not only achieve greater status or prestige, but simply to have more of the material objects and comfort that money can buy. So many, unfortunately, we either have little leisure time or don't know how to enjoy it.
Now, pleisure doesn't consist on listening Vivaldi or watching a good film of Chaplin, even reading and talking with friends (the best ways to personal enrichment) are substituted by more comfort and expensive hobbies like multifunctional diskettes of arrangers.
We work for things basically connected with external aspects (success, economical security,...). It seems that our soul is only peaceful when our pockets are quite full.
We live in a very competitive society and the existence of this competition has always meant doing things because they win us some essentially advantages. But the aim of our fortune must be to integrate the doing with its own reward like personal satisfation.
In this point we should controvert of the current technology.
It's alarming that children instead of learning mental arithmetic grow up believing that calculaters are their right. Adults buy computers wich teach them a dead vocabulary that owes nothing to Shakespeare or Milton and boring, mindless contents that use nothing to Philosophy or History. They only produce laziness and discontent.
As for thinking, our computers will do it for us, so all the little details of our lives can be stored in nasty, cold brains.
The computer generation assumes that it's better to calculate, tell the time, work out the holiday plans, pay the bills and shop with the aid of computer. After all, this civilisation is founded now on the certainty that we can even kill by remote control.
The age of the computer is the age of dehumanisation. Due to this factor individuals are products of a collectivity which holds enough power to establish a good deal of models to be followed; therefore, what people have to do is choosing one of these models instead of creating one by themselves.
This sticks out the power of communication and persuasion, both have a very close relationship.Mankind has lost its freedom of thought influenced by the media, the religion and also the science. Indeed, in the day-to-day traffic of social contact, communication is inseparable from persuasion. Everyone is his own public relations officer, every action and actitude which is observed by other people is conditioned by the instinct to show oneself in the best possible light.
Person is no more an element of personal decision, in a whole, person is just an image eternally repeated of a society where to have is quite important than to be. Nevertheless, happiness is measured by the quantity of material objects that one has. Out present idealisms aren't moral but practical.
Machines provide us a knowledge about the eternal world but what is really important is to get to know and understand man. Thus, we'll be able to appreciate the past (our history) and the future.
It seems that mankind has used the intelligence to produce several things which have helped us to survice, but that intelligence hasn't developed our imagination to build a peaceful and better world and it also has disminished our capacity to dream a hopeful future.
To sum up we ought to remember that machines won't feel for us. It today we call to robots humanoids maybe tomorrow, in the same way, we'll have to call robotoids to human beings. | essays |
<ICLE-CZ-PRAG-0017.3> | Some people say that in our modern world,dominated by science technology and industrialization,there is no longer a placefor dreaming and imagination.I do not think it is true,yet in this crazy world everybody has an opportunity of dreaming and imagination.
What we mean when we say that somebody dreams or imagines? If somebody dreams,he can be sleeping and have a dream,or he is awaked and indulged in daydreams or fantasies.He can pass time either in revery,or dreaming up when he is able to invent and concoct things.Fantasy is a product of imagination.Imagining,we form a mental picture of something not present to the senses or not previously known and experienced.
Both the state of being lost in thoughts and dreaming up things is useful.When we feel tired,one of the best activity is to relax,close your eyes and give free rein to daydreams.That pleasant state of being lost in our thoughts helps us to recover from tiredness,weariness,or even illness.If we permit no thought of disease and death to enter our mind,we will have accomplished nine-tenths of the battle to stave off these foes.
Every man is endowed with creative ability more or less,but some people act much more unpredictably and unforeseenably than the others.These very unforeseeable ones led the mankind in every part of history.We would dwell in caves without these who we call the unforeseenable.It was them who had invented the first implements,had been obsessed with an idea to fly...
There are two kinds of the unforeseeable - creative and uncreative ones.The first group puts its dreams into practice,whilst the nonconstructive lock their creations of the mind inside.
We live in times when loss of traditional values mingles with artificial life in city.Man is cut off from the nature,small children are spoiled by living in the city and modern civilization.This similar situation set up very high emphasis in the dreams,fantasy,illusions,and some sort of rebellion in Romantism and the 1960s.
People are slaves of time,he who is quicker always wins.If we add stress and hunting for money,we get a big frame of going to work and back home again.Huge influx of information goes hand in hand with expansion of technology.One woman-teacher of arts says that contemporary pupils have worse imaginative abilities than it was ten years ago.Is the cause in lesser place for dreaming and imagination?
People spend their leisure time watching television,satellite channels,video-records,they read less.That all contributes to the state of being presented nearly complete version of the story and there is a little to create by themselves.If a man wants to see something,it just needs to push a button and it will appear on the screen.Virtual reality is an excellent invention,but it is sad sometimes to live in existence that depends on someone else's fantasy if everybody has own original resourcefulness.Is really no way but accept somebody else's imaginations as the result of having no time to dream up ours,or we became so much indolent that is easier to adopt those not of ours?
Books are certain compromise between acceptance of offered fantasy and creating our own.In each book there is presented information about characters,actions and settings that helps to make up the picture in our mind.Nevertheless,everybody creates his own imagination of the action and things described.Everybody would have certainly different imagination after reading this extract:"Dusk deepened.Mist lay behind them among the trees below,and brooded on the pale margins of the Anduin,but the sky was clear.Stars came out.The waxing moon was riding in West, and the shadows of the rocks were black.Here the highlands of the Emyn Muil ran from North to South in two long tumbled ridges.The western side of each ridge was steep and difficult,but the eastward slopes were gentler,furrowed with many gulliesnarrow ravines."[Tolkien,J.R.R.:The Lord of The Ring.The Two Towers.Chapter II.pg.441.Reprinted four times.HarperCollins Publishers 1993.]
We may be disappointed if the book is illustrated.There are these conclusions - id our mental picture in not yet strong enough and we like the illustration,we would accept it in a whole or at least it would help us to lay basis of our imagination.On the other hand if we have a complete picture of the action described,we might quarrel with illustration.Thus we can dismiss it or try to add it to our picture in the way that no antagonism is felt.
Some books inspire to dreaming up our own imagination more or less.The books of sci-fi and fantasy are of a special genre that just calls for making up imaginations.They are like certain guides that show everything possible,and in that way they exercise our mind and give new and new suggestions for one's creation.That is to say that the things nonexistent or unknown in our world are described there[different forms of life,other dimensions,magic and sorcery].In detective story,everybody is certainly able to visualize a victim shot dead by bullet in its forehead,although differently,but it is more difficult to imagine a spell sent by a mighty wizard,that like a fire whip winds round a warrior's mind and sucks out his intelligence.
As one of the top possibilities how to develop imagination of our own in the modern world I consider playing heroes at a game -these games of the fantasy genre turned up after November 1989,but having been played in Western Europe and the U.S.A. as absolute matter of course before.One of my most favorite is called "Dungeon and Dragons" .It enables you to feel like some hero from ancient sages and legends.You may really become one of mighty heroes and adventurers,you will pass through strange worlds and experience unbelievable adventures.You do not need any playing board;all you need is your fantasy and imagination!Who has never played such heroes at a game,can not understand it and believe it.There is only one chance for him - try to pass through D&D and be experienced personally.
Some people say that in our modern world,dominated by science technology and industrialization,there is no longer a place for dreaming and imagination.If we avoid watching unnecessary and stupid serial stories on television,and if we do not let everyday's routine and hunting to gain control over us,if we rest and breathe out from time to time,we would have time enough to handle a nice book,look at red sky during sunset,enjoy things that stimulate our imaginations and leave pleasant impressions deep in our mind.Only the fact of playing D&D by millions of people all over the world, although it needs enormous quantity of time,shows that time and place can be found even in our world of questionable civilization,it just needs to be more independent on achievements of science technology and industrialization and be able to utilize one's leisure. | cmv |
t3_123m3xr | CMV: Using ChatGPT for academic purposes is not an academic integrity violation, educational spaces shouldn’t ban the use of it.
The title should me more along the lines of “higher education spaces shouldn’t ban the use of ChatGPT.”
I’ve thought about it hard and long, and have come to the conclusion that using artificial intelligence in research papers, essays or something along the lines is completely ethical and reasonable.
Let me start off with the pros:
Efficiency. ChatGPT basically has all information up until 2021, it saves so much time instead of going to the search engine and clicking on links one after another until you find something useful for your papers. It lays all the information in a sophisticated and organised manner that is easy to work with.
Time saving: pretty self explanatory, you don’t need to spend hours and hours looking for relevant information.
Helpful. ChatGPT can enhance your research papers, be it grammar wise, structure, clarity, factual and etc..
Money saving. You don’t need paid language services such as grammerly to spot the mistakes anymore.
Inspirational. Depending on which topic you want to talk about, ChatGPT can give ideas, dive deep into them and spark inspiration within you.
Now with the cons:
Students may use it to have their essays be written for them without putting in effort, claiming it as their own.
The tool can make factual errors, as I said it has information up until 2021.
Occasional plagiarism. This one can be talked about deeper. I’ve heard of cases that teachers have found the AI’s writings to be extremely plagiarised, but there are other studies that show that it’s completely void of plagiarism.
— Can be biased. The tool has a lot of stored data from many sources, many of which can contain biases or prejudice.
Despite the cons, using the actual tool shouldn’t be banned because the pros outweigh the cons, not to mention that we live in the future. Soon this technology along with many others will be normalised. Basically, calculators will happen all over again. Educators banned the use of calculators because they deemed it as cheating, only for it to be the norm nowadays. I predict same thing will happen with AI tools. Also, just like calculators, people with high education who already know the formulas, are allowed to use calculators, since the hard parts of learning the basics of maths has become easy and tedious to them. This could apply in the same sense of using ChatGPT, people with higher education that already know how to form a well structured essay or paper shouldn’t not be allowed to use the tool.
Now with the refutations of the con points:
“Students use it to cheat.” Although students can use it to generate essays and papers and claim it as their own, OpenAI, same developers of ChatGPT, have created counter AIs to spot if something was AI written or human written.
Some may say that people can evade the system by using paraphrasing tools such as quillbot to get under the radar. And while I agree, advanced cheating has always been a thing. People are willing to get smart to get that full mark, but teachers can solve this issue by asking for early drafts, and explanations of why they changed some things.
Incorrect facts laid by the AI. This problem, alongside the biased information of the AI falls under the responsibility of the student. Students should naturally fact check their information, a simple search in google scholar (or even normal google if it was a simple paper) will clear out the false information.
Plagiarism has always been a problem in education, but that again, falls under the responsibility of the student. If the student is dumb enough to get caught.. well, you reap what you sow. But in my opinion, the correct way of using ChatGPT in an ethical manner is by using it as a resource instead of a writing tool. For example copy-pasting your already existing essay to the chat and asking it to suggest edits or fix issues with clarity and grammar. It can be used to enhance your writing and even allow the student to learn new ways of phrasing things or organising their work. Cheating by definition is the act of lying in order to take advantage, by Disclosing that you used and referenced a helping tool contradicts the definitions of cheating; since you were honest and fair.
Thus, it shouldn’t be banned in educational spaces. It good to learn about technology early and embrace it; we are living in the future.
..but I’m open to hearing different opinions. Let me know what you think?
Edit: I want to say that I don’t condone full on copy-pasting generated essays-papers, that is plagiarism. | cmv |
t3_12vv996 | CMV: ChatGPT is overrated
Before million downvotes, overrated != not good. Something can be amazing but still overrated. Such is the case with chatGPT. While it can be pretty useful in certain domains, like making programming and such faster/more efficient, for the lay person, it is overrated.
For the lay person, it is simply a faster google search. But this is typically not even a good thing. With google search, one needs to go on a few websites until they get their answer/learn about a topic. This develops research and critical thinking skills. But if you rely on AI to do this for you, you might save a bit of time, but at the expense of developing these skills. Just like how GPS and google maps significantly reduced our skill of remembering directions, AI will do the same thing in terms of knowledge overall. Not knowing directions is a small skill to use, but losing our critical thinking ability and organic knowledge as a whole is a much bigger deal. Of course, there will be some people who will use chatGPT properly and will use it to actually aid in attaining their organic knowledge, but very few will be like this. The vast majority of people are, and will blindly rely on AI to answer any question they have, and then they won't even bother to remember it, because they know any time they want the answer they can just ask AI again. You are not a spider, do not offload your cognitive resources.
The issue with blindly relying on AI is this simple formula: garbage in, garbage out. Even the best designed AI system will 100% be confined to how it was developed/who developed/fed it knowledge. AI will never (theoretically MAYBE it will get close to the point of virtually matching humans in this regard, but this would be decades away) match humans in term of critical thinking and intuition.
I had said the same thing about Alexa and I was right: I said it was mostly a useless marketing ploy. Alexa play Despacito. Alexa turn on the light. Alexa what is the capital of Peru? Are you kidding me? How long does it take to do that yourself?
Not to mention how education will permanently be ruined: there will practically be no way to prove someone used chatGPT or not, even if they don't copy paste it is very easy and fast to have chatGPT do your whole assignment for you in bits and pieces. In general, nobody can prove they did any sort of writing or came up with virtually any thought on their own any more, it is virtually impossible to prove chatGPT didn't help.
Overall, the negatives far outweigh the positives. Though there's no going back now. | cmv |
t3_12guvuq | CMV: Users heavily dependent on ChatGPT will eventually loose the ability to even think.
Hi there, I want to have a discussion about ChatGPT and its impact on our ability to think and research.
As an AI language model, ChatGPT has the capability to generate code and write essays for us, which can be very convenient and save us a lot of time. However, I believe that we should not solely rely on ChatGPT to do our work for us.
I've noticed that some coders ask ChatGPT to generate the code for them without even trying to understand the logic behind it. Similarly, some people ask ChatGPT to write an essay for them without even trying to form their own thoughts. This approach may seem easy, but it is making people lazy and hindering their ability to research and think critically.
I'm not saying that using ChatGPT is entirely bad. It can be a useful tool in certain situations. But I believe that we need to be creative and work on our own ideas and thoughts. Using ChatGPT should be the last option when we have exhausted all other resources.
If we blindly rely on ChatGPT, we may lose the ability to research and figure things out on our own. This could have a negative impact on our overall ability to think critically and solve problems.
What do you think? Do you agree that we should be careful about our use of ChatGPT, or do you think that it is perfectly fine to use it as a primary tool? Let's have a constructive discussion about this. | cmv |
t3_124lriw | CMV: ChatGPT is a danger to employment
Let me just say first that ChatGPT is very useful for giving advice to people, and automating certain tasks by doing the boring parts. It is also just fun to play with, just like your internet friend.
But, the thing is that ChatGPT threatens to replace some of the jobs, which are for people with no school experience. They end up unemployed, and they cannot afford school, so they remain unemployed. Also, even the higher payed jobs are being threatened by ChatGPT, which will reduce the salary of every single person, since ChatGPT can handle the tasks that is worth so much money.
So, ChatGPT has more disadvantages than advantages, and will increase unemployment rate. Change my view. | cmv |
t3_115qyxl | CMV: AI like Chat GPT is really not as big of a problem as everyone is making it out to be, and people are vastly overestimating how powerful it is even now.
To lay out my context for use, I am currently a CS major college student and I have been actively attempting to use Chat GPT to see how much of my work it can do.
To be clear, I am not using its answers, I'm doing my work and then seeing if it can do it too after.
I really wonder if people who think it's the end of the world have ever actually tried using it for anything in practice.
I am taking a geological science class, and anything past 5th-grade problems it gets COMPLETELY wrong. Basic math word problems? completely wrong. Basically anything too complicated for wolfram alpha it gets wrong. Cant do my partner's intro to college math class problems either. Cant do basic physics problems and I have to check/iterate 2-3 times for anything related to programming, and anything outside of leetcode examples or stuff easily googleable, it cant do either.
It's even worse because it has no concept of right and wrong; so its VERY confidant. If you dont already know how to do the problem, and thus can check its answer, it's basically completely useless.
It's a cool program, dont get me wrong, and I could absolutely see it disrupting industries like blog writing or other regurgitative media (copywriting, etc) but other than that...actually trying to practically use AI into my workflow has been an insanely dis-enchanting experience
The main thing I see people say is "it got this good this quickly, imagine where itll be in 10 years!"..but people said this about self driving cars 10 years ago, and look where we are now. You cant assume trends will continue
(I will add though: Voice/video generating AI is genuinely terrifying, that is not related to my argument) | cmv |
t3_18cnc78 | CMV: AI developments of the past year is being overhyped and overstated.
I’m not saying it’s minuscule or even unimpressive, just overhyped. Let’s start with the elephant in the room, ChatGPT. ChatGPT is cool and all, but it’s biggest advantage was being easy to use for non-technical fellows. For instance, GPT-3, the model behind ChatGPT has been available since September 18th, 2020 via API. https://openai.com/blog/openai-api
Most of the other overhyped technologies follow the same pattern. Diffusion Models beat GANs on Novel Image Synthesis (2021) https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.05233 - Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models (June, 2020 https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.11239) These models and papers came out years before and yet generated almost no hype.
The recent hype has been by and large due to ease of access and the network effect, which leads the layman to assume advancement has been made in the space over the span of months and not years. This hype and lack of understanding gives the false impression of rapid progress, not profound advancements happening in the space within the past year or two. Not that those aren’t happening, they’re just not the focus of the hype and are actually kinda of having attention being taken away from them. | cmv |
t3_12h8ol4 | CMV: It is becoming increasingly pointless to interact with or consume media from strangers on the internet when you can no longer guarantee that those strangers are human.
When the internet began getting big in the early 2000s there were very few algorithms or monopolies. Websites were typically organized chronologically. You could be reasonably sure you saw pretty much the same internet as everyone else. There were trolls, advertisers etc, sure, but you could compare them to the background of benign normal-looking content made by normal people ("normal" being anyone with the time, money and motivation to use the internet*) fairly easily.
Then, however, the internet began to condense into a small number of sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Those companies began using personalized algorithms to cater content and to remove access to any comprehensive archiving system. This led to what we know recognize as digital echo chambers, where we were disproportionately shown content that we engage with and were not able to easily measure how the content we were shown differed from the average or our peers. This removed our ability to normalize what we saw and identify unusual or obscure content.
Coupled with increasingly capable and convincing bots (facilitated by the standardization of social media) and the increased savviness of advertisers and campaigners using social media, it became increasingly difficult to tell whether any given account online was a real, 'average' person. They could just as easily be a bot, advert, shell account, or fringe individual, selected as relevant for you by the algorithm. You could typically tell with enough research and scepticism, but anyone who's been on social media has seen plenty of people are already drawn in to thinking bots, clickbait, trolls etc. represent a much bigger contingent of society than they do (think of "outrage articles" where like, three tweets are taken as evidence of a moral panic).
Now, we're entering a phase where it will be truly impossible to tell what's real and what's not. AI and deepfake technologies are at (or almost at the point) where even with photos, videos and extensive, detailed written content, it will soon be impossible to tell what represents a real human or real human perspective at all.
What's worse, with the current structure of the internet prioritizing engagement, virality, and profit, the sectioning of the internet into echo chambers (and fact AIs never get tired or discouraged, while humans do), everything is set up to see AIs becoming the primary generators of online content, which is incentivised to be clickbaity, biased and sharable (short, consumable & novel) as possible.
Very soon I foresee internet content that is sincere and verifiably human being the minority, and utterly and completely indistinguishable from the AI-generated majority of content that is not. I'm not saying AI content can't have value (to the contrary, I've tried using ChatGPT to help with my work, and was very impressed by it) but since it will be increasingly impossible to tell the sources, mechanisms, or intentions by which the content was made, it will be harder and harder to measure its value, if any. We already know that ChatGPT reinforces prejudices in society and fabricates sources. This seems like something that will snowball very quickly, as future AIs will learn from content produced by ChatGPT and so on.
The only winning move is not to play, and, as far as possible, (presuming you value truth and real human interaction over discussing a fabricated reality with machines) prioritize engaging with real life humans in real life (I guess, until we've made fully humanistic robots, and the crisis begins again). This feels like a cynical and regressive view, so I'd like not to hold it, but I don't see any other stance.
*Admittedly this was a relatively big selection effect on a global scale, but I feel it is less existentially disturbing than the point of this post. | cmv |
t3_169p2qs | CMV: ChatGPT, LLMs in general and other AI warrant a change to our economic model in some capacity.
AI such as ChatGPT, potentially can change the workforce in a negative way, and it is kinda frustrating how we aren't taking it that seriously.
I mean, look at some tech, right? Once it gets going and is proven not to be a fad, it gets better. But here's the thing, so many people out there seem to be just fixated on what AI like ChatGPT can't do today. They're all like, "Oh, it's not that great," or "It's trash." Which is kind of frustrating for me cause it's like seeing a car crash in slow mo.
Let's not forget that tons of other technologies started out kind of shoddy and then they became more and more refined until they were feasible to mass produce and utilize for the purposes they were dreamt up for in the first place. Think about cars, planes, computers, and tons of other technologies. They didn't start off perfect but became decent and still today improvements are being made. Imagine if we did that to other technologies, just looked at their shoddy and rough flawed beginnings and went "Nope, lets drop it" We definitely would not have the world we have today.
So why are we downplaying the potential of AI? Why are we not looking at what it could become? Take Google's Med-PaLM 2 model, for example. They want to use it in the medical industry, and they clearly see the potential. I mean, take ChatGPT4 which is a step up from ChatGPT3, OpenAI also gets that LLMs could be better and even more useful.
Again, ChatGPT and LLMs could be another hyped fad of sorts but we don't know that till we know it. There is no reason to believe that it can't affect many many industries in due time, even physically oriented ones such as laborers or plumbers or electricians and the like. OpenAI partnered with 1X which were previously called Halodi Robotics who seem to be focused on humanoid robots that would be capable of assisting humans with physical tasks. Google unveiled a new robot called RT-2 recently which suggests that they are looking to embody LLMs or AIs in the future. The mere existence of ChatGPT4 from ChatGPT3 seems to suggest that the software and hardware behind this technology will become refined and it will one day be capable of giving better medical advice, program better, write better, "lawyer" better, have less hallucinations, have better memory and be able to assist with more nicher topics such as pepper farming or something.
And yes, it could be that AI doesn't get good enough to affect us in our lifetime but we should still take it seriously and advocate for change for the sake of future generations just in case rather than frustratingly focus on its flaws and shortcomings and therefore think it won't negatively change our lives.
I understand that some people see it the way I do and I am not saying we should start to panic and stuff but it just personally feels that I hear more people talking about how AIs like ChatGPT aren't going to become more refined to a point that they replace us and make us obsolete, they don't seem to realize we are in the early beginnings of LLMs and they seem to be here to stay. I also want to clarify I am not here to discuss whether or not ChatGPT "knows" or not, for me that is irrelevant, I am good as long as it gives out the scripts or IT information I need it to accurately even if it doesn't know what it is outputting. | cmv |
t3_18243pi | CMV: It is impossible to effectively plan a future in this age due to AI
In ages past the pace of technological advancement was slow enough that people could adapt to it and make professional plans around it from which other life-plans could arise. Economics preceding activity and all that. This has changed. ChatGPT and now this Q-Star business indicates a velocity of change that makes determining the direction and capabilities of the type of technology coming down the pipe impossible to predict and further still - impossible to plan around as it easily could obliterate entire fields. For instance, who would’ve predicted that artists would be first on the chopping block? That programmers themselves would be among the first threatened?
And it is not just that the velocity of change is increasing. Its acceleration is consistently increasing at breakneck, but wholly unpredictable rates.
People can bury their heads on the sand on this one, and think they are making wise life decisions with the info they have, but the fact is that the blackbox we are all trapped in at the moment makes the grander wisdom of any move as wise as any other - in short - we are all deprived of the wider contextual information given the changing technological state of our society that would be needed to make a truly wise career-to-life-decision in the modern era. | cmv |
t3_11ovg3n | CMV: AIs are not going to destroy industries as much as people think
I’m a travel agent of 20+ years and ever since Chatgpd went viral I’ve gotten more and more people (including my 21-year-old son) telling me that both my job and the whole travel agent industry will be made obsolete by AIs currently available like Stravl & Chatgpd
I disagree. Sure, AI might be able to do some basic stuff & sound very convincing at it, but even with seemingly simple stuff (like planning a trip), it’s missing the distinctly human touch. For instance, it can find popular destinations and list information about them, but will it ever truly understand the nuances of what a human being wants to experience through travel?
A large part of my job is talking to customers, asking them about themselves, & getting a feel for their travel preferences. There is so much human connection that goes into planning the perfect trip for them. I don’t think AIs will know what to ask people. I don’t think they can have that “human connection” with travelers. There’s just something about sitting across from a real human, who you know you can trust to make your trip extra special, that makes this process so much more enjoyable for travelers.
I have tried some of the “Virtual Travel Agents” online & they seemed to have proven my points. Talking to a chatbot just seems awkward, untrustworthy, & fake. Maybe I’m just getting old, but is there not something special about having a human on your side that can step in if something goes wrong, that can listen to you, & personalize your vacation?
Is it true that people don’t care about that “human touch” anymore? Is there something I’m not getting about AIs? | cmv |
t3_13rqfpi | CMV: AGI is impossible
There is no doubt that Artificial Intelligence has begun a new technological era and that it will have dramatic consequence on human life.
However, Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), as commonly defined, is an impossible fantasy.
AGI is commonly defined as an AI agent capable of accomplishing any intellectual task that a human being can. What people imagine when they speak of AGI is basically another human being that they could talk to that could give them better answers to any question than any other human being.
But I believe that achieving this with a machine is impossible for two reasons.
The first reason is that artificial intelligence, no matter how advanced, is fundamentally incapable of understanding. AI can certainly give the appearance of understanding. But the nature of Large Language Models like ChatGPT, for example, is that they work by statistical word-by-word prediction (I am told, even letter-by-letter prediction).
This is entirely different than understanding. Understanding has to do with grasping the first principles of knowledge. It means "standing underneath" the thing understood in the sense of getting to the very bottom of it. Though, it is true, there is a lot that we don't understand, we are at least capable of it. I am capable of understanding what beauty is, even if my understanding is limited. AI may able to spit out a definition of the word "beauty", but that not the same as understanding what the word means.
The bizarre errors that AI currently makes demonstrates its total lack of understanding (i.e., https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/13p7t41/anyone_able_to_explain_what_happened_here/ ) AI can only approximate understanding. It cannot achieve it.
Now perhaps, someone might argue that the AI's lack of understanding is not a problem. As long as its knowledge goes deeper than a human beings knowledge in every area, it can still become better than humans at any intellectual task.
But this runs into a problem that is the second reason AGI is impossible: Namely, that the world is infinitely, fractally complex. This means that no AI model could ever be trained enough to make up for its lack of understanding. Sure, it can improve in its approximation of understanding, but this approximation will always contain errors that will spoil its calculations as they are extrapolated.
Because the world is infinitely complex, the complexity of the hardware and software needed to handle more and more advanced AI will increase exponentially. There will soon come a time that the AI's ability to manage its own complexity will be an even heavier task than the tasks it was made to accomplish in the first place. This is the same phenomenon that occurs when bureaucracies become so bloated they collapse or cease serving their purpose - they can become so complicated that just managing themselves becomes a more complicated task than solving the problems they were made to deal with.
In short, I expect AI to advance greatly, but due to the complexity of the world, AI will never be able to sufficiently compensate for its lack of understanding. Sure, within specified, well-defined domains, it can certainly exceed human abilities in the way that a calculator exceeds my math abilities. But its lack of a grasp of first principles will prevent it from being able to integrate everything in the way that a human being is able to do. | cmv |
t3_11zcks3 | CMV: Technological advancement is making education unnecessary
The information age that we are currently living on is making education unnecessary. Ever since the Internet was invented, we had at our disposal mass amounts of information, freely available, and unrestricted.
I was born in 1975, I grew up during the first wave of the information revolution that started in 1985 when Microsoft released Windows 1, it was fundamentally basic compered to today's operating systems, but it opened up possibilities to gather information easily, that traditionally will been unavailable to you, or difficult to access through books in libraries.
Ever since that humble beginnings, the Internet has become our main source of information, books aren't necessarily anymore, we just go to Google or any other search engine, we ask the question, and we have the answer, even though that's making our lives easier, it is also making it unnecessary to learn.
Even as I writing this, I have an AI correcting my spelling and my grammar automatically, I don't need to proofread or edit this post, my English could be extremely basic, but I will come across as a well educated person, if I need to do a complex mathematical equation, I don't even need a calculator, just ask Google and I'll have the answer instantly. If I need to backup my post with information, the research will be done for me simply by asking the Internet about that subject.
Are schools even necessary this days?, except for the social interaction which I agree is necessary, schools could be replaced with social hubs for kids and no one will even notice the difference, they just need to learn basic English and maths, and technology will do the rest for them.
To summarise..I personally believe, and it's my view, that technology has advanced to a point in which we simply don't need to learn anymore, the information era is making education redundant.
My view has changed now. Technology can't replace the human interaction needed for education. Even that is a good tool. It can't replace the human brain ,at least not yet. Thank you all for all your comments. | cmv |
- Downloads last month
- 38