According to The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC , the effects of climate change are extreme weathers such as increased drought, and increased incidence of extreme high sea level. Earthquakes due to seismicity increase ocean acidification hence killing the aquarium, droughts, and deaths of our wildlife, forest fires and so on are also some of the predominant effects of climate change.
However, this is something that can be prevented or reduced. Carbon dioxide makes the greenhouse gas thicker, and in turn makes the earth warmer, causing the greenhouse effects.
However, the widest available fossil fuel is coal. Almost 2 billion people have no access to domestic electricity. As such, coal is considered to be the cheapest fossil fuel across the globe. Nevertheless, the real cost of coal is never found on any balance sheet bit in the lives and health of the people and ecosystem in the world!
The global power sector should be made responsible for the true costs of pollution. Besides, governments should subside the production of coal production. Again, the governments should make the availability of much cleaner and renewable energies easily available to the people.
Nevertheless, we cannot only rely on the government for our future; you and I have a role to play. To begin with, forests play the role of absorbing CO2 in the environment and emitting oxygen. Leave your email and we will send you an example after 24 hours If you contact us after hours, we'll get back to you in 24 hours or less. My Dream, My future Essay. F uture plans essay It is to be an engineer. How to cite this page Choose cite format: How about make it original?
The lesson of the anthropology of generations is not so much that the past should be preserved, or even that change should somehow be governed in its every detail.
That is not only impossible but thoroughly undesirable. Rather, the point is to recognize that a set of several very basic things — centered especially on the rearing and education of the young — must be allowed to happen in the future.
These can be aided and improved by many human innovations, and left mostly untouched by others. But they might also be significantly undermined or made impossible by certain sorts of innovations, and these must be avoided when they can be. Trial and error alone cannot always be trusted to discern the difference, because the costs of error are too great. But how, then, can we discern the difference? How do we tell genuinely dangerous prospects apart from merely startling novelties?
The costs of erring too far on the side of caution can be very high, especially when innovations in medicine may be at stake. What does the anthropology of generations suggest that we should truly be concerned about in the fast-approaching age of biotechnology? Two examples will begin to gesture toward an answer. P erhaps the most significant consequence of human biotechnology for the project of transmission and perpetuation is the potential, for the first time in human history, to directly manipulate the raw material of the next generation: As the scientific journal Nature noted in an editorial following the cloning of Dolly the sheep: The most fundamental fact of human natality has always been that human nature emerges from the womb in essentially the same general form in every generation; or, as conservatives like to put it, that human nature has no history.
The implications of this insight can hardly be overstated. It sits at the core of the conservative understanding of human life and society. It is the reason that new ideas too must be tested against the hard realities of human nature, and, for this reason, it is also the principal solvent of utopian fantasy and totalitarian ambition. Human aims and innovations have always had to comport themselves with human nature, and this has generally worked as an effective moderator of otherwise reckless projects.
But what if human nature could instead be made to comport with human aims and innovations? The reeducation camps of twentieth-century totalitarianisms were ineffective not to mention horrendously inhumane attempts to do just that. Could biotechnology offer a more effective and more compassionate means? The answer is maybe, and it depends. It seems unlikely that biotechnology will ever simply allow us to control or to program the psyche of the unborn. But through a combination of some foreseeable advances in genetics, neuroscience, embryo research, and assisted reproduction, along with techniques of screening, selection, and crude manipulation, we could at least come to select our descendents based upon a probability of their possessing characteristics including some of personality and mind we find desirable.
Technologies developed to screen out disease very easily become available to screen out other traits, and the capacity for manipulation and engineering will likely grow more plausible with time. As we learn more about the underlying causes of aggression, or melancholy, or cognitive ability, or even artistic or musical skill, among countless other traits, we will be better able to screen for these traits in both the genotype and the early phenotype of embryos, fetuses, and children, and perhaps someday be able to design and engineer them in as well.
This new power would carry with it some grave consequences and some heavy burdens of responsibility. We would be responsible for the character of the next generation and perhaps all future generations in a way we never could have been before, and at the same time, by plying our influence at the level of biology rather than moral education, we might grossly restrict the liberty of our descendents.
It is very likely true, as the innovationists would remind us, that parents would only choose what they understand to be best for their children. But this point misses the nature and scale of this new technological power. Our sense of what is good and bad for our children is built upon a moral vision of human life that was grounded in the old ways: And our ability to act on that sense has always been restrained by the stubbornness of the traits children somehow already possess.
In a world of positive control, both of these constraints would be profoundly altered. That newness would diminish because the next generation, and those that come after, would be less and less surprising to us, and more and more a product of our plans and purposes. As Hannah Arendt put it, in the context of education:. Our hope always hangs on the new which every generation brings; but precisely because we can base our hope only on this, we destroy everything if we so try to control the new that we, the old, can dictate how it will look.
Exactly for the sake of what is new and revolutionary in every child, education must be conservative; it must preserve this newness and introduce it as a new thing into an old world. Rather than new people in an old world, the generations designed by our biotechnology would increasingly be familiar people — made to suit our preferences — in a new and unfamiliar sort of world, a world unhinged from the limits that defined the past, and so unlikely to bring forth the surprises that define the future: The innovationist ideal becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We would also find ourselves stuck with the consequences of present ideas and fads, imprinted permanently in the biology of our descendents. In almost every age, someone has proposed some clever and terrible scheme for how children should be reared and raised. Misguided educational fads have done real damage now and then, but they have generally not gone very far, because some traditional practices grounded in natural attachments seem to accord best with the character of parents and children.
Such practices have resisted every effort at radical reform. It has been very good for us that the raw material of humanity remains raw in every generation. Think of what it would be like to enter the world as a person with physical or mental traits selected in advance, and to grow and get to know oneself as such a person. Think of what it would mean to know that your parents chose you or designed you to possess certain qualities, to affect certain traits, to be some particular way.
Not only the knowledge of which traits you were chosen to have, but even simply the knowledge that you are as you are because your parents expected something in particular out of you, would be certain to constrain your sense of possibility and independence.
In purely biological terms, the trait-selected child would still have an unknown potential, because we are not likely to develop anything approaching absolute control of the biology of our descendents. But in terms of the human experience of life, that child, unlike any of us, would live always shadowed by the presence of parental will expressed in his or her own biology.
We know what can happen when children are pushed too hard to live out parental expectations and wishes. This diminution of freedom would intensify as its effects reverberated through the generations. Lewis understood this consequence of our increasing power over man in , even if he did not foresee the precise technological means of achieving it.
In The Abolition of Man , Lewis wrote:. A picture is sometimes painted of a progressive emancipation from tradition and a progressive control of natural processes resulting in a continual increase of human power.
In reality, of course, if any one age really attains, by eugenics and scientific education, the power to make its descendents what it pleases, all men who live after it are the patients of that power.
They are weaker, not stronger: The real picture is that of one dominant age — let us suppose the hundredth century A. It is no surprise that the present-centered anthropology of innovation, which seeks to ignore the critical task of transmitting our cultural inheritance to the future, has also taken it upon itself to stop the endlessly reiterating procession of generations, and to take in hand the biology of our descendents, turning the future into an unlimited extension of the present.
If the future must be populated by other people, say the innovationists, let them at least not start from biological scratch. And yet, by unmooring human nature from its permanent foundations — foundations that have been the sources of our social, cultural, and political institutions — this project would indeed start future generations from scratch in a more profound and decisive way.
This is one way in which biotechnology directed to the human person has the potential to dramatically disrupt the all-important process of transmission, and one reason why those informed by the anthropology of generations worry about it. Engineering human biological change is, in these terms, a very different matter from engineering animals and plants to better serve our needs. And once it has done so, we are cut off from the roots of all other movements for change and improvement.
The modern age and the scientific revolution have sought, with great success, to better fit the world to man. But by altering man himself, we now seek to better suit mankind to Only to the short-term wishes of the present. Imagining the future in terms of generations helps us see how terribly shortsighted such a project is likely to be, and how disruptive of the critical mission of bringing up future generations it is almost certain to be.
T he mission of managing the junction of the generations relies, as we have seen, not only on the work of individual parents or teachers, but also on some shared sense of the character and significance of a full and dignified human life, and on a culture that supports and builds that sense. The way we understand ourselves obviously shapes the way we introduce ourselves to the next generation, both the lessons we give and the examples we offer.
In the biotech debates, this is why conservatives defend large and often fairly vague ideas of human dignity, human limits, and human excellence. For many conservatives, the argument about biotechnology is an argument about the future of our idea of humanity. That idea shapes human ideals and aspirations, in this generation and in future ones; it is the substance of what we stand to teach the future.
In subtle but absolutely critical ways, the biotechnology revolution is likely to impinge on this self-image of humanity, and in doing so to affect the assumptions and intuitions of future generations entering a world reshaped.
By changing the way they regard their humanity, it will affect the way they live it out and pass it on. Our ability to reorder and transform some prime ingredients of the human experience — our desires, our bodily selves, the relation of our actions and our happiness — requires us to think in a new way about the meaning of our innovations for the future.
The question is whether these changes will diminish or enhance the lives lived under their influence. We should not pretend to have a simple answer to that question. But here again, it is crucial to see things through the eyes of a new generation entering the world we are constructing, and growing up knowing no other.
To grow up in a world where personality and behavior are subject to carefully targeted scientific control, where physical performance and mental acuity are routinely enhanced by drugs, where procreation is a laboratory procedure, where the human animal is primarily understood as a chemical machine to be manipulated by a rational controller, is to develop in a very different place than that which has built up our idea of human life and human aspiration until now.
It is to mature, and to build the capacity to reason and intuit, in an unfamiliar universe of concepts, where the basics of human being, acting, and feeling in the world stand profoundly altered.
No one can know exactly what these changes will mean. But we also cannot simply expect that a rational, humane, or noble choice will mean the same thing to a person who has grown up in such a place, with such a sense of self, as it now does to us. Diminished concepts of human activity, human relations, and human dignity might affect the present generation only mildly, indeed perhaps only theoretically.
But the effects on our ability to introduce ourselves to future generations who would grow up knowing no other way would be far more significant. This worry is painfully vague and notoriously difficult to translate into the language of liberal-democratic politics, but it is no less real for being so. It lays at the bottom of a great deal of the general disquiet regarding the age of biotechnology. Rendering it into recognizable social and political arguments is a key challenge for any future conservative bioethics.
The language of human dignity begins to point in this direction, and conservatives in the coming years will need to work to make that language more concrete and to understand its implications. T hese general reflections do not by any means simply add up to arguments for stopping the progress of biotechnology, and the concerns they raise do not simply outweigh the great promise of many biotechnologies. But they do add up to an argument for thinking about the future in terms of those who will actually live there — in terms of future generations.
Thinking in these terms reminds us of the heavy burden of responsibility we bear, as a generation confronting the biotechnology revolution at its outset.
Writing sample of essay on the given topic "Life In The Future ()" Life In The Future () The s decade came with revolutions in many fields and sectors across the world. The internet kicked in and revolutionized the world, bringing forth things not thought of previously. Life In The Future () (Essay Sample) March 16, by.
Dec 29, · Hi everybody, please revise the following essay for me, thanks alot indeed! the future is more frightenning than it is exciting, do u agree or disagree with this opinion, use the specific reasons and examples to support your answer. _____ “The world is flat” so there are many reasons for people to consider that the world is more and more exciting, comfortable, interesting in the future.
What the future will be like essaysWhat the future will be like? This question worried and is worrying people. We know almost everything about the past; it has been written a lot of books about the past. Future does not program. We can only conjecture what the future will be like. Now, we live in th. I think the life in the future won't be very different by now. The technology will change everything- life. in space, transport and the most important thing- the life on the earth and the life of the ordinary men.. The new technologies will open up more walls for the people to move from place to /5(4).
Free future papers, essays, and research papers. Satire and Tone in "The Once and Future King" - There is a direct link in Book I and Book IV of the Once and Future King from the animation and adventure that Wart experiences to the fall of King Arthur’s reign. Writing sample of essay on a given topic "School In The Future".