Everyone should be able to follow the President’s account

Twitter which is one of the most popular social media network is used by not only civil people but by celebrities and governors, presidents as well. As on every other similar pages to Twitter, you can have a choice to block those who you do not want to be able to look at your profile, your comments, or anything you share. The article is about the president-elect, Donald Trump, whether he should or not be allowed to block people such as journalists, reporters because of their negative remarks of him.

In the first paragraph, the writer of the article claims the following: “In a modern democratic society keeping the social media account of a president open to all ought to be a matter of custom.”

To my mind, this statement is inaccurate, since a user, whoever he or she is, should have the right to decide whether he or she wants certain people to see what they post or share.

In the second paragraph the writer continues this point of view by expressing that the right decision for Trump would be to unblock those who are now unable to see his account when he enters his office. The writer does not support her claims about why this should work this way, she only mentions requirements. According to her, Twitter and other social media platforms are part of the new normal, a shared reality that demands new best practices about press freedom and good governance.

Nevertheless, these platforms are several times used for showing other personality than you really have. Therefore, it is totally different when, in this case, a President gives speeches in live or points out his opinion via the Internet. In these cases, you had better stick to the norms, and accept that social media and live manifestation are two completely distinctive things.

The other author reflecting to the same topic thinks about the issue quite reasonably. On the one hand, she points out that the choice to block is no different from a decision to decline an invitation to a conference. This is the opposite of the other writer’s opinion.

On the other hand, she also says that if the president blocked followers only to separate himself from inconvenient truths or criticism, it would be a different story. This argument seems quite reasonable since if the president exclusively accepts positive comments, it would not be a fair attitude from him.

All in all, social media platforms may have both positive and negative sides; however they cannot replace real life. One should not require from a president to behave in a way he would in reality in front of thousands of people, answering to journalists, or giving interviews. No one could be obliged to do so. Social media is another world.

The disastrous effects of palm oil

The disastrous effects of palm oil

Palm oil is a vegetable fat derived from oil-palm’s thick jacket. Initially it was planted in West-Africa, but it can flourish anywhere if it is in a warm atmosphere. Nowadays, it is planted across Africa, Asia, North and South America, without using sustainable measures. Palm oil appears in a vast amount of artificial foods, sweets, cleaning agents and cosmetic products, approximately in 40-50% of household products in countries such as the United States or England. Regarding every aspect, the use of palm oil is damaging: it can be held accountable for several environmental problems, such as deforestation, animal cruelty, habitat decrease and climate change. The massive destruction of natural forests not only emits huge quantities of smoke into the atmosphere, but pushes species such as the orangutan to extinction. Also, the establishment of palm oil plantations is often promoted as a way of bringing development to poor, rural regions, but locals earn barely enough income to survive and support their families.

According to Say No To Palm Oil, every hour an area the size of 300 football fields of Indonesia and Malaysia is cleared in the rainforests to give free vent to palm oil production. The elimination of forests and burning invaluable timber causes the emitting of huge quantities of smoke into the atmosphere. Plants, trees and other organisms produce glucose and oxygen from carbon dioxide and water by the use of light as an only source of energy. This chemical process is called photosynthesis. As a result, the elimination of forests in the concerned areas causes the increase of air pollution, since less carbon dioxide is cleared from the air due to shrinking forests. The development of palm oil is also associated with land erosion or the pollution of rivers. The roots of rainforest trees help in balancing the soil, thus the removal of forests contributes to land erosion and after a heavy rainfall it can become an everyday issue especially in Borneo and Sumatra.

Currently, a third of all mammal species in Indonesia are known to be critically endangered as a result of the unsustainable development of palm oil, swiftly destroying the natural habitats of the endangered species. One animal in particular is now widely acknowledged as the symbol of deforestation, particularly in the areas of Borneo and Sumatra, the orangutan. Since they share over 97% of our DNA, they are considered as one of our closest relatives. These incredible creatures share the same intellect as a 5-to-6 year old child with the skills of learning sign language or undoing bolts, yet supposedly 6-12 orangutans are slaughtered each day, often in cruel ways. Usually trees fell on them or they are crushed by logging machines. Moreover, plantation owners often place a bounty on the head of these primates, since they occasionally come round their territory. Pushing the species to extinction, 90% of the orangutan’s natural habitat has been destroyed. According to the WWF, if nothing changes, these beautiful creatures could be extinct within the next 3-5years. As a matter of fact, orangutans play a vital role in keeping up the health of the ecosystem. For instance, the spread of several types of rainforest seeds in Indonesia can only be germinated once passed through a gut of an orangutan. Sadly, over 50,000 orangutans have already been killed in the last two decades. In addition, there are over 300,000 different animals in the jungles, most of which are killed and displaced during the process of deforestation. The development of palm oil increases accessibility of animals to poachers and wildlife smugglers, who capture and sell them as pets, force them into zoos, use them for experiments or kill them for their body parts. Other animals that suffer from the consequences of palm oil increase include species like the Sumatran Tiger, Sumatran Rhinoceros or the Pygmy Elephant.

While palm oil production causes real harm to the environment, it provides employment for people in Southeast Asia. Unfortunately, this goes hand in hand with some destructive effects on groups of people. Since the government’s main interests include profit, they sell lands owned by indigenous people to corporations. Losing their property is one issue out of many. Indigenous people also have to face such devastating impacts as child labour in Indonesia and Malaysia. Children are made to carry loads of heavy fruit, and spend hours every day bent over collecting fruit from the plantation floor. They often suffer from heat exhaustion, cuts and bruises caused by the hard work. If that would not be enough, children also receive little or no pay at all for their efforts. Unluckily, locals often have to realize that they have no other choice but to become plantations workers, since the lack of other opportunities.

Although the issues listed above are quite severe, there is still hope. There is a possibility of the production of a sustainable palm oil. Though many environmentalists and organizations are sceptical about the topic, it might work. The main idea is to be able to produce palm oil without further deforestation, animal cruelty and harm of people. The RSPO’s (Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil) aim is to merge shareholders from the palm oil industry. According to Kodas, RSPO is currently the biggest non-profit organisation dealing with the present issue, though it does not ban the destruction of rainforests. Fortunately, not everyone has to join non-profit organizations to make a difference. By checking out the ingredients on purchased products, it can be easily avoided to buy goods that contain palm oil. It is important to remember that palm oil is not just destructive considering the environment and wildlife, but it is also harmful for your health.

Works Cited

"Palm Oil." Say No To Palm Oil | What's The Issue. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2016.

http://www.saynotopalmoil.com/Whats_the_issue.php

Kodas, Michael. “How did palm oil become such a problem – and what can we do about it?”

Ensia.com, 3 November, 2014

http://ensia.com/features/how-did-palm-oil-become-such-a-problem-and-what-can-we-do-about-it/

Evaluation of the article Euthanasia: Right to life vs. Right to die

Evaluation of the article Euthanasia: Right to life vs. Right to die

The article was written by Suresh Bada Math and Santosh K. Chaturvedi and

was published in 2012 in the Indian Journal of Medical Research. It reflects upon how the

practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering has become a

highly controversial issue in the contemporary health care. The article lists both the pros

and cons of euthanasia.

One of the argument against euthanasia focuses on the constitution of India,

according to which "Right to life" is considered as a natural right, which means that

suicide is an unnatural termination of human life. The main weak point of this argument is

the usage of word "suicide". Euthanasia can not be entirely interpreted as such, since it is

about terminally ill people whose life is more of suffering than real life and this practise

can help them to end their pain. This statement can be true for real suicide, that is true,

but in this sense, the case of euthanasia makes some kind of a difference.

An other argument against euthanasia is related to the possible presence of a mental

illness, suggesting that terminally ill people often suffer from depression or other mental

disorders which may be a highly determinative factor in their decision to opt for

euthanasia. As a consequence, the assessment of the mental contition of the individuals

who chose euthanasia should be necessary. This is a highly convincing argument, mental

illnesses can play an essential part in the individual's intention to choose euthanasia, this

is why it is important to make sure that the individual seeking for euthanasia does not

suffer from mental problems.

An argument for euthanasia is connected to the idea that people having incurable,

disabling or debiliating illnesses should be allowed to die in dignity. On one hand, it is an

understandable point considering the fact that due to the suffering, their life is not

complete, on the other hand, it is still a life, for which everyone should be grateful for,

regardless of the health condition. Even terminally ill people should live in dignity rather

than die in dignity, not to mention the feelings of relatives after losing their family member

who chose to die, basicallly. This kind of experience can be hard to get over.

An other argument for euthanasia is related to organ transplantation, suggesting that

euthanasia provides a chance to support organ donation. This is a strong argument

reflecting on the fact that it could provide help for those people who are waiting for organ

transplantation. It would be an a great opportunity for saving the life of people with organ

problems. Generally, the waiting lists for any organ transplant are reasonably long, and

euthanasia could be an effective way of accelerating the transplantation process.

In conclusion, the article lists several arguments, taking into consideration

different perspectives. Some of them are quite convincing, but some of them are not not

too strong, which can be put down to the fact that it is hard to decide whether euthanasia

is right or wrong, since it depends on a lot of aspects given by different situations of the

people seeking for euthanasia. There are quite a lot of issues to consider in order to form

an opinion either for or against it.

Sources:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3612319/

Viewing animal testing from a wider perspective

Viewing animal testing from a wider perspective

Tesing animals for commercial purposes has become a highly controversial issue. It

can be pointed out that it may be the most effective way to test certain products since

animals are approppriate subjects because of their similar organism. However,

considering the animals’ point of view, this may not be entirely true. Testing cosmetic

products on animals is a highly inhuman and unnecessary practice.

From the physical point of view, it can be concluded that animal testing involves

cruelty and brutality. Animals are forced into circumstances under which they are

suffering, basically. For instance, they are often deprived of food and water during the

research period. These are basic necessities which they can not get to for a relatively long

time because of the experiments. Animals are also physically restrained and vulnerable,

since they have to stand all kinds of brutal methods that testers use on them. The Draize

Eye test is one of them, which tests reaction of the eyes of the subjects to find whether the

certain product causes irritation or not. Animals are not always given anesthesia, which

makes their suffering even more painful and unbearable. Testing animals predominantly

leads to their death.

From a scientific perspective, there are other, alternative testing methods which could

easily replace the necessity of using animals as the subject of experiments. For instance,

artificial human skins, such as EpiDerm or ThinCert could be a more effective way of

testing, since they are created by using human skin cells. There are also existing computer

models, which are responsible for determining the level of toxicity of substances.

Microdosing, the studying of the human’s reaction to drugs can be used on people on a

voluntary basis. These proceedings do not involve making experiments on animals, yet

are proven to be effective and provide more reliable results in human beings than animal

testing would do.

From the biological point of view, humans and animals can not be considered to be

alike. There are several anatomic, metabolic and cellular differences between people and

animals which suggest that testing animals is not always the most reliable source of

research. Our metabolism is similar to animals’, yet we can observe significant

differences between them. Animals do not always react the same way to certain products

Zsuzsanna Szabó

as humans do. Furthermore, the circumstances under which animals are tested are

significant factors to take into consideration. Experiments create an unnatural

environment for animals in a way that their reaction can be easily influenced by the

circumstances under which the testing is carried out.

Taking into consideration the above mentioned aspects, it can be concluded that

testing cosmetic products on animals is inhuman and unnecessary. There are several

substitute methods, which seem to be more efficient and morally accepted and

they do not involve the torturing of animals. All in all, scientists should rely more on

alternative testing methods.

Sources:

http://animal-testing.procon.org/

Article Evaluation on “The Vegan Carnivore?”

Article Evaluation on “The Vegan Carnivore?”

Julian Baggini’s article “The Vegan Carnivore?” examines the issue concerning laboratory grown meat: it makes humanity to redefine her morals about meat consumption, especially vegetarians and vegans. His article tackles the idea of in vitro meat (IVM)  replacing traditional (reared and slaughtered) meat, also it discusses ideology of vegetarianism, because (IVM) was produced without harming animals, yet most vegetarians would still refuse to even try it. His conclusion is that in the close future people will have to reach a point when both meat productions are accepted, because neither of them is good or bad. Technological dependency has its drawbacks just like farming has (for example greenhouse gas emission), and to have a balanced attitude to food we have to accept both.

The author is a British philosopher, a writer, and founding editor of The Philosopher’s Magazine, and his latest book, The Virtues of the Table was published in 2014. The topic discussed can be also found in articles in Time, National Geographic, and CNN beside many other websites, blogs, and journals.

Baggini’s idea on the topic is that the bucolic idea of placing back food industry to an early state, or to have IVM totally replacing traditional meat are both far-fetched. He spends a relatively long period in his article discussing how lab-grown meat tests the vegetarian community’s ideology. His point is that from the point of view of ethics and sustainability IVM should be welcomed by vegetarians, but as he examines this topic he presents us that au contraire: the attitude is still quite to same, except for some individual opinions. Thus it can be seen that vegetarianism’s main idea is not about not harming animals by eating their flesh, but to go back to a romantic agricultural state of not eating meat (or at least reducing it).

To back up his claims Baggini cites many sources: organizations, like Greenpeace or PETA, scientists, other philosophers, and authors. His sources are not listed by the end of the article, but they are quite appropriately referred to in the text. There are no logical fallacies in the article, the author examines the issue from all points of view: the point of view of Mark Post, who created in vitro meat, the consumers’ opinion on IVM (they found it to be ‘not juicy’ or not tasteful enough, because the lack of grease, otherwise it was said to be perfect), the counterparts’ opinion (Greenpeace, PETA, Vegetarian Society, etc.). Concerning the form, it is well-balanced: the paragraphs are of a similar length, and the segments discussing one particular issue are similar as well.

There is one thing in the article that I found out of place and did not really understand: that is right the first sentence of the second paragraph. It is the following: “Post (which rhymes with ‘lost’, not ‘ghost’) has been working on in vitro meat (IVM) since 2009.” The part in parentheses makes no sense, and cannot be related to any part of the article. It is like a joke, or a reference to the relationship between the author and the scientist, anyway, it should have been left out of an otherwise academic article.

All in all, “The Vegan Carnivore?” is an academic article going through thoroughly the question of cultured meat, exploring all ideas and opinions surrounding the issue. The conclusion is to find balance, and that neither total dependency on technology, nor an overly romanticised idea of going back centuries in time in agriculture is good, which I agree with. 

Evaluation of James Hamblin’s article Buy Experiences, Not Things

Evaluation of James Hamblin’s article Buy Experiences, Not Things

            James Hamblin is an American, Brooklyn-based writer and senior editor at The Atlantic magazine where he developed a health section. His writings have been featured in/on many well-known papers and websites. The article I have chosen was published in 2014 in The Atlantic magazine where he introduces the readers how buying material or experiential things affects our minds and behaviors.

            As I was going through the article, I realized that Hamblin successfully presented the research in an objective way; he only inserted one personal opinion after a particular statement. Throughout the whole article, he mentions the people who conducted the research on this topic; a psychologist, a psychology professor, and a doctoral candidate. However, he uses several direct quotations only from the doctoral candidate, which I would not consider as an error. He presents several examples proving that buying experiences like plane, movie or concert tickets, can actually make people happier than buying a concrete material thing. For all of his statements he uses his sources to confirm them and he draws good conclusions of the study.

            His main idea, to my opinion, is that “experiential purchases are more satisfying than material purchases”. Although, it is not what he states in the introductory part. His introduction is about the “wandering mind” and that "a wandering mind is an unhappy mind”. Also, I am not sure about his topic sentence, I am just guessing that it is the last part of the last sentence that I quoted a sentence ago; "a wandering mind is an unhappy mind”. If we take a look at the title and the introductory part, for me, they have nothing to do with each other. However, the first paragraph is catchy and it keeps the reader’s attention.

            Considering the final, closing paragraph, it is also not too strong. Somehow it manages to conclude the previously written statements, however, just like in the first paragraph, the topic sentence does not really appear. As in the very first paragraph, he refers back to the topic sentence in the last sentence of the last paragraph saying: “And when our minds wander, that's where they'll go”. I think he could have produced a better summarized last paragraph.

            In conclusion, James Hamblin’s writing is nicely written, however, the introductory and the final paragraph were not so convincing for me. As I agree with and have the same opinion about the topic discussed, I was very curious about the whole issue and it kept my attention. The writer included the most important and interesting facts about the study.

Works cited

Hamblin, James. “Buy Experiences, Not Things.” The Atlantic Magazine 7 October 2014,                     http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/buy-experiences/381132/. 

Gay Couples’ Right to Adopt in the 21st Century

Gay Couples’ Right to Adopt in the 21^st Century

Nowadays, homosexuality and also these people’s rights are a debuted issue. Most frequently, it is questioning in this topic whether law should allow parents from the same gender to adopt and raise a child as it is considered to be unnatural and usually problematic if one examines the psychological development of a child.  Moreover, homosexuality is one of the most disputed phenomenon with its divisive power among a society so gay couples’ rights have been in a continuous change that people have to realize and accept. I believe that adoption for gay couples should be allowed and ensured by law as people have the basic human right to be treated equally.

On the other hand, the discrimination that appears in this case raises the question whether people can talk about equality which is officially determined as:”The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities”. Evidently, homosexuality is not the part of this ‘category’ due to the lack of rights to get married or the lack of opportunity to live without any kind of segregation. In many countries gay people are not supported or protected by any laws and without it everybody has the right to treat them according to their best beliefs. However, there have been several measures to extend and support federal legal protections for homosexual couples in certain countries and in the USA since the 21st century. As the act, which defined marriage as a union between man and woman, was repealed in 2013, the government of the USA started to recognize same-sex marriage and other marriage programs and laws (Barnes no pag.). Moreover, same-sex marriage became legal in 19 states and with the Employment Nondiscrimination Act homosexuals are also protected from any kind of discriminative treatment in their workplace, which means that equal opportunities have started to develop (O’Keefe no pag).

At the same time, homosexuality is also the target of some rancorous people. It is our society that mainly generates the hatred and doubts against gay people, therefore through a legal process should be ensured their rights that they are equally entitled to have. Similarly, adoption is a process through one can have a child and also have the opportunity to raise one. As it is supervised by law there is no need to discriminate any couple just on the basis of sexual orientation.  They should be treated as equal to the other applicants and in the same way the general and financial background of gay couples should be supervised not their sexual orientation.

In conclusion, I believe that nowadays the term: “separate but equal” has also the significance and meaning and it is relevant in the case of homosexuality. In 1896 Homer Plessy was arrested for traveling in a train reserved for only white people in New Orleans, Louisiana. Being a man of mixed race, he was treated separately along with blacks but he stood up for their civil rights (Duignan no pag.). Even if Plessy was convicted and sentenced to pay fine, the question of the interpretation of equality not just remained unsolved but raised further controversies. The court’s term: “separate but equal” became the motto of the issue and it has appeared many times since 1896.  These two expressions will go hand in hand as long as people learn not to judge others on the bases of their diversity or a law is ordered against political or any kind of other discriminations. Homosexual people have to fight for their rights and end up with the almost ancient second part of the term. As human beings they have the right to be treated equally and to make their own decisions about starting a family. Adoption should be a chance for a child for a better life not a new torture for a homosexual for gaining their basic rights.

Works Cited

Foner, Eric and Garraty, A. John. The Reader’s Companion to American History. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 1991

Duignan, Brian. “Plessy v. Fergusson”
Britannica, www.britannica.com/event/Plessy-v-Fergusson

Reilly, Mollie.” Same-Sex Couples can Now Adopt Children In All 50 States”
huffingtonpost, www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mississippi-same-sex-adoption_us_56fdb1a3e4b083f5c607567f

Barnes, Robert. “Supreme Court strikes down key part of Defense of Marriage Act”
Washington Post, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court/2013/06/26/f0039814-d9ab-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html

O’Keefe, Ed. “The Fix - ENDA, explained”
Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/11/04/what-is-the-employment-non-discrimination-act-enda/?utm_term=.c7856a0ff976