"A Modest Proposal" to Third World Countries

The category of third world, or undeveloped countries includes most of Africa, some of South America, and parts of Asia. In these parts of the world, people have to live in crude, uncivilized, and unsanitary conditions such as outdoor huts or tents without plumbing or running water or even electricity. The citizens these countries produce rarely have more than a few years of elementary education, which causes little technological advances. First world countries don't want to invest in these poor countries because there is no chance of improvement due to this lack of education. This is an imbalance in the world. Technology is so advanced: in America we have phones that we can talk to, but in Africa some people have never even seen a phone. As human beings, we should realize this is unjust and try to level the opportunity for everyone on the earth. Some try to instill better education in Third World counties, but this is pointless.  Third World countries are already so far behind the rest of the world, there is not possible way to bring them all to our level. I propose a better solution that will put everyone on an equal level in education and will save money and resources: every country should stop educating its citizens. It is much easier to keep everyone uneducated than it is to keep everyone up to date with the best and most useful knowledge. Millions of dollars go towards education in America alone, and even all American citizens don't earn college degrees or graduate from high school! The only objection I can possibly think of to be raised is that the world needs educated people to maintain its status of technology and craft. Of course, there will have to be a specified group of educated people to keep the world running, which can be selected by an IQ test or something else that measures learning ability and capacity. To be fair, each country can submit its brightest citizens to oversee and carry out jobs that require skill, like medicine, science, etc. The rest of the population will be capable of doing simple tasks and manual labor, and will be paid equally. It is the only way to give everyone an equal opportunity. I truly cannot think of a better solution to this injustice of our world.

Can People Show a Measure of Restraint?

Chet Raymo's passage "A Measure of Restraint" proves the point that the human race in general needs to show restraint when it makes new discoveries in the scientific world, or else suffer horrible consequences.  I completely agree with his opinion, but I also think it's impossible for humans to resist progress.  It's natural for us to take risks.  The first cave man who ever hunted was taking a risk by attacking an animal that could probably eat him, but if no one was ever willing to take that risk, we would be a weak and malnourished race!  I know that's an extreme example, but anything unknown is a risk simply because the consequences are unknown!  If humans showed restraint when dealing with new discoveries, the world would be much less advanced, or civilized even!  While Raymo is probably right about showing restraint with genetic engineering, it could be the cure to many diseases, maybe even cancer.  I also agree that it could go completely wrong and end up causing really bad consequences, but my point is no matter what the outcome, people can't resist taking the risk. 

No Expansion Means No Progress!

In Scott Russell's piece "Staying Put: Making a Home in a Restless World, Russell expresses his opinion of the expansive nature of people, especially Americans. He says Americans can't be satisfied with what they have and therefore are always moving to new places, taking the value out of the places they pass through in the process. I agree that there should be a point when a person settles down, but the urge to progress isn't a bad thing. If people were always satisfied with what they had, no would have strived to improve society and the world would be a very different place than it is today. Many discoveries probably wouldn't have taken place, like the progression to modern medicine and science, and people would probably still be using outhouses! The Europeans wouldn't have discovered the Americas, there would have been no French Revolution, there would have been no American Civil War. If people didn't have the urge to move forward, literally to different lands and with ideas and technology, the world would be primitive. It's true that chasing an impossible dream can consume a person's whole life with no reward, but simply settling is not the solution. Russell criticizes this aspect of human nature too heavily. The urge to improve is a part of human nature, and it's not something we can get rid of, or something we should.

Not Racist but....Sexist?

In Brent Staple's piece "Black Men and Public Space", he explains the hardships of being labeled as dangerous by strangers simply because of his race. Staples comes to terms with the stereotypes automatically attached to him and learns to live with them. The general attitude of the piece is positive. Even though Staples is expressing his frustration with the way people judge him because of his race, he doesn't have a 'woe-is-me' attitude. The main focus point in this piece is Staples race, but I picked up on an underlying theme: gender. In all examples and anecdotes Staples uses, he is either intimidating a woman or he is not gender specific. In his first paragraph, he writes about a woman who started running when she saw him coming down the street. He also writes about going into a jewelry shop, where the female proprietor brought out a guard dog to get him to leave. In paragraph five, he writes "After dark...I often see women who fear the worst from me", and then states that women are very vulnerable to violence. However, he makes no mention of men. The he implies that men are effected by his presence is when he writes about people, "black, white, male, or female" (paragraph 2), who lock their car doors when he crosses the street in front of them. All his examples make women look weak. Not only that, but because he uses the examples to prove that people are judging him incorrectly, he makes women look foolish for being scared of him. His point was that he affects the atmosphere around him in negative ways, but I think he should have represented both sexes more equally. We no longer live in a world where women are defenseless. Many women can fend for themselves, some even better than other men! Staple's portrayal of women is sexist and slightly offensive.

Is the Unreality of Vegas Transferring to Reality?

In her piece "Marring Absurd", Joan Didion ridicules marriages in Las Vegas. She explains that, in Las Vegas, "there is no "time"...no night and no day and no past and no future", and that "what happens there has no connection with "real" life" (paragraph 2). This includes the marriages that happen there; a wedding in Las Vegas has almost no meaning because all the traditional values of marriage have been sacrificed for efficiency and instant gratification. This is already common knowledge, so what does it prove? Well, I think everyone would agree that in the real world, marriage still has value and that the customs of a Vegas wedding are unique to Vegas. Basically, Vegas weddings and real life weddings are in completely separate categories. However, this does not mean that "real world" weddings are all perfect happy endings. The divorce rate in the United States has been steadily increasing since the beginning of the 20th century and spiked greatly in the 70s and kept going up from there. By 1985 the divorce rate was up to 50%! (http://divorce.lovetoknow.com/Historical_Divorce_Rate_Statistics) I can't help but wonder if the low values of Vegas weddings have influenced American culture and society's attitude toward marriage. In my opinion, too many people treat marriage like a game that they can play until they're bored, then quit. Marriage is supposed to be a lifelong commitment, but more and more people get divorced each year. I suppose nothing can be proven, but I think Las Vegas weddings have lowered society's standards of marriage overall.

Is Manliness Unhealthy?

The whole point of Brad Manning's passage "Arm Wrestling with My Father" was to prove that communication can be made through a physical relationship as effectively as an emotional relationship. Manning wrote about his relationship with his father, which was strictly physical. It mainly revolved around sports and challenges of strength, including the arm wrestling matches that made such an impact on Manning as a child. Although this story may be true for Manning, it is the extreme stereotype of the way men communicate. Men are known to not talk about their emotions, and when they do it's considered feminine. I feel that this piece too strongly supported this stereotype. Although it may be true that some men are very unemotional, it's not the case for all men, especially not in today's society. It is becoming more and more accepted that men can be sensitive without being emasculated. In fact, being completely unemotional and unexpressive except through physical means is considered emotionally unhealthy.  The traditional definition of manliness is becoming outdated.  It’s no longer a desirable characteristic for a man to be completely unexpressive, whereas in history men who were sensitive were ridiculed.  I think Manning’s message is a little outdated and not necessarily a good thing.

Can True Creation Happen in a Lab?

"Grade A: The Market for a Yale Woman's Eggs" by Jessica Cohen questions the process of a very picky couple in finding an egg donor for their child, but I took from it the controversy of whether people should be able to choose characteristics for their children through egg donors or egg selections in labs. In the essay, Cohen describes the specific qualifications she had to meet to be considered by the couple, including physical appearance, height, weight, race, religion, SAT score, grades in school, and much more. The would-be parents wanted specific traits for their "perfect child". However, there is no way to guarantee the preferred traits in a child, no matter whose egg is used and what traits it contains. Genetics is a tricky subject dealing with dominant and recessive genes and having a gene pool containing two peoples DNA (the parents), and there's no way to guarantee what traits will show in the child. No matter how hard a person tries, they can't create a child without some unpredictability. Only nature can choose what characteristics a child will have. Technology has come so far that some people can view what genes their fertilized egg has to avoid genetic diseases, but this has also opened a window to choose other things as well, such as hair color, eye color, and other physical traits. I think this is wrong. Tampering with creation in its most basic level like this is playing at God. I don't care what religion you are or what you believe, but being able to choose your child’s genetic makeup makes him or her something you assembled, not created. I know that this is being done more and more frequently, but I feel that choosing a child’s genetic makeup makes them not quite human. I know this isn't true; genetically altered eggs become perfectly healthy and normal babies, but it seems wrong. I can't imagine genetically altering my child’s egg to have certain physical characteristics and looking at them when they grow up and thinking: I chose that hair color. I've always known that, whether I liked the way I looked or not, it is the way God made me. What If I instead I had to say it's the way my parents chose to make me? It just doesn't sit right with me.