"In order that economic development and progress can take place, a country must industrialise". Discuss

Industrialisation is the application of scientific knowledge to man's economic, agricultural, and other wealth-generating activities. In other words, it is the conversion of the 'know-why' of science into `know-how' for industry; it is the practical application of man's inventiveness in the improvement of his well-being and the increase of his wealth.

Industrialisation depends on four essentials: the right idea, the right method of putting it into effect, the right moment in time, and availability of the right materials. Machine invented with the help of scientific know- how are used for quicker and easier production of wealth. Therefore, it is only sound commonsense to say that the economic development and progress of a country are dependent on its industrial growth.

There was a time when countries depended entirely on agriculture. Before the Industrial Revolution, Great Britain too was an agricultural country. Had it not been for the wealth she was able to amass from her colonies, she would not have become a wealthy nation depending on agriculture alone. America at first had an economy rooted in agriculture. With the invention of machines and with the advent of industrialisation, she made use of machines even for her agricultural activities, apart from setting up factories and manufacturing articles for sale.

Before machines were invented, the articles required for use by man were handmade. These articles were not produced in bulk. But machines helped man to produce articles in large numbers.

Today machines are used virtually in all spheres of life. Agriculture, especially in Western countries, is highly mechanised. There are machines to plough the land, sow seeds, hoe and weed. Pesticides are often sprayed by aeroplanes and helicopters. Fertilisers produced in bulk in factories are used for the healthy growth of plants. All these facilities afforded by mechanisation double our agricultural production; this means increase in economic wealth and prosperity.

Read the whole essay
Source: www.englishdaily626.com

Work is the only route to happiness. Discuss.

The ideal put forward to young people has, traditionally, been 'mens sana in corpore sano', and this implies a proper balance between work and play. Yet to achieve happiness, that coveted but elusive state of total fulfilment, requires more. It is true that mankind in general, though with exceptions, has a built-in instinct for work. The vast gulf separating humanity from its physical origins, the animal world, is due to millennia of cerebral and physical activity. Yet there are other equally powerful instincts in the human make-up. The desire, in most cases, to form life-long emotional attachments; the instinct, again in most cases, to start a family; the making of friendships; the search for a fulfilling occupation, to name the most obvious.

In some countries there are a privileged few who are born into possessions, money and position, so the need to work in the normal sense does not apply to them. Yet it is noticeable that these people generally find some worthwhile occupation. This may be anything from estate management to patronage of some charitable institution to participation in the pop scene. This again indicates that to follow some kind of occupation, whether useful or not, is a genuine instinct.

History supports this view, and literature has produced many sayings expressing the value, perhaps the necessity of work. 'Satan hath some mischief yet for idle hands to do'; 'our best friend is work' (Collin d'Harleville); 'to youth I have but three words of counsel - work, work, work' (Bismarck); 'sow work and thou shalt reap gladness' (Proverb); 'work won't kill but worry will' (Proverb).

For most of us work is both a necessity and source of fulfilment. We need a regular income, just as our country needs part of the wealth we create and claims through taxation. The fulfilment of the instincts mentioned in Paragraph 1 cannot be achieved without money. The right use of money is of course important; Charles Dickens made the point that to live sixpence below one's income led to happiness; to live sixpence above led to misery.

The definition of work is wide, ranging from manual labor to the highest forms of intellectual activity. We are not all suited to every kind of work. I would be of little use as a manual worker, since my skills in that direction are limited. Conversely, not all manual workers could do my work. Among other things, I write a little. I was once asked 'What motivates you to write?', the questioner expecting some high-falutin answer. I was tempted to answer 'Money!' In fact the best writers have all taken this view. Only the second rate prattle about artistic fulfilment .

Read the whole essay
Source: www.englishdaily626.com

Modern methods of transport have transformed our world into a village. Is this a blessing or a curse?

In some respects the topic-statement is true. Modern transport, especially by air, allows people to circle the globe in a few days, or hours, if an aircraft such as Concorde is used. Thus we have learnt to look upon distance as nothing. I can get to Paris from south-east England quicker than I can get to central London. So, the world has become a village? If so, the comparison ends there. In no respect does the world resemble a village community. Those who support the one-world movement no doubt share a great ideal but are, in fact, flying in the face of history, of present facts, and of any likelihood in the near future. Modern travel merely underlines the differences between races and nations. Rather than broaden the mind, travel confirms national prejudices. It may well lead to a greater international understanding, but to understand does not mean to agree, or to forgive. Modern travel may allow great athletes to meet every four years in friendship to discover the medal winners, but it would be naive to suppose that the Olympic Spirit had anything to do with the reality of international affairs or could possibly have any effect on them.

Of course modern transport cannot be blamed for the state of today's world. Like atomic energy, it is neutral, and the blessing or the curse results from the way in which it is used.

First, the benefits. Before the invention of the electric telegraph, news of a natural disaster in, say, an eastern country could only reach the west by steamship, so that by the time help reached a stricken area, it was too late to be of much use. Today, information by satellite, both in reports and pictures, is instantaneous. Response time is correspondingly quick. Modern transport planes can carry food, water and medical supplies to where they are needed in a matter of hours.

So the modern jet aircraft can help enormously in relief work. It has also proved of great benefit both to the business world and to tourism. Within certain weight-limits, it can be used for overseas trade worldwide, and the vast extension of available markets is largely due to the modern aircraft. And where business has to be done in person there are no real delays.

The aircraft has extended foreign travel, once the prerogative of the rich, to those of average income levels in most countries, and tourism has become a major world industry. The aircraft and the helicopter both have important search and rescue roles. Ships in distress can be readily located and given help. The helicopter has several roles, apart from its use by the police for searches and traffic control. Many lives have been saved in mountainous areas and at sea by speedy removal to hospital, by immediate attention by paramedics; a jet plane can carry a suitable human organ half across the world when a transplant is urgently needed.

Modernized and high-speed rail systems are likely to prove of benefit to many countries from the travel and trade points of view. To take Europe as an example. Tariff barriers in the EEC have now come down, and Europe, including Britain, has become a free-market area. In 1994, England will be linked to Europe by a channel tunnel, and Paris or Brussels will be reached as quickly as by air. Already, goods to and from Europe, and indeed worldwide, are transported in standardized containers, which are picked up and moved rapidly in heavy lorries to their destinations along new networks of motorways. The motorways also greatly ease long-distance car travel. At sea, modern oil tankers carry their vast burdens worldwide.

Read the whole essay
Source: www.englishdaily626.com

Science can never provide a final answer or things, it is only a way of studying them. Do you agree?

It is somewhat rash to assume that the only role of science is to answer the question 'How?'. That was true in the days of Newton, when an educated person could have a grasp in outline of all human knowledge. Science then filled some of the gaps left by the deliberations of the philosopher and the theologian. Since then, it has far outstripped the contributions of both. Philosophy has degenerated into historical study, and has no modern contribution to make. Theology has made no advance since the Middle Ages. The mantle of seeking answers to man's most fundamental questions has fallen on science. Whether these questions will ever be answered is an entirely different matter, but there is no other way ahead. So the topic-statement is fundamentally wrong.

By science, of course, is meant physics, which is fundamental to all studies - chemistry, biology, astronomy, indeed all macro and micro investigation. Physics has identified the laws which keep the universe in a state of equilibrium, and today seeks a unified theory to account for the space-time continuum necessary to the existence of that equilibrium, and the various other dimensions beyond the four known which are postulated. So science moves towards the first philosophical question, Is there a unified theory, or are events ultimately random? The answer to this question, if ever found, leads to the far more fundamental question, To what extent, if any, is God (the Creator) limited by his own creation? The determinism of Laplace is now seen to be totally beside the point, and belongs to a mechanistic view of the universe which can no longer be sustained. Today, science is moving rapidly towards a chaos theory which takes into account God's freedom of action plus the predictable results of laws already known to us, and also unpredictable events.

It is interesting that whereas the old scientific determinism either limited to the Creator's function or precluded the necessity of a Creator, or saw the Creator as totally detached from his creation, science today is begin forced into a belief in God. It also moves towards an acceptance that the scientifically unknown area, the God - mankind personal relationship, is not only feasible, but likely. So science has become much more than a way of studying things. Whether science can get beyond this point is a matter of conjecture. At a shrewd guess, science may well establish the possibility of eternal life , without being able to advance any more proof than could the old-time theologian. World religions have always said that such a belief depends on revelation and personal faith, and it may well be the Creator's intention to keep it that way. Faith, at least, would be greatly devalued if it could ever become the subject of scientific proof, whatever that may be.

Another answer, again stemming from the chaos theory, is to the co-existence of good and evil. If there is a Creator, it follows that evil, at least as understood by humanity, must have been allowed to enter the world-scene at some point, but deliberately. Redemption from its consequences is another result, and history is the record of the struggle between the two forces. This, says science, although leading to apparently random results, such as the little child stepping under the bus, or a death from cancer, is not random at all. All the same, it may stem from 'chaos', if this is seen in conjunction with a belief in the indestructibility of the human personality. So, say the faithful, 'God not only creates, He cares', and science today is not disposed to reject this possibility, the two approaches may converge on the same point. The processes of the universe are incredibly diverse and complicated, so why should the possibility of life after death be ruled out?

Read the whole essay
Source: www.englishdaily626.com