"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

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

E60: Modern methods of transport have transformed our world into a village. Is this a blessing or a curse?

Source: www.englishdaily626.com
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.

Yet as with any other advance, all is not sweetness and light. In the case of the jet aircraft, one needs only to mention the spy-plane, the bomber, the fighter, the assault helicopter, all of them potent war weapons, and a curse to millions of helpless people worldwide. The potential for nuclear, nerve gas, chemical and HE bombing is a curse which hangs over all our heads. The need for ever larger airfields means the destruction of tracts of countryside. Noise and oil-pollution make life a burden to those living nearby. In some countries, over-concentration on high-speed and inter-city trains has led to the severe neglect of existing networks and ordinary passenger rolling stock. In smaller countries such as England, there are now far too many cars and traffic jams in the large urban areas, providing an almost unsolveable problem. Ease of travel allows football hooligans and other undesirables to cause trouble overseas. Every improvement in transport facilities helps the criminal as well as the bona-fide traveler, particularly where immigration controls are relaxed. Immigration itself becomes an increasing problem. And at sea? All is well with the oil-tanker until it runs aground in a storm and deposits thousands of tons of oil along the shore-line.

So there is a case to be made of the more leisurely times, to some, the good old days . Modern transport has reduced the world if not to a village, at least relatively to village size. Whether the village will ever become a happy community is another matter.

E59:Science can never provide a final answer or things, it is only a way of studying them. Do you agree?

Source: www.englishdaily626.com
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?

Such a belief is an essential corollary to any concept of justice in the Creator's character. This is not justice merely in the sense of retribution. The early Jews believed the Creator got so fed up with humanity that He destroyed them in the Flood, but made a fresh start with Noah's family and the paired livestock! Divine Justice is part of the concept of Divine Love, which postulated creation, with mankind as it's highest sentient form, as an expression of that love.

So the great world religions have this at least in common with modern science; there is a benevolent Creator who offers post-earthly life in some other dimension in exchange for the human response of kindness and observance of a revealed moral law. Justice, therefore, moves into an eternal setting.

A religious scientist will find no essential disharmony between his or her faith and the scientific outlook. The great questions of life have satisfying, if unprovable answers. Some of the inadequacies of religion, such as early church doctrines of the cosmos, and strictly Bible-based theories of the origin of species, have been corrected by scientific investigation without detriment to the central core of belief.

Where science, or more precisely the scientist, inevitably falls short is in the application of an essentially simple moral code to the complex issues raised by scientific advance. Genetic manipulation is a case in point. The whole question of in-vitro fertilization is highly controversial.

All that is on the local scale. On the grand scale the Creator may, or may not allow the discovery of a unified theory of the universe which will provide answers to supplement, rather than displace the answers already provided by the higher religions.

E58:Can telling lies ever be justified?

The old admonition to children, 'speak the truth and shame the devil', runs contrary to what is called the schoolboy's eleventh commandment; 'tell a lie, and stick to it'. The one adage advocates honesty at whatever personal cost. When charged with some illicit tree-felling, the young George Washington is said to have said 'I cannot tell a lie'. Those who advocate moral rectitude always argue that honesty is the best policy. Those who do not say 'get away with wrong-doing if you can'. Thus, as a child you avoid punishment. As an adult, you hope to avoid the consequences of your actions. The one is the result of a strong sense of morality. The other stems from self-interest and indifference to the fate of other people. Silence itself may amount to a lie, particularly when it is meant to shift blame from oneself. Cicero said it is the nature of a scoundrel to deceive by lying , and it may well be argued that truth is an integral factor in the health of society. Justice itself depends on witnesses pledging themselves to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . The law has severe penalties for those who perjure themselves after taking this oath.

So logically there should be no circumstances in which lying can ever be justified. Yet, we can all think of occasions when to tell the truth would be a very mixed blessing.

This applies especially to those who have access to secrets of national importance, particularly in wartime, or when there is danger of war. In these circumstances another moral issue is raised, and that is where personal loyalty lies. Most would say to one's own country. For others, a strong political belief, based on conviction, is more cogent. So, during the 'Cold War' between NATO and the Communist bloc, people on both sides were prepared to betray their country's secrets. This was generally out of conviction rather than for money, though the spy was usually rewarded in some way, sometimes by asylum and the conferring of honors and position. Such men and women would argue, and some still do, that the ultimate end justifies the means, if the means included lying and deception, so be it.

The same principle applied particularly in the 1939 - 45 war. The allies relied heavily on agents, and the lies which were part of their stock-in-trade. Disinformation was born and played a prominent role on both sides. Some of the deception was very elaborate indeed. Hitler's forces in France were tricked into believing that the invasion would be at the Pas de Calais rather than along the Normandy coast. England created a wholly fictitious army in the wrong place by setting up a subtle system of signaling, designed to be picked up across the channel. German doubts were settled by the planting of spurious invasion plans by agents in France. As a result, the invasion was given a good start. Every patriotic Englishman would say that all the lies and deception were amply justified both by the motivation and in the event. In much the same way, the British Ministry of Information concealed some failures and exaggerated some successes for the sake of morale. It was morale which enabled Britain to counter what seemed to be inevitable defeat.

So, the good of others seems to go a long way towards justifying the lie, and this applies in some personal as well as national concerns. Nobody would applaud the man or woman who lied about extra-marital relations. The more honorable course is not to have any. Yet, it is not always kind to tell the brutal truth about a severe illness such as a cancer to a patient or to his or her relations just as soon as the illness is diagnosed. Treatment may be successful, so unnecessary sadness has been caused. Yet if not, there must come a time when the facts are disclosed. Not to do so prevents the patient from making testatory provisions. It also increases the shock to the family and friends when death actually occurs.

Kindness may be a good reason, if not to tell a lie, at least to be economical with the truth . Another is tact. These two virtues oil the wheels of all social relationships. A lady may have chosen a hat which she obviously loves dearly, but you think it is hideous. Never tell her, even if you cannot bring yourself to say 'Wonderful! Super!' There are ways of side-stepping the issue. Anyway, dress is a matter of opinion rather than of fact, and what does it matter? No good at all could be done by telling the truth , and absolutely no harm done by withholding it.

Source: www.englishdaily626.com

E57:What changes would you like to see in today's society?

Source: www.englishdaily626.comThe term society has no general application. Every country differs from every other, however subtly, so answers must relate to a particular country. This answer relates to England, not even the whole of Britain.

Perhaps the first point to acknowledge is that in comparison with many other countries, England has an overwhelming number of good features. Yet there are several aspects of our society which I would like to see changed. Some of these changes could be effected immediately. Others would take longer. Society does not exist, said Mrs. Thatcher. She was wrong. Society consists of an aggregate of families. The first change I would like to see is the reversal of the current steady breakdown of family life. In Britain, the monarch stands at the head of the state and of the Established Church. In return for the privileges of their position, it has been generally expected of the Royal Family that they set an example to the country, and in the case of the Queen this example has undoubtedly been set. Not so, in the case of most of the other royals. In 1992 the so-called example set by this family has been appalling. This need not be spelled out. The world media have done this very effectively. The Queen herself described last year as an 'annus horribilis'. Many responsible people rightly wonder about the future of the monarchy, and their thinking tends to move in the direction of a republic. In the modern world, there is a strong case to be made for the abolition of hereditary privilege. However, the breakdown of family life cannot be attributed to the poor example of the minor royals. It actually stems from the permissiveness of the 1960s. The result is much suffering caused to children and young people, some of whom leave, or are virtually forced out of their homes, only to live in one of the cardboard cities , or to be put into care, or to join the drug scene and commit crime.

Unemployment, currently standing at 3m plus, is another aggravating factor. The present government has no policy to deal with this, and gives every indication of being quite indifferent to the problem. Interim measures could be taken until the world trade recession eases. Much work is needed on local environmental projects and on the updating of the country's infrastructure, which has been grossly neglected for decades. This could be financed by a modest increase in income tax, a measure which I believe would be generally acceptable. We have an uncaring government, the result being that many once prosperous areas are now centers of poverty and despair. Throughout the country, small businesses are being forced to close at the rate of hundreds per day. This is because the government refuses to impose controls over rent and leasehold increases and to reduce the swinging industrial rate. The net result of all this is that people are reluctant to spend, because they live in fear of redundancy or unemployment and, even worse, house repossession, in cases where heavy mortgages were taken on in better times. The house market is a good indicator of confidence in the future. It has now been at a virtual standstill for five years.
Thirdly, crime, especially violence. Due to the decline in religious faith and the consequent lack of moral training in home and school, crime levels have become appallingly high over the past few decades. Bad social conditions in many areas exacerbate the problem. Prisons are overcrowded, so the judiciary is encouraged to minimize custodial sentences. The fundamental remedy is a return to Christian moral standards, or those of the other great religions, now represented among the large immigrant population. Many of them are setting the native English a good example. The latter offer young people little help, and certainly little discipline at home, and the reputation of teachers in the state sector has never been lower.

Much is being done to stamp out the evils of hallucinatory drugs in Britain. This country would do well to adopt some of the draconian measures which are proving successful in some Far Eastern countries.

In the case of child sexual abuse and violence occasioning actual bodily harm, custodial sentences are now mandatory. This is justified, since such offences have greatly increased in recent decades. At one time, children were safe to roam their own areas without fear of molestation. Today, this is impossible.

Next, housing. Good neighborliness was the prime feature of pre-war terraced housing, now replaced in many cities by tower blocks and complexes of maisonettes. These concrete monstrosities eliminate family identity and encourage crime and vandalism. This is now realized. Much of this post-war building is now being demolished, and domestic architecture is reverting to old patterns. More low-cost or rentable accommodation would ease several social problems.

England welcomes immigrants, and laws have been passed to outlaw discrimination. Most immigrants provide an enriching contribution. Their churches, mosques and temples are acceptable to most people. However, there is a down side. Numbers have to be controlled, and this leads to disputes. A bad mistake was to allow 'ghettoes' to be formed in the early post- war days. An even distribution of this influx should have been made mandatory in the early days. The basis of that is the immigrants, while preserving their social and religious identities, must also accept and respect British traditions. Agitators operate much more easily in areas of dense population, often inciting violence between groups in the wake of violence overseas.

To believe that all these defects in English society can be changed is to live in cloud cuckoo land. All the same, these are the objectives which we must all work for.

E56:Those who have no knowledge of the past are condemned to repeat it. Is a knowledge of history important?

Historical knowledge is not only important. It is a crucial requirement in all who carry any kind of responsibility, whether in social, industrial, political or international affairs. In all these spheres, a knowledge of the past enables countries and individuals to sidestep old problem and to avoid the mistakes of the past.

Whether peoples and countries actually do learn from past experience is a wholly different matter. During this century, Prussian aggression plunged Europe into two major wars. Basically, Germany never existed, any more than does Italy, or did the Soviet Union . The amalgamation of their constituent states is of quite recent origin. The break-up of the Soviet Union was due to the irrelevance of Communism in the modern world. This has done much for world peace, though there are still nuclear dangers. The case of Germany and Italy is quite different. National Socialism never sat easily on the Italians, so in 1945 there was no point in occupying Italy and regionalizing her government. She never had any real ambition to do more than unify her own states, and colonialism began to die a natural death in all European countries from 1946 onwards. In all this, the Allies showed wisdom based on the lessons of history. In their dealings with Germany, however, the story is different. The USA, with little personal history and less expertise in foreign affairs, put pressure on the Allies to re-unify Western Germany and to negotiate the existence of East

Germany with Stalin. In the form of Marshall Aid, the USA poured money into West Germany, established a central government in Bonn, put industry back on a good footing, created a hard currency, reorganized their unions, and let them rebuild a massive army, albeit without nuclear armaments. For years Germany has kept quiet, awaiting her opportunity. The outcome is that in 1992, the whole of Germany had reunited, the power-base had shifted back to Berlin, and the country had achieved political, industrial and fiscal domination in Europe once again. The old enmity with France and England lies just beneath the surface. Zenophobia is again becoming rampant, and may develop into ethnic cleansing , that modern euphemism. The first danger in Europe will again be Germany. Their national anthem 'Deutschland uber Alles' sums up the national ideal, which is unlimited territorial expansion. The lesson of the past was there, and it was ignored.
A knowledge of the past is also important socially, and governments, whether of Eastern or Western countries, ignore social history at their peril. One success in Britain post-Second World War was the establishment of the Welfare State. This was a humane and far-reaching concept designed to keep the whole population up to a basic living standard, to give free or subsidized medical care on demand, and to provide realistic state pensions for the elderly. It still exists in a modified form, and no government would dare to abolish it. The idea was to rid society of poverty, sickness and insecurity. The lessons of the past had been well learnt. Throughout English history, and especially in Victorian times, grinding poverty was the norm for the masses, both urban and rural. Laws against petty theft were brutal. Matters scarcely improved after the First World War. Unemployment in the 1920s was widespread. The dole was pitiful. So there was a general strike, street rioting, and near-revolution. This was in line with many minor revolutions which have occurred throughout English history. The Second World War provided not only a diversion from social failure but also an opportunity of uniting Britain to resist a serious threat from outside. From 1945 onwards, the old mistake of neglecting the working class was not repeated. Yet despite history, England perpetuates her ancient errors in respect of Ireland. Partition has never worked anywhere in the world. The Protestant north is in perpetual enmity with the Catholic south. So much dirty water has passed under the bridge form Cromwellian days onwards that peace can never be achieved. Neither can it be imposed, short of mounting a military campaign. In times of national crisis, Eire has proved ambivalent and treacherous. The harsh, but pragmatic answer is to pull our forces out, and allow the Irish problem to sort itself out. That means allowing civil war, but since both sides are permanently entrenched in mutual opposition and hatred, there may well be no realistic alternative.

A second disastrous mistake in recent English governmental policy was the imposition of the poll tax, known euphemistically as the Community Charge. This was meant to be a replacement for the old property rating system, which was admittedly in need of revision. The poll tax led to financial injustices which exceeded the tolerance level of the British people. So Mrs. Thatcher had to go, and the government climbed down. English history records many attempts to impose a poll tax. None succeeded, and all ended in riot and bloodshed.

Yet perhaps England's most serious recent mistake is the headlong rush into membership of a federal Europe, dominated by Germany, controlled from Strassburg and administered in Brussels. France and Germany will vie for control of this monstrosity. British internal sovereignty is already severely eroded, and will finally disappear unless some future government comes to its senses. The Council of Europe has made participation in free trade dependent on membership. The sacrifice of principle to financial advantage has never worked in the past. Why should it in the future?

The past holds countless examples of the failure of most of the policies Britain currently follows. Their lessons are rarely learnt. A knowledge of history is important, of course, but such knowledge is of little use if the old mistakes are persistently repeated.


Source: www.englishdaily626.com

E55: It is a sweet and honorable thing to die for one's country. The poet Wilfred Owen described this saying as 'the old lie'. Do you agree?

This is a very old saying. Whether it is the old lie is arguable. In his odes, the Roman poet Horace wrote this no less than three times: 'dulce et decorum est pro patria mori'. He lived from 65 to 8 B.C., was also a soldier, fought at Philippi, afterwards lost his estate, and was reduced to poverty. He remained a patriot. The poet Wilfred Owen, a resident of France, returned to England to enlist in the First World War at the age of 22, fought in the trenches, and was killed at age 25, a week before the Armistice in 1918.
The most prominent war poet, Owen's verse expresses his hatred of war. How much of his virulence was due to the emotional instability caused by his homosexuality is a moot point. The fact remains that he fought. Why?

The intervening two thousand years have polarized the divide between the patriot and the pacifist. Any book of quotations offers scores of examples of quotations supporting both sides; Samuel Johnson described patriotism as the last refuge of a scoundrel ; Thomas Campbell wrote 'The patriot's blood's the seed of Freedom's tree'.

For various reasons, the modern pacifist's case is perhaps stronger than of his predecessors. Firstly, because the 20th century, in two major wars, made civilian enlistment compulsory on the part of the countries involved. In the UK in the First World War, extreme moral pressure was brought to bear. Any man not seen in uniform was in danger of being given a white feather by the women - for cowardice. The actual reasons for opting out varied; it could be cowardice, it could be a different form of national service, it could be a lifelong and previously stated total rejection of violence in any circumstances. In the latter case, such views were generally respected, providing some other contribution to the war effort was made. The Society of Friends (the 'Quakers') provides a good example in the Second World War. These men and women were prepared to risk their lives, and many lost their lives, in some form of national service; medical work, ambulance driving, merchant shipping crews, etc. One Christian school of thought rejects any kind of participation in war, arguing that aggressors should not be resisted, that tyranny, carrying as it does the seeds of its own eventual downfall, should be accepted. Their case has been greatly strengthened by the fundamental difference between earlier wars and those of this century. In the two wars 1914 - 18 and 1939 - 45, civilian populations were involved, like it or not, because of bombing raids, and ultimately the use of the atom bomb against Japan. Nothing, they argue, can justify what happened to London, Coventry, Dresden, Wuppertal, Cologne, Berlin, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nothing justifies mass slaughter. The future use of the hydrogen bomb would be even more horrific.

And now the case for patriotism. Like it or not, the citizens of all civilized countries owe an incalculable debt to their homelands; protection from foreign aggression, from internal crime, from disease, from penury. They receive education, a minimum standard of living, an old-age pension; complete personal freedom, in keeping with law, freedom of religious worship, freedom of movement, every opportunity for self-advancement, at least in the democracies. In such countries, everybody is born under an obligation to the state, and if that obligation is rejected, so also should be the benefits mentioned. Perhaps even more fundamental is a built-in affection for the distinctive characteristics of one's own country, its history, traditions, folk-ethic, literature, music, human relationships. An aggressor such as Hitler would wipe out all these things, as he almost wiped out the Jewish population of Europe. He would replace freedom with tyranny, he would consign dissidents to concentration camps. So not only is force of arms justified in a defensive role, it is also justified in some categories of offence; e.g. intervention in foreign countries where populations are threatened with genocide, as currently in Yugoslavia and Ethiopia. This type of intervention is rightly carried out by professional armed service members at the instigation of the United Nations.

What cannot be justified on patriotic grounds is expansionist aggression as is favored by certain leaders or, as in the past, by the empire-building countries of Europe, whether or not their rule imparted freedom, stability, enlightenment and prosperity.

None of us can accept what our own country has given us and still remain, morally, totally free agents. So given the provisos mentioned, and with every respect to the best kind of pacifist, I believe that the true patriot wins the argument.


Source: www.englishdaily626.com

E54:If one could choose to be endowed with a great gift or talent, which one would you choose, and why?

I would certainly choose to be a concert-standard pianist, but please don't misunderstand. I have no desire to hear the thunderous applause, to be taken by the hand as the conductor and I acknowledge the standing ovation, to receive the bouquet, to come back on stage four times, to play a brilliant encore, to read the glowing press notices at the end of a late-night party.

All that is best left to the people who like that sort of thing. I merely want to match the professionals, to play as fluently, to memorize as completely, to express the composer's intentions as deeply.

You may have gathered that I am a competent pianist. I know that I shall never get much better. I need the music in front of me. I do not own a Steinway grand, but a gallant old Brinsmead upright, now in its eightieth year. One plays - and one dreams!

So what about the 'great gift or talent'? Is one born with it, or can it be developed? The answers are yes and no. Occasionally, in a televised piano competition, one sees a young boy or girl, say aged thirteen or fourteen, sit down and play a Chopin ballade or a devilishly difficult piece of Liszt with consummate, almost contemptuous ease. That has to be talent. I could never do it in a thousand years. I used to tell myself that I could if I practiced more. Now I merely recognize that gift in others. I would never deny that to flower into perfection, the gift must be complemented by hours of practice, daily. Yet without the gift, no amount of practice will achieve the result. The word 'practice' implies a chore, the kind of mental resolution which says 'I will do half an hour a day'. Well, yes, that will improve the muscles and therefore the performance. Yet, the talented youngster is content to live at the keyboard, with a short break every few hours for a sausage roll and a coca-cola. And in turn this implies a musical background - since I believe that such people are favored genetically - encouragement, a good piano, and above all opportunity. The development of a great gift has to be at the expense of a good general education. My late wife used to teach maths to Toots Lockwood, and grumble because Margaret's young daughter made little progress. Toots, a budding actress herself, once made the precocious remark 'Mummy didn't need maths to become a star, did she?'

There are various reasons why I would like to have been a gifted pianist. Firstly, for my own satisfaction, since I enjoy playing a wide variety of composers and would dearly love to extend my repertoire. Secondly, I would like to be able to hold each piece, however long, in my memory, and to be able to think exclusively of the interpretation as my fingers automatically translated the score into sound.

Also, I would like to be confident about entertaining my friends, and this demands not only memory but the ability to improvise. Fluent improvisation is a gift not possessed by all great pianists. The story goes that the jazz pianist Art Tatum once challenged the great Solomon to improvise on the tune 'Lady be good' for as long as he could. Solomon gave up after ten minutes. Tatum manipulated the tune for half an hour without repeating himself. So, my guilty secret is that I enjoy playing jazz music as much as classical. Certainly not the modern variety of the Dave Brubeck school, with its unrhythmic runs and depressingly awful harmonies. But give me Duke Ellington, Earl Hines, Teddy Wilson, Fats Waller - especially Waller - and I am happy. If I had Waller's rhythm and Tatum's ingenuity, life would be a rich thing!

So, personal satisfaction, giving pleasure to my family and a few friends, and helping my grandchildren, all of whom play the piano at varying levels consonant with their ages. None is likely to show a great gift or talent, but they will all become competent, like me. There is no greater satisfaction than giving them a hand with their scales, their theory, their pieces at Grades 3, 4 or 5.

One of them is likely to become a better pianist than me. She may even become very good, but like the rest of us, she will never be a virtuoso. I am rather thankful for this, because life is tough at the top, and there are many drawbacks to a concert pianist's life: jet-lag, bad hotels, the envy of one's peers, an unbalanced life, perhaps a marital breakdown.

I prefer to have my cake and eat it. I would like the talent, but none of the pizzazz which always seems to go with it.

Source: www.englishdaily626.com

E53:Should we be concerned about the greenhouse effect ?

First, what is this effect? Ever since the Industrial Revolution began in the 18th century, smoke from fossil fuels, oil, natural gas and especially coal has deposited carbon dioxide in the lower part of the earth's upper atmosphere. The effect of this has been that part of the energy of the sun's rays reflected from the earth's surface has been absorbed by the CO2 and by water vapor and returned to the earth in the form of heat. Thus the atmosphere is behaving increasingly like a greenhouse. The glass allows the sunlight through but traps the heat. The consequence is what is called global warming.
There is a school of thought which says that the result will be a change in the earth's climate, plus an increase in nitrous oxide, methane gas and FREONS. It is predicted that by the mid-21st century, average temperatures will rise by 5 degrees C (9 degrees F). This will result in the melting of glaciers and the polar ice-caps. Coastal waters will rise and inundate many low-lying countries. Food production for an increasing world population will be put at risk.

Not everyone, of course, accepts this scenario, though the quantity of CO2 in the lower upper-atmosphere is constantly monitored, and the fact that the level is increasing is not disputed. Whether or not the expected rise in average temperature will happen is another matter. There have been no significant climatic changes for centuries, indeed millennia and, the opponents of the doom-merchants argue, nature has its own methods of damage-limitation and self-adjustment. Moreover, there are no present signs of global warming. The weather patter in Britain, for example, is much the same as it was in Victorian days, or Roman days for that matter. Why should it suddenly change? Coal has always been burnt and before coal, wood and charcoal. Forest fires have always raged. Volcanoes, and explosions such as Krakatoa (1883) have always thrown tons of noxious gases into the atmosphere. After that particular explosion, a cloud of dust and gas drifted over Europe and darkened the sun for six months - before dispersing naturally. A tidal wave drowned 36,000 in the Java-Sumatra area. Nature's self-damage greatly exceeds any possible human contribution.

The fact is, however, that many people do take the greenhouse threat seriously, and there is a cross-section of people in most industrialized countries who lobby continuously against the continued use of fossil fuels. Whether they are right, or merely alarmist, only time will tell. However, the fact that CO2 is on the increase is undisputed. Further, it cannot be disputed that the greenhouse effect is a possibility, even if remote. Nuclear war is also a possibility, though remote, but every possible step is taken by democratic countries to ensure that it will not happen. So, therefore, should every possible step be taken to reduce, even eliminate CO2 emissions. There are already agreements in the USA and in Europe to cut down, or eliminate the use of fossil fuels by certain target dates.

The problem is that many countries are geared to fossil rather than nuclear power sources. Supplies of coal, and probably of oil and natural gas, are virtually unlimited. In Britain, most pits have closed down, causing wide-spread unemployment and much consequent human suffering. The coal lobby argues for emission cleansing and a compromise, both economic and environmental, may be possible. It would be cheaper, they argue, than to transfer entirely to nuclear power, whose installations may in any event cause health hazards and even the occasional disaster.

One optimistic sign is that proponents of all power sources agree that every generation has an obligation to preserve rather than exploit and pollute the planet. The worst culprits in the CO2 saga are the old-fashioned heavy industry plants, such as those in the Ruhr, East Germany, and what was the Soviet Union, and the fossil-fuel fired electricity-generating stations. Much of the old industrial plant has now been either modernized or superseded, and some countries such as France have moved over almost entirely to nuclear power. That, in my opinion, is the way forward.

I do not believe that in any event, the greenhouse effect would have the dire consequences which have been predicted. Yet, it is a risk which we should not take. Modern technology has outgrown the use of fossil fuels, and apart from any possible dangers to future generations, the kind of world to which we commit them should be a clean, wholesome and beautiful world, as the Creator intended.


Source: www.englishdaily626.com

E52:Young people are slaves to fashion. Discuss.

Young people, or teenagers, are an invention of the American exploitation of the early 60s. The contemporary hype built them up into a separate class of society, and since jobs and money were plentiful in those days, the promotion of fashion in dress, music, politics and general outlook proved very profitable. Prior to 1960, people aged under eighteen were children; above eighteen, adults.

The cult swept the USA, then Britain and Europe, and finally many Eastern and Far Eastern countries, even where it was proscribed, as in China and pre-Gorbachev Russia. The promoters made full use of two factors common to the thirteen to eighteen age group; adolescent insecurity, and the concomitant desire to conform to peer pressures. Hence they became slaves to fashion.

As already indicated, fashion applied not only to clothes but to the whole of life. Some of it was harmless enough. Throughout history, the instinct to conform to current clothing styles was an unchanging phenomenon in the adult world. Up to the 60s, young people wore school uniform; in leisure hours, adult clothing. The radical change in the early 60s reflected the post-war instinct to defy conventions which were basically pre-war, and therefore associated with adult repression. So the tee-shirt and jeans culture was born, the tee-shirts carrying anti-establishment legends, references to hard left social policies, the lure of uncontrolled sex, the support of homosexuality, the attractions of the drop-out culture, and the wonders of the fast-growing hallucinatory drug scene.

As mentioned, some of this was inevitable and harmless. Some of it was pernicious. The pernicious element was centered in San Francisco, though it later infected London, Paris, and other major cities.

Alongside this arose the pop music cult, and the successful stars and groups became the objects of hysterical teenage adulation. Presley, the Rolling Stones, the Beatles became the wealthy heroes. The subversive and corrupting views of some of them did immense harm. The fashions they set became irresistible.

In the later 60s and 70s, violence as well as drugs, alcohol and indiscriminate sex became fashionable. In Britain, for example, teenagers of both sexes joined one of two fashionable groups, the Mods and the Rockers. The Mods wore trendy, velveteen styles and rode mopeds. The Rockers dressed in leather and rode powerful motorbikes. Large groups of each faction would foregather in the main seaside resorts and engage in pitched, sometimes bloody battles. Later, the same cross-section turned to violent protest, vandalism and football hooliganism. The police have managed to stamp out most of this, and most teenage hysteria is currently connected with the pop scene and the occasional acid house party. For thirty years, the slavish following of fashion has led many young people astray.

But not all. Every coin has two sides, and despite all the foregoing, many, perhaps the majority of young people, are proving to be a very fine generation. Certainly they conform to teenage dress norms, enjoy pop music and modern dance, but in all essential respects they are first-class, certainly far more worthwhile than most of my contemporaries at the same age. We were conformist to adult ideas and attitudes, but in many ways we were lazy, self-interested, and entirely lacking in any real social conscience. We were quite oblivious to the overseas poor, the environment, the victims of disaster, whether natural or man-made, and to the animal world. In fact, we were selfish, and rather self-indulgent. No drugs, certainly, but plenty of cigarettes and alcohol.

Today, many admirable features are seen in the young. They are individualistic rather than conformist. They eschew smoking, drugs and alcohol. They are fitter and generally more athletic than their predecessors. Many do social work in their spare time and some spend a year on voluntary service overseas. They have a conscience about people less fortunate and about the well-being of our world. They work hard and prepare for a market in which jobs are far from plentiful.

Admittedly, the media nowadays bring the world's suffering and problems to their attention with an immediacy unknown in earlier days. Yet the fact is that they respond. They are slaves, not so much to fashion, as to their consciences, and that is by no means a bad form of slavery.

Read the whole essay
Source: www.englishdaily626.com

E51:Eventually computers will allow people to work from home. Is this desirable?

The answer is that computers already allow some people to work from home, though clearly this cannot apply to more than a limited number of people and a limited number of occupations. As to whether this is desirable, the answer is philosophical as well as practical.

Computers, both analog and digital, have developed out of all recognition since the Second World War, when they were large, mechanical, and limited in use. They were then used in conjunction with radar for missile guidance and also for code breaking and a small range of mathematical functions. Most of these functions are now available in a child's pocket calculator. The application of electronics in the 50s followed by the use of the silicon chip and pre-printed circuits widened the computer's function out of all recognition, permitting a myriad series of voltage controls. The computer today is powerful, compact and relatively small. It combines readily with word-processing, faxing, and the electronic creation of screen graphics, which can be modified either by keyboard control or by electronic pen. The analog computer rapidly solves

differential equations for civil and mechanical engineering problems. The digital computer with its card-punching function permits access to data banks, and allows the processing of records and all the kinds of work connected with bills, orders, wages, VAT, etc. The computer today is integral in the world of business, commerce, design, word-processing and industry in general. Any organization from the small business upwards keeps a computer to which remote terminals may be linked, giving access at a distance to all its functions and information.
The need for all white-collar workers to do a nine-to-five job in the office has disappeared. Today, it is obviously possible for all workers down to lower- management level to work from home, and as computers continue to develop, it is likely that firms will find it convenient to let an increasing number do so. Whether this is a desirable change is a moot point.


Read the whole essay
Source: www.englishdaily626.com

E50:Reading novels is a waste of time. Discuss

The designation novel covers a very wide spectrum of literature. It comprises the classic works of fiction of all countries. By definition, a novel is a prose piece of over 60,000 words. Many are much longer. Anything shorter is a novella ; if much shorter, a short story. The genre grew up independently in many countries, particularly those of Europe, though since this is an English General Paper it is the English (or British) tradition that will generally be referred to, with occasional references to countries which have produced fiction in some kind of English, such as the USA.
Fiction of course is not limited to the classics, which form a relatively small part of it. For at least three centuries the bookshops have always been full of the more ephemeral kinds of prose; the American block-buster , the J Arthur Clarke type of space fiction, the ghost story, the detective whodunnit ?, the romantic novel, the psychological thriller, the historical novel, the adventure story, the war story. The list is endless.

It is quite possible to become hooked on novel reading, and this has two dangers. To read novels when you should be doing something else, e.g. study, or practical chores, is indeed a waste of time. And it is never courteous to have one's nose in a novel when visitors arrive! Secondly, there are some people who find in a novel a means of escape from reality. This has other dangers. Too much relapse into fantasy may destroy one's ability to face facts.

If reading novels can be a waste of time, reading bad novels is always a waste of time and can be positively harmful. A really bad novel is not easy to define, but for anybody with intellect it has some, or even all of the following features: unreality in characterization and situation, poor construction, concentration on sex and violence for the sake of it, bad sentence construction, a boring approach, expletives and bad language generally, a biased attitude to people, situations and issues, and stereotyping of characters.


Read the whole essay
Source: www.englishdaily626.com

E49:What childhood illusions have you had shattered as you were growing up?

For the student, this essay should prove easy enough, since childhood and growing up are recent experiences. For this writer, it is not so easy, the growing up period being rather a long time ago. However, it is said that as we get older, childhood memories become much sharper, so I hope that what will now be written is based in fact and not in fancy!
I was lucky enough to have good parents, who gave me a secure background and who were ambitious for me to achieve success. in life. Some children then, and perhaps more now in Britain, lacked this basic advantage. Almost from birth, these children are neglected, often ill-treated, subjected to violence or abuse. Few are given incentives. They grow up believing that the world is against them, and quickly become street-wise , concerned with self-protection, and using violence to get something out of life. Childish illusions are knocked out of them almost from birth. Their view of life may be distorted, but it is realistic.

As a more fortunate boy, my first illusion was that life is essentially fair, that people who merit life's rewards always receive them, and that the tragedies of life are somehow deserved. It took the death of my best friend following a sudden terminal illness to shatter that illusion. That episode, and at a later stage, the deaths of so many of my contemporaries in the Second World War, finally convinced me that life is not a tight moral framework. It was not until many years had passed that I began to perceive the answers which a religious faith supplies. The obverse of that coin is that life often is fair when one hopes for a little unfairness. I remember having to take a History exam for which I had done little or no work. The night before the exam, I prayed hard for the few questions I could answer which would give me a pass. The right questions didn't come, and quite rightly I failed.

Children brought up with a religious background believe that prayers are always answered. One day, as a small boy, I had been stopped by my father from doing something I wanted to do, and I was angry. It came to bedtime, and prayers, finally to 'God bless ...' So I said, with my father present, 'God bless Mummy, and Grannie and Grandpa, and my dog, and that's all!' It took me some years to realize that God takes a rather more sophisticated view of our prayer life.


Read the whole essay
Source: www.englishdaily626.com

E47: Travel is said to broaden the mind. How far do You agree?

What is meant by broaden the mind ? Its opposite is to be narrow-minded, and this implies a rigid outlook conforming to preconceived ideas, and reluctance to change or modify those ideas. Several factors go to produce such an attitude. First, we tend to follow parental guidance in behavior, in religion, and in social and political beliefs. These are often reinforced by school and state. Such conditioning leads either to inflexibility or to reaction.

In the West, the 60s heralded such a reaction. In the UK and the USA, one effect of war had been to demolish many social and international values. Moreover, air travel was becoming more available. The 50s saw an attempt in both countries to maintain pre-war values, such as the work ethic, class structures and general conformity to old standards. So young people began to rebel. They opted out of society. They joined movements such as Flower Power and other brands of oriental mysticism. Society was rejected, responsibility to the state discarded, and accepted moral standards rejected. The pop scene, with its songs of protest, came into being. San Francisco became the centre of this alternative society and the Mecca of young dropouts worldwide.

This major movement among young people persists to this day. It illustrates the complete reversal of the statement that travel broadens the mind. Minds had been changed by the media, and this resulted in travel. Recently, a more acceptable result has been achieved by the influence of the media. We are now made instantly aware by the media of the sufferings of the poor and powerless due to war, violence, terrorism, oppression, injustice and natural disaster. So many worthwhile young people now spend a year or so before or after their further education courses in voluntary service overseas. Again, this shows that the topic-statement is true up to a point. Much is learnt by young people on these overseas ventures, but the motivation behind their departure is as much compassion as the desire to gain experience.


Read the whole essay
Source: www.englishdaily626.com

E46: "The Arts speak not only to us but about us". Discuss.

The instinct to produce an art-form is just one of a series of factors which differentiate us from the animal world. It dates back at least as far as the cave-dwellers of pre-history who produced wall drawings which possess both artistic ability and emotional power. Hunting is the main theme of these, but the situations depicted between man and beast are those of stress and danger. Were these drawings meant to exert a cathartic effect on man's natural fear by giving him a constant reminder of the worst he would have to face?

Throughout recorded history, painting has fulfilled this dual role. Subject-matter, depicted in tempera, fresco, oil and color wash, has reflected every facet of human life and activity and of the natural world. In most periods, there seems to have been cultural freedom, but not in all. Fashion, convention and religious pressures have dictated both subject-matter and treatment in certain periods. The various European schools of the Middle Ages, with the exception of the Dutch and Flemish, largely confined themselves to religious and mythological subjects. These paintings were gifted but stylized. Following the Reformation, these constraints disappeared, and subject-matter broadened, though favorable portraiture of the aristocracy, who patronized prominent painters, has continued until modern times. Turner was the catalyst in shifting from the constraints of objectivity to the freedom of subjectivity. His work inspired the Impressionists, who painted according to their own often subconscious reactions to the subject-matter. This freedom allowed as much to be read into the character and outlook of the painter as into what appeared on the canvas.


Read the whole essay
Source: www.englishdaily626.com

E48: "Disasters bring out the best and the worst in people". Discuss.

The media keep disaster in the forefront of our minds. TV, radio and the front pages of the press seem to revel in disaster, whether natural or man-made, because the public have a morbid curiosity in it, providing it happens to other people. Disaster boosts TV ratings and sells newspapers.

As we absorb the results of a civil war, a famine, an earthquake, a hurricane, an air crash, we tend to put ourselves in the position of the victims and wonder how we would react. In such situations, most people act instinctively, and what they do is more spontaneous than calculated. That spontaneity is usually the subconscious reflection of character, and because life for most of us is lived on an even keel, how we behave in emergency is largely unpredictable, unless we have been previously conditioned to react in certain ways.

So what governs our reaction to an emergency? The answer is character. Character is governed by genetic structure, by upbringing and training, and by self-discipline, or its absence. If we react badly, we show cowardice, selfishness and indifference to the plight of others. If we react well, our conduct reflects the opposite of these failings. In the latter case, genetic history alone may govern our actions, but in most cases, people are poised between good and bad. It is then that external conditioning will tip the scales in one direction or the other. Even more important than training is love, the kind which puts others first and helps us to forget self. This is relatively easy where our nearest and dearest are concerned, more difficult and perhaps more admirable where the others concerned have no emotional claim on us. The old Latin tag "amor vincit omnia", love conquers all things, is most germane to our reaction to disaster.


Read the whole essay
Source: www.englishdaily626.com