The only reason our species has ever been able to advance to what we are today in every way is thanks to the fact that we always take the benefit from everything around us; with a risk that may sometimes be unknown to us until much later.
For example the use of fossil fuels in vehicles, plane, ships and much more - its liquid gold. But with it came to risk of polluting our atmosphere at such a rate that now we can call it permanent.
I believe that all perceived benefits carry with them a risk, even though it may not be realized initially, overtime the risks will come to light such as in the case of our fuel example.
Humans are constantly working to reduce and avoid risks. Every new invention, product and concept is better than its previous generation. In most cases its by lowering some form of risk from it - directly or indirectly. There is never the possibility of completely resolving the conflict between benefits and risks - much like our universe everything is a balance, by reducing a risk in one side you will always cause the rise of another.
If you take no risks, you will suffer no defeats. But if you take no risks, you win no victories.
Genes control our lives. A statement such that when argued from two perspectives can be both right and wrong. But in this case one perspective can argue for both - When you look at genes as what makes up our physical and chemical structure it doesn’t necessarily sound a whole lot as though it would be controlling our lives; it’s known that nearly 50% of our genes are similar or identical to those of a banana! We don’t see ourselves going around acting like bananas do we? But then again our physical and chemical make up can either enhance or disable our abilities in various forms and can thereby alter our behaviors to a certain extent.
Some evidence suggests that the behavior of babies is similar to those of one or both of their parents when they were children, suggesting that behavior in fact may be controlled by genes and influenced by the environment. However studies in this sector are yet to be and should be continued.
I believe it is safe to conclude that an individuals behavior depends both on their genetic makeup and their surrounding environment. Until we find out for sure it’ll simply be a battle between nature and nurturing.
The sector of patient care is being commercialized everyday and every hospital and clinic is trying to offer personalized treatment - of course at a cost.
I believe that when it comes to patient care everyone should be an equal. The size of the needle the nurse pricks in should not depend on how loaded with cash you are! When it comes to taking care of any patient our only goal should be to get them healthy again and that only.
However truth be told evidence suggests personalized care in certain situations encourage patients to heal faster and can in fact be much more effective than standard treatment.
So I guess there are two sides to any argument, best judgment in each situation is needed to make sure that the healing time is a minimum. You know that before medicine ever became a business, the only rule was to do your best to help the patient.
Death is inevitable. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights everyone has the right to life. Although not put on paper with ink we all know that you always have the right over your death and sometimes even take pride in it. Most of us care so much for our soul that we may never even get a thought of suicide. Sadly this is always not the case, there are times when humans under unbearable circumstances or with downright arrogance may just decide to pull the trigger and claim their right to death. Just like that. You can call it a right that not many exercise.
But are their reasons always justifiable? No. Anyone who decides to put their own life to an end has a reason - most of the time its just something that would pass with time and all they would have needed is a bit of time to let it pass. This is the reason why people should not have right to their death. We understand, judge and decide too quickly. Every human life is a precious gift and all it needs is someone to care at the right moment to make sure that they don’t go down that slippery slope.
Think twice, thrice and then a thousand more times.
How WILL you know if something is true? Doesn’t this statement contradict itself? If you were to believe only what you sought to be true, then isn’t that a belief by itself?
This goes against the very basic principles of scientific evidence which in fact, as I see it is also the most probable solution to the whole contradiction. Whether you believe something is true or not depends on trust. The strict protocols set forth by the scientific community ensures that scientific evidence being collected is valid and by this statement
Reassuring a person that something is true or false depending on scientific data is the very pinnacle of all research and is connected to solving this statement in a very simple manner - if scientific evidence concludes that something is true then in fact it should be believable.
But then again we must agree that scientific research has not been done on every tiny aspect of our petty human lives. If that’s the case you’ll have to trust yourself on believing what you know is true. However you may have gotten to know about it.
Imagine yourself travelling on a rail cart. On track 1 you see a perfectly healthy worker who would inevitably die if you choose to travel in that track. On track 2 you see five perfectly health tourist who would too meet their fate if you choose to go down that track. Now if you were to have no control of the speed of the cart, nor any means of stopping it which path would you choose? What you choose is not of importance - it is the realization of the fact that when you face the inevitable, sometimes you have no other option than to justify the good of the group over the fate of the one.
However sad and wrong it may be this is the basic concept by which society makes most of its decisions and is the only one which allows us as a species to advance and maybe in the future make sure that the need for such decisions is minimized.
Although the sad truth being whenever we face a situation where we have to make such choice most of us as a group or society itself unanimously agrees for the loss to an individual over the loss to a group. I personally believe that in a situation where you are to face such a decision in day-to-day life, you should always morally justify your choice and take a decision which may be a loss to a group as a whole even though it may be hard - this is the choice around which being humane revolves, even though it may stagnate your personal or a groups performance, you will always know that your choice was right and human.
On the other hand if we take the example of drug testing; one group of patients get a real drug that they could benefit from, but on the other group which receives a placebo which has no effect, but never-the-less worse come to worse may cause deaths. We justify ourselves by arguing that once the drug is tested and mass produced it can save many more lives than the numbers which may have been lost during testing.
Therefore we can conclude that such justification would and should always be exclusive of the situation. For the better good of humanity and our future we sometimes have to make some hard decisions that can harm few…
Aren’t we lovely people?