It is expected that there will be a higher proportion of old people than young people in the future in some countries. Do you think it is a positive or negative development?
The advances in medical science and other improvements such as abundance of food has resulted in increased lifespan of the humans in most parts of the world and on the other hand birth rate has declined in the past few dates. It has resulted in a situation where it is projected that in some countries there will be greater population of old people than young people. This essay will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this development.
First of all, on the positive note we can a learn a lot from the wisdom of elderly. Older people have wealth of experience and we can certainly build upon the knowledge and experience of older people and achieve higher levels of progress in all sectors of life for example research done by the older generation lays the ground map of growth for future generations and human race has always relied heavily on the wisdom and experience of elderly.
On the other hand, having large old population has its problems as well. One of the major problems is the decaying health of elderly, which means a country will need to invest significantly in the health care and this huge expense would put serious stress on its economy.
Another problem due to higher number of older people in the country is that there will be fewer people in the country with greater level of productivity. This will result in loss of efficiency and will adversely impact economy and overall earning power of its citizens and will also affect its competitiveness in the international environment.
From above discussion it is clear there are advantages and disadvantages of having older people in the country , I am of the view that in an ideal situation there should be an equilibrium between the young and old people in a country so that it could benefit from the experience of older generation while have effecieny and productivity of young people.
Sports are central to entertainment of our life and have been used as such since time immemorial. In the past when there were few means of entertainment , hunting as game was conceived and it did serve the purpose well of that time, however with the change in the time over years, it’s usefulness and purpose have diminished so much that in present day context , it is considered cruel to kill innocent animals for fun. I agree with the statement that hunting should not be permitted.
First of all, the purpose of hunting was to entertain, which might have made some sense when it was designed, but today there are far better means of entertainment than we had in the past, so the very basic purpose of this activity does not exist anymore, making in totally redundant in present day scenario. Therefore, hunting as game should not be permitted at all.
Secondly, when we kill some innocent animal for fun, it’s goes against the whole humanity not just that poor animal because it inculcates that sense of barbarism, which has no place in the society we live in. We always preach that we should live peacefully and stop wars which cause horrendous pains to humans all over the world and hunting is totally against the premise. Therefore, we should not support hunting at any cost.
To summarise, hunting as a means of entrainment may have had it relevancy in the past, but in the present world it has no place and should be condemned.
Why should a person who is good at kicking or hitting ball or someone who could dance or act well , make more money in few days than a doctor who helps to battle disease and cure people, a fireman who pulls people from burning buildings, a policeman who stops a crazed gunman from going on a killing spree do in several years? This questions is debated all over the world and lets discuss this question in the following paragraphs.
Though it is true that their performance affects the lives of millions of people - yes, people can get upset, but there are no real world ramifications that drastically change the lives of millions if a sports team wins or loses or if any film star’s movie bombs at the box office. However, a scientist who manages to predict the spread of the next major disease and prevents it from reaching pandemic level would not get the same kind of financial recognition. The same is true for the person who manages to cure cancer is paid quite well, but compared to footballers who make £200,000 per week is an insult to intellect. It is unfortunate that things work this way and in my opinion in a fair society sport would be entirely amateur and every athlete would have a day job and actually commit something useful to society
On the other another opinion is that sports persons and movie starts do not get paid too much money because they work out very hard everyday for fans to watch them play or act their heart out while in some jobs all you do is sit in an office with a pen with no physical effort what so ever. The stress these celebrities have to bear is huge for example dislocated shoulder, finger, broken bone etc. but yet they continue to do it. They also have kids and family members or even friends that they use this money to support.
Moreover their income earning time span is also less, most of the celebrities can earn money only for a decade or so, therefore, the money that they earn is justified.
In my opinion whatever reasons we may try to put in justification of payment of huge sums to celebrities, it’s still does not support the view that they should be paid so high while people who offer absolutely essential service to society are paid as low as they get paid at present.