Children are facing more pressures nowadays from academic, social and commercial perspectives

"Children are facing more pressures nowadays from academic, social and commercial perspectives.

What are the causes of these pressures and what measures should be taken to reduce these pressures?"

It is commonly said that today's children are pressurized as were yesterday's adults. That's true in the sense that children are facing harder and harder academic, social and commercial challenges. It is happening simply because of the ever increasing demands of life, from the same perspectives, on humans in general. While it is important that children excel in their age to become successful as adults, they must be shielded from the mounting pressure by maintaining a balance between material and psychological growth.

As the global village becomes more and more competitive everyday, it becomes important for us to prepare for the fight, so to speak, earlier and earlier. This is realized by all, which triggers societies to push their juveniles during their learning stage.

The other thing that is contributing to this ever rising pressure on children is the lack institutional opportunities, especially in developing countries. Now, more than ever, children are having to race each other for reaching the privilege of higher education.

While healthy competition is helpful for the psycho-social development of young ones, it is rather unhealthy when the race becomes more prominent that the objective. Of course the objective of children competing against each other ideally is bringing the best out of themselves. But, very frequently, a child is compelled to compete for becoming better than the other. In other words, the competition becomes a brawl rather than being a sprint.

To stop such spiteful struggle among our young, we must first establish a sense of camaraderie within all our developmental institutions, such as schools and colleges. Students must contest for academic betterment, not social supremacy. Also, parents should get proactively involved in promoting sportsmanship among learners. They must not allow vile aggressiveness and their own vengeful in the lives of their children. To sustain such social reformation the government must establish ample alternatives to the traditional route to success.

The conclusion here is simple. The children today are being put into s 'survival-of-the-fittest' situation much earlier than they must be when they should really be trying to do their best. Such untimely loss of innocence is only going to make civilization more antagonistic. Therefor we must ensure that personal development may be ushered in harmony and not in vile rivalry.

Many people think secondary level students should study international news as a subject. A few believe that it is a waste of time

"Many people think secondary level students should study international news as a subject. A few believe that it is a waste of time.

Give your opinion on both views and suggest your preference."

Our children in schools today are learning to become the citizens of tomorrow. They, especially in the secondary level, are learning all the necessary basics that will equip them for special studies in universities and special duties as young citizens. From that perspective, it seems necessary that they are aware of what's happening around the world. To guarantee such institutionalization as a waste of time. I believe, while international news needs not to be put in the secondary school curricula, students must be generally aware of worldwide happenings through extracurricular activities.

The importance of being at per with the recent happenings around the globe is undeniable. Without such contemporary knowledge no one can thrive in today's global village. Therefore, it is plausible to perceive international news as essential, which renders some to want to make guarantee the learning of what goes around, at home and abroad, among secondary schools students.

There are contrary opinions too. Although, few deny the needful of knowing global facts, many argue that making institutional provisions for something that may otherwise be achieved is a waste of time and resources. It is true that immersed in today's media, a student may easily stay up to date with international news without studying it as separate subject in school.

In my opinion, both views have elements that are undeniable and best be fused for an ideal solution. This solution is developing world wide awareness programs among the young about the importance of news. I therefore conclude that there should be institutional efforts to raise awareness of international news among secondary school students, but establishing it as a separate subject may just be excessive force.

A lot of people think that personal happiness is mostly related to economic success

"A lot of people think that personal happiness is mostly related to economic success. Others believe that there are some other factors behind personal happiness.

Discuss both the views and give your opinion."

Having secured the ease of survival, most of us in the civilized world are driven by the pursuit for happiness, to work and to live with a sense of progress toward the ethereal status of being happy. Clearly happiness has not yet been reached by people at a mass scale, hence the ceaseless toiling of the modern man, who often pictures money as an over simplified but convenient manifestation of happiness. But i agree with those who believe that there's more than economic success in the recipe for happiness.

But of course money is power, power to do the things we want to do and avail the things we need to have. Quite naturally, thence, happiness is seldom pictured in the realm of destination. The capitalist earth requires us to have the monetary means to qualify ourselves as being potentially happy. We therefore must be economically successful first, at a relatively practical level, to make our dreams of happiness viable. As cruel as it may sound, it is practical in our present sense of practicality. But there's more to it.

The paradox of happiness is that it is not material. So happiness cannot be bought, at least not in its entirely. The proof is visible in the tragedies of the rich and the famous. This leads many, like me, to believe that money begets only an edge, as opposes to how we would be being penniless, and does not make us happy. Our absurd humanness requires us to be in a delicate balance of material and emotional well-being in order to feel happy.

Therefor to reach a conclusion, if i must, to this globally inconclusive argument, I am compelled to indulge in the human romanticism and image happiness, if it were, as infinitely more than just money and power. After all, if economic success alone mothered happiness then how would the destitute mother be happy at the sight and touch of her child?

In Modern times it is not necessary to use animals as foods or in any other product's like clothes, medicine etc.

"In modern times it is not necessary to use animals as foods or in any other product's like clothes, medicine etc."

Do you agree or disagree. Use logic and give your opinion." 

Sparing the animals from becoming our source for sustenance has recently become a fashionable argument. Even a name has been coined for those who promote it, Vegans. Their thoughts are appealing, and actions fantastic, but absolutely shunning the animate elements of nature, animals that is, is, in my opinion, unnatural.

Veganism   obviously has its roots lying in idealism. It is beyond argument that for this earth to go the distance we must respect Nature and its elements. We mustn’t abuse or over exploit the animal kingdom because preserving those results in long term and ultimate good for mankind. If all were to become vegans, we wouldn’t have to worry about endangered species and maintaining eco systems, but for what use?

It is foolish to think that Man living on other animals is unnatural; many wise ones have proven this long before this time. As cruel as it may sound, the strong few consuming the weak many is what we call the eco system. Animal preservation campaigns are justifiable because if animals run out we’ll have no source, not because us and the animals should independently coexist until the earth simply becomes over populated.

Detractors may argue that it is cruel and, therefore, immoral, to devour, or exploit, the weaklings, and in this era of synthetic everything why can we not live on plant produce and artificial nutrients? The vegetarian element of this argument is defendable to some extent, but not the latter. Nature made us to be omnivorous, and there are other sectors like fabric and pharmaceutical testing where leaving out animals will only risk human lives.

The conclusion hence is simple, we must continue our dependency on animals, only with respect, and discounting animals arbitrarily from all human needs is the misguided dream of a romantic fool.

A new language should be introduced for all countries for international communication.

"A new language should be introduced for all countries for international communication."

Do you think the benefits will outweigh the problems?" 

Now, more than ever, the nations and cultures around the world are caving in to form global identities. As the romantic anthropologists would say, soon there will be one conglomerated nation around the world. Such upsurge of fusion among humanity often encourages many to develop one unified language for all the nations. I believe, though, such a step will be futile because the world already has its international language and may not be welcoming to anymore.

For almost two centuries linguists have tried to establish an artificially formed universal language. Quite evidently they have not succeeded, for various reasons. One is, we already have not one but a few international languages, e.g. English, French, Spanish. And with the growing popularity of English around the world, it already has become the one true universal language. Leaving aside a few lean patches in the third world, and a few proud peoples, an English speaking person can freely communicate at any part of the globe. Over almost half of the last millennium English has slowly infiltrated the territories of other languages through geo-political phenomena and cultural encouragement. A new and artificial language will not have that socio-cultural advantage and is destined to fail.

One might argue that an artificially forged language is culturally neutral and, thus, is morally correct to be the common linguistic ground for the still divided humanity. As fair as it may sound, such opinion lacks rationality. In today’s world of cause-and-effect, we must first find the practical cause for conjuring up yet another language, and there is none. When English, side kicked by a few others, is already doing the job well, there’s simply no justification for inventing further provisions.

So, with the opinion for one unified language around the world, I agree, but there certainly is no need for trying to establish a new universal language because English has already made a head start toward becoming the one global communicative method.