Is it Right to Take Steps to Control Population Growth?

In China there is a one child policy. In India, government jobs are given only to those with two or fewer children and encourages hysterectomies after a second child. In Iran a couple must undertake a mandatory contraceptive course before marriage. Uzbekistan is reported to have been pursuing a policy of forced sterilizations, hysterectomies and IUD insertions to impose population control. 

What is population control? It is the practice of altering the rate of growth, usually through the birth rate, in a country through either positive reinforcement, ie benefits for small families, or negative reinforcement, ie punishment of those who exceed the country's limit. It is usually carried out by the government, who have ultimate power over their citizens. Population control is often a response to over-population, poverty, environmental concerns or sustainability issues, and on the most part proves successful. 

But where did the idea come from? Who decided that it would be best to take away self-control and responsibility from countless families worldwide? Most fingers point to Thomas Robert Malthus, a scholar on political economy and demographics in the 18th century. He is most well known for his theories concerning population change. Malthus considered population growth a danger that would eventually lead to catastrophe. Humans would always reproduce faster than the world's capacity to feed them. 

"That the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence. That population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence increase, and that the superior power of population is repressed, and the actual population kept equal to the means of subsistence by misery and vice." an Essay on the Principles of Population

Malthus was aware of the changes being made to the agricultural and mechanical industries, and he foresaw the increase in crop development and transport to further regions of the world. Therefore the means of subsistence grew and continues to grow with the domestication of land in order to feed the growing population. When we run out of space to grow crops, we will have reached the limit of the means of subsistence, and the population will have to stop growing as well. Malthus argued that there are two types of checks which hold the population within resource limits. The positive checks include hunger, war and disease - events which kill existing people. Negative checks include contraception, abortion and celibacy - actions which lower the birthrate. 

The general consensus in most governments is to use negative checks to keep the population under control. Unfortunately, despite their best efforts the global population is estimated to rise to between 8.3 and 10.9 billion by 2050 according to UN projections. However it is also thought to be likely that by 2150 for the population to drop as far as 6.2 billion! This is due to growing concerns that continued population build up will be unsustainable in connection with pressures on the environment, global food supplies and energy resources.

But this is not news to us. The world has experienced continuous human growth since the end of the Great Famine and the Black Death in 1350. Even two World Wars last century did not slow down growth. In fact people celebrated by having more children. We've known for a while that we cannot keep growing under the slower rate of growth of sustainable resources. However, most people seem to be under the impression that as Bosrup said, "Necessity is the Mother of Invention." With the more urgent need to find food, people will strike out more often to create new methods to gain more resources.

Take for example the recent news story about the world's first lab-grown burger. Although it was met with great criticism, it marks the beginning of a new doorway, opening up routes for us to become more sustainable. But this is only one case, and how sustainable can it really be? Is Bosrup's idea an illusion, or could we just continue growing forever, creating new ways of sustaining ourselves?

But there is a difference between letting humanity grow abundantly and freely, and letting it grow sustainably, within our current limits. So I put this question to you again. Is it right to take steps to control the global population using governmental policies and actions? Obviously many people would agree that it is right - that we have to keep the door open for the next generation and make life easier for them, not leaving them to fix our mistakes. And the policies do seem to be working. Although harsh, China's one child policy has successfully prevented over 400 million births since 1979 and continues to work today.

On the other hand, there are also arguments against population control. For some it is considered a form of authoritative control, a tool of the rich implemented over the poorest inhabitants of the world. Its the classic belief that you want to change the world, but you don't directly want it to affect you. Therefore the rich and powerful who have the authority to implement rules over the citizens actually on the whole ignore those rules themselves.

The rich are also threatened by the poor, of which there are many more in the world. By giving aid to the poor masses, you are only imperiling everyone else. Therefore the brutal reality according to capitalists is simply to leave them to starve. The massive populations of the Third World seem to present a threat to the West and Capitalism. In 1966, the USA made their foreign aid dependent on the receiving country adopting family planning programs. Japan, Sweden and the UK soon started to devote more money to reducing the birthrate in the Third World. Of course this focus on diminishing global numbers is needed, but it still doesn't answer the question as to it's ethical morality.

Anyway you look at it, steps to population control are considered immoral by the majority of the world. Most important is the use of positive checks, hunger, war and disease. By using positive checks to control the size of the population, you are automatically killing people, either directly in war, or indirectly in letting them starve or become sick. Of course killing and murder is considered wrong in almost every culture, while it is a part of basic human kindness to look after one another and to help those in need.

However, negative checks are more difficult to discern. That is why most countries use these to control the birthrate. As I said before, negative checks include contraceptive methods, abortion, celibacy and mutilation for sterilization such as a hysterectomy. Of course, Christian ethics would suggest that out of these, only celibacy would be considered morally right. Catholic arguments against contraception and abortion are renowned. On the other hand, more secular and utilitarian ethicists could be inclined to believe that if the child is not wanted, or if the lack of that child would cause happiness for others then it would be perfectly acceptable to make use of the negative checks to support the governments in trying to control overpopulation.

In the end, everyone has a different opinion about growth policies. Personally, I am totally in favor of these policies. Yes they can be harsh, and yes they do often lead to social problems, but there are not many resources as it is, and to allow everyone to grow freely, eventually even the land mass on the planet could not hold us, let alone the environmentally harmful waste that would be given off. It is not a pleasant solution to our problem, but it is the easiest solution if everyone complies with their country's policy. However, I think everyone should be involved in these policies, the rich and authoritative just as much as the poor and desperate. 

The Analogy of the Jar of Life.

Dr Stephen R Covey, a renowned philosopher, shared his views on the priorities of life through his book, First Things First. His following analogy is a poignant and deep vision of how we see our life, and how we could see our life. 

A professor walked into his classroom one day with a large jar and sat it on the desktop. He turned to his class and asked them if the jar was full. The class simultaneously shook their heads; the jar was empty. The professor then took from behind the desk large rocks and began to drop them into the jar one by one. 

When he could no longer fit any more rocks in the jar, he again turned to the class and asked if now the jar was full. This time, the class agreed that it was. 

Next he took a small bag of pebbles from his satchel and tipped the entire bag into the jar. As he shook it around, the little pebbles rolled into the gaps between the rocks. He again asked the class if he had now filled up the jar. The answer was, of course, yes. 

Last of all, he took a bag of sand and poured it all into the jar. The sand filled up every other little space, and filled the jar right up to the rim. The class didn't wait for the professor to ask before exclaiming that now the jar was completely full. 

"Yes," The professor agreed. "The jar is entirely full. But if I had first filled the jar with sand, there would not have been space for the rocks and pebbles." His class nodded, but couldn't see his point. 

"Pretend the jar is your life. The rocks are the most important things to you - love, family, health and so on. It is essential that you have these in your life, and so you must prioritize these in your jar. 

The pebbles are the other less important things  - your job, car, home, your sustaining sources. To live comfortably, you need to also put these in your jar. 

Lastly, the sand is everything else which you can come across - the daily stresses, dramas, unimportant things which seem to take over sometimes. These must also go in the jar to help you learn. They are the mistakes you make, the tasks you achieve, the things you want. To have a successful life, you must also let these in your life, but you must not prioritize them over the important things."

God Is Nature.

The concept is strange. The concept is interesting. Above all, the concept is oddly beautiful. 

When we think of nature, it is abundant, anomalous, adaptable, alien, alluring, anarchic, arbitrary... Amazing. All of these adjectives could also be used to describe God - abundant in forgiveness, anomalous in his approach to evil, adaptable to the needs of his people, alien in our lack of understanding him, alluring in human desire to understand him, anarchic in characterization, and arbitrary in his warnings. 

Baruch Spinoza, an influential philosopher of the 17th Century, viewed god and nature as two names for the same reality, namely a single fundamental substance which is the basis of the universe, and all lesser beings such as ourselves are simply modes and modifications. Everything that exists in nature is one reality, and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are a part. Through this theory, Spinoza was considered the greatest advocate of Pantheism, the belief that everything composes an all-encompassing and impersonal god. 

It is said that there are more pantheists than theists in the world. For example, Hindu literature and religious text contains pantheistic ideas. The Atman (the human soul) is indistinct from Brahman (the unknown reality of everything). Examples of pantheistic ideas can also be found everywhere from Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism to Taoism, traditional African and American religions and Ancient Greek mythology. 

The phrase "God is nature" links together themes from different religions. Firstly, it takes the personification of earth, Gaia, from Greek Mythology. She was a primordial deity, the creator of the Earth and all the universe, the very embodiment of nature. You could add the idea of the Jewish God Elohjim as an omnipotent creator of nature or the animalistic visions of Native American traditions. 

Nature is powerful, majestic, ordered even in chaos. It has a complex system where everything works together in harmony to create beauty. What is God? The Creator and Sustainer of life. What is Nature? The Creator and Sustainer of life. If you leave the idea of a conscious Christian or Islam God, and think purely about an impersonal and formless God, this concept is very attractive. 

If you look out of the window, take a stroll through the park, appreciate your surroundings, you learn to respect the beauty and energy of nature. Because nature isn't dead. It isn't dormant. It's bursting with energy, actively working, changing , improving with every moment. The power of nature is breathtaking when you really take it in, and I feel that understanding the strength of the universe is akin to meeting God, if you ever were to. 

Christians, Jews, and Sikhs alike believe that God is part of the world, all around us in everyday life. Whether you believe it or not, it is a comforting idea for many to feel that God is all around us, in the air we breathe, the fruit we eat, the colors we see and the scent of rain on arid ground we smell. 

I leave you with one final quote to reflect on from Helen Keller: 

"The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or touched - they must be felt with the heart."

Will You Move In With Me?

These days is is generally accepted that a couple should live together before they swap vows. How else can they know if they are compatible? It's part of the stages of a relationship: flirting, dating, spending time at each other's place, moving in, engaged, and finally marriage. But doesn't splitting a relationship into stages ruin a relationship? Perhaps it gets too predictable, too mathematical. You lose that spontaneous spark that drew you together in the first place. 

Now the main problem that people have in these stages is shacking up with your partner. It is debated whether you should wait until you are married before living together, or whether you should gradually move in together rather than leaping into unknown waters all at once.  But what is best?

Of course there are pros to living together, most significantly the ability to get to know each other's quirks, habits and lazy behaviors. If you find that you're constantly nagging your boyfriend to pick his socks up off the floor, you might find you don't want to live with someone who keeps your room a mess. Equally if your girlfriend is too lazy to wipe the milk off the side when she spills it, you might want to look elsewhere. It's all good practice for your life together after marriage, not to mention the financial relief from renting one home rather than two. After all, you don't buy a car without test driving it first, right?

You might be reading this thinking "that sounds brilliant" - an excellent compatibility test. Or you might be reflecting on your own habits and wondering whether the magic will still be there after three months under the same roof. Because that is the real problem. It's not about the compatibility of a couple, or about money, or even about convenience. It's about making or breaking a relationship. 

It is different after marriage. Yes it's true that divorce means less now than it did fifty years ago, but it still ties two people together in a strong (legal) bond. People are more willing to fight for their love when they are married over simply living together. If the spark is gone, most couples will try to bring it back or create a new one. On the other hand, two housemates who disagree or lose their sense of romance can simply pack up and walk out. It is easier to forget the reason why you started the relationship in the first place when stuff starts to piss you off. After all, you could have loads of girlfriends; there are plenty more fish in the sea. 

Because of this, some people, and increasingly in young adults, are less willing to move in first. They would rather keep it a surprise for later on, when they're all loved up in the honeymoon period. It's a huge step to co-sign a lease or a mortgage, and in legal essence could mimic a marriage contract. After all its a bit of paper and a signature... 

A 26 year old friend of mine who has just broken up from a ten year relationship was chatting to me about this. He had been living with his girlfriend since university, and she had just given him an ultimatum: put a ring on it or get lost. It wasn't that he didn't want too marry her. On the contrary he would have married her for sure, but he just wasn't ready yet. And it dawned on him that after living with her for so long, he felt as if he had indeed been married for ten years. 

So in the end living together can be great for some couples, those who are on the same page in their relationship, those who are ready to get married. But for some people, it ruins the relationship completely. Personally, I feel that each relationship has its own unique algorithm, its own stages to a happily ever after, and for some that doesn't include moving in before marriage. You just need to decide what works best for yours. 

Is Sense Experience Really Objective?

A table is a table. A chair is a chair. A banana is yellow and a pear is green. Or is everything completely jumbled up? Does someone else see a banana like a table and a chair like a pear? Do we hear what we want to hear and see only what we already know? 

There is a difference between experiencing the world as we know it and understanding the world objectively. It is an interesting idea that we can only observe our surroundings through the filter of our senses such as smell, color perception and touch. Everything that you or I have smelled, seen and touched has been filtered through hundreds of thousands of cognitive processes in the brain. Therefore, the subjective experience of the world around us is unique to each person. 

When you really think about it, do you see the same color as your friend? The subjective appreciation of the color red for example may vary from person to person. But how could you possibly know? The only way would be to somehow observe the universe through the conscious lens of another person. Unfortunately technology is not yet, if ever, advanced enough to project the sense experience of one person into the mind of another. 

In other words, the world we experience can only be sensed through the brain, and therefore can only be interpreted subjectively. Perhaps then the world does not exist at all, but only exists on an imaginary plane in the mind. But since the universe appears to be coherent and intelligent beyond ourselves, can we just assume that it is impossible to learn of the true objective quality of the universe?

This question of an ideal to strive to learn links to Plato's world of the forms. Plato suggested that there were two planes of existence. The first is the Material world wherein sensory perception and material forms exist, and the second is the Noumenal world, wherein abstract ideas such as love and hatred as well as the perfect ideals of material forms exist. Plato said that there is a journey that one must walk, learning the forms of mathematics, justice and beauty, to finally learn the form of the Good, that which he said was the most true ideal. 

This leads one to wonder if these ideas are somehow linked; if we can learn the objectivity of maths and scope beyond our subjective reasoning to find the ideal forms of justice and true beauty, then perhaps then the form of the good and the true objective quality of the universe become one. 

Can Spirituality be Non-Denominational?

This is a prominent question in today's life with all the different things going on in the world at the moment. So many people would love to know if the troubles that we as one people face, such as the threats of Libya, North Korea and Al Quaeda, might be easier and perhaps non-existent if the human sense of spirituality was totally non-denominational. That is to say that all faith was not centered around a religion but an individual core belief. 

But is it possible for human nature to drop ties with religious denominations and follow their own faith? And how similar would people's core beliefs be in comparison with each other?

In theory, yes. Spirituality can be non-denominational. After all, these denominations and religions are man-made, and are created through spirituality. They cannot trap spirituality in a inescapable bond, or they themselves would be bound in return. Spirituality is the very essence of religion, faith, belief. And people experience this in different ways. 

However, the question must be asked whether humanity as a whole is able to forget about the man-made denominations and work individually each to his own belief. Why did man create denominations to begin with? Denominational laws divide the masses between good and bad behavior according to a perceived identical faith, and to begin with this seems simple enough. But what about when you reach further within and find anomalies within a denomination? 

For example, the Catholic Church is against gay marriage, saying the act of sodomy is against the will of God. Therefore any gay Roman Catholics must remain chaste their entire lives if they are to follow their denomination of choice. One might argue that those people would simply leave the Catholic Church and follow a different denomination of Christianity which is more accepting of their sexual orientation. This leads me on to another point which I have to hold for a second. 

What about those who have no choice to be in a religion, those who are born within some fundamental denomination who cannot leave it? They may not agree with the rules upheld by other members of their denomination but there is nothing they can do to change it. Therefore these anomalies in a denomination show that the identical faith spoken of cannot be real. Everyone's ideal of spirituality is different and shows that under the right circumstances spirituality can and possibly needs to be non-denominational. 

And I can now return to my point. Why should the gay Catholic go to follow a different Christian denomination if they feel that overall they are more in tune with the traditional teachings of the catholic church? Why must they follow any denomination at all if they understand which moral rules and teachings they believe in? It should be simple for people to march alone following their own unique concept of spirituality, but for some reason most people just cannot.

Let's take a closer look at human behavior then. School is the perfect example. When a student arrives at a school they are categorized into a group according to their interests, fashion sense, looks, and intelligence. Therefore a pretty, sporty, sociable girl will quickly be shoved into the popular group. Her main topics of conversation with her friends will likely be fashion, films and boys. But what if she secretly loves watching Battlestar Galactica? If her friends knew, she would be tossed from the group because after all a sci-fi loving nerd doesn't belong with the popular kids. So what does the girl do? What would most insecure teenagers do? Keep it a secret. She would rather be in a group of people who share other similar interests with her rather than brave it and take on High School on her own, free to follow all of her interests without judgement. 

Do you see the pattern here? 

Spirituality can be and sometimes is non-denominational for people. But the majority of people just aren't brave enough to follow their own instincts with their faith. They're just too insecure that without denominational guidelines they'll stray from their spiritual path and get lost in a tangle of incorrect beliefs. However, in my opinion you just have to risk it. I understand completely that people feel more comfortable part of a community where they share most beliefs or interests with the rest of the denomination, but I have also grown up believing that everyone is unique. Therefore they should not categorize themselves within a group where their whole personality cannot be expressed. 

Food or Climate?

Which is more important, food or the climate? It is a question which has been debated many times since the 16th century when Malthus estimated that the popularity would one day not have enough food to sustain everyone unless steps were taken, which would in turn ruin the Planet's climate. 

The current food system is a significant contributor to climate change due to the carbon footprint of so many imported foods across the world each day, fertilizers and pesticides flowing into rivers and polluting ecosystems, and the deforestation of woodland to make room for crops. But should we continue this efficient system or change the way we grow and package food?

The food system is an important global market, with many benefits to humanity. These advantages include stopping starvation throughout the world, contributing to income for farmers in third world countries, creating jobs in the food industry for farmers, manufacturers and transporters. On the other hand there are also costs of this food system, such as the creation of pollution from transportation, the danger to ecosystems from plastic and tin packaging, and the deforestation of large areas of land like in Ecuador to make room for large scale food production.

Food has to be eaten all over the world. It is a basic sustenance, not a luxury. Therefore world trade is not an option but a necessity. Trade is a key factor in economic development; a successful use of trade can boost the progress of less developed countries. Food production generates jobs in many areas, from growing and cultivating to packaging and selling. Without this industry the world economy would never have advanced past sustenance farming. 

Unfortunately, importing and exporting food is expensive and pollutes the world with fuel waste. Pesticides and fertilizers contaminate land and water when they are sprayed aerially or allowed to run off the fields, ruining the area for future use.  Deforestation reduces the amount of carbon dioxide being recycled by the trees and also arrests the process of transpiration, upsetting the balance of nature. 

However Climate change causes extreme weather events which are feeding into a global food crisis. This disrupts agriculture and food production, forcing up the food prices, and hitting the world's most vulnerable the hardest. These abnormal weather patterns have been created through pollution, to which the food system has contributed. This has created a vicious cycle which will surely lead to the foreseen food shortage Malthus postulated...

Unless we change the way our food system currently works. 

We must change the way we grow, package and transport food in order to help stopping the pollution of the atmosphere. This would slow down climate change and allow the world to recover. Earth would then normalize its weather patterns and the droughts/floods/twisters would be less frequent. After all that, we would then be able to produce more food to support the growing population. 

Therefore in my opinion, there is no definitive line between food and the climate to make one more important than the other. Instead, the two seem to depend on each other to sustain humanity. 

Are We Free?

Jean-Jacques Rosseau was a great Genevan Philosopher of the 18th Century. His famous quote, "Man is Born Free, but is Everywhere in Chains", became the subject of a great debate about freedom between Libertarians, believers in free will, and Determinists, believers of fate. The quote was part of Rosseau's Social Contract, where he asserted that modern states repress the physical freedom of our bodies by social conditioning and behavioral upbringing, while doing nothing to secure the civil freedom for which we enter into civil communities. 

In my own opinion, Rosseau was making a point about the chains that we put upon ourselves through duty, whether through work, family or social role. Perhaps he was stating that although we believe that we are born free without any inhibitions, it is just a pretense due to the constraints inflicted on us by social conditioning. 

This links with Freud's ideas about duty being produced by human nature and social engineering from a young age. Freud suggested that our ideas of morality come about through the 'super-ego', an inner parent which rewards good behavior with happiness and punishes bad behavior with feelings of guilt. The super-ego is developed from a young age as the child views when parents get angry or disapprove of the child's actions.

These feelings of conscience are difficult to get rid of in a civilised society and therefore we have to ask ourselves if we really are free. Is freedom an illusion of the mind? Or can we strip the bonds of social conditioning away easily?

Personally, I believe that I am free in basic choices such as what to wear on a given day or whether to have an ice cream at the beach. However, I believe that we are a species are not autonomous beings. There are silent rules which guide us through life, which some interpret as conscience or responsibility, and others as God's will on Earth. We are held back by conscience and laws we place on each other in society. These chains are man-made, but they are binding beyond our free will. For example, society dictates that we look after our family, that we go to work on time, that money is the most important thing that we can gain in life. Through this, we can see that we are constrained by more than simply ourselves.

Of course I am free as far as I can be, as a girl living in a first world country, protected by the Human Rights Act of the United Kingdom, which is a lot more than can be said for other people. These ideals of freedom include freedom of thought, conscience and religion, right to a free trial, freedom of expression, freedom from forced labor and slavery, and freedom from discrimination of any kind. 

Generally I believe that I am free, and there is only one law which could be made to further my own freedom, that of equal rights in the workplace between men and women.This is because as long as there is such thing as a civilised society there will always be socially conditioned constraints on what we can and cannot do, both to ourselves and to other people. 

What is with the Obsession about Appearances?

The obsession today with physical appearance has gone too far. Society puts too much emphasis on weight, on fashion, on beauty. There is a problem with young people in western society because, although obesity is a common problem, it is more and more fashionable to be super-skinny. It seems to me that everyone has to look the same; clones of a high form of beauty. This ideally is tall, strong, angular men, and fragile, blonde girls. 

However, there are some people who want to be more like their ideal, using aesthetic surgery, botox and liposuction. Young girls who have large noses want reductions, since big noses are considered ugly. Unfortunately this has become very common. Moreover, bald men have worries about their appearance and spend a lot of money on expensive products to try to grow more hair. But in reality, the most dangerous problem is collagen and botox. Because its such a new process, we don't have any idea what it could do in the long run. Botox is a toxin, and insecure women who take it could die from a horrible disease later on. 

According to a study carried out in Madrid, only 15% of men show interest in women who have had aesthetic surgery, women without wrinkles or cellulite. Its true that to the majority of men, a natural appearance is best. There is a famous saying; boys will ask for a picture with no clothes, men will ask for a picture with no make up. However, girls continue to doll themselves up for hours before going out. They have fake nails, hair extensions, false lashes and orange skin... None of that is natural or even a little bit attractive. But these girls still seem to think they look beautiful to men in our society when they look like Barbie! 

I would say that there are some occasions when aesthetic surgery could help people: firstly, to improve the self-esteem of insecure or morbidly shy people; secondly, to fix the results of an accident or a burn; thirdly, and finally, for people who look like one thing, but feel like something else, for example a sex change. 

These advantages are the reasons for which aesthetic surgery is still legal. However, it does nothing to protect out young minds from the problems associated with physical appearance in our society today. It is important that we teach children the importance of feeling happy with the way they look and not change that to feel more like every one else. Instead it is better to be unique and individual. Therefore in my view, the obsession with physical appearance today is ridiculous, and leads to an introverted and timid mind. 

God is the Only Explanation for the Existence of Life.

Some would say that God is not the only explanation for life in the universe. They would say that there are alternative explanations such as Evolution, which can, according to Darwinians such as Richard Dawkins, explain the origin of life and obliterate the need for a God as an explanation. A designer as described in the Teleological Argument by William Paley is not necessary, and the 'designed' universe is actually proven to be an evolved one. As Dawkins said, "intelligent design explains precisely zero" of what we know about life. 

However, other people would disagree, asserting that God has to be the only and original explanation, for example Christian Creationists who reject evolution as an explanation for the existence of life entirely. Ultra-conservative Christians propose that the creation of the world was as exactly written in the Book of Genesis, and attempt to explain away evolutionary evidence; fossils are apparently the result of animals drowning in the year of Noah and the Flood. This is called Scientific creationism, formulated by Henry Morris, try to maintain events such as the Seven Days and the Flood in the bible to make evidence used by Evolution seem concurrent with Creationism. There is even a hypothesis that the multiplicity of languages in today's culture is due to the Tower of Babylon, rather than a cognitive development formed by the convergence of genetic interest between relatives. 

Others suggest that there is no possibility of other explanations for the existence of life than God as there has to be a 'prime mover', a start to the chain that allowed evolution to begin, which must be expressed as an external being or a God. Even Dawkins, when pushed to question infinite regress, suggested that an intelligent being from another world may have "seeded life" on Earth. Aquinas in his teleological argument asserted that "inorganic objects cannot direct themselves" and that the world works as if harmonised by an intellligent designer, though as a follower of Aristotle, he may have believed in a 'prime mover', and not in the traditional christian God who created the world in seven days, as was believed by the church in Aquinas's time, the 1200s.  

On the other hand, there are those who say that religion and science can actually work together, that both evolution and creationism may be compatible in some interpretations, although maybe not the Creator as in the traditional Judeo-Christian concept of Him. Accepting the theory of evolution foes not necessarily lead towards a rejection of God's involvement with the process. In Darwin's book, 'The Descent of Man', he even implied that nature is an intelligent force or perhaps a being which decides fate and orders the process of natural selection in his quote "rejecting that which is bad and preserving that which is good". This suggests that there is a plan to the universe which, according to Hans Kung, shows that the meaning of the universe can be discovered, as opposed to a universe which came about by accident. 

Finally some believe that science and evolution have not replaced evolution, but only the myth and analogies of the Holy Books such as the Torah and the Bible. Religions such as Christianity can be maintained without the ignorant and closed-minded view of Fundamentalists who refuse to listen to the logic of Evolution. Even the Catholic Church has now embraced evolution as an explanation for our development, while placing God at the heart of our origin by placing simplistic living organisms on the planet. 

In my opinion a God, an intelligent force, is the only possible explanation for the existence of life as the suggestion of infinite regress is an illogical thought to me. However not a God as described by the Judeo-Christian concept. I prefer to think of God in more deistic terms; a spark which gave life and burned out long ago. I could not say with any conviction that there is any other plausible explanation for life that a God in some form or other. 

By Definition, A Miracle can Never Happen.

According to Hume’s definition of miracles, a miracle can happen in theory, but not in practice. Whilst Hume defines a miracle as “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the deity”, he asks us to address in our consideration of miracles whether it would be more reasonable to believe that the laws of nature had been violated or to discredit the testimony of the witness. Hume applies this to the bible accounts of miracles, arguing that it would be more reasonable to discredit the testimonies of the biblical authors on account of their being “barbarous and ignorant”, lacking education and having a desire to believe or an ulterior motive for belief. 

Thus, though he argues that on these grounds it is unlikely that the miracle happened, it being more likely that the biblical writers were misled, Hume does not argue that these miracles were impossible or could never happen. However, according to Hume, miracles are so unlikely, considering the statistical support for the laws of nature, that in practice, if he ever witnessed a miracle, he would distrust his senses over the laws of nature.

According to Wiles’ definition of a miracle as a very unlikely divine act which does not contravene the laws of nature, a miracle could happen, but wouldn’t happen because this would be a hindrance to religious belief. A miracle in the expected sense would never happen, according to Wiles, because the interventions of God, such as feeding the five thousand, would be seen as random and trivial, in comparison to letting thousands more die of starvation throughout history. Such a God, Wiles argues, would not be worthy of worship. Instead, Wiles demonstrates that the kind of miracle that could happen, that avoids implications for the Problem of Evil, adheres to the Manichaean Heresy in arguing that it is the creation of the world as a whole which is the miracle and that God does not, then, intervene in the creation.

Contrary to these views which are sceptical of the tradition of miracles, Swinburne, who defines a miracle as an unrepeatable and rare divine intervention to suspend the laws of nature, argues that God’s omnipotence allows his to suspend the natural laws. Furthermore, Swinburne demonstrates that these natural laws are merely statistical and not set laws in the strictest sense. Swinburne allows that miracles must be scarce because this would otherwise have implications for human free will, although he proposes in entirely in contrast to Hume’s ideas about rationality, his Principles of Credulity and Testimony. These Principles argue that it is reasonable to believe that the miracle happened, as long as there is no good reason to doubt one’s own senses or the testimony of the witness. Thus, by Swinburne’s definition, it would be reasonable to believe that miracles can happen.

Moreover, Aquinas provides a detailed specification of miracles into three types, which allow for miracles to be possible. All are identified as being the action of an omnipotent deity, the first being impossible for nature (for example God halting the sun in the sky for Joshua so that the Israelites can finish the battle), the second being natural but in an unexpected order (for example recovering from a terminal illness) and the third being possible in nature, but without natural elements (for example recovering from a cold quickly). Thus these miracles are by definition possible.

In conclusion, even by Hume’s most skeptical definition, miracles are still possible, at least in theory. Whilst Polkinghorne argues that we must consider whether it is theologically coherent for God to act differently, a miracle being out of the ordinary, several Philosophers, such as Tillich, Winch, Hick Holland and C. S. Lewis, argue similarly that miracles are subjective experiences. This means that the same event might be interpreted differently by people with different world views, such as an atheist and a theist. What makes a miracle a miracle, then, is not whether it is logically or empirically possible, but what religious significance is attached to it by the person who experiences it.

What is the Internet Doing to Us?

The internet can be good or bad, depending on how it is used. Some people use it to receive and send emails, search for information on search engines, and earn money by updating blogs or selling their products online. It is also a new way to make friends, which is convenient for people who are shy. However, these benefits may be offset by the disadvantages. For example, there is a lot of unwanted advertisements, more than on television, and there is a danger of sharing too much personal information online, which could lead to identity theft. The internet has become a window through which we can see the world for all it is, both good and bad.

There are many benefits of the internet that makes life easier. These include the ability to read the news for free, interact and chat with your friends on social networks like Facebook or Twitter, wasting time by watch videos on Youtube, and download music, e-books and television programs onto portable devices. For older people, there are other things you can do, like finding and applying for college or a job. This makes life easier because there is less need to travel at great cost over long distances. It is also possible to check your bank account and order groceries and clothing online. The internet is a different world. It not only provides a lot of information, but also connects people from around the world!

Generally, I love the net because I spend a lot of time listening to music and I watch all kinds of videos online. When I'm bored at home, with just a few clicks, I can enter a new universe, the cyber-verse. I especially like the opportunity to learn new things, like speaking a foreign language. Once, I tried to teach myself Russian on Google Translate. I have even read several different blogs that taught me how to make elaborately decorated cakes or cook exotic recipes. In my opinion, the internet is a fantastic tool that has connected most of the world in a new and pioneering way.

Unfortunately, there is also a lot of misinformation on certain websites that can cause many problems. I have seen articles that people have seen on the internet and seem to take as gospel, even though to me they are blatantly incorrect. People should not trust some websites like Wikipedia. However, many young people continue to use it for their homework, and copy and paste whole paragraphs into their essays. People do not only use it for cheating too. There is the association with cyberbullying that gives a negative effect on the social environment of the internet. Whether through explicit threats, trolling, or alienation of a specific person or group, it incites some people to get hurt, become introverted, and ignore the real world in favor of this new alternate reality. It is a shame that some people lose the ability to talk to people in the world around them. It is very easy to get lost inside the net, and oftentimes, once people are addicted, it's very difficult to get clean, because society is so dependent on the internet. 

I spend a lot of time on the Internet every day. As such, I used to be so addicted to surfing the net I found myself unable to concentrate on the work in front of me, so I had a serious problem with time management. I developed introverted and lazy behavior. I became dependent on the Internet, dependent on something that does not even exist in the material world. I knew it was getting bad when I started to suffer from sleeping disorders, and luckily I stopped before more medical problems occurred  I wouldn't like to have back problems or poor posture for the rest of my life from sitting with my back leaning over the screen. More than anything, I would hate to suffer paresthesia in my hands by constant cramping as I typed on the keyboard.

There are many more dangers of the internet, such as bank fraud, viruses, and malicious hackers. I worry that if I post something on the Internet, hackers can steal or plagiarize it for their own purposes. However, these disadvantages are only there if you're sensible about your actions online. Intelligent people should be able to go on the net without thinking about personal data theft, viruses or cyber-bullying. The virtual world is a dangerous place only if you let it be. The internet is a good tool for the implementation of the idea of ​​freedom of speech and is an easy way to collect information. The internet has so much to offer with a  promising future, but we need to be more careful about what we put on it.

In short, I feel that although the Internet seems to have more disadvantages, in reality these can be avoided by using your brain and treating the Internet with caution. But for the most part, the internet is improving its standards through the voice of the people. Even large problems can be brought to light by the union of all, such as with Kony 2012.

The internet is the beginning of a whole new era, and the benefits of the internet are so huge and so useful to humanity, we can make some real differences in our life together through the virtual world.