‘The Future is Bright’

The future is a mystery to everyone. Some people would argue that the future
is bright because modern technology will soon be able to solve most problems in
our society. Other people think that modern technology will bring about the
destruction of the world. If we consider the recent negative environmental and
social trends in the world today it is impossible to be optimistic about the future.

It can be argued that modern technology has solved many of the world’s
problems, and may continue to do so in the future. We have made rapid progress,
especially in the fields of medicine, communication and transport.[ Scientists are
now able to cure or prevent many of the diseases that previously affected millions
of people. For example, polio can be eliminated simply by vaccination.[ As well as
this there has been an explosion in the area of information technology and
communication. This also makes it easier to conduct business in any part of the
world.[ Along with the advances made in communication, transport has also been
improved all over the world. Even in developing countries, many people now own
private transport or are able to travel quickly and easily using public transport.
Therefore, it is sometimes claimed that technology will provide mankind with the
universal panacea of the future.

However, modern technology also brings many disadvantages.[ Pollution

is one result of increased technology and industrialization. The effects of this
can be seen in the destruction of the ozone layer as well as global warming.
[Improvements in technology have also increased the effectiveness of weapons,
especially weapons of mass destruction. [As a direct result of modern
technology, certainly in the future new diseases will appear. [Although transport
has improved, it brings with it the danger of air pollution and traffic congestion.
[Overpopulation and starvation will increase in the future because natural
resources are limited and undoubtedly the amount of fertile land is decreasing
steadily.

In conclusion, it is clear that for most people in the world the future is not
bright because mankind is destroying the environment through unsustainable
development. Modern technology can solve some problems but without careful
planning the future looks bleak.

Students, not the state, should pay university tuition fees.

Twenty years ago, if you went to university in the UK, all of your tuition fees were
paid for by the government. Now, however, you have to pay for them yourself.
There is currently a lot of debate about
which of these two situations is better. What is more, there are no straightforward
answers.

In an ideal world, all education would be free, including tertiary education.

Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that we do not live in an ideal world and
there is not an unlimited supply of money.
In addition to this, the more money the government spends, the more it taxes its
citizens, and the less money they have.

On the other hand, it could be argued that in a modern democratic society,

citizens have some basic rights. For example, many people would agree that
universal free healthcare is a basic right: no one should go without medical
attention because they can’t afford it. Likewise, a significant number of people
also think university fees should be free of charge. After all, they maintain, if
healthcare is free, why shouldn’t university be free, too?

In my own view, university tuition fees should not be totally free. If they are,
many people will go to university just because they don’t know what to do after
secondary school. Obviously, this is not the purpose of going to university. At the
same time, fees should not be so expensive that they put off people from poor
families from carrying on with their studies. Consequently, the best solution
would be for the government to subsidise tuition fees, but not to pay for them
entirely.

Are electric cars a replacement for those powered by fossil fuels?

Electric cars are currently being developed by many well-known automotive

companies. Many people still question whether electric cars are a feasible
replacement for petrol and diesel-fuelled vehicles. In this essay, I will explore the
opinions for and against the use of electric cars and their replacement of petrol
and diesel-fuelled cars.

On one hand, electric cars are environmentally friendly. Not only are they
powered by renewable energy sources, but they are clean to run and maintain on
the road. To support this opinion, recent studies show that the use of electric cars
helps to minimize pollution in urban and rural areas. Clearly, electric cars are one
way to tackle ecological concerns and support a ‘greener’ environment.
On the other hand, electric cars are inconvenient to maintain and to dispose of.
The driver of an electric vehicle must recharge his car approximately every 100
kilometres. In addition, the plutonium battery of an electric car is toxic to the
environment and must be safely disposed of through expensive means. In brief,
scientists are still exploring ways to produce these types of vehicles so that they
are easier to manufacture, maintain and use safely.

To sum up, it is evident that there are both pros and cons in the development of
electric vehicles. Despite the expense of development and the inconvenience of
recharging electric cars, I strongly believe that continuing with the research and
production of these vehicles is well worth the investment and that we should
remain supportive to the use of electric cars and to their development in the
future.

Is money the most important thing in life?

Money is certainly something which is often discussed in today's world. Hardly a

day goes by without the subject of money being raised in most people's lives.
However, it is highly debatable whether it is more important than other
considerations, such as health and happiness, which some people consider to be
of greater significance.

To begin with, it is often argued that having money enables people to exert
influence over others. Wealthy businessmen, for example, are often the most
highly respected members of society, and business tycoons are often consulted by
world leaders, who then make policies which affect the whole population. As a
consequence, money can be seen as the single most important factor in our daily
lives. Secondly, from the point of view of the individual, money is vital for
survival. Our society is structured in such a way that, without money, people are
deprived of the means to obtain proper nutrition and health care. Furthermore, in
some cases where state benefits are inadequate, the inability to pay heating bills
can indeed become a matter of life and death. This is clearly illustrated by the fact
that, according to Social Services, the majority of deaths due to hypothermia each
winter occur among low-income groups.

On the other hand, many people claim that undoubtedly health is of greater
importance than money. Izaak Walton said “health is a blessing that money
cannot buy.” What is more, money is of little consolation to those who are
suffering from health problems. Despite the fact that money can pay for the best
medical treatment and care available, this is no guarantee of a longer life. In
addition, most people would agree that personal happiness easily outweighs
money in importance. Even if an individual is extremely rich, this does not
necessarily lead to happiness. In some cases, the contrary is true and vast wealth
brings with it a whole range of problems and insecurities. Genuine happiness
cannot be bought and does not usually have anything to do with financial status.

On the whole, although there are those who would rank money as the single most
important thing in life, the vast majority would disagree. Money, they argue, has
an important part to play but perhaps the world would be a more harmonious
place to live in if this were kept in proportion and society put more emphasis on
moral issues.

MOBILE PHONES: Should they be banned in public places?

Society has mixed feelings about the use of mobile phones in public places like
restaurants and cinemas. Whereas/However they were almost unknown twenty
years ago, these days they are part of everyone’s life, and the world would now
feel a strange
place without them.

One of the strongest arguments in favour of banning mobile phones is the

annoyance they cause other people. Although/Despite audiences are always asked
to turn off their
mobiles when they go to the cinema, you can be sure that the film you are
watching will be interrupted by the sound of at least five ringing tones!
Therefore/What is more many people insist on continuing their conversation, in
spite of/even though hundreds
of people can hear them! For this reason/Besides many people would welcome a
ban on mobile phones in places where they might irritate others.

On the other hand/Although there are a number of arguments against such a ban.
It is really difficult to stop users bringing their mobile phones into public places,
and however/therefore it would be virtually impossible to enforce any ban. Some
would see this as an infringement of their rights, even though/while other people
would say they need them in case of an emergency. And despite/besides being
asked to turn their mobile phones off, some people insist on leaving them on, or
simply forget to silence them. Perhaps the most important point is that,
although/in spite of all the disadvantages, many people these days simply feel
that they are not able of living without their mobile.
It seems to me that a ban on mobile phones would be pointless. A way round any
ban will always be found. Nevertheless/Although their use should be discouraged
in places like restaurants, unless it is absolutely necessary. People should be made
aware that it is
very bad manners to use them at certain times. However/Furthermore, there will
always be someone who thinks their call is much more important than other
people’s peace and
quiet!