A lot is said about the fact that no elections really reflect the true will of the country’s people because only a small percentage of them actually take part in them. And at any given moment of time one can find groups of people angrily saying that it is a situation one cannot reconcile oneself with, that in our democratic society no one can neglect his right to vote. Isn’t it natural, then, to make voting obligatory for everybody who has this right?
Today we can hear more and more often that the methods of law enforcement should move on together with time and apply new technologies in everyday use. One of the most obvious examples of such methods is placement of cameras in the streets, in public buildings, in apartment houses and so on, so that the police could easily locate and control all kinds of criminal activity without the necessity of any police officers being present on spot.
All the educational paradigms can be roughly subdivided into the ones that presuppose competition among the students and the ones that propose mutual support. These two ideas are, naturally, opposed to each other, for they differ even in the idea of necessary manning of an average class. Competitive methods suggest that all the members of the class should be of more or less the same intellectual level, proficiency in disciplines and so on. Mutual support system believes that every class should be compiled of students belonging to all levels, with clever students helping the less promising ones to progress and so on. Which of them is correct?
We live in the age when people are very concerned with morality and ethics in relations between people, between people and nature, and between people and animals. Some people refuse to eat meat or drink milk because it means cruelty and exploitation of animals; some people demand all the livestock to be immediately set free because of the same reasons; however, while demands and ideas of this kind are heard rather often and are said aloud, the idea of animal testing seems to somehow evade the public consciousness. Every day we hear on TV about new medicine being tested on mice and guinea pigs, and tend to accept it quite nonchalantly. But why?
The modern world lives according to the principle that comfort and easiness of existence is more important than the existence itself. More and more often we can hear the appeals to the public and the officials to either enable this particular person to die or make the so-called euthanasia an accepted practice in general. The reasons for it seem to be simple and understandable – the people to be euthanized are hopelessly sick, cannot be treated and, most often, suffer too much for their lives to be considered of any value by themselves.
Today more often than in any other epoch we can hear exclamations like “Science is evil!”, “We should return to nature!”, “We are too dependent on machines and computers in particular!” Yet, however, these statements are by no means new. Luddites of various kinds existed in all times, and I can clearly imagine a picture of a hairy, club-swinging caveman orator persuading his awe-stricken fellow tribesmen that they all have grown too dependent on fire and are forgetting the natural way of eating their meat raw.
It is hard to think about a more controversial issue of modern society than the question of acceptability of the death penalty. While the majority of civilized countries no longer use it and the tendency is that the number of those who still does gradually dwindles, in every society there is an active minority – and sometimes it seems that even a majority – that demands for it to be either continued to be used or restored. These demands tend to grow more numerous after some especially gruesome crime is committed and becomes known to the public.
People stating that strict gun control may lead to saving millions of lives seem to be under the false assumption that most deaths in the country are caused by deranged teenagers who start shooting in their schools or overly nervous people legally owning firearms and incapable of controlling themselves. They state that if the laws controlling owning guns become stricter, if firearms become harder to come by, these factors will cause reduction of deaths caused by these weapons.