As a result, that resource will come into exhaution because everything has its limit and in the future, I think the next generation will be harder to live and exist.
Besides the above consequence, the effect of the uncontrolled exploitation is being the reason of the Act of God as flood, mudslide, floodside etc. For example, the uncontrolled exploitation to the watershed in the North-West areas of Vietnam has caused many the floodslide, mudslide and many people killed by this disasters.
Secondly, the development of economics as well as the industrialization, mordenizations in the developing countries will more and more form many the urban zone, new cities, manufactures, industrial zones. Besides the consequence of improving the living standard for many people, they will also lead the world to the hardship such as house-glass effect, environmental pollution, water pollution, the global warming etc,.
Especially, these phenomenons are impacting on the world gradually and we can not feel or see it overnight so it seems to be the world have not had the specific solutions to solve them absolutely so far.
Thirdly, the conflict of the civilization has become seriously, especially the conflict between the Western and the Islam. The terroris attacks which the extreme Islam forces make on the tourism island Bali in Indonesia, the Trade World Center in New York America, for example, were the typical evidences for this conflict. This not only will divide the world into the opposite systems but also will cause the un-stable life for people in the countries.
May be I am a nostalgic person, so it sounds I love the World in the past than the World in the future. In my eyes, the future is more frightenning than it is exciting. Everytime I come back my homeland and stretch my vision out on the fields and landscape, just only dream arising in my mind: The world, please do not change.
It's great, the only thing you should do is to read it again, because there are some commom typing mistakes. They therefore sometimes judge innovations very differently than those who think of the future primarily in terms of the interests of the present. In fact, this generational approach to the future implies that innovation is not as significant as it may sometimes seem, because the most crucial project of every community remains mostly the same over time.
Because the challenge of initiation and continuation is absolutely critical to the survival of every society, the most important thing that any society is likely to be doing at any given moment is educating and rearing the next generation. This is the most important thing human beings did in the past, the most important thing we now do in the present, and the most important thing the human race will need to do in the future.
It is obviously not the only thing we do, but it is the essential prerequisite to anything else we might want to do, emphatically including innovation and progress. The necessary tools for this critical ongoing mission — families, communities, institutions, and cultures that encourage transmission and initiation — are therefore permanently necessary, and are generally more important than almost anything else we might imagine when we think about the future.
These need to be defended and encouraged, because it is very difficult to conceive of a future without them. Other important projects we engage in, as individuals and as societies, can be judged in part in terms of their effects on this imperative goal of perpetuation and transmission. This way of thinking often has a powerfully edifying influence: But even when it cannot claim this benefit, this way of thinking keeps us alert to the genuine needs of the future.
If some approaches to progress undercut the prerequisites for further progress, they must be understood and judged as such. This might occur when certain potential innovations stand to meaningfully undermine our ability to pass along to future generations the ideals, the virtues, the knowledge, the traditions, the living spirit of our society — that is, when innovation stands to alter something so profound about the human experience that the inheritance of the future would be significantly diminished as a result of its loss.
These are the sorts of dangers that conservatives in the biotechnology debates are eager to repel. This eagerness and this worldview, however, are open to two very serious drawbacks, which conservatives are not always sufficiently ready to admit or resist.
The first is an exaggeration of the threats to childhood and to future generations, and an excessively protective stance that threatens to turn politics into a branch of pediatrics.
The impulse to protect children from exposure to the larger world threatens to suffocate them and us if it is not tied to an effort to also initiate and expose them to that world. It is easy to go overboard in childproofing our culture, and it is easy to underestimate the ability of children to contend with and to process cultural influences.
Some threats to transmission and to childhood are very real — and some biotechnologies, which reach children at a primal biological level, may pose such threats — but we should not go too far in estimating the vulnerability of the next generation.
The second drawback is a tendency to confuse the project of transmission with that of preservation. This is the conservative version of the utopian impulse. These can be found at the edges of the party of transmission, just as the post-humanists lurk at the edges of the party of innovation. These conservative extremists are no less misguided than their libertarian counterparts, and no less guilty of missing the point.
The lesson of the anthropology of generations is not so much that the past should be preserved, or even that change should somehow be governed in its every detail. That is not only impossible but thoroughly undesirable. Rather, the point is to recognize that a set of several very basic things — centered especially on the rearing and education of the young — must be allowed to happen in the future.
These can be aided and improved by many human innovations, and left mostly untouched by others. But they might also be significantly undermined or made impossible by certain sorts of innovations, and these must be avoided when they can be. Trial and error alone cannot always be trusted to discern the difference, because the costs of error are too great.
But how, then, can we discern the difference? How do we tell genuinely dangerous prospects apart from merely startling novelties? The costs of erring too far on the side of caution can be very high, especially when innovations in medicine may be at stake. What does the anthropology of generations suggest that we should truly be concerned about in the fast-approaching age of biotechnology? Two examples will begin to gesture toward an answer. P erhaps the most significant consequence of human biotechnology for the project of transmission and perpetuation is the potential, for the first time in human history, to directly manipulate the raw material of the next generation: As the scientific journal Nature noted in an editorial following the cloning of Dolly the sheep: The most fundamental fact of human natality has always been that human nature emerges from the womb in essentially the same general form in every generation; or, as conservatives like to put it, that human nature has no history.
The implications of this insight can hardly be overstated. It sits at the core of the conservative understanding of human life and society. It is the reason that new ideas too must be tested against the hard realities of human nature, and, for this reason, it is also the principal solvent of utopian fantasy and totalitarian ambition.
Human aims and innovations have always had to comport themselves with human nature, and this has generally worked as an effective moderator of otherwise reckless projects. But what if human nature could instead be made to comport with human aims and innovations? The reeducation camps of twentieth-century totalitarianisms were ineffective not to mention horrendously inhumane attempts to do just that.
Could biotechnology offer a more effective and more compassionate means? The answer is maybe, and it depends. It seems unlikely that biotechnology will ever simply allow us to control or to program the psyche of the unborn. But through a combination of some foreseeable advances in genetics, neuroscience, embryo research, and assisted reproduction, along with techniques of screening, selection, and crude manipulation, we could at least come to select our descendents based upon a probability of their possessing characteristics including some of personality and mind we find desirable.
Technologies developed to screen out disease very easily become available to screen out other traits, and the capacity for manipulation and engineering will likely grow more plausible with time. As we learn more about the underlying causes of aggression, or melancholy, or cognitive ability, or even artistic or musical skill, among countless other traits, we will be better able to screen for these traits in both the genotype and the early phenotype of embryos, fetuses, and children, and perhaps someday be able to design and engineer them in as well.
This new power would carry with it some grave consequences and some heavy burdens of responsibility. We would be responsible for the character of the next generation and perhaps all future generations in a way we never could have been before, and at the same time, by plying our influence at the level of biology rather than moral education, we might grossly restrict the liberty of our descendents.
It is very likely true, as the innovationists would remind us, that parents would only choose what they understand to be best for their children. But this point misses the nature and scale of this new technological power.
Our sense of what is good and bad for our children is built upon a moral vision of human life that was grounded in the old ways: And our ability to act on that sense has always been restrained by the stubbornness of the traits children somehow already possess.
In a world of positive control, both of these constraints would be profoundly altered. That newness would diminish because the next generation, and those that come after, would be less and less surprising to us, and more and more a product of our plans and purposes.
As Hannah Arendt put it, in the context of education:. Our hope always hangs on the new which every generation brings; but precisely because we can base our hope only on this, we destroy everything if we so try to control the new that we, the old, can dictate how it will look. Exactly for the sake of what is new and revolutionary in every child, education must be conservative; it must preserve this newness and introduce it as a new thing into an old world.
Rather than new people in an old world, the generations designed by our biotechnology would increasingly be familiar people — made to suit our preferences — in a new and unfamiliar sort of world, a world unhinged from the limits that defined the past, and so unlikely to bring forth the surprises that define the future: The innovationist ideal becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We would also find ourselves stuck with the consequences of present ideas and fads, imprinted permanently in the biology of our descendents. In almost every age, someone has proposed some clever and terrible scheme for how children should be reared and raised.
Misguided educational fads have done real damage now and then, but they have generally not gone very far, because some traditional practices grounded in natural attachments seem to accord best with the character of parents and children. Such practices have resisted every effort at radical reform. It has been very good for us that the raw material of humanity remains raw in every generation.
Think of what it would be like to enter the world as a person with physical or mental traits selected in advance, and to grow and get to know oneself as such a person. Think of what it would mean to know that your parents chose you or designed you to possess certain qualities, to affect certain traits, to be some particular way. Not only the knowledge of which traits you were chosen to have, but even simply the knowledge that you are as you are because your parents expected something in particular out of you, would be certain to constrain your sense of possibility and independence.
In purely biological terms, the trait-selected child would still have an unknown potential, because we are not likely to develop anything approaching absolute control of the biology of our descendents. But in terms of the human experience of life, that child, unlike any of us, would live always shadowed by the presence of parental will expressed in his or her own biology. We know what can happen when children are pushed too hard to live out parental expectations and wishes.
This diminution of freedom would intensify as its effects reverberated through the generations. Lewis understood this consequence of our increasing power over man in , even if he did not foresee the precise technological means of achieving it. In The Abolition of Man , Lewis wrote:. A picture is sometimes painted of a progressive emancipation from tradition and a progressive control of natural processes resulting in a continual increase of human power.
In reality, of course, if any one age really attains, by eugenics and scientific education, the power to make its descendents what it pleases, all men who live after it are the patients of that power. They are weaker, not stronger: The real picture is that of one dominant age — let us suppose the hundredth century A. It is no surprise that the present-centered anthropology of innovation, which seeks to ignore the critical task of transmitting our cultural inheritance to the future, has also taken it upon itself to stop the endlessly reiterating procession of generations, and to take in hand the biology of our descendents, turning the future into an unlimited extension of the present.
If the future must be populated by other people, say the innovationists, let them at least not start from biological scratch. And yet, by unmooring human nature from its permanent foundations — foundations that have been the sources of our social, cultural, and political institutions — this project would indeed start future generations from scratch in a more profound and decisive way.
This is one way in which biotechnology directed to the human person has the potential to dramatically disrupt the all-important process of transmission, and one reason why those informed by the anthropology of generations worry about it. Engineering human biological change is, in these terms, a very different matter from engineering animals and plants to better serve our needs.
And once it has done so, we are cut off from the roots of all other movements for change and improvement. The modern age and the scientific revolution have sought, with great success, to better fit the world to man. But by altering man himself, we now seek to better suit mankind to Only to the short-term wishes of the present. Imagining the future in terms of generations helps us see how terribly shortsighted such a project is likely to be, and how disruptive of the critical mission of bringing up future generations it is almost certain to be.
T he mission of managing the junction of the generations relies, as we have seen, not only on the work of individual parents or teachers, but also on some shared sense of the character and significance of a full and dignified human life, and on a culture that supports and builds that sense.
The way we understand ourselves obviously shapes the way we introduce ourselves to the next generation, both the lessons we give and the examples we offer. In the biotech debates, this is why conservatives defend large and often fairly vague ideas of human dignity, human limits, and human excellence.
For many conservatives, the argument about biotechnology is an argument about the future of our idea of humanity. That idea shapes human ideals and aspirations, in this generation and in future ones; it is the substance of what we stand to teach the future. In subtle but absolutely critical ways, the biotechnology revolution is likely to impinge on this self-image of humanity, and in doing so to affect the assumptions and intuitions of future generations entering a world reshaped.
By changing the way they regard their humanity, it will affect the way they live it out and pass it on. Our ability to reorder and transform some prime ingredients of the human experience — our desires, our bodily selves, the relation of our actions and our happiness — requires us to think in a new way about the meaning of our innovations for the future.
The question is whether these changes will diminish or enhance the lives lived under their influence. We should not pretend to have a simple answer to that question. But here again, it is crucial to see things through the eyes of a new generation entering the world we are constructing, and growing up knowing no other. To grow up in a world where personality and behavior are subject to carefully targeted scientific control, where physical performance and mental acuity are routinely enhanced by drugs, where procreation is a laboratory procedure, where the human animal is primarily understood as a chemical machine to be manipulated by a rational controller, is to develop in a very different place than that which has built up our idea of human life and human aspiration until now.
It is to mature, and to build the capacity to reason and intuit, in an unfamiliar universe of concepts, where the basics of human being, acting, and feeling in the world stand profoundly altered. No one can know exactly what these changes will mean. But we also cannot simply expect that a rational, humane, or noble choice will mean the same thing to a person who has grown up in such a place, with such a sense of self, as it now does to us.
Diminished concepts of human activity, human relations, and human dignity might affect the present generation only mildly, indeed perhaps only theoretically. But the effects on our ability to introduce ourselves to future generations who would grow up knowing no other way would be far more significant.
This worry is painfully vague and notoriously difficult to translate into the language of liberal-democratic politics, but it is no less real for being so. It lays at the bottom of a great deal of the general disquiet regarding the age of biotechnology. Rendering it into recognizable social and political arguments is a key challenge for any future conservative bioethics. The language of human dignity begins to point in this direction, and conservatives in the coming years will need to work to make that language more concrete and to understand its implications.
T hese general reflections do not by any means simply add up to arguments for stopping the progress of biotechnology, and the concerns they raise do not simply outweigh the great promise of many biotechnologies.
But they do add up to an argument for thinking about the future in terms of those who will actually live there — in terms of future generations. Thinking in these terms reminds us of the heavy burden of responsibility we bear, as a generation confronting the biotechnology revolution at its outset.
Our new and growing power to affect the future of humanity requires a new reflection on ethical principles. As Hans Jonas understood, our unprecedented ability to affect the nature and the character of future generations means that responsibility must be the center of this new ethical approach, in a way that it has never had to be before.
This responsibility demands that we think hard about the future, that we think of it in the proper terms, and that we now and then temper our hope with caution. As always, our ability to affect the future is far greater than our ability to know the future. But we do not need to know what is coming — or even to know what we want the future to bring — in order to know what we should hope to avoid. But one thing we surely must preserve, one thing we will certainly need regardless of what the future holds, is the capacity to rear and to educate future generations.
The quest for improvement and innovation is a force for great good, but it must not destroy the preconditions for its own efforts — the preconditions for the future. To think of the future requires imagination; and to think of generations entering the world of the future requires a tremendous feat of imagination. In a strange way, it is precisely the most eager futurists in our contemporary politics who seem to lack the capacity for such feats of imagination, who see only themselves in the future, and fail to take account of the need to bring up those who will travel there, and those who will be born along the way.
Responsible futurism requires that we imagine a world without us in it, and that we care about it. If the only way we can bring ourselves to care about the future is to make sure that we live forever, then we have little hope of doing the future much good.
The needs of future generations, just like those of past and present ones, extend beyond health, and wealth, and comfort.
If they are to live well, and to raise those who follow them to live well, they must aspire to greater things. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the minimal standards for decent living, not the highest ends of man. They are critical, but we cannot rest satisfied with them. We need larger aims, and the future will too.
Imagining the future through the lens of innovation leads us to believe that the most important challenge we will face in the future is steadily improving the material conditions of human life by steadily improving upon human understanding and power. Meeting that challenge requires individual freedom to innovate, and this must not be constrained for the sake of vague concerns about unpredictable consequences.
But imagining the future through the lens of generations leads us to believe that the most important challenge we will face in the future is also the most important challenge we face today and have always faced in the past: That challenge requires some basic prerequisites that must not be innovated out of existence.
The difficulty is that both lenses show us something true about the future, and both also put us at risk of mistaking the present for the future — either by failing to imagine progress, or by failing to imagine a world without ourselves in it.
We are left to decide how to balance the lessons of these two competing anthropologies, for our sake and for the sake of the future. Our ongoing debates over biotechnology are an effort to seek just that balance, far more than they are really arguments about particular technologies. Of the two competing visions, the anthropology of generations offers us a fuller and more recognizable account of the truth of the human condition. But it surely is not simply right, and if we are to secure the preconditions for progress, we must remember that we do this because progress is good for us and important, and not because we simply wish to preserve the world we have known.
We must be careful, in tending our intuitions and hopes, to weed out simple reactionism, and to avoid the misguided desire for a wholesale recovery of the past.
The past was not as good as we think we remember it was.
Writing sample of essay on the given topic "Life In The Future ()" Life In The Future () The s decade came with revolutions in many fields and sectors across the world. The internet kicked in and revolutionized the world, bringing forth things not thought of previously. Life In The Future () (Essay Sample) March 16, by.
Dec 29, · Hi everybody, please revise the following essay for me, thanks alot indeed! the future is more frightenning than it is exciting, do u agree or disagree with this opinion, use the specific reasons and examples to support your answer. _____ “The world is flat” so there are many reasons for people to consider that the world is more and more exciting, comfortable, interesting in the future.
What the future will be like essaysWhat the future will be like? This question worried and is worrying people. We know almost everything about the past; it has been written a lot of books about the past. Future does not program. We can only conjecture what the future will be like. Now, we live in th. I think the life in the future won't be very different by now. The technology will change everything- life. in space, transport and the most important thing- the life on the earth and the life of the ordinary men.. The new technologies will open up more walls for the people to move from place to /5(4).
Free future papers, essays, and research papers. Satire and Tone in "The Once and Future King" - There is a direct link in Book I and Book IV of the Once and Future King from the animation and adventure that Wart experiences to the fall of King Arthur’s reign. Writing sample of essay on a given topic "School In The Future".