Do we put too value into ideas and actions of individual people

I believe that we do not put too much value into the ideas and actions into individual people because for all the progress humankind has made, the action of putting value into ideas and actions of individual people has to be accredited. If we say that that we put too much value in Galileo and Copernicus' idea that Earth orbits Sun, not the otherway round, or that we put too much value into the ideas and actions of Martin Luther King when he protested against segregation in society; we are gravely mistaken, indeed.

Galileo and Copernicus' idea that Earth orbits Sun was completely alien to the Italian society in the 16th Century. At first, scientists and scholars debunked the Copernicus's theory and then Galileo's observation that proved the theory, leading to society being still under the misconception that Sun orbited the Earth, not the otherway round. However, it was later accepted in Europe and then throughout the world that Galileo and Copernicus were right, leading to a misconception, that had fallen on the human kind like a burden for so long, to be lifted. From this example, we can see that putting value into Galileo and Copernicus' idea cleared a big misconception which bought progress, thus exemplifying that we do not put too much value into ideas and actions of individual people because the value we put in these ideas and actions have never been replaced. This happens because human possess the gut-feeling when to put value and when to not, and by thinking we put too much value into ideas and actions of individual people, we tend to think too logically and end up misplacing our value.

Similarly, Martin Luther King was first criticized and threatened by white people that lived near him for standing up for his own rights and the rights of the fellow black population of America. However, by putting value into his protests and ideologies when the listened to their hearts, the public made a decision that lead to turning point in American and the Worldwide society, creating a change that shaped the world for better. Again, we can see when we value ideas and actions of people, we never put too much value in them because we are born with the capability to know when to and when not to put value into ideas and actions of individual people.

A baby understands to it is safe to be held by a parent, but he/she will make a racket when he or she is held by a stranger, sensing that these stranger may be of some harm to him/her. These gut-feeling is used when we value ideas and actions of people, hence we are channel ourselves to put the right amount of faith and value while judging the ideas and actions of people. If we do not follow this gut-feeling and use our logic too much, things that look right to us may turn out to be wrong, and when it comes to valuing the ideas and action of others, it is always best to follow our gut-felling, as proven by the example above.   

Is creativity needed in the world more than ever today

Creativity drives progress. The human population is now at a time when breakthroughs are not the only factor for success and progress. Breakthroughs now have to be coupled together with creativity, so that the best outcome can be produced. This is because creativity makes breakthroughs valuable, as creativity is basically using resources to create a better outcome. Technology such motion sensors and scientific breakthroughs, for example genetic engineering, show that this statement is true.

Motion sensors have been a commonly used technology for some time now. However, this technology hasn't seen much advancements in other fields than gaming in smartphones, until recently. A company called Leap-motion is now innovating with cameras that sense hand motions (i.e. gestures) and by using this motions, they can empower different type experience for users through a plethora of devices. The company's creativity has led to the opening of a different corner of the technology market. We can see that by incorporating creativity with technology, they have created a new market, and a lot of revenue for themselves.

Genetic engineering is a concept and methodology that has been used in years to make genetically engineered bacteria which produce insulin for diabetic patients. Genetic engineering has paved in new ways of production, but otherwise it hasn't been successfully incorporated into other fields until recently. A group of students of Wisconsin University experimented with genetically engineered bacteria to make bulbs. They engineered two sets of bacteria, one set that is engineered to make light, and the other is engineered to take the waste of the other set of bacteria and convert into food which can be recycled by the luminous bacteria by consumption as food. Again, we can see that by being creative, a group has made advancements in their fields. As more and more breakthroughs are made by the human race, more and more creativity is being needed to fuel this process of advancement. Without creativity, efficiency will be hindered.

Creativity is key for humanity as a race to make advancements and progress, because as we have seen above, creativity results in new areas where people can innovate, experiment and be successful. However, creativity is not restricted to breakthroughs. Creativity can be applied in art; an artist, for example a singer will be successful if he or she can make more engaging and attractive video for hi/her new song. Robin Thicke, a singer who until now wasn't commendably successful, topped the music charts by incorporating twitter hashtags into his video. This only did not make him trendy on Twitter, but he received international fame as an innovative artist. So we can see that creativity is needed in the world more than ever today. In order to appeal to the masses, one is needed to be creative. This applies everywhere, from science, to music, to art and to even college essay applications - creativity is needed to produce an attractive college entrance essay to catch the administrators eye. Hence, we now live in society where the incorporation of creativity is beneficial and needed, without doubt.

Is it better to be original or than to imitate or use the ideas of others

Over the last two decade, Apple, a technology company specializing in hardware and software, has released a series of innovative and attractive products successfully and has triumphed in the tech sector. However, none of their 'breakthroughs' were indigenous to Apple, but instead, many other companies and inventors had attempted to market the same type of product in the past. Similarly, Facebook, a social-networking website that dominates the social-networking market, was not a unique creation of it Founder (Mark Zuckerberg), but instead a much more competitive version of the social-networking sites already available. We can see that two companies have triumphed in their respective fields, both because their ideas were original, but rather they were imitated. Newton had once said 'If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants'. Similarly, Plato had said 'Good artists copy, great artists steal'. Therefore, we can see that even great people and companies succeed when they  imitate or use the ideas of others. This happens because when we imitate an idea, we usually tend to refine it, and although the initial holder of the idea had triumph, we triumph because we imitate and modify the idea.

 By imitating or using someone elses idea, we tend to modify the idea. This makes the idea more appealing, and so we become successful with it. However, if we didn't imitate or use the ideas of others, being successful would be usually harder. This is because first it will take more time to form our own ideas instead of using someone elses, and then when we have the idea, it may not be as perfect as it could be. Imitating others idea insures progress, because until the idea is not refined till it becomes a hit, the idea would be reused and reused, hence progress will be made. However, if imitate or use the ideas of others we form just our own ideas and no else copies it because they think it is wrong to imitate or use the ideas of others, just like we do, progress will be rare, and the world would full of just original ideas, nor refined ones. We also learn by imitating or using the ideas of others. When companies imitate another's company ideas, they learn from what the other company did wrong, and they learn from what they did right.

Is it better to imitate or use the ideas of others than be original because imitation ensures progress and learning. As I discussed before, of everyone used original ideas, how would the human kind ever progress?

Should school help students understand moral choices and social issues.

Schools are important for not just to deliver an academic education to students, but education in whole. An education is only delivered when a student is taught academic content along with content that concerns daily life, and that will help a student to be a better citizen. It is important to understand moral choices and social issues because only then society can be more peaceful and sustainable. If no one understood moral choices and social issues, crime would have been rampant in the street, and terrible issues such as slavery and racism would be prominent. So, in order to avoid such calamities, schools must take the responsibility to educate students about moral choices and social issues.

In To Kill a Mockingbird, Scout, the protagonist, learns about social issues in the hard way. She is unaware of the prejudice and discrimination coloured people have to face in her hometown, until her father, Atticus, who is a lawyer, is asked to defend a black man charged with the rape of a white woman called Mayella Ewell. In the court, as an onlooker, Scout learns how unfair the court is towards Black people. Even though Tom Robinson, the black man charged with the crime, is proven to be innocent by Atticus, the jury convicts Tom because he is black and they believe the 'white man's words' over his. When Scout leaves the court, she understands that racism is a serious social issue, and she shall not be racist when she becomes an adult.

Furthermore, during the court hearing, Scout learns an immoral choice not to make: it is wrong to lie in court. Atticus flushes the lies of the Mayella Ewell and her father's when he tricks them into exposing their irregularity of their version of the events. Mayella Ewell and her father were clearly lieing. Because they had lied, Tom Robinson was convicted for a crime he had not committed. We can see from this example that Scout had to understand moral choices and social issues by experience. However, if she did not have this experience then she would have grown up like the prejudiced townsfolk of the town she lived in, and would probably had committed the same immoral choices. She would have never understood how unfair and serious social issues like racism are, and would have been prejudiced towards coloured people.

We can see from the example from To Kill a Mockingbird how important it is for school to help students understand moral choices and social issues. We cannot rely on students to understand moral choices and social issues by experience because such experiences may never occur, or we cannot expect parents to edify their children. If schools do help students understand moral choices and social issues, society can progress as a whole because while having useful knowledge, the students (when they become adults) will be able to make the right decisions as they understand moral choices and social issues and pass on their knowledge on these matters to the next generation.

Is education primarily the result of influences other than school.

Education is the manifestation of knowledge embedded in men. Therefore, education is not only what is taught in school, but also the knowledge that is gained by one during extracurricular activities of all kind. The life of many great people has shown that school is not the primary influence that results in education. William Shakespeare, Thomas Edison and Henry Ford dropped out of school at a young age. However, they were successful in later life, even though their primary source of education wasn't school.

Not all of one's education is gained only going to schools, because there are other resources where one can get materials to study a particular subject. For example, library is a source of information. It is possible to go to the library, select a certain or range of books that will provide one with the information he or she wants to gain, and get educated. The internet is also a great medium to attain education. The previous two mediums prove that school is not the primary resource to gain education. In fact, much of the information taught in school is derived from other mediums such as the internet and library. The truth is, school is a secondary medium for education, a school acts as a intuition simplifying and organising information available already, and translating the information into context that can be understood by young people. 

As school is a secondary medium for education, much of the vital information is omitted by the curriculum presented in school. Therefore, we can only possess the omitted information by listening to others, and reading extra materials, such as book. Education is also gained by real-life experiences. We can only learn navigate when we have put our mapping skills in practice in a hiking trip, or any other trip that includes navigation. A footballer must practice playing football in order to gain full education of football, the classes alone in school would not be sufficient. 

School is is not efficient enough to give a child the information that is needed to proceed in life, therefore it is not possible for a school to give a full education to a child because time is limited. However, oral and extracurricular activities complete the gigantic gaps in education schools can't provide and therefore education is primarily the result of influences other than school. 

  

Is it important to question the ideas and and decisions of people in positions of authority?

Charles II was the King of England in the 1500s and believed himself to be the rightful ruler of Britain because he believed he was appointed by God to be the King. However, the parliament questioned and challenged his ideas on who shall have the dominant authority over England; this challenge resulted in a debate that started a chain of cascading events which led to a civil war. This civil war reshaped England, and formed a democracy that was to rein successfully in the years that was to follow. Questioning the ideas and and decisions of people in positions of authority is important because it usually results in ideas being refined and changes that benefit all.

In 1596, Charles II went to war against the Parliament because they had questioned his rights to rule Britain. He believed that he was the rightful ruler, while on the other hand, the parliament of England believed that they should govern or have more power in the ruling of Britain. The parliament won the civil war, and England was made a Republic. Although England accepted a monarchy 11 years after the country became  a Republic, the parliament challenging Charles II rule brought significant change in britain as to how Britain should be governed. The parliament had a more significant voice in the ruling of Britain, leading Britain to be a democratic country, where the normal people had a say in what happened in Britain. All this development fuelled a change in England which was the greater good. If the monarchy had remained as the dominant power in Britain, the right decision may not have been made, which would in turn negatively affect the populace of Britain. Thus, we can see that it is important to question the ideas and and decisions of people in positions of authority?         

Similarly, in a recent event, some locals of a village in sussex (a county in England) questioned the decision of the government to let a oil company called Cuadrilla, to operate in the local countryside to extract shale gas. The locals were distraught over this decision, because they liked the serenity of their countryside, and didn't want it to be ruined. So, they protested against the governments decision to let Cuadrilla extract shale gas. Their campaign worked, and the countryside that the locals lived in was saved. Here again, we can see it is important to question the the ideas and and decisions of people in positions of authority, so that things that we don't want to happen, because it will affect us negatively, would be stopped from happening.

In a nutshell, I think we should question the ideas and and decisions of people in positions of authority or otherwise the things that matter to us would be destroyed, may that be ability to voice one's opinions or save one's local area from destruction. And if we didn't question the ideas and and decisions of people in positions of authority, how can we trust the people in authority to make the right decisions for us and to share the ideas we think are correct. Surely, we must question the ideas and and decisions of people in positions of authority or otherwise our ideas would never be heard, and our rights would never be attained. 

Can a group of people function effectively without someone being in charge?

Leaders (aka someone in charge) are essential for a group to function effectively. Famous men like Christopher Columbus, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were not just great men, but more significantly, they were all were great leaders. Without their leadership, people they needed to lead would have otherwise not functioned effectively. Malcolm X's leadership was carping for the Nation Of Islam, and Christopher Columbus's leadership was censorious for the previously-leaderless group of explorers to find the New World and obtain the riches that they had great avarice and cupidity for. I will now be discussing into details how two leaders (Malcolm X and Christopher Columbus) were needed to lead their respective groups for them to function effectively.

During the late 1500's, many explorers had set out to India through the sea in order to attain the gold that was much coveted and discussed during that time. However, none were as successful as Christopher Columbus. When Christopher Columbus heard about the copious amounts of gold that could be found in the rich mines of India, he set out to seek financial aid which would finance his exploration into India for the gold. He finally convinced the monarch of Spain, Queen Isabella and King Charles to finance his explorations. Columbus' hard work was paid off when he successfully piloted a crew of sailors and explorers alike to the New World. There, Columbus was able to attain the gold he had longed for. We can see by this example, that leadership is crucial for a group to function effectively.  If there were no Christopher Columbus to lead the crew, the crew under Christopher Columbus was successful in their lust and craving for gold would have never attained their want.

Similarly, the Nation of Islam was a group of religious clergymen that believed that African-Americans should possess the rights they deserve. However, they were not successful at putting across their message until Malcolm X became their leader. Through Malcolm X effective leadership, they could propagate their belief that the African Americans were equal to any other citizen of America and that they should be given their rights. Here again, we can see that leadership was needed for a group to function effectively.

In conclusion, I reaffirm my thesis that leaders are essential for a group to function effectively, as we have seen in the case of Malcolm X and Christopher Columbus. Without their leadership, the group under them would not have achieved their goal, whatever that might have been.

Should society limit people's exposure to some kind of information or forms of an expression?

As seen in George Orwell's 1984, censorship (aka limitation of people's exposure to some kind of information or forms of an expression) in the society limits growth and keeps normal citizens in the dark. This is clearly wrong. But, are there types of information and expressions that should be kept away from people? I believe there are such information. For example, in the web, there are many information that should be kept away, especially from under-age people (i.e. teenagers and children). This is why I believe that limiting people's exposure to some kind of information or forms of an expression is good, if used wisely. Now I will discuss some examples where censorship has a had a positive impact and in others I will discuss how censorship may not have a positive impact, but actually do the adverse.

Since the birth of the web in CERN, Geneva Switzerland, people have been uploading contents that may corrupt people minds, especially minds of young adults and children. Governments have long since tried to restrict access on these type of material. Recently, the British government launched a plan to permanently enable safe-access on the web and censure some type of searches. But censorship is not only limited to government internet-security schemes, but censorship is used by large companies like Google and YouTube. In Youtube, there are certain videos that are inappropriate to be see by under-aged people, and so YouTube enables such videos to be seen by only people over-age. BBC iPlayer applies the same restrictions in their website too. So, here we can see that censorship is beneficial and a wise thing to do.

However, censorship was portrayed completely differently in George Orwell's Novel 1943. In the novel, Orwell portrays a government that feeds only information that they approve of to its citizen. They hide crimes committed by the government and keeps their public in the dark. This technique was also used by dictators like Stalin and Hitler. They censored immoral and unjust termination of people (in Stalin's case the killing of opponent and Hitler the same with the addition of the grave genocide the Nazi party carried out on the Jews) Such censorship is morally wrong because the public should never be deprived of the information they ought to know.

Some type of language and signs, such as the Nazi salute and racist expressions are censured by the government. This censorship is good because it stops people hurting anther citizen, even though the person who posses such expression are being oppressed. This is why a child is punished accordingly if they express a expression that may be hurtful to another in school. Similarly, a leader who preaches about the righteousness of displaying hurtful expression can be rightfully condemned for his/her actions because they may hurt someone. History has proven that such form of expression lead to greater consequences, and so censorship can act as a stopgap.  

In conclusion, I reaffirm my statement that limiting people's exposure to some kind of information or forms of an expression is good, if used wisely. We have seen in the case of the web that some censorship must be used for greater good of the common people, whereas other censorship, for example Hitler's censorship of the Holocaust are immoral and completely wrong.      

Should we pay attention to people who are older and more experienced than we are?

'Heeding advice' is easier advised than done. World War 2, Star Wars and The great Depression are all examples when one or a group of people did not pay heed to the advice of elders. Yes, sometimes one may have to reflect if it is necessary to pay attention to people who are older and more experienced than they are, but history has consistently proven it's true that it is beneficial pay attention to people who are older and more experienced than we are. I also agree with this. Older people are more experience and have a greater cosmopolitan view than the younger generation. As young people still have amorphous views and experiences that concerns the 'big wide world', elders can redefine this thoughts and can channel people who are younger than them.

World War 2 was already predicted 20 years before any sign of it breaking-out had even emerged. This is not peace. This a armistice for 20 years' This was the response by Foch, a french general, after the signing of treaty of versailles (a treaty, signed by the losing side of WW1, imposed by the winning side of WW1). Sure enough, 20 years later, the World War 2 had started. If the leaders of the countries that were complicit in igniting WW2 and the leaders that imposed the Treaty of Versailles had paid heed to what Foch had said, history for us would be significantly different to what it is now. We can see listening to elders and people who are more experienced than us can benefit us.

In Star Wars and the Phantom Menace, when the two Jedi knights that presented Anakin Skywalker to the Jedi Master, Yoda (the lead jedi master) sensed that Anakin had a propensity towards the dark side. He was proved right in the third episode of Star wars when Anakin became the apprentice of the Sith lord Darth Sidious (aka Chancellor Palpatine) and became the notoriously infamous Darth Vader. Yet again, we can see that paying attention to people who are older and more experienced than we are is good, even in the realms of Hollywood!

A shock wave rippled through the America on October 29, 1929, when the wall street crashed. But this event was already predicted by some clairvoyant economists. After America had experienced a mini-crash on march the same year, experts advised less experience investors to stop investing heavily (while taking risks for example putting their house on mortgage as a guarantee to the banks who in turn are gambling with customers money to invest). The experience understood that the industry would soon have to cut back on over-production, hence slowing growth rates which would stimulate a rapid decrease of value of stocks. Unfortunately, other investors dismissed the predictions of these more experienced investors, and  lost heavily when the wall street crashed on black tuesday. Some investors were forced to commit suicide

In conclusion, I reaffirm my statement that one should pay attention to people who are older and more experienced than they are because experience and age teaches people what to do and not to do. This is an abstruse knowledge that less experienced people are wanting of, and so it is always wise to pay attention to people who are older and more experienced than we are.