Every country in the world has its road rules, but many drivers don’t obey them. Why is this happening? What can be done to solve this problem?

 Every country in the world has its road rules, but many drivers don’t obey them. Why is this happening? What can be done to solve this problem?

Various countries, despite having elaborate traffic laws, witness a breach of these by motorists. In the further discussion I would share the causes for driving these violations and the ways to overcome this tendency. 

It has been observed that countries have humongous laws but these laws are not implemented strictly; consequently,  violators do not take the charges seriously and disregard all the norms since  even after contevening, drivers are not penalized heavily. Besides, punishments for the various violations are perceived as so soft that instead of creating a fear among road users, embolden them, who in turn flout the statutes brazenly. Apart from that, numerous, after committing infringements that are serious in some cases,  are found using their clout among influential and eminent personalities, and tend to walk scott free. On top of that, law enforcement officials act callously while on duty, and instead of punishing motorists they prefer accepting bribes and letting them off. These factors are persuading a majority to overlook laws meant to make roads safer. 

Nevertheless, such propensity can be mitigated, if not eliminated by adopting prudent remedies. Penalties should be levied on the culprits and to the officials who fail to perform their duties honestly. Moreover, the amount of fines should be increased astronomically for disobeying and transgressing rules meant to regulate traffic. Additionally,the process of issuing the license should be made tougher, so that the applicants would get more aware of these, and learn to follow them diligently. Further, warnings, harsh punishments like imprisonment should be awarded to offenders. 

Overall, undeniably, those sitting at wheels tend to adopt uncaring attitude towards the safe driving conventions and stipulations; however, everyone can be made to fall in line by applying the principles of non tolerance towards traffic offences.   

Light pollution (excessive light during night time) is a form of pollution that distresses many people, especially in modern cities. What are the causes of light pollution, and what solutions can you suggest for governments and businesses to take?

 Light pollution (excessive light during night time) is a form of pollution that distresses many people, especially in modern cities. What are the causes of light pollution, and what solutions can you suggest for governments and businesses to take?

Light pollution is one of the common problems, which is a cause of concern, especially for those living in modern cities. This menace can be ascribed to various sources, and it is imperative to take prudent steps to counter it. 

The most common attributed to this problem are defective street light designs, allowing light to escape side and upwards instead of focussing only on the targeted area. Besides this, the lighting systems used in factories, restaurants, hotels and residential societies also add to this rapidly growing problem. Another major culprit for this kind of pollution is the generous use of billboards and advertising hoardings, often deployed across the urban areas, to promote products and services. These light up the night sky and make it obscure to the eyes. Similarly, it is undeniable that the irresponsible attitude of motorists who rely on using high beams add to the woes, sending their beams of headlights skywards. 

An expert study conducted by Light Pollution Institute, San Francisco concluded that later half of 20th century and 21st century are marred by brightly lit urban skylines, where one can see bright horizons that are illuminated by bad street light designs and abundant  imprudent use of lighting systems by business establishments. 

However, this challenge can be overcome by following a few simple steps such as improving the designs of street light systems; people complaining about the places where the excessive illumination is detected; fixing hours for the lights used in fair grounds, restaurants and even on boards being used to promote companies and their products; and motorists using low beams. 

Overall, light pollution is a potential threat to the environment, and happens due to several human driven reasons even though it can be resolved just by applying rational strategies and initiatives. 

In light of the current socio-economic situation of the world, do you think this is the right time for wildlife preservation? If yes, what are the ways and means you suggest for this?

In light of the current socio-economic situation of the world, do you think this is the right time for wildlife preservation? If yes, what are the ways and means you suggest for this?  

    

Rapidly  rising population coupled with the push for development have made environmentalists to suggest that it is high time that something was done to prevent wild flora and fauna from being lost forever. Failing this opportunity would do an irreversible damage. They also offer certain credible remedies to this impending threat.  

The suggestion of taking timely action for the conservation of wildlife holds great substance. In the contemporary times, a major thrust for development is being experienced in almost every sphere of life, be it farming, industry, and infrastructure, which is making it mandatory to bring more and more land under human occupation, resulting in deforestation. If steps to preserve forests and wild beings are not taken in earnest, wild areas and their inhabitants will become part of history and encyclopedias. 

 Moreover, swiftly expanding populace of the planet is bound to push the governments across the world to promote reckless exploitation of natural resources, on which even wild animals and plants rely. This has raised an alarm about the grim future of the wildlife. Overlooking the need to set limits to abuse of naturally occuring minerals will soon deprive the poor wild beings of their food and habitat, wiping them out permanently. 

Nevertheless, some simple and systematic steps can help avert the disaster. Earmarking geographically important areas for the wild flora and fauna, and strictly prohibiting any kind of human intervention in those locations will not only help preserve pristine areas but also engender recovery in the number of wild creatures. 

To recapitulate, it is true that mankind enjoys the privilege of exploring all possible venues to improve the quality of life, but even so they must not rob others of their life. Hence, meticulous planning should be done in a haste to evade extinction of wildlife right away.  

In today's world of advanced science and technology, we still greatly value our artists such as musicians, painters and writers. What can arts tell us about life that science and technology cannot?

 

In today's world of advanced science and technology, we still greatly value our artists such as musicians, painters and writers. What can arts tell us about life that science and technology cannot?

Today, when technological and scientific advancements are calling the shots, art - in its various manifestations - continues to fascinate humans, by virtue of its ability to expose the human mind to the vast expanse of emotions and creativity. 

To start with, various art forms have rarely failed to intrigue and influence people, despite innumerable feats brought forth by confluence  of technology and science, since they help illustrate expressible and inexpressible feelings towards others and the surroundings. Be it a symphony, a melody, a book, a drama or a painting, everything and every form is deeply embedded with either anger, sorrows and melancholy, or joy, humor and compassion. One wonders, if these renditions / presentations had not been there, humans would have been leading a robotic lifestyle, that sans tenderness and warmth, and would be apathetic.

Similarly, art is a formidable tool of not only acting as a repository of traditions, culture and ways of life, to name a few but also perpetuating forward to the next generations. Every community that populates this planet has stored and accumulated wisdom, ethics and ethos over several eons as  scriptures, writings, musical compositions, a treasure of paintings and statues, and so on, and made it possible for the upcoming generations to derive knowledge to survive challenges and threats posed by changing times. An erudite study carried out by Professor Ashish Bhayana, M.D. University of Toronto, concluded that it is the art which has inspired humans to think creatively and use their imagination in the form of science and technology to find solutions in various realms.

Overall, undeniably, I strongly feel that humans are humans because of their ability to elucidate themselves artistically, a trait that can never be realised and fostered by science and technology, come what may.

 

Some countries are considering imposing curfews in which teenagers will not be allowed outdoors at night unless they are accompanied by an adult. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this policy?

Some countries are considering imposing curfews in which teenagers will not be allowed outdoors at night unless they are accompanied by an adult. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this policy? 

Many nations are proposing to impose a restriction on the unaccompanied outdoor movement of adolescents after dark. This proposal has divided the opinions – one that agrees with the idea, and the other that does not, as both sections carry their own convictions behind their rationale.

A lobby is of the opinion that countries must execute such curfews because several instances have been reported and recorded where youngsters are caught red handed while indulging themselves in unlawful acts: robbery, ruining national and personal properties and even riots. Late evenings prove to be a leverage for youth to undertake such activities; thus, it becomes imperative for societies to implement policies that can restrict the prevalence of any crime and safeguard the future of their youth. This move has proven to be quite fruitful in cities like Bristol where such constraints have helped curb antisocial acts involving teens that usually took place at night. 

Nevertheless, the critics of this ideology do feel that such policies will prove to be an additional burden for every individual and stakeholders of a society, as such setting demands for more security personnel and funds to make it operational, eventually imposing an additional liability on taxpayers. Additionally, such an arrangement will render a sense of fear and terror among people and have a detrimental impact on young minds. Also, people will be under pressure to complete their daily activities before dusk, so that the parents can be at home to escort youngsters, in case the latter desire to be outdoors.

Overall, I reject the notion of imposing curfews for teenagers at night, as this will hamper their liberty and create an environment of fear for both - parents and children without ensuring any positive outcome.

The government should control the amount of violence in films and on television in order to decrease the violent crimes in society. In what extent do you agree or disagree?

 

The government should control the amount of violence in films and on television in order to decrease the violent crimes in society. In what extent do you agree or disagree?

Agree/ Yes? Why do I feel  so: justify reasoning 

• The crime and savagery is glamorised in the content, which inspires many, especially the youngsters, to emulate the content
• Such content tends to invigorate /trigger innate animal instincts  of humans 
• **These kind of portrayals render those with deviant minds, plots and schemes to commit crimes

No? Why do I feel so: justify   

• Crime and violence existed even when these modern means of entertainment were not there. 
• Audience today is quite mature: they can distinguish between  the reel, and real life 
• ** The producers of such content just mirror what is happening in society around them. 

 

The advent of movies and television shows has fuelled a profound debate that these are also promoting brutality and thus, authorities should regulate what is being presented in these to mitigate crime. However, there is a contra view on this issue. 

 

Whether the government  should regulate content that showcases acts of brutality in television operas and movies, is a matter profoundly debated. There are views in support, and against this notion. 

 

There is an overwhelming support in favor of the idea of imposing restrictions on showcasing of violence in movies and TV shows. This heavily relies on the belief that the way content reflecting savagery is glamorised and presented in an attractive manner, it is bound to inspire many viewers, especially youngsters, to emulate such portrayals, and practise it in their real life. 

 

Moreover,  many a time, human behaviorists have observed that humans are equipped with innate qualities that support animal instincts, wherein violence is considered to be a necessary survival technique. It is feared that programs, like WWE match telecasts and films depicting blood and gore,  tend to trigger those ancient responses among humans, who  react accordingly and commit acts of savagery. Therefore, monitoring and imposing limits on such presentations could help bring down the number of illegal acts. 

 

Having said that, there is  a lobby that rejects  the former opinion. They claim that unlawful activities have existed  ever since humans appeared on this planet, and this event took place millions of years ahead of the introduction of modern means of entertainment; hence, putting the onus on the new modes for rise in acts of lawbreaking seems to be quite ludicrous. It is suggested that the government should not take this step: it will do little to help.  

 

In hindsight, even though the suggestion demanding state intervention in regulating content showcasing violence to regulate criminal activities seems valid, I feel that this may not fetch desired outcomes, since unlawful acts rely on the perversion rather than inspiration. Thus, I do not subscribe to the statement. 

 

 

In some countries, people prefer to own a house for accommodation, while in other countries people prefer to rent it . Does owning a house have more advantages or disadvantages than renting a house?

In some countries, people prefer to own a house for accommodation, while in other countries people prefer to rent it . Does owning a house have more advantages or disadvantages than renting a house?

In some countries owning a home rather than renting one is very important for people. 

Reason why people are inclined to possess their own residential unit

1. It is not easy to live on their own terms when one is a tenant, while homeowners have unrestricted access to all facilities offered in their homes.
2. They can decorate their living spaces as per their choice do not need to seek permission from anyone 
3. They can buy expensive furniture and fixtures as per their choice
4. Buying a house means making a secure investment that will last long and earn a premium 
5. Save people from fluctuations of rents
6. They can chose the locale where they would like to have their own home 

Positive 

• More house owners means better economic stability for the country 
• Financial profile improves if one has their own accommodation 
• Can use their own house as a collateral in case they are in dire need of money 
• Security - no one will evict them even if they are facing financial crisis
• People can afford better lifestyles. 

Negative 

• People forgot better opportunities since many get emotionally attached to their own homes
• They are exposed to levies, taxes, charges and maintenance costs
• In case the home is in a zone that is vulnerable to natural calamities 
• Life can become monotonous for those living in the same neighborhood for years
  
  
  

Owning a dwelling unit is a dream for billions in certain cultures and they hold it dearer to leasing one, since it fuels a sense of security and stability. There are several reasons that can be attributed to this desire, but overall, it is admittedly a favourable evolution.

To start with, despite facing several financial hardships, numerous households strive to buy a house of their own, for it makes them feel secure and confident. Having a living space that belongs to them completely affords them the freedom to use it as per their desire and also their convenience. Many even consider their residence to be a long term investment, which can be used as a collateral when one is faced with exigencies, such as funding higher education of the children, expansion of business and so on. In contrast, tenants can hardly afford such privileges. Therefore, home ownership is an imperative quality.    

Besides this, it is undeniable that those living in their own homes enjoy all the liberty to make their own rules and also ensure that they have all the privacy to themselves, which is missing when one resides in a rented accommodation where they are coaxed into following the strictures defined by the landlords. 

By all means, possessing a residential unit is undoubtedly a beneficial circumstance: it renders stability to life as it fulfils one of the three basic needs of food, shelter and clothing. When one has a permanent address, they can think of fulfilling other more crucial obligations in terms of familial, social  and professional.  

In hindsight, ownership of a house allows one to live freely and also enjoy a certain level of safety from fluctuations. Hence, I feel a self-owned home in spite of its size is a blessing.  

Internet contains a lot of Information, however, sometimes this information is inaccurate or wrong. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

 

Internet contains a lot of Information, however, sometimes this information is inaccurate or wrong. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

The internet, no doubt, has rendered unprecedented convenience to the society, but has also become a subject of widespread criticism due to a huge amount of misleading content. This view is generally upheld by a large section of skeptics though others outrightly reject these claims.   

    

The opinion about this 20th century invention presenting fake inputs is based on a plethora of experiences of the users who unintentionally have stumbled upon websites that are laden with unsolicited information, lacking verifiable and credible sources. Interaction with such mediums fuel displaced notions, which are of little relevance and use, but do have a potential to land people into troubles such as  students using such data for their assignments, and inviting retribution  at the hand of the teachers.

Similarly, this platform has become infamous for its potential to be used as a launch pad for disseminating rumours and ill-intentioned information. By virtue of being able to hide behind the veil of  anonymity successfully, several unscrupulous characters use e-mails, blogs, portals to defraud gullible users. This can be clearly illustrated by citing rampant cases involving scams like lottery, immigration, and so on. 

However, the supporters of this versatile information sharing medium ridicule the claims of the former lobby. They profess that the prudent users have a knack to always determine and access a source that offers genuine inputs. There are innumerable portals officially hosted by several verified organisations who always present reliable data in lieu of nominal subscription, but it is the intent of users to retrieve information free, without revealing their identity, that takes them to the fraudulent web portals. 

Overall, despite doubts being expressed about the authenticity of information afforded by the net, I fail to concur with the notion. Nevertheless, one must prouse depthless medium judiciously to drive benefits.