No creature has wantonly damaged the environment more in a single century than mankind did in the 20th. The mass use of inventions such as the automobile, the aeroplane, refrigeration, advanced weaponry and the electric grid left a footprint upon the Earth that many see as irreversible. The paradox, however, is that whilst simplifying lives will help humans reduce their negative effects on the world, the genie is out of the bottle and it is probably technology – used intelligently rather than destructively – that will be the greatest tool in reestablishing equilibrium.

A return to simplicity is still worth considering: a reduction in consumption and the advocacy of environmentalism are already taking effect in some quarters, and there can be no doubt that lessening the hedonistic and selfish use of natural resources would reduce the stress and scarring upon the planet. However, with the global population continuing to rise, financial clout spreading wider than a few superpowers, and people’s continued reliance on energy, ‘less is more’ alone cannot be a reliable backbone to improving conditions.

It therefore makes sense to consider technology as a potential solution. The obvious first step is to readdress how this field is used, replacing previous selfish attitudes of convenience and environmental dominance with more progressive and constructive ideas. Efforts at minimal energy use are already happening – the electric car, waterless toilets, and efficient agriculture practices –  but the required step may be to utilise technology to cure the ills already inflicted. Tentative solutions are being tried, such as animal re-introduction and beginning to clean ‘The Great Pacific Garbage Patch’, and more will be needed.

In conclusion, accepting the potential of technology may be mankind’s best option in tackling the threat human life causes to the environment. It is not saying ‘you got us into this mess; you get us out’, but rather accepting the reality that, when used in a noble manner, the scope for innovation remains huge. Directing this power at solving environmental problems, rather than creating more, could be a viable route out of the current predicament.

Historically, the idea of a continuous homogeneous culture is actually quite rare: through trade, expansion, conflict and integration cultures have constantly adapted and changed throughout time. Yet the present age, with technological-enhanced speed and scope, is unlike any ever seen before as items, ideas and people can venture across the globe and reach into every corner. The result of this globalization is that geographical and cultural boundaries are increasingly obsolete, creating social melting pots with both positive and negative effects.

There are numerous benefits to having a ‘global village’, and perhaps the greatest is that knowledge is no longer walled within communities or reliant on slow evolution. Progressive ideas such as education, modernisation, health care and environmentalism can all swiftly reach any audience, raising the living standards of many in developing countries and creating positive international discussion. Further to this, skills deficits can be met with immigration, whilst increased contact with overseas nationalities and cultures raises the level of cultural awareness. Finally, businesses and trade can also prosper thanks to expanded and varied markets, rather than being confined by geographic location.

Yet, for all these positives, there is also a flipside to globalization. As those previous cultural boundaries become more liquid or vanish, so conflict and xenophobia are toxic by-products. This is compounded by a perceived threat to entrenched viewpoints and identities by an incoming wave of international products and politics. Persecution and ‘nimby-ism’ (‘not in my back yard’) result from insecurities caused by change and a loss of control. Finally, just as local businesses can bloom so they can also suffer as mass identical consumerism and global brands have proven potential to pulverise individuality and small-time traders in such a way that they are frequently given the adjective ‘rampant’.

All in all, globalization and multiculturalism still have much to give to the world, and the potential of making mixed cultures work far exceeds the benefits of bolting the doors and keeping the status quo. Unfortunately it is also guaranteed to catalyse ill-feeling as cultures come into direct conflict and, as people have discovered throughout history, adaptation is going to be required in order to achieve success. Yet, no matter whether it creates  harmony or not, such is the might of finance, technology and politics it appears globalization is not leaving any time soon.

For the past century ‘robots’ have become increasingly important to human development, particularly in the realm of manufacturing but also in the fields of entertainment and work (although exactly what constitutes a robot is still debatable). Naysayers forsee a bleak future  – a dystopian vision in which human involvement, individualism and rights are eroded in favour of machines – but I would argue that the benefits of robotics can and will override the negatives.

The advantages even simple robots can presently bestow do not really require much explanation because they are fairly self-evident: they can operate regardless of time, holidays or personal issues, and illness is a non-factor. More importantly, if set to the right callibration their work can repeatedly achieve close-to-immaculate results without the fallibility of human error.

In all likelihood the effectiveness of robots will increase, and the robots of tomorrow should show advances in AI (artificial intelligence) that permit self-correction and a heightened awareness of human needs. This will allow them to be more interactive and achieve more than repetitive automaton-style tasks. Aiding in domestic life and being capable of decision-making are the obvious goals for the sector, both of which could have enormous benefits.

All that said, it would be folly to simply ignore concerns about this trend. Whilst it may be some time before the capability of AI to encroach on human life becomes a viable possibility, there are immediate and real issues regarding robots effecting employment. It can be tempting for companies to replace human staff with machines, with workers untrained in robotics or maintenance potentially at risk of redundancy. Meanwhile the role of automatic machines in war, and their ability to mechanically cause mass destruction, is also a serious problem that needs addressed.

To summarise, I would opine that robots will continue to be prevalent in human development – indeed, it is almost inevitable. However, in order to ensure that a fair and protected society exists around this technology workers rights, retraining programmes and codes of combat are all going to need to exist (after all, development is only truly development if it aids society). With such adequate management robots should be able to assist human life for centuries to come with minimal disruption.

For the last century major film studios, particularly those based in Hollywood, have dominated the western world’s film industry, and as globalisation and the internet have taken off that influence has spread. Even after taking inflation out of the equation successful Hollywood movies are bringing home higher box office returns than ever before due to opening markets, particularly in Asia. Against this deluge, however, an artistic and cultural space remains that makes it worthwhile for governments to support local film industries.

The reasons why large-scale movies have an international audience are quite simple: the majority of cinema-goers want to see high quality films, either with novel storylines or higher production values, and established film industries can satisfy that appetite. Indeed, this quality is a self-perpetuating loop, for the increased budgets and better end product attract the best talent and further investment. Like minor sports teams acting as feeder clubs to illustrious names, the film industry’s best flow upwards from the smaller studios.

Yet the international success of Hollywood is also its Achilles’ heel. In attempting to engage with a truly international audience, some elements are watered down to ensure mass consumption. Afraid that risk-taking will result in a film ‘tanking’, this compromise leaves a gap for true artistic innovation, novel ideas and geographically-specific themes. It is here that locally-produced cinema holds its intrinsic value and is the primary reason that governments should offer support.   

As well as this, a further positive that can blossom from authorities supporting local cinema is the payback that comes from graduating talent and sleeper hits. As these names grow in fame, so more light is shone on their origins and similar works. Examples of this are numerous, from the heightened interest in Japanese culture on the back of anime and psychological horror, to increased exposure for the Antipodean film industry now that Peter Jackson and Christopher Nolan are Hollywood mainstays.

Thus, to conclude, whilst most low budget films will struggle against global blockbusters, strong arguments certainly exist for governments to support local cinema. The increased artistic freedom offered to small movies, the interest to a specific demographic, and the potential for a breakout hit, are all reasons to aid with funding. Naturally, some talent may be lost to the bigger studios, but this has advantages too and is all part of a healthy film industry.

With countries the world over struggling to create fair societies that provide an adequate safety net to the poorest, budgeting large amounts of money on marquee events such as the World Cup and Olympics can seem perverse. Recent protests in Brazil about the spiralling cost of stadia built in areas mired in poverty prove that not everyone is enamoured with celebratory events. Evidently changes needs to be made to justify continuing this spending.

I do not generally believe that such events should be cancelled: they provide a level of intrinsic happiness, can highlight excellence, and can actually lead to global achievements (such as athletic records and, to a certain extent, the moon landings). Yet the recent trend has been for events to become bigger, bolder and brighter, meaning costs multiply and people suffer in the name of organisers’ ego trips. Vanity projects invariably leave grand empty structures (‘white elephants’) that eat into public funds for years. Scaling back extravagance is the first alteration that should happen.

A second change should be the demise of large scale celebrations of leaders, people in power, and the military, as this is crass. It is impossible to condone the use of public funds on the promotion of those already in the elite, and in many cases the public only begrudgingly accept the event rather than find any heartfelt joy. Such a change is unlikely to happen in many places – authority often feels the need for worship – but ideally there should be no place in a national budget for such pomp.

Finally, I believe that more should be done to make better use of money that does arise from events. Although the bills are often enormous and take generations to pay, there does exist a spike in revenue for some. Rather than simply going to local merchants, business deals, and increasingly as rewards for sponsorship, the public would be happier to give up state funds if it meant genuine regeneration through long-lasting institutions (rather than mere gentrification). A hospital or university built with Olympic money would appease some of the disquiet about how budgets are used.

In short, my belief is that large events such as the Olympics can be stupendous occasions but they require intelligent and long-term thinking that does not leave locals and services ‘carrying the can’. To achieve this requires that officials and authorities place ego to one side and instead work with a long-term vision of improvement rather than short-term grandstanding. Only then can the reduction of budgets for public services be justified.

Proclaimers of the demise of the family unit often cite their evidence from statistics such as divorce rates, average age of leaving home, and geographical distance between family members. Yet these are the symptoms rather than the disease, and so the underlying questions remain as to what is causing these societal shifts, do they reflect a general malaise, and how can they be fixed. My belief is that there are a few noticeable ideological changes occurring, although whether they need reversed is debatable.

Although it is impossible to exactly judge the degree to which family bonds have changed – birth and death bookend everyone’s first-hand experience – one modern trend is the teaching, rightly or wrongly, that independence and success are more meaningful in life than filial piety. The expectations and ambitions of the young are removed from those of the past and, thanks to advertising, often not grounded in reality. Essentially generations are growing up convinced there is more to life than being within a respectable nuclear family unit.

Tied with the rise of individualism has been a rise in single-person living, with the consequence of 20- and 30-somethings seeking out the life they desire (rather than the life they are given) being that days, weeks and even years can pass without the need to consider family. Living by one’s self has become a habit, with returning home seen as a social compromise or, worse, defeat. Indeed, some have suggested that ‘friends are the family of the 21st century’ because our choice of friendship greater reflects our autonomy, whereas bloodlines are an enforced inescapable noose. 

Solving such issues is not easy and, arguably, not even vital: after all, although some families are stretched, society itself is generally surviving. Furthermore, potential solutions such as those provided by technology are often used to justify remaining at arm’s length (‘we talk online all the time’), suggesting people are not in a hurry to reverse the trend. However, should a solution be sought I would recommend increasing the scope for family time: due to 5-day, 40-hour work weeks many people spend more time with colleagues than parents, children or spouses, which must strain relationships.

In conclusion, changes are underfoot in the family unit, although whether this is a weakening or an evolution is open to interpretation. Certainly it seems that individualism, independence and hedonism have a greater role in modern living than in the past, although that is merely a present day reading of a situation in which we are unwitting players. For those who do worry about family bonds a possible solution is to find more time to be together, albeit this may be easier said than done.

Every school graduate knows a class that they deemed ‘a waste of time’: whether through poor teaching or poor content, it appeared to bear little relevance to actual life. Yet whilst it is understandable to believe that some subjects are less useful than others, the notion that sacrificing these in order to spend the majority of time on traditional academia could improve future job performance is false for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the blunt reality is that the majority of jobs do not rely on any great academic skills. On-the-job training, common sense and the right attitude will suffice for many positions, and for those that do need heavy academia (medicine, law, sciences) it is very unlikely that one will leave university – let alone high school – with the level of expertise required to immediately and successfully step into work. The sad truth is that, in actuality, most academic courses are not ‘job friendly’.

A further problem with the argument of doing heavyweight classes at the expense of frivolous subjects is deciding what is, and what is not, worthwhile. The argument for exclusion levelled at sports or music could be equally placed upon algebra, calculus, medieval history and literature for they are all fairly redundant to the average office worker. Indeed, if anything, supposedly unintellectual technical and sports classes have a greater everyday relevance to most people than theory-heavy traditional subjects.

For me, a smarter solution to this whole issue is to promote flexibility and choice. Allowing students to choose the direction of their study as the years progress not only ensures pupils get the education they desire, but also promotes the responsibility that comes with decision-making. This model is already used in many nations and is more inclusive than trying to bend an entire curriculum structure to one opinion.

In conclusion it is an erroneous move for some individuals to choose which disciplines are of superior merit based purely on their personal opinion. Excluding some classes on the grounds of being ‘unacademic’, without reflecting objective analysis back on their preferred choices, is merely academic snobbery. It is better to promote a solution that allows co-existence and choice around personal interest and – to be fair – most education systems already realise this.

There is an English adage that says that ‘children should be seen and not heard’, and in the field of teaching it is certainly true that polite students who obey the rules make classroom management far easier (as well as reducing ‘teacher burnout’). Yet draconian strictness that quashes individuality and expression does no favours to the child’s education for the future, and so a workable medium must be sought.

Obviously there must be a modicum of control in the learning environment: complete anarchy might sound enjoyable but it is unlikely to get much geography, mathematics or history done. Yet advocates of firm discipline sometimes go further, stating that the hierarchal structure of the classroom is in fact training for the real world where a chain of command and adhering to rules is essential. Whilst I comprehend this logic I do not feel it is the priority of the education system and comes at a cost to other, more critical facets of adulthood such as choice, responsibility and happiness.

Teaching is not the mere inculcation of knowledge and recognising one’s place; instead it concerns crafting better human beings, including those who can challenge perceived wisdom and change the world. As the saying ‘give me a boy until the age of 7, and I’ll give you the man’ alludes, a child’s nature generally continues into maturity.  A questioning adult unafraid to voice personal opinions is the result of an inquisitive childhood founded on encouragement and independence rather than mere obedience.

In short, preparation for adult life comes in many forms and requires comprehending numerous skills. Discipline is important only in so much that it stops abject chaos, but the ‘formative years’ must also be just that: an opportunity to form a personality. I therefore believe that, in order to create well-rounded, independent, self-aware adults, children should be maturely guided rather than controlled and it is not for adults to enforce their opinions as doctrine and rule.  

The modern world is one of materialism, marketing and branding. Across human history this era, above all others, relies upon and promotes the use of reputation in the relationship between consumer and seller. Part of this relationship relies upon peer pressure persuading customers to buy a product, but it is not the only concept in a complex process.

Whilst the want for some products grows organically, rising from a genuine need, the first interaction between customer and brand is often advertising, not via peers. Advertising, particularly for luxury goods, often deliberately veers away from the idea of being ‘common’ and instead sells a dream. The heart of this marketing strategy is actually to not make people buy products because their peer group is purchasing them, but to make the customer believe that the product will result in a rise in his/her social band. Packaging and the illusion that celebrities and models use products is more important than whether a customer’s neighbour does.

Where peer pressure does have an effect is in turning the advertised illusion into mass consumption. The virtual world, where companies such as Facebook have become the social norm, is a simple example of people using a product because others do, yet it is certainly not the only one. Indeed, in almost every circle of retail there are instances of mass consumption being driven by peers’ perspectives of quality: from the ‘loyalty’ of a stadium of football fans wearing the same shirt, to the entire idea of designer brands displaying wealth, once quality has been established in the consumers’ minds, what others think and say creates sales.

Of course there exist people who deliberately seek to go against the crowd; these ‘individuals’, however, are really following the same psychological process of buying to belong to a group (rather than consuming x, they attain -x). In fact, it is only when purchases are entirely necessary – such as in buying everyday groceries – that the illusion and opinion of peers is reduced. One does not think too hard when buying a lettuce.

All this considered I would conclude that it is undeniable that there are cases in which what others buy affect our purchases, whether to fit in with the crowd or to spite the trends, although the role of advertising in ‘teeing us up’ should not be ignored. In short, when it comes to shopping for anything that isn’t a necessity it is a mixture of ‘monkey see, monkey do’ and chasing a dream.

Since the end of World War 2 the public’s consumption of food has grown exponentially, noticeably in first world but also in the richer classes of developing countries. The result has been an increase in obesity and its consequences. Some of the damage this over-consumption inflicts on the body can be severe, but a blanket ban of food advertising (similar to that placed on the tobacco industry) is not the most beneficial way to tackle the problem.

The first, and arguably greatest, problem with banning advertising is knowing where to draw the line. The decision as to what is a directly dangerous and irresponsible industry or what specific products are detrimental to health is not clear cut. Introducing an industry-wide advertising ban of foods, yet allowing online betting, luxury goods, pay-day loans and other dubious industries to continue, would seem hypocritical. If restrictions are likely to multiply and consume several industries, the concept is a slippery slope.

A better solution, at least at first (and one some governments are trying) is to aim for better nutritional information and education whilst simultaneously removing adverts that aim specifically at children. This seems a more evolved solution, although the theory may be better than the reality: the question as to how many people actually understand or adhere to advice is debatable. Nonetheless it is worth trying this approach across a generation to see its effect.

Yet perhaps the greatest answer to this problem would be to change the very culture of the food industry – a mountain of a task but one worth attempting. Currently it is too lucrative to produce cheap foods laden with chemicals that can be mass produced and marketed, and too easy for industries to misrepresent the benefits of certain ingredients such as sugar or salt. Changing to local organic produce, rather than sucrose-filled corn-based products, would solve more issues than advertising bans.

To conclude, whilst many would argue that a world without commercials would be an improvement, realistically it is impossible to eradicate all marketing and banning food advertising would open a can of worms. Better solutions lie in improving the food industry and the public’s relationship with it as a whole, and it is to here that governments should first turn their attention.