The rain drops fall delicately onto the earth like the tears of angels. Above, the sun is taking a leave from daylight and the clouds are his curtains. As he sleeps, the grey sky weeps and cleanses the world.
Does the rain signify the end or just another start?
Visiting an old home brings back nostalgic memories. Leaving a home takes memories forward. Every smell of damp earth and fallen leaves makes an imprint upon the sands of the mind. Taking a walk through an old pathway of worn cobblestone, the best perfume is the one of home. Like in a forest, where every bush, flower and tree have their own unique scent. They make themselves a home in our hearts and come out to the surface when remembered.
Buying a new house up north, my family is moving after almost 10 years of living in our current home. Right now, we live a cozy townhouse in the middle of many, making up a small clutter of units and suites. 50 years strong, the red bricks of the houses are now a pale faded shade, some places chipped. They are small but sturdy like a colony of ants. The red bricks contrasts with the black of the asphalt shingles. Some parts are peeling off, but it still keeps the homes safe and warm nonetheless.
Lining the pathways of our own community, are small bushes and narrow clearings of grass. The sweet smell of the flowers and berries are calming and soothing. The green is a relaxing sight to the eyes and out there is a forest of our own.
A few streets away is a park with a small ravine running across the fields. Deer and other small animals scurry under the bushes and live alongside the humans among the shadows. Every time we walk through the forest, the sun is cast and shining across the roads.
Each block of townhouses are covered and hidden behind a myriad of trees and bushes. A window in our house looks out upon a small square garden contained within a stone block. In the middle of the garden is a petite baby tree. It's trunk is slim with delicate branches reaching out to the sky. It has been there since we moved in. Season through seasons, it has grown, slowly, but surely. We've watched it lose its leaves only to grow them back every year. With each coat gone, it grows a bit taller.
After all, it starts with spring. A new leaf. A stronger tree.
This community is our summer, autumn and winter. The brightness of the initial joy, the turning of a new page, and the melancholy reminiscence. And the future holds our spring to our new home. Leaving behind every sight and wonder, but never forgetting. They are brought with us, wherever we go to come back one day. And when they do, the waves of memories wash over us like a comforting blanket of all the years past.
The end of a chapter. The start of another.
After a harsh cold winter, it will always start again with spring.
Saturday, 27 June 2015
Saturday, 6 June 2015
Euthanasia
Euthanasia or assisted suicide is the act of killing a patient suffering an incurable disease painlessly. Many people are against the idea of killing a person, whether someone wishes to die or not as it is regarded as a type of murder and is considered inhumane. Euthanasia is illegal in most countries and when it does occur, it raises a wave of controversy. However, although one should help a human to survive and live, at the end, people should have the choice to decide whether they want to end their own lives.
People say that once a person dies, one will never know whether the patient will survive or a miracle recovery would happen. However, in most countries that did legalize euthanasia, it is reserved exclusively for terminally ill people. Many people would argue that were euthanasia be legalized, doctors would abuse that power to free spaces in a hospital or to use less funds. However, just because euthanasia is legalized, the process for a patient to be approved to undergo euthanasia is also long and complicated and doctors won't have the permission to carry out the action without sufficient paperwork. This paperwork can supervise abuses of euthanasia
Passive euthanasia, where a patient's life is ended without the use of drugs, usually by being taken off of life support of being denied food, is already widespread in the world. In a study in 2012, as many as 57 thousand people die every year in Britain through passive euthanasia. Euthanasia in Britain is illegal, so the government won't be able to track the abuse. In contrast, a report in 1991 in the Netherlands, a decade before euthanasia was legalized there, 0.8 percent of euthanasia procedures were performed without the patient's consent. In 2005, another study found that this number dropped to 0.4 percent.
People who are denied euthanasia often claim their life is dull and sheer torture. They often state that their dignity and privacy are lost. Tony Nicklinson was, a 58 year-old-man who suffered from locked-in syndrome, where the patient in conscious and is capable of sound, but they are paralyzed from neck down and are unable to speak. He can only communicate by blinking and a few head movements. He can only eat if someone feeds him and he has to be washed and dressed by caregivers. He described his life as a living torture. In 2010 and 2012 he bid to die, but he was rejected. In the end, he starved himself and died within a week.
Euthanasia is performed by veterinarians. People bring their dying and suffering pets to be "put to sleep" The pets are injected in a vein with pentobarbital with shuts down the functionality of the brain and stops the heart. The animal immediately looses consciousness so they don't feel any pain and the whole process, in most cases takes about 5 seconds. If animals are euthanized because of chronic diseases or severe illnesses, why can't humans.
The Hippocratic Oath, "First do no harm" is used by doctors as a code of conduct. This means that doctor's can't do anything to harm a patient's chance of survival. The Hippocratic Oath was a piece of text written 2000 years ago by Hippocrates and was summed up into the maxim. However, today, with modern advancements in medicine, most of the points in the oath are not viable anymore, so why are we still clinging onto the Hippocratic Oath? Besides, put under a different perspective, it could also mean "don't hurt a patient by letting them suffer." Through a different light, "harm" can have a different meaning. By keeping a patient in anguish and letting them suffer by keeping them alive, we are also violating the maxim by causing them pain and harm.
Although assisted suicide does present new problems, it also allows suffering victims to alleviate their pain. Much of the public already supports euthanasia. Currently, 70 percent of Americans support "ending a patient's life by some painless mean" in Gallup's poll. Euthanasia is not an immoral action. Through assisted suicide, patients are able to experience death with dignity.
People say that once a person dies, one will never know whether the patient will survive or a miracle recovery would happen. However, in most countries that did legalize euthanasia, it is reserved exclusively for terminally ill people. Many people would argue that were euthanasia be legalized, doctors would abuse that power to free spaces in a hospital or to use less funds. However, just because euthanasia is legalized, the process for a patient to be approved to undergo euthanasia is also long and complicated and doctors won't have the permission to carry out the action without sufficient paperwork. This paperwork can supervise abuses of euthanasia
Passive euthanasia, where a patient's life is ended without the use of drugs, usually by being taken off of life support of being denied food, is already widespread in the world. In a study in 2012, as many as 57 thousand people die every year in Britain through passive euthanasia. Euthanasia in Britain is illegal, so the government won't be able to track the abuse. In contrast, a report in 1991 in the Netherlands, a decade before euthanasia was legalized there, 0.8 percent of euthanasia procedures were performed without the patient's consent. In 2005, another study found that this number dropped to 0.4 percent.
People who are denied euthanasia often claim their life is dull and sheer torture. They often state that their dignity and privacy are lost. Tony Nicklinson was, a 58 year-old-man who suffered from locked-in syndrome, where the patient in conscious and is capable of sound, but they are paralyzed from neck down and are unable to speak. He can only communicate by blinking and a few head movements. He can only eat if someone feeds him and he has to be washed and dressed by caregivers. He described his life as a living torture. In 2010 and 2012 he bid to die, but he was rejected. In the end, he starved himself and died within a week.
Euthanasia is performed by veterinarians. People bring their dying and suffering pets to be "put to sleep" The pets are injected in a vein with pentobarbital with shuts down the functionality of the brain and stops the heart. The animal immediately looses consciousness so they don't feel any pain and the whole process, in most cases takes about 5 seconds. If animals are euthanized because of chronic diseases or severe illnesses, why can't humans.
The Hippocratic Oath, "First do no harm" is used by doctors as a code of conduct. This means that doctor's can't do anything to harm a patient's chance of survival. The Hippocratic Oath was a piece of text written 2000 years ago by Hippocrates and was summed up into the maxim. However, today, with modern advancements in medicine, most of the points in the oath are not viable anymore, so why are we still clinging onto the Hippocratic Oath? Besides, put under a different perspective, it could also mean "don't hurt a patient by letting them suffer." Through a different light, "harm" can have a different meaning. By keeping a patient in anguish and letting them suffer by keeping them alive, we are also violating the maxim by causing them pain and harm.
Although assisted suicide does present new problems, it also allows suffering victims to alleviate their pain. Much of the public already supports euthanasia. Currently, 70 percent of Americans support "ending a patient's life by some painless mean" in Gallup's poll. Euthanasia is not an immoral action. Through assisted suicide, patients are able to experience death with dignity.
Should we ban scientists from using animals in their experiments?
26 million animals are used for scientific research every year. 26 million. None of them survive to see a day when they aren't trapped in a white lab room. Scientists use them to test out new drugs, medicine, or cosmetics before putting them on store shelves. But what is actually happening during the testing? These animals are put through a lot of pain and being discarded like trash. Even though by testing on animals, humans can be more safe and protected agaisnt diseases, animals should not be used for scientific research.
First of all, testing results are not always accurate when using animals. Animals and humans are both complex organisms and they are both quite different from each other. Of course, we both bear basic similarities, but animal cells differ so much from human cells. Primates are commonly used because of their striking similarity to humans, but even though we were said to have evolved from them, their cells are still different. One drug that seems to be safe when used on a monkey could have drastic side effects on a human. Even humans experience different side effects from each other.
For example, in 1999, when a group of scientists created the Vioxx drug (treats osteoarthritis) it was safe when they tested it on lab mice. In fact, it even strengthened the mice's hearts. So why was it taken down from the market a few years later? Vioxx started to cause sudden cardiac arrests and it induced over 27000 heart attacks. Something that had such a positive effect on mice went on to kill so many lives.
Using animals for scientific research is also inhumane and unethical. The testing conditions in the lab are very cruel. The animals are being force fed to reach a certain size, and they are shoved into cages when not needed. Also, PETA, an animal rights corporation, visited animal labs and discovered that the animals are usually awake when they are injected with harmful substances. The scientists don't usually give them anesthesia to help with the pain which means that the unfortunate animal can feel everything during the procedure. Animals have feelings too, like humans. Just because they cannot speak, or communicate like us, they still have a soul and a right to live. By forcing them into confining cages, is it any better than forcing a person against their will?
Many religious beliefs state that humans should treat other living things with respect. A proverb from the bible states: "A righteous man regards the life of his beasts." Even if the animals are providing the scientists with experiments that can potentially cure a disease, the animals shouldn't be put through so much pain.
Instead of using animals, the technology is now so advanced that there are other ways to yield accurate lab results. In vitro testing is where the scientists place a cell on a petri-dish and then studied carefully. By using the cell, they can add the product to it and observe the results in the cell level. This way, the results can actually be more accurate since it can be tested on a human cell instead of an animal cell. Not only do they get more accurate results, it is also much much cheaper. Using animals for science experiments costs around $32 000 while In vitro testing costs $11 000.
Using animals for scientific research can benefit mankind by finding cures for diseases. However, it is a cruel solution and the results are never 100%, which means the pain the animals go through might as well be for nothing. There are other ways to find cures for sicknesses and other ways to test out cosmetics. Of course, we should do what we can to keep the human race flourishing, but at what cost are we willing to pay?
First of all, testing results are not always accurate when using animals. Animals and humans are both complex organisms and they are both quite different from each other. Of course, we both bear basic similarities, but animal cells differ so much from human cells. Primates are commonly used because of their striking similarity to humans, but even though we were said to have evolved from them, their cells are still different. One drug that seems to be safe when used on a monkey could have drastic side effects on a human. Even humans experience different side effects from each other.
For example, in 1999, when a group of scientists created the Vioxx drug (treats osteoarthritis) it was safe when they tested it on lab mice. In fact, it even strengthened the mice's hearts. So why was it taken down from the market a few years later? Vioxx started to cause sudden cardiac arrests and it induced over 27000 heart attacks. Something that had such a positive effect on mice went on to kill so many lives.
Using animals for scientific research is also inhumane and unethical. The testing conditions in the lab are very cruel. The animals are being force fed to reach a certain size, and they are shoved into cages when not needed. Also, PETA, an animal rights corporation, visited animal labs and discovered that the animals are usually awake when they are injected with harmful substances. The scientists don't usually give them anesthesia to help with the pain which means that the unfortunate animal can feel everything during the procedure. Animals have feelings too, like humans. Just because they cannot speak, or communicate like us, they still have a soul and a right to live. By forcing them into confining cages, is it any better than forcing a person against their will?
Many religious beliefs state that humans should treat other living things with respect. A proverb from the bible states: "A righteous man regards the life of his beasts." Even if the animals are providing the scientists with experiments that can potentially cure a disease, the animals shouldn't be put through so much pain.
Instead of using animals, the technology is now so advanced that there are other ways to yield accurate lab results. In vitro testing is where the scientists place a cell on a petri-dish and then studied carefully. By using the cell, they can add the product to it and observe the results in the cell level. This way, the results can actually be more accurate since it can be tested on a human cell instead of an animal cell. Not only do they get more accurate results, it is also much much cheaper. Using animals for science experiments costs around $32 000 while In vitro testing costs $11 000.
Using animals for scientific research can benefit mankind by finding cures for diseases. However, it is a cruel solution and the results are never 100%, which means the pain the animals go through might as well be for nothing. There are other ways to find cures for sicknesses and other ways to test out cosmetics. Of course, we should do what we can to keep the human race flourishing, but at what cost are we willing to pay?
Saturday, 23 May 2015
The Iron Fist of French Immersion
Canada, a bilingual country, has French as its official language alongside English. It is important to encourage students towards the French culture, as it is an integral part of Canada. The majority of public schools have a mandatory French class, core French, which teaches the basics of the language. For a more advanced option, students can choose to enrol in a French Immersion program in grade 1, or an Extended French program in grade 4.
When they graduate, they receive a certificate to approve that they are officially bilingual. Time is a critical component in the study of languages so in order to graduate, the student must have a required amount of hours. An issue presents itself here: there are some regions throughout Canada where they don't have these programs. And if they do, they might not offer a complete set. What if an Extended French student were to move where they don’t offer Extended French? With only core french and French Immersion, would they be obliged to drop it?
The French Extended student can't transfer into a french immersion program, because of the strict time requirement. Again, language is a time-based subject so to catch up, it would require more work. But what about the talented polyglots with a gift of tongues? They will be able to pick up on the language quickly and effectively. Guiseppe Caspar Mezzofanti, an Italian linguist, is known for understanding 72 languages, 39 of which he can fluently speak. If he were to follow the time restraint, where would he be by his 10th language?
There are other motivated student who will work diligently towards a subject that they passion. There are many after school clubs and courses to take if they ever feel that they are falling behind. Is it fair to neglect them a chance at learning French?
One of my friends is from Montreal, where french is more common on the streets. The school that she attended was an all french school. When she moved to Toronto and applied for french immersion, she was turned down. Why? Her old school didn’t have an ‘authentic’ french immersion program and she didn’t have a certified time count. But why didn't the system allow her to attend a french immersion school?
The time barrier between French Immersion and Extended French students is a bit far stretched. Why put a wedge between students who truly have the potential of learning French? Why not promote the program and offer them a chance, especially if its something that they are capable of doing? In a bilingual country, where french should be encouraged?
The number of hours spent on French is solely a way of making sure the student really understands the language. So why is the number of hours mandatory if the student can definitely qualify as a french speaker? It is not the only way to testify the student.
For an immigrant to arrive in Canada, there is a series of tests for them to complete. An IELTS (International English Language Testing System) test and the CELPIP (Canadian English Language Proficiency Index Program) test are two English language assessments, both of which are graded using a 9 band scale. The 9 band scale is a detailed level assessor, distinguishing the strong english citizens from the weaker ones. If such a test exists, then why can’t there be a French language assessment?
The assessment can help determine if the student can qualify instead of the mandatory time requirement. The purpose of the time requirement is a method of approving the student's French skill. But it is now mistaken as the goal, the purpose, of the program. If this assessment can yield the same results, possibly even more accurate, why not offer it?
For an immigrant to arrive in Canada, there is a series of tests for them to complete. An IELTS (International English Language Testing System) test and the CELPIP (Canadian English Language Proficiency Index Program) test are two English language assessments, both of which are graded using a 9 band scale. The 9 band scale is a detailed level assessor, distinguishing the strong english citizens from the weaker ones. If such a test exists, then why can’t there be a French language assessment?
The assessment can help determine if the student can qualify instead of the mandatory time requirement. The purpose of the time requirement is a method of approving the student's French skill. But it is now mistaken as the goal, the purpose, of the program. If this assessment can yield the same results, possibly even more accurate, why not offer it?
French Immersion
A Set of Unnecessary Requirements
Dear French Immersion board,
Must I quit the French program? I am a grade 10 student in French Extended and I aspire to continue with my French studies. However, when my family moved from the TDSB region to the YRDSB region, I was faced with a dilemma. The YRDSB did not offer French Extended and to enter French Immersion, more hours of french education was needed.
In Canada, we offer many French programs such as Core French, French Extended and French Immersion. These programs cater to different people's needs and situations, encouraging them to develop take up French studies.
Admittedly, it is crucial and necessary to put in a certain number of hours in French education as the level of one's linguistics and the hours of practice have a direct correlation. While this is an effective and ingenious method to ensure the success of a student in the program, the main objective of French Immersion is not to achieve a specific number of hours. We have misunderstood the usage of this minimal hour required strategy. Instead, the program stands to provide a higher education in French.
I have a friend who had moved to Toronto from Montreal in grade 10. She had come from a solely French-speaking school. However, she could not join the French Immersion program as she did not have an official report stating how many hours of French education she had. Did she not have enough hours?
There are many polyglots in this world who posses a prowess in languages. Siad Fazah is a polylingual person is noted to be able to read and write 58 different languages and was in the Guinness Book of World Records up to the 1998 edition for speaking the most languages. Sir John Bowring claimed to know an astounding 200 different languages and was able to speak 100. If these people must adhere to the minimum numbers of hours constraint, how many years would they have had to dedicate into learning these languages?
French is an official language in Canada. Shouldn't we embolden our students to continue learning french? By putting up a superfluous confinement, this barricades many paths instead of providing opportunities for those who are dedicated to learning french.
A simple solution to this problem is creating a literacy test. Literacy tests are not uncommon. Students in Grade 10 in Ontario must all take the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT) to graduate, ESL learners must also take assessments such as the Canadian Language Benchmarks Assessment (CLBA). Prospective immigrants to Canada must either take the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), the Canadian English Language Proficiency Index Program (CELPIP) or Test d'évaluation du français (TEF) the latter itself even being a french literacy test. If these literacy tests proves to be such a practical method, should we not adopt them into our school program?
Although we have implemented many rational rules to ensure a student's success, a further look into them is necessary. Students who admire and long to understand the French language deserve a chance to continue in their studies. Instead of barricading the French Immersion program, it should open new doors and built more paths.
Must I quit the French program? I am a grade 10 student in French Extended and I aspire to continue with my French studies. However, when my family moved from the TDSB region to the YRDSB region, I was faced with a dilemma. The YRDSB did not offer French Extended and to enter French Immersion, more hours of french education was needed.
In Canada, we offer many French programs such as Core French, French Extended and French Immersion. These programs cater to different people's needs and situations, encouraging them to develop take up French studies.
Admittedly, it is crucial and necessary to put in a certain number of hours in French education as the level of one's linguistics and the hours of practice have a direct correlation. While this is an effective and ingenious method to ensure the success of a student in the program, the main objective of French Immersion is not to achieve a specific number of hours. We have misunderstood the usage of this minimal hour required strategy. Instead, the program stands to provide a higher education in French.
I have a friend who had moved to Toronto from Montreal in grade 10. She had come from a solely French-speaking school. However, she could not join the French Immersion program as she did not have an official report stating how many hours of French education she had. Did she not have enough hours?
There are many polyglots in this world who posses a prowess in languages. Siad Fazah is a polylingual person is noted to be able to read and write 58 different languages and was in the Guinness Book of World Records up to the 1998 edition for speaking the most languages. Sir John Bowring claimed to know an astounding 200 different languages and was able to speak 100. If these people must adhere to the minimum numbers of hours constraint, how many years would they have had to dedicate into learning these languages?
French is an official language in Canada. Shouldn't we embolden our students to continue learning french? By putting up a superfluous confinement, this barricades many paths instead of providing opportunities for those who are dedicated to learning french.
A simple solution to this problem is creating a literacy test. Literacy tests are not uncommon. Students in Grade 10 in Ontario must all take the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT) to graduate, ESL learners must also take assessments such as the Canadian Language Benchmarks Assessment (CLBA). Prospective immigrants to Canada must either take the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), the Canadian English Language Proficiency Index Program (CELPIP) or Test d'évaluation du français (TEF) the latter itself even being a french literacy test. If these literacy tests proves to be such a practical method, should we not adopt them into our school program?
Although we have implemented many rational rules to ensure a student's success, a further look into them is necessary. Students who admire and long to understand the French language deserve a chance to continue in their studies. Instead of barricading the French Immersion program, it should open new doors and built more paths.
Monday, 18 May 2015
Handwriting
The moment my English teacher called out to the class that we were having a "work period" an entire hour to write our assignments, everyone reached into their bags, in a pocket that was made specifically for a sleek, thin computer, and pulled out their laptops. Booting them up, I watched silently as almost all of the class had their fancy portable computers on their desk, and began typing. The tops of the laptops were all facing me, their logos popping out from their black or sliver canvas. From where I was working, I saw only an inkling, a handful of people who, like me, had their pencils out and were scribbling on lined pieces of paper.
Ever since kindergarten, children are taught how to write by hand, tracing dotted lines to form As and Bs. We would scribble in small notebooks with huge spacing between ruling lines about what we did on the weekend. With wobbly and shaking handwriting, one could barely make out a "I like pears" under a picture of said fruit. Still, every year, we would get new notebooks that we filled with notes and lessons and every year, our handwriting would have subtle differences.
However, with the new age of technology, handwriting seems to be becoming less and less practical. We are using emails, texts and other forms of social media more and more regularly and now much of the school curriculum revolves around the use of these new technologies. Now, schools are all equipped with Dell laptops in a large black cart and sometimes even Apple computers. More and more people are now wondering if handwriting will become obsolete.
Many schools today are opting to exclude teaching cursive to the students. Many argue that it is useless, as students will never use these skill outside of school as no one really writes with cursive nowadays. The time spent on learning cursive could instead be used on other subjects that are more suitable for the modern era and keyboarding lessons could supersede lessons on cursive. After all, in this era of fast growing technology, keyboarding would be a much more important skill than cursive.
However, cursive writing isn't that impotent. Cursive writing elevates the speed people can write and thus it creates a sense of automaticity and the brain can spend more time on sentence structure and organization. This spontaneousness is also important when transferring information from the brain's short-term memory to its long-term memory. Students who work on tablets and computers do not develop these skills as instead of memorizing the spelling of the individual words, many spell it out phonetically and the auto-correct feature in these programs gives them the correct spelling.
Often in peer editing situations, I find mistakes in my spelling after getting my assignment returned from a classmate. After pointing out the mistake, they would often look incredulous and state that they had thought that was the correct spelling.
People also stress over how messy their handwriting. They state that because their handwriting is so illegible, it would be better for them to type than to actually write their assignment. Yet, some teachers find that students have a hard time reading their written feedback. Many of my teachers prefer to hand notes back with a comment, written in cursive, which prompts many students to have to go up and ask the educator about the the comment which hinders communication and learning of the student. However, students who do practice cursive and handwriting more often have less difficulty reading the criticism or remark of their teachers.
Handwriting is a unique part of ourselves in this age of technology, handwriting is still as potent as ever. It forms part of our culture and some say that it is even an art. Even though we have more keyboards, the fact remains that handwriting is beneficial to learning and creativity.
Obsessions
The idea of a 'perfect' body is a fantasy for many people. The media will use attractive figures to lure the attention of a human eye and advertisements add in an alluring image of a beautiful body. Celebrities feel the strong urge to look in perfect condition in front of the public and will undergo surgeries and diets to get to the picture-ready shape. Victoria's Secret models have a stunning look with their long, thin legs. Society sets standards to itself that people feel the urge to meet. But how much of the media is real? Is it worth the trouble to live up to false standards?
Nowadays, models and celebrities struggle to remain in best shape. People who look up to them don't realize the cost of such 'beauty' and they try to match the looks of their favourite star. Many of them, especially girls, feel that they need to go on diets and they refrain from eating. Yes, they might be able to achieve their weight goal, but there is a big difference between 'skinny-sick' and 'skinny beauty'. This is when issues such as anorexia and bulimia start. People starve themselves to the point of weakness and they go through intensive workouts. All for what? The media throws lies out to the public, thus influencing them to force their body into what it's not. The crazy obsession for weight started off as a small fantasy, but is growing into something bigger and dangerous.
While the public is pressuring themselves to look like the ideal human, the goals that they are reaching for aren't even possible. After the models have their picture taken, the picture goes through an extensive amount of touching up and photoshopping. When the final result is out, many of the perfections that are shown to the public could be false. The image is filtered and altered so some of looks aren't from the original model. While girls pine over the beauty of the models, they fail to see through the mirage of technological enhancements. Basically, their body goals are created by computers, not a natural beauty for a human.
Yes, advertisers will say how it's not their fault that all their models are enhanced to a point. Because humans are easily attracted to pretty visuals, a pretty body can easily catch their attention. If the models didn't look so attractive, people will think twice before buying a specific product. As much as we hate to admit it, an aesthetically pleasing body and face will subconsciously persuade the consumers' minds into believing the result of the product. But why is it necessary to have such a skinny model on the front page of a magazine? Plus size models can be just as attractive. And not only do they have to be plus sized, even an average body could still please the eye. They could still attract the attention of the customers and they wouldn't be too disappointed when the product doesn't work out as they hoped it would.
When clothing stores release pictures of their models, an underlying message will be that humans should look like that in order to be 'pretty'. But years from now, when technology advances so much that beauty enhancements are more common, everyone will look the same. Sure, they will be 'pretty', but will they really be beautiful? If everyone looks identical to each other after their plastic surgeries, the ones who will stand out will be the ones with a bit more curves. When everyone is immaculate robots, the ones with their natural flaws would hold true beauty. People shouldn't crave for something that is the standard of 'pretty'. Instead, flaws are what makes them, them. They define each and every one of us and shouldn't be caked under heavy make up.
The obsession over the ideal body weight has been around since the early 16 hundreds. But working towards this picture-perfect world in a less-than-perfect reality is not worth the trouble. Society's standards are too high and absurd. Looking like someone else is the worst form of self-expression. People shouldn't be coaxed into believing what the media shows, instead they should accept who they are as themselves.
The world will always have its obsessions, substantial ones or the occasional fling. But the ideal body image is unnecessary and people should stop fussing about it. And don't even get me started on society's obsession with movie-screen romance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)