SHOULD PRIVATE SCHOOLS BE ABOLISHED?

 Today, in many countries, there are private schools which are preferred by some people for their better physical conditions and the education they give/ provide. These schools are mainly open to economically privileged students because of the required fees. Scholarship students constitute just a small part of these schools’ students. It is obvious that these schools create and reinforce inequality in society and should be abolished after some steps are taken.

  

One of the main arguments against abolishing private schools is that people have the right to freely make their choice of the school they will attend or they want their children to do so . Private schools provide a variety of options in that they can have different educational approaches and philosophies. They argue that this variety gives people the chance to choose the one that meshes best with their own understanding of education, and people should be free in spending their money for this school. However, this argument overlooks the fact that getting a good education is one of the essential rights of every human. This right should be independent of the money people are able to pay. It may be true that state schools are not as diverse as private schools in terms of their educational approaches and philosophy. The education they offer is more dependent on a standard curriculum which is usually compatible with the state’s interests and they may also be more closed to new methods in education. At this point, independent nongovernmental organizations should take part inefforts to force the government to change this situation and make an effort to make state schools as  diverse as private schools are.

 It is a fact that state schools are usually more inadequate  than private schools in terms of both their educational resources and facilities but this fact doesn’t mean private schools shouldn’t be abolished. Governments and other groups should take initiative to enhance the situation of state schools. After this process, private schools should be abolished because abolishing them will also help state schools to reach better standards in that it will put pressure on politicians to support state schools and force them to allocate more from the budget for these schools. 

  

  In conclusion, protecting people’s rights is why a government is founded and the right to education is one of those rights. Private schools are not solutions to existing problems in education and cause inequality to be reproduced. It is quite understandable that people with sufficient money want to get a better education; what we need to change is the situation of state schools and after some efforts, another step should be abolishing private schools.

                                                                                                      NEBİLE SENA BAŞAR

  

GEOENGINEERING

                                                                             

               Over the past 50 or 60 years, global warming and climate change have brought significant changes to our lives. Global warming can be defined as the increase in average global temperature, on the other hand, climate change is accepted as the result of global warming, including droughts, heat waves, extreme weather events, etc. Yet there remains some disagreement as to whether geoengineering is a solution to counteract the harmful effects of global warming and climate change. It is claimed that geoengineering is complex and controversial, besides, requires negotiation and cooperation among governments, scientists, civil society, and the private sector. However, most people believe that geoengineering is the best solution to counteract the negative effects of global warming. Geoengineering is defined as the deliberate large-scale manipulation of an environmental process that affects the earth’s climate, in an attempt to counteract the effects of global warming.

                 To solve this situation, we begin by a closer look at the details of geoengineering. Geoengineering can be divided into broad categories: Carbon Dioxide Removal(CDR) and Solar Radiation Management(SRM). CDR consists of several interwoven terms and methods such as CO2 air capture, Afforestation/Reforestation, Ocean fertilization, avoiding deforestation, algae-coated buildings, and biochar. On the other hand, SRM includes several terms and steps like in the case of stratospheric aerosols, solar reflectors in space, enhanced surface brightness, roads-rooves-pavements, enhanced cloud brightness, and planting light-leaf species.

                In the first place, one point which is believed to be absolutely pivotal is the fact that geoengineering should be implemented to reduce global warming immediately because the world is warming, this much people know and how much it will warm in the following decades. There is a wide discussion in many parts of the world today as to this issue because it is an undeniable fact that global warming affects several factors adversely in the four corners of the world. It is obvious that global warming has done a lot of damage to; but not for people. That’s why techniques of geoengineering are not only good for people but also good for the animal kingdom due to the  direct impact on nature for example. In addition, it is important to emphasize that geoengineering is affordable and fast-acting and it requires less cooperation and altruism.

                When it comes to the second point, at the heart of the matter lies another contributing factor: geoengineering should be implemented to prevent a potential humanitarian crisis and due to human rights. It should not be forgotten that people have some rights such as the right to land, the right to self-determination, the right to life, and the right to a safe and healthy environment. If the harmful effects of global warming continue to increase, the environmental side effects will be irreversible and people will not be able to find  land and nutrition for eating. That is to say, they will not be able to fulfill their needs. Some African countries can be shown as the best instance of this, due to the fact that they suffer from droughts, starvation, lack of security and infectious diseases. In addition, due to these negative effects and insufficiencies, people will face a potential humanitarian crisis in the four corners of the world. According to research carried out by elite universities and scientists, Small Island Developing States(SIDS) will be seen in the coming decades like in Bangladesh. It is not wrong to say that it is not possible to live  because of the population density of SIDS. As a result of this, it is an undeniable fact that people will face a humanitarian crisis.

On the other hand, some people claim that geoengineering is complex and controversial, besides, requires negotiation and cooperation among governments, scientists, civil society, and the private sector. However, these claims are not acceptable because it is important to emphasize that the negative effects of global warming are expected to intensify in the following decade and the detrimental effects will affect the entire world. Therefore, people have to take precautions to prevent these negative effects of global warming and implement techniques of geoengineering.

All that has been said raises the issue of whether geoengineering is a solution to counteract the negative effects of global warming. Although some people claim that geoengineering is complex and controversial and has different requirements, it seems that geoengineering is the best solution to prevent the negative effects of global warming. Otherwise, these detrimental impacts are expected to intensify in the following decade. No matter what happens, nothing is more important than human life, so it should be given due importance and it should not be endangered. Geoengineering is an intervention in nature in some sense but it has a role to play in shaping the future and society. Nature is an indispensable factor for humanity due to the fact that as can be seen above, it is related to everything in the world.

KUBİLAY ESER

OVEREMPHASIS ON FORMAL EDUCATION

The modern world is a highly competitive place where millions join the race to the top each passing day. The struggle to succeed involves a lot of hardship and misery, which has caused the fear of the future to become ingrained in parents. This fear coupled with the desire to make the child’s path up the greasy pole as smooth as possible is leading modern parents to focus on schooling to the exclusion of all else. This tunnel vision parents are trapped in is highly detrimental, is doing untold damage and should be discouraged no matter what.

The gravity of the problem of excessive emphasis on formal education is best exemplified by the situation in South Korea. Here children go to school at the crack of dawn for a full day and then head off to ‘hogwons’, that is to say private courses, where they have to do tests and solve problems. They are not allowed to go to bed until they have managed to solve all the problems correctly. The result is that they often don’t get to bed until midnight. Such kids are known to have committed suicide.  That this attitude to raising children and preparing them for the future is akin to torture goes without saying. Not being able to see the damage done to the child’s physical and psychological development is inexcusable.

A child who studies to the exclusion of all else will miss out on a lot of socialization and thus the acquisition of numerous social skills which will also have an undeniable role to play in determining his future success. These social skills can only be learnt through interaction with others in a social setting not through interaction with tests. It is a wonder such children are still able to speak their native language as they don’t even get practice in that. The educational value of the unending battle with tests that continue into the night is also highly doubtful as most educators should know full well. Concentration levels will drop as exhaustion sets in and hunger takes its toll. Couple this with lack of restorative sleep, unhealthy eating habits and minimal physical activity over a long period of time and the child’s growth and development will be stunted.  This is not the whole story however; the damage done to the child’s mental well being also needs to be considered.

A child who is unable to escape the grip of formal schooling will inevitably suffer psychological problems. He may be plagued with lack of confidence as he stays up well into the night completing schoolwork. He may become shy and withdrawn as he has minimal contact with his peers. He may not grow to be street-wise due to insufficient contact with the outside world. He may suffer from fear of failure, be plagued by guilt and be prone to nightmares. Conversely, he may become an inhuman zombie in whom all the qualities that make him human have been suppressed. Parents need to think long and hard about the path they are taking when deciding on the best way to raise their children. The system they are bent on applying amounts to child abuse.

Some may say that a good education is the only way to get ahead in life but a quick look at college application criteria will show that grades are not the only thing being sought by good universities. Club activities, individual initiatives, hobbies and interests and the like are also required. Incorporating all these into the child’s life and providing a more rounded upbringing is more likely to lead to future success as well as good physical and mental health. Parents should wish their children to be successful and happy as well. What is the point of having all the wealth in the world when you can’t relax enough to enjoy it?

A child isn’t the latest type of software; he is a human being with human needs which should not be ignored. Raising a child involves addressing physical and psychological needs. It also involves providing a loving home environment and time with peers. Only focusing on cognitive development to the exclusion of all else will do untold damage to the child and should thus be categorized as a crime.

DOES TECHNOLOGY NEED TO BE ETHICAL?

                Over the past 50 or 60 years, technology has brought significant changes to our lives. Yet there remains some disagreement as to whether technology needs to be ethical. To begin with, ethics is generally defined as a theoretical discipline that reflects on the good or responsible actions of human beings. It is claimed that there is no room for ethics; existing technology should create machines as intelligent as humans and use them  in every area. However, some people argue that technology has a responsibility to society to be ethical because new technological developments may harm people.  Moreover, trust in the tech world continues to erode due to the increase in the vulnerability to hacking and the proliferation of misinformation via Google and Facebook.

                First of all, one point which is believed to be absolutely pivotal is the fact that new technological developments may harm people. It is important to emphasize that there are some adverse effects of technology on human life, so the adverse effects of technology are widely debated. The debate on using technology such as gene editing techniques on the Designer Baby Experiment in China, for example, has become a hot-button political issue, involving scientists, policy-makers, politicians and religious groups because how ethical is it to use technology to improve human species? Therefore, the adverse effects of technology are an undeniable fact and some developments may harm people.

                When it comes to the second point, at the heart of the matter lies another contributing factor: trust in the tech world continues to erode due to the  increase in the vulnerability to hacking and the proliferation of misinformation via Google and Facebook. Similarly, the discussion on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has mobilized civil society, scientists and policy-makers in a wide debate on ethics and safety. Request for transparency and the desire to be ethical are increasingly central to these debates. A serious hacking event has happened in the USA. The hacked folders included the personal data of about 50 million Americans  which was/has been harvested  via Facebook. This  was announced as ‘’a mistake’’ by Mark Zuckerberg, who is the founder and owner of Facebook. Zuckerberg has been criticized during  the investigation. But there is no obvious conclusion and explanation about both GMOs and the hacking event. Therefore, there is a wide debate about whether technology needs to be ethical.

                On the other hand, some proponents argue that there is no room for ethics; existing technology should create machines as intelligent as a human and use them in every area. According to them, these machines should be the most superior and intelligent species in the universe. However, these technologies may have devastating consequences/lead to a lot of serious problems for human beings: for example, (For example..) artificial intelligence might be uncontrolled or get out of control:  we saw/have seen  an apparent instance in the latest Facebook AI Experiment. After a few hours, it was turned off by Facebook because it got out of control and it created its own language.Therefore, Technology needs to be ethical and should  not be used  in every area like in the case of the Facebook AI Experiment and the Designer Baby Experiment.

                To summarize, whether technology needs to be ethical is a controversial issue. There are those who claim that  there is no room for ethics; and technology should create machines as intelligent as humans and use them in every area. However, it seems that technology needs to be ethical because new technological developments may harm people, and trust in the tech world continues to erode due to the increase in the vulnerability to hacking and the proliferation of misinformation.

KUBİLAY ESER

THE ROLE OF MUSEUMS

 Museums and art galleries should concentrate on local works rather than showing the cultures or artworks from other countries.  To what extent do you agree or disagree?

    Museums and art galleries have long been at the forefront of preserving and representing cultural values and histories of almost all countries throughout the centuries. However, whether they should mainly represent traditional and local cultures or display an international collection is open to dispute. I personally believe that traditional museums should focus on outlining the cultural aspects and artworks of the country while having separate museums with items from other countries does not hurt the national feeling.

    To begin with, educating people about the history and traditions of a country is one of the primary reasons why we have museums in the first place. They conserve important cultural specimens, artefacts, artworks and other items to boast about our past. Such museums, which primarily signify our tradition, should comprise things we, as a nation, can be proud of, rather than having internationally acclaimed artworks or sculptures. For instance, many national museums in Europe solely focus on preserving artefacts and artworks from the country only and they are quite popular among international tourists.

    Having said that, the concept of the museum in the modern era has changed to a great extent. We now have aviation museums, war memorials, motor museums, computer museums, archaeological museums and the list goes on. To make this type of museum popular and useful, we have to have international collections. For instance, the Motor Museum in Australia has a collection from more than 20 countries and they serve their purpose just fine. Museums with international compilation often attract tourists and can be a great way to promote tourism.

    To conclude, national and traditional museums should focus on nurturing national history while we also need museums with international collections to make them more functional and famous. One does not necessarily diminish the necessity and usefulness of another category.

JOINING THE EUROPEAN UNION

The European Union is a de facto confederation of 28 member countries in Europe, started in 1957 as the European Economic Community. Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands are the founders of the European Union. Turkey is not yet a member of the European Union. The membership to the European Union is leading to many debates. While some of the people support the European Union, some of them are not willing to join the European Union for various reasons.

Some people would question whether Turkey’s economy will improve with the introduction of Turkey into the European Union and whether exports will increase. This idea is a misconception in its simplest definition. The best example of this is the Greek economy. Greece, which joined the EU in 1981, has one of the worst economies in recent years. With the wrong practices in the Greek economy, the country has reached the point of sinking. In short, being an EU member country does not mean that the country will be an economically successful country.

Some people strongly oppose Turkey's EU membership. When Turkey becomes a member of the EU, they claim that some industrial companies, such as car factories, that are unable to compete with EU products, will suffer or even shut down. It is perfectly natural to have such concerns. The market for EU countries is very attractive and remarkable. If Turkey is a member of the EU, Turkish citizens will demand the goods of EU countries rather than the goods of their own country. As a result, our domestic and national products will not be produced because of the lack of demand. This will adversely affect the Turkish economy. So it's normal for people who think like that to worry.

Another reason why you don’t want to be a member of the EU is the possibility of unwanted impacts on economic relations with non-EU neighbors. For example, if Turkey joins the EU, it will ally with countries like Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. As is known, these three countries are hostile to Russia. If Turkey is allied with these countries, relations between Turkey and Russia, especially the S400 missiles agreement with Russia and natural gas projects will be reduced and perhaps the two countries will become enemies. This landscape is very frightening.

As a result, although Turkey’s accession to the European Union seems to be in favor of Turkey, it is clear that this is not a good idea in the long run. The European Union has already proved its unity and togetherness with Brexit events in recent years. If Turkey wants to make an alliance with a group, it should not be with the European Union.

                         Gülis Beyza Yıllar

                                                                                                                                                    

A ROMAN STYLE COLLAPSE

Throughout history, collapses have occurred many times. No matter how great they are, no civilization is immune to the vulnerabilities that may lead societies to the end. The Ottoman Empire, The Maya Civilization and/or The Roman Empire are three of those civilizations that were the super-powers of their time. No one, during  those times, could forecast their  collapse especially when they reached the peak of their  power. Now, modern western society is the dominant power in the world. It can be compared to a stable bicycle whose wheels are kept spinning by economic growth. Should that forward propelling motion slow, values shaping the society- democracy, individual liberties and social tolerance- would start to teeter. Regardless of how great the things are in the present moment, the situation can always change. While it is impossible to predict the future precisely, history and mathematics can give us some hints about the long-term continuation of western societies. In view of the fact that the economic growth of Europe has slowed down lately and  the number of conflicts between the neighbours of western nations has significantly  increased, collapse now is a threat for the western society , however, it is not too late to take precautions because there are still some actions which can be taken to prevent a total societal collapse. 

To begin with, there are several factors that can lead to global or localcollapse. Ecological strain and economic stratification are two of the most important factors besides the impact of humans  on the environment, climate change and relations with neighbours. The ecological category is the more widely recognised path to potential doom, especially in terms of the depletion of natural resources such as forests, fossil fuels or groundwater, all of which can be worsened by  climate change. On the other hand, economic stratification may lead to collapse on its own. Elites push the society to instability by hoarding huge quantities of wealth as well as resources. They leave little or none for commoners who actually support them with their labour force. Consequently, the working-class crashes because the portion of wealth allocated to them is insufficient. This process is followed by the collapse of elites due to the absence of labour. The inequalities which can be seen today point to such disharmonies. For example, the top ten percent of global income earners are responsible for almost as much total greenhouse emissions as the bottom ninety percent combined. In addition, about  half of the world population live on less than three dollars per day..There is a limit to how long this situation can last. . If this is overshot by too much, collapses become inevitable. The World’s poorest countries will be among the first affected by the effects of collapse. Syria can be an example of this. They enjoyed high productivity  rates for a time, which fuelled rapid population growth. A severe drought combined with groundwater shortages left large numbers of people unemployed and desperate. After that, existing ethnic tensions increased, creating fertile grounds for  violence. Furthermore, poor governance tipped the country into a civil war in 2011.                                                                                                                  

Apart from the Syria case, according to Homer-Dixon,the increasing occurrence of sudden or unexpected changes in the world order such as the 2008 economic crisis, Brexit or the election of Donald Trump is another sign that the world is going into/ entering a dangerous zone. Some hints might be acquired from the past for how the future will be. The process of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire is a good example of this. By the end of the 100 BC, Rome had spread across the Mediterranean. They should have stopped there because transportation by sea was economical but transportation across land was expensive and slow. But they felt empowered to expand to other regions by land. That caused costs to run up exponentially. As stated in thermodynamics, it requires energy to maintain any system, and human society is not an exception. By the 3^rd century, Rome was adding new things such as a double-sized army, a cavalry, courts, subdivided provinces just to maintain its status quo and keep from sliding backwards.

Up to now, western society has largely/ for the most part  been able to postpone similar precipitators of collapse through fossil fuels and industrial technology.  Investing in complexity as a problem-solving method is all very well but it reaches a point of diminishing returns and vulnerability to collapse. Paralleling to Rome, westerns societies’ collapse will be preceded by a retraction of people and resources back to homelands. As poorer nations continue to disintegrate amid conflicts and disasters, enormous waves of migrants will stream to more stable states. Western societies will respond to this with restrictions and the banning of immigration. They will heighten border security. Meanwhile, a widening gap between rich and poor people will push societies to further instability from inside. Europe will feel the pressure first on the grounds that it is close to the Middle East and Africa- the heart of conflicts. The   US will likely (is likely to..) hold out longer because it is surrounded by ocean buffers.  Western society is not going to face a total collapse but they will lose their friendly nature and values shaping their lives because inequity is going to explode. Randers asserts that democratic liberal society will fail while strong governments like China will be the winners.

After analysing  the process briefly, it is not difficult to say what could be done to prevent collapse. Before that, it is also important to examine why nations did not take any precautions and why they could not  understand what was happening. It is simply because of the conflict of interests between the short-term interests of the decision-making elites and the long-term interests of the society as a whole. That is, business elites were doing  advantageous things for themselves but they were to the detriment of the  whole society. Overall, turning the present unsustainable course into a maintainable course is simply the solution of that problem. That is, making rational choices, such as reducing the inequality and population growth, is the key to eradicating this problem. Using science to guide decisions, paired with extraordinary leadership and exceptional goodwill, human society can progress to higher levels of well-being. In brief, all major threats we are facing today are problems entirely of our own making. Again, we are the ones who will eradicate this. We should not forget that this is a challenging process. If we do  10 things correctly but 1 thing wrong, we may face a total collapse. We should choose what to do and implement it after thinking twice.

                                                                                                                         ENİS KAAN BİRGİN

Can Suffering Make Us Stronger?

Most of us experience a lot of grief in our life. Whether we are well-off or not has no meaning in the contex of this matter because there are many rich people feeling unbearable sorrow. As one can see, grief is part and parcel of life. It, therefore, should have a meaning concerning human life, shouldn’t it? This situation has naturally been a controversial issue among people. While some of them, including me, assert that affliction is vital for the perfect human being, some others are against this due to a variety of reasons.

To begin with, suffering enables people to gain inner strength. Nietzsche, a German philosopher, said, “That which doesn’t kill us makes us stronger.” This is exactly true because people can learn many things from their mistakes and thus become more vigilant as Buddha said, “Your greatest enemy is your greatest teacher.” Moreover, suffering refines our character. For example, we can have great patience if we endure suffering. There are numerous humans feeling distress across the globe. It goes without saying that most people in the world ignore them. Suffering makes us more sympathetic to the distress of others as it usually raises our awareness. Additionaly, since people think that nothing experienced in life is unnecessary, they usually develop more philosophical and spiritual attitudes to life thanks to affliction.

On the other hand, opponents of the above mentioned arguments state that suffering may make us vicious. There are a multitude of hard-hearted people who had experienced a lot of  suffering before they became cruel. Had they not experienced so much grief, they wouldn’t be brutal now. As there are numerous compassionate people who experienced suffering, opponnents aren’t the case. Thus, what is the difference betwen the good and the bad? Viktor E. Frankl, one of the most important psychiatrists in the 20th century, was incarcerated  in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Luckily he survived in the camp and therefore was released. He wrote a book about his experiences  there and named it “Men’s Search For Meaning” There is a real story in the book. Frankl wrote, “When we were released, we started to walk towards down-town, and then had to pass through a field. A friend of mine didn’t hesitate to trample on the vegetables. I asked him why he behaved this way, he said to me he  had experienced so much suffering that he wouldn’t be compassionate towards anything.” In that case, why didn’t Frankl trample on the vegetables? He explained this situation as follows: however effective environmental factors are concerning being cruel or compassionate, ultimately, which characteristic we will have depends on our decisions. In other words, we are capable of being good or bad. Suffering, therefore, is a catalyst making the good more compassionate and the bad more cruel.

All things considered, the obvious conclusion to be drawn is that only if we endure hardship and suffering will they make us stronger. Moreover, we can be more successful in life thanks to them. Yaşar Nuri ÖZTÜRK, the most important thelogist in the 20th century according to The Times Magazine, asserts in his book “Reconstruction” that suffering is the driving force behind creativity and mental development. Apart from these, I am of the firm opinion that if you never experience suffering, you aren’t truly living.                         CEM KOCA

DESIGNER BABIES

Designer babies are a weighty matter which is often discussed in today’s world. The first designed babies, named Lulu and Nana, were born in China. They have immunity to HIV. As there is an uncertainty about the long-term consequences of this process, this situation has naturally created a lot of controversy among people. Moreover, whether creating a baby is ethical or not can worry us. As one can see, there are a lof of thorny issues as far as the complex background of this matter is concerned. While some people argue that we can now eradicate some incurable diseases like AIDS through modifying genes, some others, including me, are against this due to a variety of reasons.

First of all, there are a multitude of interesting points regarding the historal development of gene modification/ the modification of genes . With the discovery of DNA, the staple molecule controlling the vital activities of cells, the first genetically modified animal was born in 1974. Thanks to this operation, some significant research on drugs could be conducted. The first patent was given to an engineer who had created a microbe absorbing oil. And the first modified food, the flavor saver tomato, went on sale. The tomato had important genes impeding the activity of rotting enzymes. This provided a much longer shelf life. In the 1990’s, there was also a serious attempt in human engineering. A baby who had an infertile mother was created. Genetic information was transferred  from three humans to the baby. S/he was the first human having three genetic parents. Today, we have super muscled pigs, featherless chickens and so on. In addition, we created the florescend zebrafish priced at $10.

All things mentioned above are impressive. Gene editing, however, was extremely expensive, complicated and took a long time to do until recently. This has changed with a revolutionary new technology. Its name is CRISPR, which stands for "clusters of regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats". Instead of years, it takes a few weeks to conduct experiments thanks to CRISPR. It is really tough to explain CRISPR’s importance regarding designer babies, ending diseases, eternal youth and so on. It has a great potential which can change humanity forever.

CRISPR is a genom technology which enables scientists to change some faulty genes with correct ones. As  mentioned above, it is possible to creat children immune to some diseases such as AIDS. You can also give them some qualities like extraordinary intelligence or blue eyes via this method. Two-thirds of the 150.000 people who die today will die of age-related causes. We know from nature that there are animals immune to aging like the lobster and the planarian. Maybe we can even borrow a few genes for ourselves. We can also create modified populations and solve many problems. Engineered humans will be able to overcome a number of health problems like obesity.

 On the other hand, CRISPR technology has numerous drawbacks. Firstly, the complex interplay of genes isnt’t known, and therefore, wrong edits on DNA may trigger unwanted changes. In other words, when we want to make people healtier via genetic modification, we could make them sicker because this technology is so new and powerful. It is also possible that governments may force citizens to use CRISPR for their children because you can create a healtier generation and thereby reduce health costs. Let’s look at China’s one-child policy. It is thought that the policy prevented the birth of 400 million infants. Furthermore, eugenics, a kind of practice aiming to improve the genetic quality of a human population excluding ethical values, can also be revived.

There may also be a number of sociological problems. The process of designing a baby will be incredibly expensive, at least in the beginning. This means that firstly, the rich will be able to use CRISPR technology, and therefore, inequalities in society will increase dramatically. They will have smarter, stronger, more beautiful children. It is also possible that you will be evaluated according to your genetic endowement such as intelligence and predisposition to some diseases when you apply to a company for a job. Because of this, natural people will be inferior and have no opportunity or chance in societies. As one can see, gene discrimination may emerge in the future. There are already numerous people suffering de facto discrimination. Most of them are regarded as inferior owing to their religion, gender or race. We don’t choosewhere we live or our family before we are  born. For example, only if you were born in a poor family would you be destitute. If you are handsome or beautiful, you will always be far superior to others in today’s world even though you didn’t decide to be like that.

To sum up, it seems that the debate over designer babies is likely to continue for a long time. Some people will support their argument while others reject it for many reasons. However, it is my contention that CRISPR could cause a sociological disaster across the globe. As there are already many thorny problems needing/ which need  to be resolved in the world, we, primarily, should consider the possible downside of designer babies before creating them.

CEM KOCA

DO PUBLIC PROTESTS DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD?

In every democratic country, people have the right to protest. Protests can be described as a way of demonstrating against unpleasant situations. For example, when a government levies a tax on technological devices or fuel, people living in a country governed by democracy have the right to protest  the tax. However, some people think that holding  public protests is  harmful rather than beneficial since some extremists can usually high jack the protest whereas others assume that public protests don't do more harm than good because people show opposition or support for issues thanks to public protests.

   Firstly, proponents of public protests argue that public protests are more beneficial for people because of various important reasons. One of the vital reasons is that protests are a democratic right. For example, when there are unpleasant things that governments do, people can (express their displeasure thanks to public protests) show that they aren't satisfied thanks to public protests. Thus, they can take a step towards changing the condition. Moreover, another important reason is that public protests enable people to become aware of unpleasant issues. Even though many people living in a democratic country don't want to obey rules, laws, or regulations that their governments established, they cannot do anything to change them. Nevertheless, when public protests are organized, many people are able to pay attention to unpleasant issues and they can contribute to efforts to change the issues.One good example is the case of the yellow vest movement in Paris. These protests have caused President Macron to rethink certain steps he had taken.

   On the other hand, some claim that public protests shouldn't be organized because public protests aren't beneficial for people. There are many kinds of important reasons why people think public protests do more harm than good. One of the reasons is that people may damage  lives and property when they protest unwanted issues. Also, they argue that public protests lead to unnecessary social upheaval. However, when people give up protesting what they don't accept or want to conform to, they have to accept everything that their governments do. Therefore, people can protest peacefuly. Also, if people don't organize a protest about unwanted conditions, I think they may lose their democratic rights.

    To conclude, whether public protests are more harmful than beneficial or not is a controversial issue because of a variety of clashing views. Although there are many supporters of public protests being more harmful, in my opinion, staging public protests is a necessary right for people because we can express our thoughts thanks to public protests.

                                                                                             

Hilal Bayirli

IS THERE A LINK BETWEEN DEPRESSION AND CREATIVITY?

   

     There is a common idea which asserts that depression or mental illnesses is linked to creativity. In fact, some people think that mental distress is an almost inevitable part of being highly creative. On the other hand, most of the studies have shown that there isn't a direct link between depression and creativity. The reason for the acceptance  of this idea by many people might be correlated with some well-known artists with depression such as Vincent  Van Gogh, Virginia Woolf or Michelangelo.

     Some of the psychologists have accepted this idea because of the discernible effects of depression on creative people. According to them, depression brings along some features which can cause one to be creative. The first piece of evidence that causes people to link creativity with depression which is accepted by psychologists is neurotic thinking, which is a prominent characteristic of depression. Neurotic thinking can be focusing on negative thoughts or feelings and constantly ruminating on things past. Rumination means focusing on a problem for longer than most people would and as a result of focusing on negative thoughts and ruminating, neurotic people are

highly anxious. That is to say, they literally imagine the worst. This penchant for dramatic imaginings might help creative people to imagine solutions most people wouldn't. The second argument which suggests this idea is depressed people contemplate more than other individuals. For creative people, the feeling of anxiety and depression lasts longer than usual because they don't want to let go of any problem before they figure out a meaningful conclusion. The last argument evaluates depression as a motive. For creative people, depression amplifies motivation to do better. The reason is depressed people arent satisifed easily like others. Consequently, they force themselves harder to do things better, and this pushes them to find different, in other words ‘creative’ solutions.

   Most of the studies, which  search for a link between creativity and depression have shown that there is not a direct link between them. One study from the office of National Statistics showed that people who work in arts-related jobs were up to four times more likely to commit suicide.

Therewithal, another study from 2013, found that most of the authors have deal with the increased likelihood of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, unipolar depression, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, and suicide. But many psychologists are skeptical about the proposed link. They explain this situation with social rejection. Creative people have more tendency to be rejected by society. The reason is about the nature of human behaviors; We prefer to be with people who have similar ideas, world views and opinions to ours. But creative people usually think differently and have dissimilar ideas from ours. As a result of this rejection, they become lonely. Feeling lonely and isolated may bring depression but it is not a prerequisite for being creative.

    Although psychiatrists and psychologists didn't show the accurate link between depression and creativity, other mental illnesses such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia have a  connection with creativity. In one of the studies in 2015, researchers analyzed the DNA of more than 86,000 people to look for genes that increase the risks of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. They also noted that these individuals’ work was related to creative fields such as acting, music, writing and, dancing.Moreover, they found that creative persons are up to 25 percent more likely than non- creative people to carry genes that are associated with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Having said that, it doesn't mean all people with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia are creative, and not all creative people have bipolar disorder. However, there is a noticeable link between the genes that lead to bipolar disorder and a person’s creativity.

                                                                                                                                   Sueda   Dinç

                                                                                                                

MARRIAGE VERSUS COHABITATION

Families are the smallest social unit of society and have existed, in various forms, ever since people first started living in settled communities. The decision to spend one’s life together with someone else and start a family is not one to be taken lightly so it is often formalized in a social, legal and / or religious ceremony. This ensures stability, peace and order in society. In the modern world, there are many who feel it is unnecessary to adhere to age the old rules of marriage and who feel that a promise made to a partner is sufficient to make the union binding. Such people feel marriage is a private union and does not concern the state or the Church. Although many people prefer going down the official route and formalize their marriage in the eyes of the law, there is, in fact very little difference between marriage and cohabitation. As a result, it is up to the couple which path they decide to take.

The decision to spend the rest of your life with someone and share everything with him/her is a tough one. Prospective partners may come from very different family backgrounds, may move in very different social circles and may have varying hobbies and interests. This being the case, the chances the marriage will not work are high and divorce a real possibility. Thus, is it wise to tie oneself up in a lot of legal red tape? Is it not better to keep things informal, make each other a promise and stick to it? Does it really matter if marriage vows are witnessed by the state and/or the clergy? Looking at it this way, it is obviously more practical to have a trial period at least to see how things go and then formalize the union at a later date should it be felt necessary to do so.

Cohabitation has often been strongly opposed by major religions and the state on moral grounds in the case of the former, and on practical terms in the case of the latter. Major religions wish to preserve monogamy to maintain law and order in society and prevent moral degeneration. The fear of eternal damnation is thought to be the best way to encourage monogamy and thus prevent debauchery. Yet is instilling fear really the best way to preserve moral integrity; would it not be better for people to uphold accepted moral values in society because they wish to? Assuming that the decision to live together outside marriage automatically leads to depravity is a false argument and completely nonsensical. As for the state, what is practical for the state may not necessarily be right to people who wish to cohabit. Thankfully, this fact has now been accepted in developed countries where the laws are rapidly catching up with social trends. The tax and inheritance laws that are valid for married couples are now valid for cohabiting couples too. The same is true for the status of children. The stigma attached to cohabitation is now a thing of the past in most developed countries.  

To conclude, whether cohabitation can be an alternative for marriage or not is a very tired topic that needs to be shelved. Society has moved on in most parts of the world, and demands have changed. There is no going back so in the words of Bob Dylan, those who disagree “should not block up the hallways” and should “move out of the way”.

IS TORTURE JUSTIFIED?

  There are various interrogation techniques to retrieve the requested information. One of them is torture, which  is the severe infliction of emotional and physical pain or suffering, and it is done to get compliance from an individual whether it is to get a confession, admission, and information or not. According to UN laws,  torture is the only crime that every state must punish, no matter who commits it or where. It is argued that torture is justified because it is a necessary technique to achieve requested goals whereas the others think that torture is unacceptable in any case since it is inhumane and degrading treatment.

  

    Firstly,  proponents of torture claim that information can matter a lot, which leads soldiers or the police to feel they have a right to torture when they suspect an individual of breaking the laws. People advocating torture think that torture is an advanced interrogation technique that is far more effective than others, and the information can be easily extracted from individuals. However, opponents of torture argue that in fact, torture is not guaranteed to be useful in producing accurate information since people will say or admit anything to avoid being  tortured, so the information they provide is unreliable anyway.

  

    Lastly,  proponents of torture assert that in case of emergencies, torture should be implemented to preserve public peace and security. For instance, if a person becomes a threat to public safety, he or she should be immediately arrested, so that officials can effortlessly learn what they want to do in society via various methods of torture like water boarding, mock executions, and so forth. Nevertheless, nobody has the right to deliberately harm other human beings with the intention of causing  physical and emotional pain although they  have committed a major crime because people who undergo  torture are adversely affected  by the experience throughout their whole lives. This is also a crime, and there isn't a person who deserves brutal torture in the world.

  In conclusion, whether torture is justified or not is a controversial issue because of a variety of clashing views. However, when it is considered from a humanitarian point of view, it does serious harm to people, and no  government has  a right to restrict people's right to life. Torture is not a  solution to anything. Accordingly, torture should never be practiced for any reason.

HOW MANY CHILDREN? (A clear 60 on a proficiency exam)

      Overpopulation has become an issue of great concern and controversy all over the world. The increase in the number of people has lead to many problems such as unemployment, low quality of public services and high levels of pollution. Limiting the number of children per family is considered by some to be a way of stabilizing population growth.The number of children a family can have should be limited by law.

     First of all, the number of children a family can have should be limited to avoid overpopulation. Increasing the number of people means increasing the use of power supplies. In other words, people have many needs such as food, safety, transport  and they use many resources to meet their needs. This leads to a reduction of sources of  energy . Access to sources of energy is a veryimportant  issue that can be linked to inter country warfare. Moreover, overpopulation can cause environmental pollution such as air and water pollution. More factories are opened to meet the people’s needs. These factories create air and water pollution with their wastes.

       Another issue is about parents’interest. As thenumber of children in the family increases, the care and attention devoted to each child decreases. This means parents can devote more  time to fewer children. Children receive their first and fundamental education from their parents, so the interest of the parents in their children is very important. Some kids grow up in the streets. It is a good thing that children play with their peers in the streets but if parents do not pay attention to their children, they can get close to kids who have bad habits.

       It has been said that children are economic power for their family. For example, for a farming family, children are the workers who will work in the field. For some families also, children are a source of income because they work to support their family financially. However,this argument is not actually logical.As thenumber of children increases, the per capita income decreases. It is easier to meet the needs of fewer children. As the number of children in the family increases, this becomes more difficult. Furthermore, as the number of children increases, the sharing of inheritance becomes more difficult. This sharing can even cause  conflict between siblings.

       In conclusion, laws should restrict the number of children a family can have. Although this seems to be undemocratic,  it is important for the society’s future. The important thing is not  to raise a lot of children but to raise moral and educated children.

MELEK KARAKUZU

TATOOS AND PIERCING IN THE WORKPLACE

People have always worn clothes of one sort or another for protection from the weather, to fit in with the customs and way of life of the society in which they lived and to look good. The type of apparel has always varied across the world in accordance with climatic conditions and what was available in the region. Another common practice to complete the look people desired to achieve for one reason or another was to make use of adornment of various sorts. This often consisted of precious metals such as gold or silver which was beaten into intricate shapes and designs and embellished with precious stones. Jewelry of this sort came in the form of rings, tiaras, necklaces, bracelets and body piercing. The final form of body adornment was the practice of applying paint to the body in the form of makeup and tattoos. These practices have been around for a long time and are part of our culture so to suddenly turn round and declare that piercing and tattoos are in appropriate in the work place is completely illogical.

The use of makeup and body decoration of all sorts, including tattoos, has important cultural dimensions. In many parts of Africa for instance, the application of tattoos is an important part of the ceremony celebrating becoming an adult. The young person shows of both his tattoos and the body scaring he receives with pride. In a democratic country, it makes no kind of sense to argue that tattoos are acceptable for some and not for others. After all, in the global world, the human resources department of any big firm could be faced with applications from all over the world. Telling a qualified person who could be of great benefit to a company to have his tattoos removed and reapply would land the company in court. It follows that what is acceptable for some should be acceptable to all. A company cannot fight long established customs just because it hasn’t seen them very often. Fashion is a global business and is no longer restricted to small areas of the world.

The same is true is for body piercing which, contrary to what some may think, wasn’t discovered by hippies; it was around long before teenagers starting piercing their tongues, belly buttons and noses. The best known form of body piercing is ear rings and even our prehistoric ancestors wore them. There is no country in the world where ear rings are never seen. Telling people applying for a job that they can pierce their ears but not their noses would infuriate applicants from India or the Middle East where nose piercing, “hızma”, has been around for eons. Checking belly buttons and asking people to stick their tongues out during interviews would land the company on the front pages of the tabloids and all over the internet in seconds. The resulting negative publicity and court cases concerning unfair treatment are just not worth the hassle whatever the private views of the H.R. department are. All that has happened in the modern world is that the practice has spread to other parts of the world, something fashion tends to do.

The way an individual decides to present himself to the world is also a matter of choice. People are free in their choice of clothes, the colors and designs they decide to sport and the accessories they decide to complete their outfits with. Some wear jeans, some prefer dresses, others wear suits. Some prefer light makeup; some prefer a lot more and yet others prefer none. Some buy cosmetics, some wear henna and others have tattoos. Some wear valuable jewelry; some wear dress jewelry. Some wear ear rings; others pierce their noses or their belly buttons. Some wear bracelets on their wrists; others wear then round their ankles. People cannot be up in arms about some forms of body adornment and not others; it is irrational to say the least.

There are fields where some body piercing or any kind of jewelry may be inappropriate for various reasons. One such field is medicine: doctors and nurses are obliged to put the safety of patients above all else. You cannot have a surgeon excusing herself because her ring got tangled in the patient’s entrails for example. Hygiene needs to be maintained at hospitals hence the white coats, scrubs, the lack of jewelry and the disinfectant hand-washes. The same goes for the army where the apparel sported needs to be practical in terms of the job that needs to be done, defending the country and fighting the enemy. However, although jewelry may be impractical in both these professions, tattoos create no practical problems in terms of security and hygiene and are, therefore, logically perfectly acceptable.

The world of fashion includes both what we wear and how we accessorize. What aspects of fashion one decides to follow is a matter of individual choice. This choice is determined both by individual preferences and practical considerations. Workplaces would do better to shift their focus to applicants’ skills and talents and what they can do for the company. They should avoid being sidetracked by irrelevant details such as body piercing and tattoos.

OF COURSE MEN AND WOMEN CAN BE FRIENDS

Throughout history, men and women have lived together in society, initially struggling for survival, and later forming families and communities in which they cooperated and interacted. Rubbing shoulders in workplaces, in the home, on the streets and thoroughfares meant they had to learn to get along coordinate their behavior, cooperate in daily activities, share hobbies and interests and learn from each other. Such continual interaction requires a degree of friendship and understanding, which is after all natural. Claiming that men and women cannot be friends is completely illogical.

In the modern world, the traditional roles of men and women have undergone a transformation. In the past, women were expected to get a more limited education as they were destined to get married, keep house and care for their children. Their domain was the home and in that sense, it was more limited than men’s. The latter were expected to provide for their family and thus worked outside the home. They had far more experience of life and were often far better educated. This being the case, it could be claimed that men and women had less in common. Yet even marriage cannot be imagined without friendship and companionship as many spouses the world over will attest.

In the modern world, this is no longer the case. Women have entered the workforce and the business world. All professions are now open to everyone regardless of gender. The same is true in terms of educational opportunities: women can go to college and do graduate work. They become doctors, scientists, lawyers and economists. They enter politics and rule nations. They fight shoulder to shoulder with men in national armies. In short, their interests and concerns are much the same as men’s and as such, have plenty to share with them. The notion that women are not capable of grasping the complexities of anything outside the home and as such have nothing to share with men is an archaic notion with no merit. The world has changed, roles in society have changed bringing everyone closer together and providing for richer personal experiences regardless of gender.

Procreation is a natural instinct in all mammals including human beings. People, like all animals, wish their progeny to survive after them and continue to thrive. This does not mean, however, that this is all people think about. Claiming that men and women cannot be friends because there may be intimacy issues is degrading to men and women, and grossly unfair considering all the true friendships that exist between men and women. Human beings are highly complex beings and do not have one track minds. Women are not chattel and are not seen as such in all but the most backward areas of the world. In most modern democracies in The West, gender is no longer an issue; men and women interact on an equal footing in all walks of life thus enjoying richer and more fulfilling relationships with each other.

We are no longer living in the Stone Age; the world has moved on. The times have changed and traditional belief systems have been overthrown. Universal suffrage and widespread access to education have brought about enormous changes in the way members of society interact with each other. Men and women had been missing out; now they are not, and the world is a better place because of it.