A World Affected by Pollution and Global Warming Essay Example for Free

A World Affected by Pollution and Global Warming Essay Roy M. Harrison.(2001) Pollution:Cause, Effects and Control. Royal society of chemistry. This author concentrates mainly chemical and radioactive pollution. The book speaks of the sources of pollutants and their effects on both living and non livings especially human. It also shows how chemical pollution can also cause of water, air and land pollution. Agarwal S.K. Water pollution. APH publishing(Jan.1 2005) The author bases the book on recent views, ideas and contribution of various leading ecologist information of water pollution. It show how to use waste water and its treatments. Irina Gray (2008). Pollution effects on humans, animals, plants and the environment. The writer shows the various types and causes of pollution and its effects on the environment. It shows the effect on human ranging mild discomfort to serious diseases. It also how the effect destroy animal life and the atmosphere. Credit: www.Tropical-Rainforest-Animals.com Margaret A. Wheatley(1996). Social and cultural impact of mercury pollution on Aboriginal people in Canada. Neurotox 17(1), 251-256 The writer explores the link between mercury pollution and social cultural disruption in Canadian aboriginal communities. It shows the difficulties in communication that contribute to the social and cultural impacts and their health effects.Credit: V. Ramanathan and G. Carmichael(2008). Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon.Nature Geoscience 221-221. The writers express how black carbon becomes air pollution and how it affects both the climate and the environment. This book said that the pollution affect different regions and the black carbon in soot is the dominant absorber of visible solar radiation in the atmosphere. Credit: www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n4/full/ngeo/56.html S.Fred Singer.(1968) Global Effects of environmental pollution. Science 13 vol. 162 no 3859. The author talks the pollution effects on humans, animals, plants and the environment. It expresses the cause of pollution and how it causes the extinction of animals and plants species which is a grave loss for mankind. It shows how the advancement in technology aids the improvement of a well being of mankind but also its consequences. Credit: books.google.com/books Clive Glifford (2006). Planet under pressure:pollution. Rain-tree ISBN-13: 9781844439 744. The book examines how pollution has become a global issue and looks at the debate over possible solution. It shows how pollution whether air, water, radioactive or terrestrial affect the lives of a lot of people causing disease and contributing to the global warming. Credit: www.booksdirect.com.au/books/?isbn=9781844439744 Green StudentU. Pollution. This is a encyclopedia entry which speaks of how toxic chemicals from factories pollute the land, air and water. It explains what pollution is and why there are different types . Of the types, It takes of their sources and how to prevent them. It gives link to environment protection agency website if to be involved in prevention of pollution. It also gives the statistics of the people affected by pollution and other. Credit: www.greenstudentu.com/encyclopedia/pollution

Hamlet: Emotions of Despair, Sadness, Anger, and Inner Peace :: Shakespeare Hamlet Essays

Hamlet: Emotions of Despair, Sadness, Anger, and Inner Peace The character of Prince Hamlet, in Shakespeare's "Hamlet," displays many strong yet justified emotions. For instance, in Hamlet's "To be Or Not To Be" soliloquy, perhaps one of the most well known quotes in the English language, Hamlet actually debates suicide. His despair, sorrow, anger and inner peace are all justifiable emotions for this troubled character. Hamlet's feeling of despair towards his life and to the world develops as the play moves on. In Hamlet's first soliloquy he reveals that his despair has driven him to thoughts of suicide; "How weary (horrible) †¦ His law 'gainst self slaughter." Likewise, when Hamlet talks to his friends, Rosenerantz and Guildenstern in Act 2 scene 2, Hamlet wishes they tell the King and Queen that he has "lost all mirth," in this world so "foul and pestilent." In his "To be or not to be" soliloquy, he expresses his despair through thoughts of suicide, suggesting that suicide is an easy way to end life's conflicts. But luckily he concludes that the fear of an unknown afterlife is what keeps us living. All of Hamlet's thoughts of despair can be understood when one looks at the horrible conflicts Hamlet goes through. Sorrow, perhaps the most evident emotion, is very well developed throughout the play. Initially, the only cause of Hamlet's sorrow is his father's death. However, after reading Act 1, scene 2, we see in Hamlet's asides that another source of his melancholy is his mother's hasty marriage to Claudius, the new king of Denmark. Further, when Queen Gertrude asks her son why his father's death "seems" so important, he replies, "Seems, madam? Nay it is. I know not 'seems'." In addition, Shakespeare reveals another source of sadness; now Hamlet is alone, with the most loved character in his life, Ophelia, rejecting him. This cause is well brought out in Hamlet's soliloquy in which he states; "Now I am alone. O, what a rouge and peasant slave am I!" Finally, when Hamlet discovers that Ophelia has died, new reasons for Hamlet's extreme feelings of sorrow are added. In fact, his sorrow is so great that "Forty thousand brothers/Could not (with all their quantity of love) Make up my sum." Thus, Hamlet's well developed sadness, is reasonable throughout the play. Unfortunately, Hamlet's thoughts of mourning are replaced by those of anger. Most readers of Hamlet agree, to some extent or another, that Hamlet is well justified in expressing anger. Perhaps the first incident of Hamlet's true expression of anger is during his scene with the ghost in Act

Benthams version of Utilitarianism Essay

Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that shows the reasons for a person choosing to carry out an action – it justifies an action being for the greater good. Utilitarianism is a teleological theory which means it looks at the consequences or result of an action – to decide whether it is subsequently right or wrong this also makes it a consequentialist theory. The theory of Utilitarianism began with Jeremy Bentham. Bentham’s theory of Utilitarianism is where actions are judged based upon the pleasure gained in the result. Jeremy Bentham was the man who originally thought of and came up with the idea of Utilitarianism, he believed in ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. There are two types of Utilitarianism; Bentham’s theory is Act Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism is about creating the greatest amount of pleasure in a particular situation through a particular action. Bentham believed and used research to conclude that people would naturally seek pleasure and avoid pain. ‘Nature had placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do as well as to determine what we shall do.’ (Bentham) Bentham truly believed that pleasure was the purest form of good and pain the sole evil; he saw this as moral fact. This is why Bentham is also known as a hedonist. The hedonists were a group of Greek people who sought to find true pleasure; ‘hedone’ means pleasure in Greek, this group included people such as Plato and Aristotle – who agreed that good was found in the greatest happiness. The principle of utility was a way to find out how good or bad an action was, based on its utility (usefulness). An action that creates the most pleasure and the least pain is a useful one and therefore it is good – pain v pleasure. For Bentham good, is the maximum amount of pleasure with the minimum amount of pain afflicted and bad, is pain with little pleasure received. Bentham believed that in any situation a person should think of a solution that will lead to the maximum happiness for the maximum of people. For example, if a man with the cure for cancer and a young child were in a car crash, you would assume to save the life of the child as they are considered to be innocent, however with Bentham’s theory you should do the maximum amount of good for the maximum amount of people, which means you should save the man. By saving the one man you then save thousands, the action of letting the child die is out weighed by the amount of people you have saved if using Bentham’s theory. However Bentham knew that it would be hard to predict the outcome of every situation and know which route to take and so in order to help, he came up with the ‘hedonic calculus’ which you can use to work out which option will produce the greatest amount of pleasure. There are seven factors which you must take into account when choosing what to do in a certain situation; the intensity of the pleasure, the duration of the pleasure, how certain pleasure will be the result, how near the pleasure is to you, how continuous is the pleasure, is there likely to be pain mixed with the pleasure and how widespread will the pleasure be. When faced in a dilemma, Bentham believed that you could chose the ‘good’ option – the option which would do the most amount of good and the least amount of pain. For example, if you are in a plane crash and you could only save one person; your wife, your child or a doctor who has the ability to save many. Bentham believes in this situation you must use ‘the hedonic calculus’ to form a solution to your problem. The doctor could make thousands of lives better and create much more pleasure than if you save the wife or child, however this tough decision would leave you without pleasure. Following Bentham’s utilitarianism you must save the doctor. When a decision has to be made over a moral situation, the hedonic calculus is used. In using the hedonic calculus the individuals involved should be considered by applying the seven factors to them in relation to the options for the choice of action you have. ‘Utilitarianism has no serious weakness’ Discuss It is true that Utilitarianism does have many strengths however it does have weaknesses too. Bentham, Mill, Hare and Singer’s theories each have their own faults. Utilitarianism is very straight forward and easy to understand. It is very natural for a person to consider the outcome and how much pleasure they will gain before going through with an action. It is a principle that aims to bring people happiness this is very appealing for many in societies. Many of the ideas and theories can be related to specific actions and situations and therefore can be helped out in the process of considering what to do in certain places, for example; giving to charity gives happiness to the poor and is good whereas acting cruelly towards someone is bad. The use of Utilitarianism can be carried out universally. Utilitarianism is not dependant on any religion, culture, race or society as it is about a person or groups happiness. This use of utilitarianism is great because it makes people picture and understand other people’s point of view for example; if you were to hit someone then instead of carrying out the action, you would think about the outcome – picture yourself in the other person’s shoes – understand that pain which you would cause and subsequently stop yourself from hurting them. You have to think of other people’s pleasure and pain rather than just your own. This is mainly used in preference utilitarianism as Hare put it ‘standing in someone else’s shoes’. The fact that Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory is both good and bad. It is natural for us to weigh up the consequences of an action before carrying it out however it is never going to be easy to always predict the outcome of an action completely right for example; if you go out to steal to help your family survive but then get caught and arrested then you can no longer carry out the ‘good’ action of helping your family. Utilitarianism may also be argued against because it ignores or seems to ignore the importance of following duties – the act itself may be right or wrong for a reason other than the amount of happiness it produces, for example an old friend is on his death bed and asks you to swear that you will give à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½30,000 (all of his money when he dies) to his favourite park he used to visit but on the way to handing over the money you see an advert that says it needs à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½30,000 to save 10,000 people. Out of duty you must give the money to the park however if you are following Utilitarianism your belief is that the money must going into creating the most good/ happiness which would be saving those 10,000 people. W.D Ross believed it was important for you to follow and carry out your duty. Bentham’s Act utilitarianism although was flexible and relied on the consequences it had no defence for minorities for example; one slave being treated badly but creating happiness for a whole family would be thought of as right. Also it is very impractical having to calculate using the ‘hedonic calculus’ every decision we make. There is also a difficulty defining what pleasure is for example; a paedophile’s pleasure is very different to another person’s. Mill’s Rule utilitarianism is very practical and sets about certain rules for society that must be maintained which can help societies to operate. However there are weaknesses to rule utilitarianism too again there is no defence for minorities or any help at what defines happiness but also this time if you are following rules you could end up obeying them even when more happiness can be created by disobeying them.

The History of the Tea Party From Its Beginning to Now

The tea party movement may only be a few years old, but the beginning of the movement is often misunderstood and misreported. While the tea party is often portrayed as being purely an anti-Obama movement, the truth is that the Republican Party has always been as much a target as President Obama and the Democrats. The Tensions Rise During the George W. Bush Years While the tea party may have formerly started after Obama took office, anger over federal spending and a rapidly bloating government began to surface during the big-spending years of the George W. Bush administration. While Bush scored points with conservatives on his tax policies, he also fell into the trap of spending too much money that didnt exist. He pushed for a large expansion of entitlements and, most dangerously, continued the Clinton-era policies that led to the collapse of the housing market and financial industries. While conservatives opposed these big spending measures, it is also true that they lagged far behind their liberal-counterparts in vocalizing anger, showing up at Capitol Hill to protest, or rallying thousands of people at any given time to support a cause or oppose a policy. Until the rise of the tea party, the conservative idea of activism was to shut down the congressional switchboard. Yet despite one disappointment after the next from our elected leaders, voters continued to send the same people back year after year. It would take a major economic crisis to help Sarah Palin Rallies a Crowd Prior to the 2008 elections, it seemed as though conservatives had no clue how to rally a crowd around a cause. While they had their moments — opposing Bushs immigration policies and Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers to name two--a real movement was hard to come by. But in 2008, John McCain selected Sarah Palin to be his vice-presidential candidate and suddenly the Republican base did something they never really did before: they showed up. When Palin joined the Republican ticket, people suddenly started attending rallies. McCain events had to be moved to larger venues. Rather than attracting hundreds of people like McCain had been doing, Palin was attracting thousands instead. Palin was hard-hitting, despite being seemingly restrained by the establishment. She gave one of the greatest convention speeches ever, where she hit out at Barack Obama and saw her popularity soar. She connected with people. And while she was eventually destroyed and rendered ineffective during the 2008 campaign, her ability to actually get thousands of people to rally for a cause would jump-start the future tea party movement, and she would eventually become the top draw at future tea party events nationwide. Rick Santelli Delivers a Message Shortly after his inauguration in January of 2009, President Obama began pushing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a package costing close to $1 trillion. Already infuriated with the final years of the Bush administration that saw multibillion-dollar bailouts and payoffs, conservative outrage of the fiscal insanity was escalating rapidly. After the package passed, CNBC personality Rick Santelli took to the airwaves to deliver what would be the final spark to ignite the tea party flames. In what turned out to perfectly summarize tea party sentiment, Santelli took to the floor of the Chicago Stock Exchange and stated the government is promoting bad behavior... This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbors mortgage that has an extra bathroom and cant pay their bills? Raise their hand.  When the floor traders started booing the government policies, Santelli dropped the President Obama, are you listening?  line. In the rant, Santelli also stated that Were thinking of having a Chicago Tea Party in July. All you capitalists that want to show up to Lake Michigan, Im gonna start organizing.  The clip was widespread, and the first tea party rallies were held eight days later on February 27th, 2009, where tens of thousands of protesters showed up in over 50 cities to voice opposition to the Bush and Obama spending sprees. Tea Party Targets Republicans and Democrats Challenging Democrats in November elections is always a fun thought for tea party members. But it is not their first goal. The tea party does not exist to challenge only Democrats simply to return the same Republicans who rubber-stamped the big government Bush agenda for eight years. And this is why the first victims of the tea party in any given election cycle are always Republicans. The first goal of the tea party was to target liberal Republicans up for reelection. Arlen Specter (PA), Charlie Crist (FL), Lisa Murkowski (AK), and Bob Bennett (UT) were just a few of the many politicians backed by the mainstream GOP but opposed by the tea party. Specter saw his time was up and bailed to join the Democrats. When Crist realized he was soon to lose to a young conservative star in Marco Rubio, he jumped ship and ran as an independent. Bennett was so unpopular he couldnt even earn a primary slot. Murkowski lost her primary also but was eventually saved by the Democrats after launching a write-in campaign. Only after getting a strong foothold in the Republican Party by knocking off incumbent or establishment Republicans would the tea party focus their attention on Democrats. As a result, the myth of the blue dog Democrat was mostly destroyed and the GOP decimated the ranks of so-called conservative Democrats. It would be over three years since the start of the tea party movement before conservatives would have a shot at President Obama. The number of Republicans that the tea party has brought down is proof enough that this is about more than just one man. Final Takeaway The tea party does not exist because of one individual. It exists as a result of the constant and rapid growth of government under both Republican and Democratic-led governments. The tea party does not care whether there is a D or an R next to a politicians name or whether a politician is black, white, man, or woman. If a Republican is elected president, the tea party will exist to hold him just as accountable as they hold President Obama. Anyone seeking proof can ask any of the many moderate Republicans who have been ousted in primaries for failing to follow the principles of limited government.