Hi, everybody! Please tell me if this essay even makes sense/is any good ((and be honest!). It's 888 words, so suggestions on what could be left out would also be appreciated. And of course, any other feedback is likewise very welcome! Thanks a ton!
Prompt: Find x.
q(x)
"If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there."
- Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
Problem 1. Assume that q(x) = Should we take measures to combat global warming? Find x. Global warming has been a political, economic, social, and all-around prominent issue for the past several decades. Since its original proposition, uncounted events have occurred that have elevated its level of importance. The infamous rising CO2 levels, the disintegration of many an ice shelf, the plummeting polar bear population-the list goes on. However, many hold true to the belief that global warming, if it is happening, is merely part of a natural fluctuating cycle. Yet, all things considered, our course of action should be one and the same regardless of our beliefs (or lack thereof) on the issue. If we take measures to prevent global warming and find that it isn't something we can affect, we'll be left with cleaner air, smaller landfills, and a less oil-dominated society. If we choose the other road at the fork, taking no actions to prevent global warming only to discover that we should have, we'll irreconcilably damage the environment, drive hundreds of species to extinction, and potentially even doom our own fate. Clean air vs. doomed fate? x = Yes, we should take measures to combat global warming.
Problem 2: Assume that q(x) = Should we limit the use of antibiotics? Find x. Imagine yourself in the shoes of your childhood (or your child's) pediatrician. A mother brings her daughter in. The girl is sick, the woman is sick of her daughter being sick-the usual. You determine that the girl is suffering from a bacterial ear infection. You explain that there are two options: let the girl's immune system take care of itself (it isn't a very bad infection, so this is permissible), or prescribe antibiotics. At the mention of this last term, the worn-out mother looks up longingly. You sigh, break out your pen, and write her a prescription. Antibiotics have been the go-to solution for everything from pneumonia to the common cold for years. However, every coin has two sides, and it wasn't long before medical professionals began noticing a troubling trend: while the antibiotics were killing off ordinary bacteria, bacteria are much like people-meaning, there were inevitably one or two who were a little weird. These multiplied, and in some cases created entirely new strands of infections. This later became known as antibiotic resistance. The more "normal" bacteria we kill with antibiotics, the more resistant ones arise, potentially resulting in strands for which we have no cure. Only by refusing to take the easy way out can we impede this cycle. x = Yes, we should limit the use of antibiotics.
Problem 3. Assume that q(x) = What is the answer to life, the universe and everything? Find x. This one's easy: just ask Google, or-if you prefer primary sources-Douglas Adams. x = 42.
Problem 4. Assume that q(x) = Should we conduct embryonic stem cell research? Find x. On one side of the embryonic stem cell debate lie claims of the immeasurable possibilities of research in the area, from the development of diabetes treatments to cures for cancer and AIDS. Opponents on the other side cite ethical and religious concerns, saying that using embryos for research is, in essence, creating human beings for the purpose of killing them. Yet, all things considered, our course of action, once again, should be identical regardless of our positions. Although embryonic stem cell research is a paramount issue, it really doesn't need to be, because there is another option that is largely ignored: adult stem cell research. Adult stem cells have the same capabilities as embryonic stem cells, and have already produced actual treatments, such as heart regeneration and antidotes to multiple sclerosis and leukemia. And because adult stem cell research do not result in human deaths, it trains none of the ethical dilemmas of its embryonic counterpart. Why argue over a science that has produced few real-life results and has the nation divided, when we can devote funds to the research of one that's controversy-free and already starting to prove its worth? x = No, we should carry out adult stem cell research instead.
So-back to the actual point at hand. You're probably wondering what the meaning of all this is. Well, not to worry; you're about to find out. There are many xs, many answers; every problem, in fact, tends to have one, or at least something resembling one. Answers, or at least versions thereof, are-as strange as this may sound-easy enough to come by; the hard part is finding the questions. What are we most concerned with? Global warming, antibiotic resistance, stem cell research? We need to know where we're trying to go-towards a cleaner planet, a world with fewer incurable diseases, a less controversial medical community, or somewhere else entirely? We can't go everywhere at once. We're always asking each other and ourselves, What is the answer? What is x? But that isn't what we should be asking. What we should be asking is: What is the question? What is q(x)?
Prompt: Find x.
q(x)
"If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there."
- Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
Problem 1. Assume that q(x) = Should we take measures to combat global warming? Find x. Global warming has been a political, economic, social, and all-around prominent issue for the past several decades. Since its original proposition, uncounted events have occurred that have elevated its level of importance. The infamous rising CO2 levels, the disintegration of many an ice shelf, the plummeting polar bear population-the list goes on. However, many hold true to the belief that global warming, if it is happening, is merely part of a natural fluctuating cycle. Yet, all things considered, our course of action should be one and the same regardless of our beliefs (or lack thereof) on the issue. If we take measures to prevent global warming and find that it isn't something we can affect, we'll be left with cleaner air, smaller landfills, and a less oil-dominated society. If we choose the other road at the fork, taking no actions to prevent global warming only to discover that we should have, we'll irreconcilably damage the environment, drive hundreds of species to extinction, and potentially even doom our own fate. Clean air vs. doomed fate? x = Yes, we should take measures to combat global warming.
Problem 2: Assume that q(x) = Should we limit the use of antibiotics? Find x. Imagine yourself in the shoes of your childhood (or your child's) pediatrician. A mother brings her daughter in. The girl is sick, the woman is sick of her daughter being sick-the usual. You determine that the girl is suffering from a bacterial ear infection. You explain that there are two options: let the girl's immune system take care of itself (it isn't a very bad infection, so this is permissible), or prescribe antibiotics. At the mention of this last term, the worn-out mother looks up longingly. You sigh, break out your pen, and write her a prescription. Antibiotics have been the go-to solution for everything from pneumonia to the common cold for years. However, every coin has two sides, and it wasn't long before medical professionals began noticing a troubling trend: while the antibiotics were killing off ordinary bacteria, bacteria are much like people-meaning, there were inevitably one or two who were a little weird. These multiplied, and in some cases created entirely new strands of infections. This later became known as antibiotic resistance. The more "normal" bacteria we kill with antibiotics, the more resistant ones arise, potentially resulting in strands for which we have no cure. Only by refusing to take the easy way out can we impede this cycle. x = Yes, we should limit the use of antibiotics.
Problem 3. Assume that q(x) = What is the answer to life, the universe and everything? Find x. This one's easy: just ask Google, or-if you prefer primary sources-Douglas Adams. x = 42.
Problem 4. Assume that q(x) = Should we conduct embryonic stem cell research? Find x. On one side of the embryonic stem cell debate lie claims of the immeasurable possibilities of research in the area, from the development of diabetes treatments to cures for cancer and AIDS. Opponents on the other side cite ethical and religious concerns, saying that using embryos for research is, in essence, creating human beings for the purpose of killing them. Yet, all things considered, our course of action, once again, should be identical regardless of our positions. Although embryonic stem cell research is a paramount issue, it really doesn't need to be, because there is another option that is largely ignored: adult stem cell research. Adult stem cells have the same capabilities as embryonic stem cells, and have already produced actual treatments, such as heart regeneration and antidotes to multiple sclerosis and leukemia. And because adult stem cell research do not result in human deaths, it trains none of the ethical dilemmas of its embryonic counterpart. Why argue over a science that has produced few real-life results and has the nation divided, when we can devote funds to the research of one that's controversy-free and already starting to prove its worth? x = No, we should carry out adult stem cell research instead.
So-back to the actual point at hand. You're probably wondering what the meaning of all this is. Well, not to worry; you're about to find out. There are many xs, many answers; every problem, in fact, tends to have one, or at least something resembling one. Answers, or at least versions thereof, are-as strange as this may sound-easy enough to come by; the hard part is finding the questions. What are we most concerned with? Global warming, antibiotic resistance, stem cell research? We need to know where we're trying to go-towards a cleaner planet, a world with fewer incurable diseases, a less controversial medical community, or somewhere else entirely? We can't go everywhere at once. We're always asking each other and ourselves, What is the answer? What is x? But that isn't what we should be asking. What we should be asking is: What is the question? What is q(x)?
