PROMPT: Describe a setting in which you have collaborated or interacted with people experiences and/or beliefs differ from yours. Address your initial feelings, and how those feelings were or were not changed by this experience.
During the month of March this year, I traveled to a school, known as Robert College, for a Model United Nations conference in Istanbul, Turkey. The very purpose of Model United Nations is to provide an educational simulation where students can learn about diplomacy, international relations and the inner-workings of the "real" Model United Nations. I was a part of the Environmental Committee, whose topics included the heavily debated issue of fracking and safe disposal of e-waste. I researched the benefits of fracking and was prepared to defend it in front of an international audience representing several countries around the globe. Representing tiny-little Guatemala, an ally of the United States, I immediately came under fire from delegates who despised fracking itself. Although this is a "mock" United Nations each person's duty was to represent his or her nation's policy towards an issue and not their personal beliefs; therefore, they believed the fracking was a dangerous activity that must be banned. This was where I had to interact with people of different beliefs, and through his process I was able to meet people whose lives are actually being affected by the issues discussed in the conference and change my personal views on fracking.
In the caucus session, where delegates discuss ideas on how to tackle a particular issue, I came in contact with people representing Italy, Russia, and Spain. Each of them believed that fracking causes numerous problems such as water droughts, use of harmful chemicals and increase in amount of carcinogens. For several hours, I countered by mentioning how these problems could be negated by using special chemicals, recycled water and special chemical treatments to purify the liquids used in the process of fracking. Yet to no avail, my opponents kept repeating their same statements and refused to look into my solutions. In the process, I met a boy, representing Spain but originally from Florida, he claimed that fracking in his hometown caused earthquakes, severe water pollution to name a few problems. I was a loss for words, as I never expected anyone to have personal insight on the issue of fracking. Nevertheless, I continued to support fracking and create safer, more viable ways to make fracking less dangerous.
When my resolution, a document containing solutions to a problem, was complete; I stepped onto the podium and contributed several elucidations in order to make fracking more environmentally feasible and economically practical. Unsurprisingly, the delegate from Spain, stepped up and kept speaking against my ideas as if it was a personal upfront to his beliefs. He was not representing his country, Spain, but more of himself. I countered by mentioning specific points in my resolution which nullified his arguments but still he was adamant in his opposition. The battle raged on back and forth for two days until eventually the whole house, all the delegations in the committee, voted on whether to pass my resolution or not. Sadly my resolution did not pass, as the Spanish delegation's emotions won over the audience.
Afterwards, the Floridian boy came up to me and admitted that my resolution had the perfect solutions and should have been passed. Although I was pleased at his kindness, I told him how I changed my own personal beliefs towards fracking because of his personal experiences. Although I never saw him again, I finally believed that it is a dangerous environmentally unfriendly practice that can ruin lives and destroy nature.
During the month of March this year, I traveled to a school, known as Robert College, for a Model United Nations conference in Istanbul, Turkey. The very purpose of Model United Nations is to provide an educational simulation where students can learn about diplomacy, international relations and the inner-workings of the "real" Model United Nations. I was a part of the Environmental Committee, whose topics included the heavily debated issue of fracking and safe disposal of e-waste. I researched the benefits of fracking and was prepared to defend it in front of an international audience representing several countries around the globe. Representing tiny-little Guatemala, an ally of the United States, I immediately came under fire from delegates who despised fracking itself. Although this is a "mock" United Nations each person's duty was to represent his or her nation's policy towards an issue and not their personal beliefs; therefore, they believed the fracking was a dangerous activity that must be banned. This was where I had to interact with people of different beliefs, and through his process I was able to meet people whose lives are actually being affected by the issues discussed in the conference and change my personal views on fracking.
In the caucus session, where delegates discuss ideas on how to tackle a particular issue, I came in contact with people representing Italy, Russia, and Spain. Each of them believed that fracking causes numerous problems such as water droughts, use of harmful chemicals and increase in amount of carcinogens. For several hours, I countered by mentioning how these problems could be negated by using special chemicals, recycled water and special chemical treatments to purify the liquids used in the process of fracking. Yet to no avail, my opponents kept repeating their same statements and refused to look into my solutions. In the process, I met a boy, representing Spain but originally from Florida, he claimed that fracking in his hometown caused earthquakes, severe water pollution to name a few problems. I was a loss for words, as I never expected anyone to have personal insight on the issue of fracking. Nevertheless, I continued to support fracking and create safer, more viable ways to make fracking less dangerous.
When my resolution, a document containing solutions to a problem, was complete; I stepped onto the podium and contributed several elucidations in order to make fracking more environmentally feasible and economically practical. Unsurprisingly, the delegate from Spain, stepped up and kept speaking against my ideas as if it was a personal upfront to his beliefs. He was not representing his country, Spain, but more of himself. I countered by mentioning specific points in my resolution which nullified his arguments but still he was adamant in his opposition. The battle raged on back and forth for two days until eventually the whole house, all the delegations in the committee, voted on whether to pass my resolution or not. Sadly my resolution did not pass, as the Spanish delegation's emotions won over the audience.
Afterwards, the Floridian boy came up to me and admitted that my resolution had the perfect solutions and should have been passed. Although I was pleased at his kindness, I told him how I changed my own personal beliefs towards fracking because of his personal experiences. Although I never saw him again, I finally believed that it is a dangerous environmentally unfriendly practice that can ruin lives and destroy nature.