Prompt
Some see printed books as dusty remnants from the preelectronic age. They point out that electronic books, or e-books, cost less to produce than printed books and that producing them has a much smaller impact on natural resources such as trees. Yet why should printed books be considered obsolete or outdated just because there is something cheaper and more modern? With books, as with many other things, just because a new version has its merits doesn't mean that the older version should be eliminated.
Assignment: Should we hold on to the old when innovations are available, or should we simply move forward? Plan and write an essay in which you develop your point of view on this issue. Support your position with reasoning and examples taken from your reading, studies, experience, or observations.
Since the dawn of civilization, men and women have been participating in an everlasting attempt to improve the life through innovations. However, as the technology continues to advance, many people are still holding old, traditional thoughts and are doubting, afraid of the unknown impact new innovations will bring. Unfortunately, those who choose to stay rather than move forward make our society stagnate. We should move forward when innovations are accessible, or serious impacts will strike our society.
Believing in the plethora of information from elsewhere, science deniers are declaring war on scientific experts whose work they undermine and deride. Even though science makes unparalleled achievement from genomics and oceanography, and new technology and data aiming to help human come out everyday, science deniers are still on the march and winning public's heart more successfully than pundits. Recent data released by American Association of Advancement of Science revealed a growing and huge gulf between scientists and public. There are 18 percent gap on whether parents should be required to vaccine their children; 87 percent of AAAS scientists said global warming is caused by human, compared to 50 percent of public; 88 percent of scientists said GMO are safe to eat, compared to 37 percent of US adults.
There are serious implications when large minority of public choose to hold on old ideas when innovations are available. With the vaccination the implication is immediate: The recent measles outbreak in California is the result of holding old. Public support of the urgent decarbonization measures is being undercut, while food security and sustainability is under threat because of public's fear of GMO.
Another exemplary paradigm is the controversy over nuclear power. While the exploitation of renewable energy such as wind and solar power is now much more advanced, many still ignore the innovations and uphold on the old nuclear power, thinking that it is safe and permanent while overlooking the calamity in Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear power plant in Ukraine and Japan? Those ideologues in nuclear power, if incessantly insists on holding old, would bring mankind to a damage to the extent that would harm everyone.
From the quintessential attributes above we can fathom that holding on to the old will threat the society and even our planet. What those tradition holders should recognize is that the past is gone and static, the future is before us and dynamic. They should not be grudging to depart from past; they should move forward and strive for the progress of tomorrow. Just like Thomas Hardy once said"Old is sometimes a thing that shuts us off; innovation is sometimes a thing that opens our door."
Thank you!! And if you can, can you please grade my essay according to the Sat 1-6 scale?
Thanks very much!
Some see printed books as dusty remnants from the preelectronic age. They point out that electronic books, or e-books, cost less to produce than printed books and that producing them has a much smaller impact on natural resources such as trees. Yet why should printed books be considered obsolete or outdated just because there is something cheaper and more modern? With books, as with many other things, just because a new version has its merits doesn't mean that the older version should be eliminated.
Assignment: Should we hold on to the old when innovations are available, or should we simply move forward? Plan and write an essay in which you develop your point of view on this issue. Support your position with reasoning and examples taken from your reading, studies, experience, or observations.
Since the dawn of civilization, men and women have been participating in an everlasting attempt to improve the life through innovations. However, as the technology continues to advance, many people are still holding old, traditional thoughts and are doubting, afraid of the unknown impact new innovations will bring. Unfortunately, those who choose to stay rather than move forward make our society stagnate. We should move forward when innovations are accessible, or serious impacts will strike our society.
Believing in the plethora of information from elsewhere, science deniers are declaring war on scientific experts whose work they undermine and deride. Even though science makes unparalleled achievement from genomics and oceanography, and new technology and data aiming to help human come out everyday, science deniers are still on the march and winning public's heart more successfully than pundits. Recent data released by American Association of Advancement of Science revealed a growing and huge gulf between scientists and public. There are 18 percent gap on whether parents should be required to vaccine their children; 87 percent of AAAS scientists said global warming is caused by human, compared to 50 percent of public; 88 percent of scientists said GMO are safe to eat, compared to 37 percent of US adults.
There are serious implications when large minority of public choose to hold on old ideas when innovations are available. With the vaccination the implication is immediate: The recent measles outbreak in California is the result of holding old. Public support of the urgent decarbonization measures is being undercut, while food security and sustainability is under threat because of public's fear of GMO.
Another exemplary paradigm is the controversy over nuclear power. While the exploitation of renewable energy such as wind and solar power is now much more advanced, many still ignore the innovations and uphold on the old nuclear power, thinking that it is safe and permanent while overlooking the calamity in Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear power plant in Ukraine and Japan? Those ideologues in nuclear power, if incessantly insists on holding old, would bring mankind to a damage to the extent that would harm everyone.
From the quintessential attributes above we can fathom that holding on to the old will threat the society and even our planet. What those tradition holders should recognize is that the past is gone and static, the future is before us and dynamic. They should not be grudging to depart from past; they should move forward and strive for the progress of tomorrow. Just like Thomas Hardy once said"Old is sometimes a thing that shuts us off; innovation is sometimes a thing that opens our door."
Thank you!! And if you can, can you please grade my essay according to the Sat 1-6 scale?
Thanks very much!