Vancouver consistently ranks among the world’s most sustainable cities, boasting the second-highest per capita transit ridership in Canada. The city is also known for its slow pace of development and history of delays in large-scale public projects. Vancouver’s case is puzzling at first. It challenges an established belief that a faster development pace will equate to a more efficient transit system. A closer look at the rationale for these processes, and how the city is addressing shortcomings in its own policies, reveals a model for improved transit development in similarly-sized cities.

Where Transit and Development Meet in Vancouver

The completion of Vancouver’s Broadway Subway project, which has been in ongoing development for seventeen years, has been further delayed to Fall 2027. One reason for Vancouver’s slow development process is that the city’s approval framework takes several stakeholders’ interest into consideration. While well-intentioned, integrating public feedback slows the pace of change and development in the city. Balancing priorities with these developments is tricky: While public support for transit developments like the Broadway Subway remains high, intensive development is understood to be disruptive to local neighbourhoods. These large-scale public developments can take several years, as in the case of the Broadway Subway. Such developments can also lead to frustration among community members, as construction impedes street-level traffic and reduces foot traffic to local businesses.

Vancouver’s approval process itself, which demands separate rezoning and development applications, is also to blame. Rezoning applications often take around a year for approval. Development plans usually require an additional six months before further approval. Even when these developments are approved and considered in alignment with the city’s official development plan (ODP), public hearings and community involvement, which frequently slow down the timelines, are also integrated into this system. Still, Vancouver is remarkable for continuing to surpass other Canadian cities despite slow development processes. For instance, while the city of Edmonton has the quickest approval process in Canada, its transportation networks are relatively underdeveloped, with no significant infrastructural developments from 2014-2023. By contrast, although Vancouver’s approval process requires on average nearly a year more, the city’s transit network is significantly more effective. As a result, Edmonton has slowly moved to adopting strategies like Vancouver’s.

Some of the slowdown of development in Vancouver is not entirely accidental. Since 2016, the Grandview-Woodland Community Plan has included a “Pace of Change” clause, which limits how land in that neighbourhood is developed. From its inception to 2023, only five projects have been approved. Indeed, the policy’s initial aim to resolve local concerns of displacement was successful. As an effect, however, transit and housing inaccessibility issues in this 4.5 square kilometer area have seen little change. The city staff have recommended abolishing this clause entirely. As it stands today, the policy is still active, with a long queue of pending applications awaiting approval. The city is developing a set of best practices in its Villages Plan, which has identified neighborhoods that should be developed outside of the restrictions of policies like Grandview-Woodland’s “Pace of Change” clause.

Considering the TOD Model in Vancouver

In Vancouver, development is neither “housing-first” nor “transit-first.” The city has adopted an atypical approach with its densification strategies. The development of denser neighborhoods inherently discourages personal vehicles, encouraging the use of rapid transit networks.

A critical point of Vancouver’s recent densification strategy is Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs). The TOD model encourages the development of high-density residential buildings along transit corridors, promoting housing accessibility in regions best covered by Vancouver’s light rail system, SkyTrain. Vancouver’s Broadway Plan extends this by replacing most of the 99 B-Line bus route, considered one of the busiest bus lines in North America, with a subway extension and through a zoning overhaul for that transit corridor. SkyTrain has seen only two major extensions in the last 25 years. However, housing density along transit lines has kept the city’s ridership consistent. Consider the case of the pandemic: while several Western cities struggled to recover ridership, Vancouver rebounded swiftly. Translink CEO Kevin Quinn claims that TODs (among other factors) have differentiated Vancouver’s transit recovery over the last five years. These mechanisms not only support the city’s transit through hardship, but also encourage growing transit usage.

TODs work through combatting the phenomenon known as urban sprawl. Contrary to high-density areas, sprawl is characterized by its low-density development moving away from urban hubs. These communities are less walkable and services are less accessible, altogether decreasing the efficiency of public transit networks and straining city services.

In a city like Toronto, the rapid development of primarily single-family homes has negatively affected its transit system, which now serves fewer users per capita than Vancouver’s SkyTrain. This metric stands as a testament to the effectiveness of Vancouver’s atypical approach with TODs. While Toronto’s development is significantly less restricted with a larger market for large-scale developments, Vancouver’s tight development processes have shown to be more effective at supporting public transit usage. In spite of the city’s slow development rate, its highly effective and robust transit network makes it one of the most sustainable cities across North America.

Looking to the Future: Vancouver as a Potential Model for Transit & Development

Now, with the city’s phasing into a new development plan (ODP), Vancouver has begun shifting its focus into accelerating the rate of development, while not abandoning their original approach entirely. Lately, Vancouver has loosened restrictions on parking minimums in buildings. The city has also eliminated public hearing phases in between its development and rezoning applications. The “Pace of Change” clauses in the Grandview-Woodland Plan are also being re-examined. Altogether, these efforts aim to simplify Vancouver’s slow development timeline. While most cities initially focus on accelerated development to create a more effective public transit network, Vancouver has rather approached developmental rate as a secondary priority.

Vancouver is known for its frequent delays in transit projects and glacial pace of development, yet the city has also established one of the most effective transit networks in North America. Over the last decade, the city has fixated its approach on TOD and densification strategies to combat urban sprawl. TODs have been largely successful, ensuring greater accessibility to major transit centres. The city’s model is not perfect, though. While Vancouver’s transit centres have become successful, the city’s slow development has fueled other problems. Fortunately, with Vancouver’s robust transit model, the city can allocate resources to other issues such as the affordable housing crisis or developing further sustainable infrastructure. If these initiatives are successful, the city’s emphasis on densification first and development second could even become an international model for cities in the developed world.

Contrary to popular belief, genetic engineering or genome editing is not a novel technology by any means. Genome editing tools have existed since the late 1900s, but these earlier technologies were more complex, expensive, time-consuming, and less accurate. These factors prevented many laboratories from attempting gene-editing. When CRISPR-Cas9, commonly abbreviated to CRISPR, was revealed as a programmable editor in 2012, the technology was groundbreaking for being cheap, fast, and precise. Despite being awarded the Nobel Prize in 2020, the technology was still surrounded with reasonable concern and criticism. CRISPR was being deployed faster than its use could be governed and its consequences measured. It was swiftly introduced into therapeutics, agriculture, and food without appropriate consideration. By examining these concerns surrounding CRISPR, this essay underscores the need for regulating disruptive technologies in order to drive them towards meaningful aims.

The therapeutic case needs to be first acknowledged. There is no doubt about the transformative potential of genetic engineering. One of the more promising applications of CRISPR is in gene therapy, where genome editing has driven treatment to harmful diseases. The National Human Genome Research Institute highlights a widely cited example from 2015, where a one-year old had been diagnosed with leukemia, a type of blood cancer. Doctors had exhausted all other options, eventually resorting to gene therapy. This gene therapy saved the kid’s life. Though it is worth noting that this particular treatment was a different gene editing platform instead of CRISPR, cases like this are still remarkable. In December 2023, the FDA approved Casgevy, a CRISPR-based therapy for sickle cell disease. The medical results were promising, with most patients going over a year without a significant pain crisis. However, Casgevy came at a large cost. A single round of treatment cost $2.2 million. To put this into perspective, the average lifetime treatment of sickle cell disease was roughly $1.7 million. Further, three quarters of the global population of sickle-cell patients live in sub-Saharan Africa whereas this treatment option was introduced solely in six wealthy nations accounting for only two percent of that population. CRISPR-based therapy is powerful but also highly inaccessible to the populations which need it most.

While genetic engineering has and will continue to shape medicine and healthcare, it has also become a household name in the field of agriculture and food. Anyone who has purchased groceries within the last decade should recognize the terms GMO (genetically modified organism) and organic. Defenders of CRISPR often point out that public hesitancy towards GMO products is irrational. In fact, the governing regulations around GMO labeling have grown more lenient as the technology has improved. As CRISPR editing can more closely resemble mutations from natural breeding, several countries have decided that edited crops do not need to be classified as genetically modified. These crops can therefore avoid safety reviews and labelling that older GMOs required. Oversight is weakening precisely when gene-editing is also the cheapest and easiest.

The push for GMOs in agriculture is motivated by the desire to maximize crop yields, build resilience against environment stressors, and reduce costs. However, serious ecological concerns also exist. Editing crops pushes farming towards fewer higher-performing genotypes causing biodiversity loss and creating a vulnerability. One pathogen that can defeat a dominant variety would be able to defeat the entire crop. Another cause for concern is the irreversible spread across an entire population. Gene-edits spread significantly faster than normal inheritance allows. This process cannot be properly controlled by farmers and can often lead to unintended environmental disruptions.

The safety record is not as sound either. Problems exist because CRISPR is still prone to cutting the wrong place. Even when CRISPR cuts correctly, the cell response is uncontrolled and can repair breaks unpredictably. Koiscki and colleagues reported that accurate edits often produce unwanted deletions or scrambled sequences that screenings miss because most testing only examines the DNA near a cut. Höijer and colleagues found similar damage in living animals also passed on to offspring. This medical risk is noteworthy because standrd testing that declares an edit is successful often misses these inaccuracies. In addition, gene-editing is not reversible.

The argument against CRISPR-Cas9 rests on several issues. While therapies work, their accessibility, as in the case of Casgevy, suggest that CRISPR-based treatment is not ready for commerical deployment. Agricultural GMOs are incredibly attractive for farming by increasing crop yield and lowering costs. However, the risks of unintended environmental disruptions and vulnerabilites cannot be overlooked. The technology is also less precise than typically advertised. A perfectly aimed edit can still leave damage that is untraceable by standard testing which is also inherited by offspring. The harms of gene-editing also only become apparent after they are already irreversible. CRISPR was groundbreaking in 2020 because it made gene-editing significantly more attractive for research. The rise of CRISPR for commercial use is alarming because the consequences are still largely unknown. The conventional standard of letting something continue until it is proven dangerous is risky. When the results cannot be accurately measured or properly reversed, these conditions necessitate being proactive.

References

CRISPR Therapeutics. (2024). Gene Editing. CRISPR Therapeutics. https://crisprtx.com/gene-editing

FDA. (2024). GMOS and Your Health. FDA. https://www.fda.gov/media/135280/download

Höijer, I., Emmanouilidou, A., Östlund, R., van Schendel, R., Bozorgpana, S., Tijsterman, M., Feuk, L., Gyllensten, U., den Hoed, M., & Ameur, A. (2022). CRISPR-Cas9 induces large structural variants at on-target and off-target sites in vivo that segregate across generations. Nature Communications, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28244-5

Klaus Müller. (2024). Bioethics in the Age of CRISPR: Gene Editing and Its Societal Impacts. Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 7(5). https://doi.org/10.35841/aabb-7.5.224

National Human Genome Research Institute. (2019, August 15). What Is Genome editing? Genome.gov; National Human Genome Research Institute. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/what-is-Genome-Editing

Ng, D. (2023, November 10). A Brief History of CRISPR-Cas9 Genome-Editing Tools. Bitesize Bio. https://bitesizebio.com/47927/history-crispr/

Schmerker, J. (2024, April 15). CRISPR-Cas9: 10 pros and 7 cons. Integrated DNA Technologies; Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. https://www.idtdna.com/pages/community/blog/post/crispr-cas9-what-are-the-10-pros-and-7-cons

While society has often promoted good treatment of human beings, animal interests have largely escaped sufficient consideration. Human suffering is strictly prohibited in many states while animal mistreatment has increased over the last decades (Swallow, 2024). Their interests are constantly deemed unimportant in several environments. As examples, their interests become seriously violated in animal research, and their rights are ignored in slaughterhouses and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). All this maltreatment seems to suggest the existence of a natural hierarchy, where animals are at the bottom and viewed as means rather than ends while humans exist at the top and are viewed as ends rather than means. While human welfare sometimes demands placing human interests ahead of animal interests, requiring animals suffer in the name of human interests demands reform. When asking whether we should treat animals well for whatever reason, it prompts the question of what “treating animals well” means. In light of discussing animal interests and rights, let us assume that treating animals well means that animals do not undergo undue suffering.

Animals are sentient, and can therefore consciously perceive suffering, just as humans do (Animal Ethics, 2014). Considering their capacity to experience, animals have interests and an equal stake in this world. Certainly, granting rights to animals can restrict human activities. Regardless, we should be proactive in minimizing the mistreatment of all animals, even if this commitment demands great change. Because of the widespread belief that humans supersede animals in ability and interest, it can be hard granting equal moral consideration. However, we should treat them with the same respect we give to other human beings, recognizing their interests as significant and affording them rights in accordance with their interests.

Animal Interests

When we first encounter the argument surrounding better animal treatment, we are often inclined to consider a being’s cognitive ability. After all, it seems sensible that intelligent animals like an octopus deserve more moral consideration whereas simpler animals receive less concern. For the purposes of this argument, moral consideration falls in line with “moral status,” where beings “have one’s welfare-related interests…factored into the calculus that determines which action brings about the greatest utility, and is thus morally best” (Jaworska & Tannenbaum, 2013). What this means is we must balance an animal’s welfare and interests with what best serves the whole of society.

However logical this argument seems, it is rarely brought to fruition. Though we see intelligent beings as more valuable, our routines never reflect this, instead seeing animals as inferior. Today, many social frameworks cannot operate if all creatures were granted such consideration; industries like agriculture, cosmetics, and pharmaceutical development deeply utilize animals (Monsó et al., 2018). In the case that their rights protect their agency and autonomy, traditional practices like animal research will become heavily affected. Even so, this conclusion is premature: we cannot simply justify better treatment because of one’s mental capacities.

Animals were all once thought of as biological automations lacking souls or moral judgement, though modern studies now strongly suggest otherwise (BBC, 2014). Contemporary research has dramatically improved our knowledge of animals (Nussbaum, 2023). Experiments have uncovered animals’ capacity to experience emotion; animal intelligence is self-evident (Nussbaum, 2023). Lately, we have learned not only the existence of social groups and organization among animals, as well as the presence of complex social learning which occurs within these circles (Nussbaum, 2023). Certainly, animals lack some higher cognitive capacities exercised by humans such as normativity or complex cultural development (Gruen, 2024). Regardless, through comparisons of our cognitive abilities and the nature of our shared activities, it seems reasonable that animals are given comparable consideration to humans. Especially when examining our closest living ancestors – primates – who exercise moral judgement fairly similarly to us (Burkart et al., 2018).

However, not all animals in the natural world are comparable. Animals each exercise varying degrees of moral judgement and higher-level cognitive capacities. Putting this into consideration, it still seems rational to fluctuate our moral consideration depending on an animal’s intelligence. Unfortunately, we neglect one important detail. Different humans also share dissimilar cognitive capacities. But humans frequently accommodate people of different abilities. Consider the exceptional case of ‘marginal beings’. In animal rights circles, marginal beings categorise individuals who are incapable of free moral judgement (BBC, 2014). This label could refer to senile beings, people with serious mental defects, babies, or individuals left in a coma (BBC, 2014). Despite differing cognitive capacities, most developed nations take pains to ensure equal treatment and consideration under the law for such individuals.

Marginal beings are not the only example of cognitive deviation. Rather, intelligence and cognitive variance exists rampant among the entire population. To illustrate, many younger children have a limited capacity for moral judgement in comparison to developed adults. Their moral consideration is limited to themselves, stemming from selfish and naive behavior. Does that mean children or people less capable of rational thought should deserve worse treatment? If we extend this exact question to all beings, regardless of species, it doesn’t seem rational now to exclude animals of lesser cognitive thought from moral status. While making the case for animals sharing equal moral status with humans is difficult, it is apparent that humanity could stand to treat these animals better, as befits developments in science and philosophy.

Prior to the scientific revolution, society saw animals as soulless, brutish beasts (BBC, 2014). Thinkers such as Descartes once assumed that animals were incapable of acting morally; they were selfish and only acted impulsively (BBC, 2014). Since animals were unable to reproduce moral thinking, it was assumed that they were undeserving of moral consideration (Gruen, 2024). With humans being the only rational beings, only human interests and rights would be considered important (Gruen, 2024). This prompts a serious question, however: why should moral agency be the basis for proper consideration? Indeed, many beings can be morally wronged, and they do not need to realize moral claims to suffer though (Gruen, 2024). Instead, a more morally relevant factor is sentience.

Sentience primarily outlines a being’s capacity to experience (Animal Ethics, 2014). Whereas automations can only mechanically react to sensory input, a sentient being can perceive the stimuli consciously. This concept of sentience is important when exploring morality since it delineates a being’s capacity to be affected positively or negatively by experiences; an animal can consciously experience the outcomes of an event with its life growing better or worse, but objects do not even experience (Animal Ethics, 2014). Consider the ‘life’ of a hammer; it can become damaged, but not exactly harmed since it cannot understand joy or suffering. This is a useful distinction when interpreting and examining the interests of animals.

Interests can be defined as anything beneficial for a being; interests are sought after since they promote a positive outcome for someone (Animal Ethics, 2014). When we engage in rational thought, we undergo consideration of other interests. This is what leads us to treat other people well: we respect them and value their needs, sometimes expecting equal treatment in return. Our treatment of other humans depends on their interests; our treatment of animals should, too.

Animals, at least highly developed animals and most mammals, have a level of sentience that enables them to experience pain and suffering just as humans do (Animal Ethics, n.d.). By expressing emotions, animals can illustrate their preferences; as an example, the expression of fear suggests an animal’s desire to maintain their autonomy and self-preserve (Animal Ethics, n.d.; Nussbaum, 2023). Though people would largely agree that sentient beings have interests, people often fail to recognize these needs as important. Consider when animal and human interests clash: The maltreatment of nonhuman animals in cases like animal testing and industrial agriculture are justified since it apparently supports our broader, human, interests. While animal interests are clearly there, it’s difficult for us to put our own interests aside.

Richard Ryder famously studied this phenomenon of ‘human centered prejudice’ which he coined as speciesism, where human interests are prioritised over the interests of different species (Gruen, 2024). This mindset is prejudicial since there’s no compelling rationale for discriminating based on species; similar to discrimination based on race, these factors are morally irrelevant (Gruen, 2024). Even when we consider cognitive capacities, a morally significant distinction between nonhumans and humans cannot be established. This evidence gestures towards an equal consideration of all interests, therefore affording animals protection from needless suffering.

Animal Rights

Animals are not living their best lives, and sufficient moral consideration has not been given. To remedy this, governments could extend relevant human rights to animals. While human exploitation also has a long history, the development of legal frameworks and recognition of human rights was what eventually discouraged these exploitative practices (United Nations, 2014). Paralleling this structure, animal rights could be established to grant better animal welfare.

The primary consideration would be animals under human influence. Animals that have been forced into society’s influence should be granted protection from pain and suffering through the form of rights. We have moral responsibility to these animals since we have direct relationships with these creatures; this prioritisation could target livestock, domesticated pets, and other work animals. However, animal rights shouldn’t extend to wildlife beyond humanity’s scope. While some people take it upon themselves to be the stewards of animals and other environmental bodies, extreme interventions might mean disturbing animal autonomy and ecological processes. In the wild, suffering is often caused by other natural factors, and humans should not be held responsible for suffering from causes not related to human interference in nature.

Not all human rights are morally relevant. Animals should be granted the same liberty and autonomy to pursue happy lives. However, certain social rights wouldn’t apply. To structure our treatment of animals, these rights should stem from their corresponding interests.

One of the relevant concerns associated with better animal treatment is the limits it poses on human activities (Gruen, 2024). In the scenario that an animal rights agenda is pushed, several animal-dominated industries would be forced to change. The meat and dairy sector would likely have to shift to plant-based alternatives. Cosmetic and pharmaceutical testing using animals would be banned, prompting reforms for product safety mechanisms.

Whereas speciesist and exceptionalist attitudes have propped up humankind to receive more moral consideration, these views are prejudicial as species membership bears no moral significance (Gruen, 2024). Likewise, when a human being is born in different countries, no person’s interests are more valuable than another’s. Hence, animal interests are just as valuable as human interests, which should afford them equal treatment.

When exploring human exceptionalism, it’s clear that animals operate more similarly to humans than most would expect. In fact, most cognitive capacities that we would traditionally think are unique to us are actually prevalent in the animal kingdom (Nussbaum, 2023). Then, when further considering animal sentience and interests, it seems illogical to dismiss animals as anything other than a subject of life. Though a perfect coexistence between animal and human interests may never exist, it doesn’t exactly justify dismissing one party’s interests. We should treat animals well to respect their interests and recognize their inherent rights. It’s crucial to realize that animals are not that different from us and shouldn’t be seen as lesser beings. Though we cannot expect animals to return the favour, or recognize moral claims, or even understand the concept of respect, they ought to be seen and treated as beings that can, since these capacities are superficial.

Since animals can consciously feel pain and pleasure, their suffering should be morally significant. Therefore, if it’s wrong for humans to suffer needlessly, then animals shouldn’t unduly suffer either. These interests are exactly what rights address. Humans don’t treat other humans well because we are forced to, we treat our peers well because we recognize they have interests. Our care isn’t enforced, it’s voluntary. Rights reinforce our willing respect and care for animals; they aren’t the primary reason behind treating animals well.

References

Animal Ethics. (n.d.). What is sentience. Animal Ethics. https://www.animal-ethics.org/what-is-sentience/

Animal Ethics. (2014, November 10). Animal interests. Animal Ethics. https://www.animal-ethics.org/animal-interests/

BBC. (2014). BBC - Ethics - Animal ethics: Animal rights. Www.bbc.co.uk. https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/rights_1.shtml

Burkart, J. M., Brügger, R. K., & van Schaik, C. P. (2018). Evolutionary Origins of Morality: Insights From Non-human Primates. Frontiers in Sociology, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2018.00017

Gruen, L. (2024, August 12). The Moral Status of Animals. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/

Jaworska, A., & Tannenbaum, J. (2013). The Grounds of Moral Status (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Stanford.edu. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grounds-moral-status/

Monsó, S., Benz-Schwarzburg, J., & Bremhorst, A. (2018). Animal morality: What it means and why it matters. The Journal of Ethics, 22(3-4), 283–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-018-9275-3

Nussbaum, M. (2023, January 24). They can think, feel pain, love. Isn’t it time animals had rights? Harvard Gazette; Harvard University. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/they-can-think-feel-pain-love-isnt-it-time-animals-had-rights/

Swallow, B. (2024, August 1). Animal cruelty on a “sharp rise” in the West, says RSPCA. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw0yvkwxxkno

United Nations. (2014). Human Rights and Human Trafficking. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/FS36_en.pdf

Corporations have generally valued technology for its automation and efficiency. Hence, companies have leveraged tools like AI for economic motives, directing development towards labor reduction and cost-savings instead of innovation-led growth (Bughin et al., 2019). However, inventor Buckminster Fuller asserts that, “humanity is acquiring all the right technology for all the wrong reasons” (Konrad, 2025). I view Fuller’s sentiments as a challenge to this notion, arguing that the potential of technology transcends profit incentives, and instead can be used to accomplish more pioneering work. Indeed, novel technologies have repeatedly shown their disruptive capabilities, as seen with artificial intelligence, but due to self-interested development, new technologies—aside from a few exceptions—never appear to truly assist a global audience. This is not surprising given the lack of public involvement—something that could address concerns of ethical development, biases, and accessibility. After all, as revolutionary as some technologies may be, a simple price tag could preclude global influence. Bearing in mind these current issues, humanity must consider resonating with Fuller’s notion of applying technology towards something greater.

Technology should be developed towards resolving global issues. However, with larger corporations monopolizing development, we preclude any progression beyond economic motives. Additionally, when considering our entrance into an era defined by compounded crises, it is even more imperative to democratize development. And when technologies can finally be developed ethically with the public’s interests at the core, they can only then benefit humanity as a whole.

Globalization has acted as a double-edged blade. Though international assistance and audits undeniably promote development and deter corruption, interconnectedness likewise results in the spread of diseases, extractive exploitation of the Global South, and increased dependence on international bodies. Local crises can now spread on a global scale and lead to more destructive consequences. The heating climate is a useful illustration of this: while climate change poses its own problems, it contributes to and worsens other global emergencies (Oliveira & Tegally, 2023). For instance, the COVID-19 pandemic, exacerbated by the heating-climate, left a devastating aftermath—tallying millions of lives and leaving long-lasting tremors in several economies (Cantor, 2025).

This concatenation of global issues is an example of what is commonly referred to as “polycrisis.” Originally coined in the 1970s, the term perfectly encapsulates the challenges associated with globalization—a prevalence of “inextricably bound” crises (Allouche et al., 2023; Whiting & Park, 2023). Addressing our global polycrisis may seem like a daunting task, but it only will be if those in power choose to ignore it. It is important to first consider the feedback loops: while problems often amplify one another, as we have seen with climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic, resolving underlying crises could help alleviate the pressures of other issues. For instance, by combatting wealth disparity, humanitarian concerns like world hunger would likely see more favorable results.

Unfortunately, tackling entrenched societal issues is just not as straightforward—but not entirely impractical either.

The fact of the matter is that current efforts to address our global polycrisis are insufficient. Though initiatives such as foreign aid try their best to mitigate these global issues, several flaws inherently exist in these programs. Foreign aid itself, while undoubtedly well-intentioned, often lacks the proper oversight and enforcement to make it effective. For instance, in spite of an estimated $170 billion in capital inflows between 1993-2012, the country of Lebanon still struggles with poor infrastructure and a “withering economy” – failing to provide the entire population with the most essential services (Finckenstein, 2021). The truth is, governments in developing countries can easily manipulate these initiatives, promising reform but in reality, diverting much needed funding to their own motives. While promoting more effective foreign aid can be beneficial, we must also consider other options of resolving large issues.

The development of novel technologies can shape how we deal with polycrisis—but only if we get to shape our technologies first. Since the beginning, innovation should have always been a priority. Now more than ever, with an urgent matter on our hands, we must begin harnessing technology to improve the quality of human lives, promote longevity, and foster ethical development.

Consider the case of AI: if this lucrative tool is left monopolized, without transparent development or public involvement, we may never get to see the promises that this technology holds. Companies will instead drive this technology towards substituting human effort. In fact, this is already happening in medical sciences, wherein Dr. John Morren is one of many doctors who argues that AI should be developed to assist human expertise considering that, “there is no way to replace the unique nuanced, experiential skill set that humans bring” (Cleveland Clinic, 2024).

To correct this, the public should have a seat at the table, ensuring ethical development and effective implementation of AI. This way, marginalized communities can voice their concerns, addressing biases and stereotypes resulting from poor dataset samples. Through policies and public pressure, technologies like AI can be taken away from corporations and instead be given back into the hands of the public: by establishing publicly controlled AI infrastructure, it can finally be applied to resolve complex societal issues rather than support isolated or profit motives (Lichfield, 2025).

Universal access to technological development is idealistic. However, what is more important is ensuring that this technology is directed towards serving and benefitting the interests of everyday human life and addressing the broader global polycrisis.

Beyond the specific use-case of AI, public opinion must be employed in tech development, ensuring that emerging technologies prioritize humanity via innovation-led growth and problem solving. This model of democratization is imperative, destroying the limitations imposed by self-interested corporations. Although it may be unrealistic to expect immediate results, this notion of addressing societal issues such as the climate crisis or wealth inequality, will eventually allow society to equally enjoy the benefits. Novel technologies may never see a perfectly equal distribution amongst society, but their advancements and advantages will be felt by everyone.

References

Allouche, J., Schmidt-Sane, M., Metcalfe, S., & Srivastava, S. (2023, October 31). Are we in the age of the polycrisis? Institute of Development Studies. https://www.ids.ac.uk/opinions/are-we-in-the-age-of-the-polycrisis/

Bughin, J., Hazan, E., Allas, T., Hjartar, K., Manyika, J., Sjatil, P. E., & Shigina, I. (2019). “Tech for Good”: Using technology to smooth disruption and improve well-being. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/tech-for-good-using-technology-to-smooth-disruption-and-improve-well-being

Cantor, M. (2025, March 6). What is this era of calamity we’re in? Some say “polycrisis” captures it. The Guardian; The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/06/polycrisis-disasters-politics

Clinic, C. (2024, March 6). As AI Tools Emerge, Be Proactive and Engaged to Shape Their Development. Cleveland Clinic. https://consultqd.clevelandclinic.org/as-ai-tools-emerge-be-proactive-and-engaged-to-shape-their-development

Finckenstein, V. (2021). How International Aid Can Do More Harm than Good The Case of Lebanon. https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/Assets/Documents/updates/LSE-IDEAS-How-International-Aid-Can-Do-More-Harm-Than-Good.pdf

Konrad. (2025, March 7). BUCKY’S VISION - Konrad - Medium. Medium. https://medium.com/@im_jokingcom/buckys-vision-f7bd0a78bf11

Lichfield, G. (2025, February 11). Public AI infrastructure: What is it, do we need it and will it ever be built? A media leader explains. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/02/public-ai-infrastructure-a-media-leader-explains/

Oliveira, T., & Tegally, H. (2023). Will climate change amplify epidemics and give rise to pandemics? Science (New York, N.Y.), 381(6660), eadk4500. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adk4500

Whiting, K., & Park, H. (2023, March 7). We’re in a “polycrisis” - a historian explains what that means. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/03/polycrisis-adam-tooze-historian-explains/

Imagine a country where foreign aid is used to develop schools, hospitals, and infrastructure. Now, imagine that same aid lining the pockets of corrupt officials. This is the harsh reality of international assistance. Williams (2024) traces the origins of foreign aid back to the 18th century when Prussia supported many of its allies with military assistance. By the 19th and 20th centuries, European powers then used financial aid to support infrastructure and economy. However, aside from resource extraction and colonial loans, foreign assistance was not a widespread practice until World War II (Williams, 2024). The postwar period marked the inception of modern foreign aid, with “postwar expenditures dwarfing prewar assistance” (Council on Foreign Relations [CFR], 2023; Williams, 2024). Moreover, in the aftermath of the war, foreign aid became a diplomatic tool, with aid promoting alliances and strategic advantages while being withheld from states aligned with the opposition (Williams, 2024). Nearing the conclusion of the Cold War, foreign aid saw several alternative uses from overseeing judicial reforms to supporting humanitarian rights (Williams, 2024). In fact, in the sixty years from 1960 to 2023, global foreign aid grew over six-fold, amassing well over US $220 billion (ONE DATA, 2022). Nonetheless, the increasing volume of aid raises questions on its effectiveness. One of these concerns is with external interests influencing policies in recipient countries. When a nation is extremely dependent on foreign assistance, donors can leverage the power imbalance to force policies that fail to serve a populations’ genuine needs (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2024). Hence, foreign aid and intervention, while often well-intentioned, frequently weaken human rights by prolonging corrupt governments, creating long-term economic dependencies, and intensifying political instability.

Foreign aid strengthens corrupt governments and discourages incentives for proper reforms. While several empirical studies and economists have long claimed that foreign aid correlates with a growth in development (Izobo, 2020), Finckenstein (2021) argues that these studies are overgeneralizations when considering the large discrepancies in results of similar aid projects. In fact, according to Erbeznik (2011), higher levels of foreign aid correlate with a worser quality of governance since officials with less sincere intents on establishing reforms will have greater incentives to remain in power and secure the funds. Erbeznik’s observation clearly reflects in Lebanon where the high volumes of financial assistance do not translate to successful reforms. Despite an estimated $170 billion in capital inflows between 1993-2012, the country struggles with poor infrastructure and a depleted economy – failing to provide the entire population with the most essential services (Finckenstein, 2021). Instead, the government has diverted the public spending into placating their group of voters, so re-election can be ensured while deficiencies in governance remain (Finckenstein, 2021). Finckenstein (2021) contends that the willingness of donors to assist Lebanon induced Lebanese confidence that wealthier nations would never give up on the Middle East. Hence, the assured availability of money created incentives for the government to not implement any real reforms (Finckenstein, 2021). Ultimately, Lebanon’s case has revealed that financial aid is ineffective without proper oversight. When an agenda is not enforced, foreign aid can perpetuate existing humanitarian issues rather than promoting changes. So while foreign assistance can ideally have a high potential to assist democratic institutions, strengthen policy-making, and address humanitarian issues, foreign aid remains largely abused by corrupt governments to prolong their reign and poor policies – neglecting any change in the humanitarian landscape.

Foreign aid creates economic dependency and prevents development, ultimately impending a country’s duty to human rights. While foreign aid undoubtedly generates positive implications in a recipient country such as increasing political participation and expenditure for social programs, the donor can leverage this dependency to enforce the adoption of policies or structural changes that may not benefit the country – these policies can often preclude economic independence and sustainable long-term growth (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2024). Some international institutions such as the World Bank also extend out loans to provide developmental assistance, but these programs can carry their own set of issues; many developing countries often struggle to pay off the debts to international institutions due to high borrowing costs which are at rates 2 to 4 times higher than rates with the US (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development [UNCTAD], 2023). Paying off these debts can result in balance-of-payments crises which further deepen economic dependency and inhibit their duty to human rights (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2024). Additionally, when much of a country’s financial capital consists of foreign firms or foreign direct investments (FDI), a host country can also struggle to develop local industries since foreign firms dominate the market. Alongside the lack of local industries, the necessity of tax incentives – to keep foreign companies in their country – further weaken long-term economic development (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2024). Highlighted by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR, n.d.), high foreign debt and external reliance can prove to be significant obstacles to protecting humanitarian rights – governments may lack the resources to support essential services and remedy the accumulated debt (What are the main criticisms of the World Bank and IMF?, 2019). In short, while aid can instigate a short-term economic surge, the long-term implications can significantly undermine a country’s economic growth, making humanitarian rights protection impractical.

Foreign interventions can be significantly counterproductive while precluding a successful and stable nation. While humanitarian interventions are indubitably well-intentioned – using force to prevent human rights violations – its effectiveness remains in question. According to a study by Dimant et al. (2023), U.S interventions between 1968 and 2013 frequently produced several unintended consequences including the production of anti-american terrorism and increases in polarization and corruption; the study further claims that even when an intervention appears initially successful, the environmental conditions can preclude successful nation-building. When examining U.S military invasions of Iraq, the conclusions drawn by Dimant et al. appear significantly more convincing. In 2003, the United States first invaded Iraq to address the threats of Saddam Hussein’s regime (Cordesman, 2020). Although the military intervention in 2003 was indeed successful in driving Hussein from power, the conflict ultimately deepened ethnic divisions, drove sectarian conflict, and led to war with Sunni extremists (Cordesman, 2020). From 2004 to 2010, the United States fought the Islamic militants, but even in the aftermath of their victory, they still struggled to stabilise the Iraqi government and economy (Cordesman, 2020). Upon United States withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, they opened a power vacuum that led to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) takeover. While the United States and global allies successfully disbanded the caliphate between 2016 and 2018, rebuilding American reputation and the fractured political and economic system remained practically impossible; Cordesman (2020) credits the United States’ commitment, asserting that the political system is “so hopelessly corrupt and ineffective” and that the economy was “in a state of crisis.” The net implications of U.S intervention in Iraq have been alarming: Alongside the failure to establish a stable political system, the Iraq War and subsequent re-entrance have resulted in over 200,000 civilian casualties (Anastacio & Murray, 2023). According to the Watson Institute for International & Public Affairs (2023), several times this toll would account for the other effects of the war including water loss, infrastructural and sewage issues, and war-related diseases. Ultimately, Iraq’s case stands as a disastrous example of how interventions can fail to support human rights, instead resulting in political instability and amassing to colossal death tolls.

While foreign interventions can certainly result in volatility, interventions have played an undeniable role in protecting against human rights violations. In February 2022, Russia launched their full-scale invasion of Ukraine – something that was largely considered an unlawful act of aggression (Masters & Merrow, 2024). If the invasion were to succeed, Putin would not only fulfil his reclamation goals, but it would invite similar acts of aggression from other U.S rivals. Hence, in response to the clear humanitarian crisis, several countries including the US provided enormous quantities of aid; according to the OECD (n.d.), in 2023, Ukraine was the largest recipient of international aid ever for a single country in a single year. Besides boasting staggering numbers though, many western analysts assert that the aid is the primary reason that Ukraine can defend itself against Russia, which has “one of the world’s most powerful militaries” (Masters & Merrow, 2024). However, despite the necessity for humanitarian assistance, the U.S’s commitment to Ukraine may indeed hurt human rights obligations more than protecting them. As observed in the recent Sudanese Civil War, as conflicts drag out, resource scarcity, civilian suffering, and human rights violations increase (Schipani et al., 2024). In essence, US intervention is doing just that. In a study by Bader & Ianchovichina (2019), they observed that foreign intervention tends to lengthen conflict for several reasons. They asserted that aid reduced incentives to reach a peace deal, instead inciting a country to reach a more promising outcome through fighting; furthermore, the additional veto players – essentially stakeholders – make reaching peace negotiations significantly more difficult (Bader & Ianchovichina, 2019). Nonetheless, the study’s results do not necessarily indicate that these humanitarian crises should be ignored as that could prompt similar actions from other countries; instead, foreign intervention should be implemented with a clear agenda, intending to reach a peace deal from the very beginning. Conclusively, while foreign interventions can provide the necessary assistance to protect autonomy, the effects of prolonging conflict will indeed damage a country further.

While foreign aid and intervention are generally considered commendable, they frequently result in unintended detrimental consequences. Aid can strengthen corrupt governments, produce unhealthy economic dependency, and perpetuate political instability. Lebanon’s case shows how financial assistance enables political officials to divert resources for their personal gain, harming the population that aid aimed to protect. Moreover, economic dependence undermines a country’s autonomy while leading to policies that fail to serve citizens’ genuine needs. As seen in the Iraq War, interventions can be counterproductive, where U.S. involvement left the country severely destabilized and vulnerable to further humanitarian crises. Even interventions such as the aid given to Ukraine risk prolonging the conflict, causing more civilian suffering, and complicating peace efforts. While some cases do indeed demand international support, history has shown that without clear accountability measures, foreign aid and intervention will do more harm than good. Instead of prolonging corrupt systems and causing economic reliance, aid should promote self-sufficiency, transparency, and true reform. Only then can the foreign aid and intervention promote the enjoyment of human rights.

References

Abu-Bader, S., & Ianchovichina, E. (2018). Polarization, foreign military intervention, and civil conflict. Journal of Development Economics, 141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2018.06.006

Anastacio, N., & Murray, M. (2023, March 20). The Iraq War — By The Numbers. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/iraq-war-numbers-rcna75762

Cordesman, A. (2020, January 2). America’s Failed Strategy in the Middle East: Losing Iraq and the Gulf. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/americas-failed-strategy-middle-east-losing-iraq-and-gulf

Council on Foreign Relations. (2023, April 28). A Brief History of U.S. Foreign Aid. CFR Education from the Council on Foreign Relations. https://education.cfr.org/learn/reading/brief-history-us-foreign-aid

Dimant, E., Krieger, T., & Meierrieks, D. (2023, April 4). Unintended Consequences of US Interventionism. WZB. https://www.wzb.eu/en/news/unintended-consequences-of-us-interventionism

Dyvik, E. (2024, July 4). Largest recipients of net ODA worldwide 2021. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1360457/world-net-official-development-aid-recipients/

Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2024). Foreign dependency | economics and politics. In Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/foreign-dependency

Erbeznik, K. (2011). Money Can’t Buy You Law: The Effects of Foreign Aid on the Rule of Law in Developing Countries. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 18(2), 873. https://doi.org/10.2979/indjglolegstu.18.2.873

Finckenstein, V. (2021). How International Aid Can Do More Harm than Good https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/Assets/Documents/updates/LSE-IDEAS-How-International-Aid-Can-Do-More-Harm-Than-Good.pdf

Izobo, M. (2020). The Impact of Foreign Aid in Africa: a Case Study of Botswana and Somalia. https://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/prolaw/documents/volume-5/2020%20PROLAW%20Journal%20Mary%20Izobo.pdf

Masters, J., & Merrow, W. (2024, September 27). How much U.S. aid Is going to Ukraine? Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-us-aid-going-ukraine

OECD. (2023). Official development assistance (ODA). OECD. https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/policy-issues/official-development-assistance-oda.html

ONE DATA. (2022). Official Development Assistance (ODA). One.org. https://data.one.org/analysis/official-development-assistance

Schipani, A., Bott, I., & Bhandari, A. (2024, September 10). How Sudan’s devastating civil war became a global battleground. @FinancialTimes; Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/da1c7bd2-3ad9-4a06-8295-e746e4cd3f58?utm_

UNCTAD. (2023, July 12). A world of debt | UNCTAD. Unctad.org. https://unctad.org/publication/world-of-debt

Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs. (2023, March). Human Costs of U.S. Post-9/11 Wars: Direct War Deaths in Major War Zones | Figures | Costs of War. The Costs of War; Brown University. https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2021/WarDeathToll

What are the main criticisms of the World Bank and IMF? (2019). https://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Common-Criticisms-FINAL.pdf

Williams, V. (2024). Foreign aid. Www.britannica.com. https://www.britannica.com/money/foreign-aid

‘Primum non nocere’

Hippocrates

The earliest remnants of animal experimentation began in Ancient Greece when vivisections of animals were practiced to acquire knowledge. Nowadays, animal research refers to the process of inducing reactions within animals to either test the safety of products or to study and obtain information of biological systems. At present, research in animals has vastly adapted to produce more efficient results; animals involved in testing are often first analyzed in order to allow reliable data translation into humans. Developments in technology have also allowed the integration of a virus or bacteria to act more naturally in order to accurately reproduce scenarios. Nonetheless, animal research rightfully remains a central point of controversy as the consequences associated cannot be ignored, yet it is also negligent to overlook the implications of animal research. This topic of debate is more critical currently as the necessity of research is not properly evaluated; for instance, animal research is becoming increasingly pivotal for the cosmetics industry in evaluating the safety of products. However, it is crucial to weigh if the development of cosmetics is worth the harm inflicted on animals; moreover, it is a serious concern if the data from animals can accurately represent similar outcomes on humans. Ultimately, the purpose of an experiment is central to determining its ethical value, and animal experimentation for the development of new drugs is vital for the survival and promotion of human welfare; additionally, the principle of 3Rs allows for more ethical experimentation, limiting the maltreatment of organisms.

The Case For Experimentation

Animal experimentation is indispensable, for its function cannot be replicated effectively through any other process, and its contributions towards developing instrumental drugs and vaccines cannot be ignored. First and foremost, drug development and analysis of organisms and bacteria is crucial for humanity’s survival and wellbeing. Throughout history, research in animals has led to vital developments in combating diseases and instrumental growth in the realm of biology; for instance, cow research was vital for the creation of the smallpox vaccine while the more recent Covid-19 vaccine was developed through analyzing primates. In spite of rapid developments in technology nowadays, analysis of a drug or bacteria cannot be fully reproduced through simulations performed on technology. However, it is also negligent to immediately assume that technology cannot reduce animal research required as studies by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have brought up concerns regarding unreliable data testing through non-human models. According to the Animal Research Institute at University of Wisconsin, “biology research in computers [cannot exist] until we have nothing left to learn about health and biology.” To summarize, even though animal testing is not the most reliable method of collecting data, alternative testing through computers is not viable until an extensive understanding of biological systems exists. Furthermore, there are also issues with replacing animal experiments with bacteria and simpler organisms due to a variety of limited factors; best stated by National Academies Press (NAP), “prevention of blindness cannot be studied in bacteria because they do not have eyes [and] high blood pressure cannot be studied in protozoa because they do not have hearts.” Ultimately, many so-called alternatives to animal experimentation cannot be utilized due to certain restraints of a study. In the future, animal experimentation can be eventually replaced once there is sufficient data concerning biological systems in humans.

The Principle of the 3Rs

The principle of 3Rs allows for scientists to conduct animal experiments in a more humane manner that reduces the pain inflicted on animals. In 1959, English biologists, Russell and Burch, developed a principle for creating more humane experiments. To date, the 3Rs is continually utilized as the standard for questioning animal testing procedures. Replacement is the first key proposition in the 3Rs principle; in the Directive 2010/63/EU, a European Union legislation discussing the protection of animal welfare in experiments, it is understood that replacement states, “An experiment shall not be performed if another scientifically satisfactory method of obtaining the result sought, not entailing the use of an animal, is reasonably and practicably available.” As a matter of fact, Russell and Burch first defined replacement as a means of replacing conscious and living animals through employing non-sentient material in experimentation. Crucially, the concept of replacement can be either relative or absolute. For the latter case, an experiment would be conducted completely replacing the necessity for animals; on the contrary, a relative replacement in the case of experimentation refers to substituting the animals for other organisms. When replacement cannot be done to satisfy the needs of an experiment, reduction is the next concept in the 3Rs; reduction refers to a decrease in animals involved in an experiment. In the Directive 2010/63/EU, it is suggested that scientists establish programs to share and use the organs of the animals that will be killed. Through these programs, there will be a decrease in unused tissues, thus enabling more efficiency in conducting studies while minimizing the costs. Finally, the principle of refinement refers to the final effort to minimize the actual pain and distress inflicted upon the animal. In the initial guide by Russell and Burch, it stated that refinement was, “simply to reduce to an absolute minimum the amount of distress imposed on those animals that are still used.” Refinement not only encompasses environmental enrichment (EE) and handling conditions of the animals, but also includes the responsibility of the researchers to develop an accurate experiment with protocols to ensure no unnecessary suffering or incorrect data. Moreover, it is particularly critical that housing conditions are optimal for animals after receiving an experimental procedure in order to lower their distress. Conclusively, the principle of 3Rs is pivotal in animal experimentation as the procedures underscored significantly reduce the costs, promoting the autonomy of the animals involved in research trials.

The Case Against

Animal experimentation violates the inherent rights and dignity of animals through the destruction of autonomy and neglecting the interests of the animal; in addition, animal data often does not correlate to similar effects produced within humans which should pose serious concern for the nature of animal experimentation. When initiating animal experiments, it is vital to weigh the interests between humans and animals. By immediately considering the Principle of 3Rs, scientists ignore the responsibility to assess the interests of humans and animals. When strongly considering the philosophy of egalitarianism, animal experiments shall not be conducted due to consideration that at least mammals are as autonomous as most humans, thereby granting them dignity and rights to physical integrity. Particularly in considering that some animal experiments do not generally promote autonomy within humans, the violation to physical integrity and a duty to prevent cruelty from animals would significantly outweigh human interests. For instance, Kantianism and standard-contractualism would reject an animal experiment to test cosmetics since it fails to protect human-autonomy while interfering with our moral duty to not inflict pain unless necessary. Notably, researchers have generally viewed animal research as the golden methodology in biomedical research without critical assessment of its validity and reliability. There are three major concerns regarding the reliability of animal experimentation in assessing the safety of therapeutics in human health; the laboratory environment and other variables can lead to unaccounted effects in data. Moreover, there are significant differences in how diseases interact within humans and animals, and disparities in physiology and genetics can result in errors when translating the data into humans. Especially considering that diseases are often artificially injected into the animal model, it is ignorant to assume akin outcomes within humans. Aside from the unreliability of data from testing in animals, experimentation can also lead to negative implications for humans: according to the NIH, “experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods.” In 2004, the FDA stated that 92 percent of drugs that passed preclinical trials did not proceed into the market, underscoring the unreliability of the actual tests. Contrary to concerns regarding animal testing, it is critical to consult the theories of utilitarianism when analyzing the ethics of animal testing. Utilitarianism is guided by the belief that actions must have a greater net-benefit than their consequences. Although there have always been grave costs associated with conducting studies of this nature, the developments and benefits arising from animal experimentation are invaluable for the promotion of autonomy and prevention of death. For instance, The American Museum of Natural History claimed that the smallpox vaccine saved millions of people which significantly outweighs the animal testing influential in its development. It is also negligent to not compare the animal costs from experimentation and the food industry; animals used in biomedical research make up <0.003% of the number of animals in human consumption. Finally, research in animals has also led to influential developments in veterinary medicine albeit the promotion of autonomy in veterinary medicine is small in comparison. In short, animal experimentation continues to have significant issues, but its contributions in society and lack of absolute substitutes have contributed to the practice being appropriate in certain cases.

Weighing Both

The debate revolving around animal experimentation is complex as it reflects a clash between animal interests, scientific progression, and the welfare of humanity. Despite earlier successes of animal research littered throughout history, the methodology remains flawed when considering the consequences and unreliable data translation. Although the 3Rs stands as a crucial framework for practicing animal research, the principles still neglect the clash between human and animal interests. Thus, the four pillars of medical ethics can examine and assess the nature of animal experimentation. The harm inflicted to animals directly rejects Hippocrates’ injunction of non-maleficence – the moral duty to not inflict harm upon another individual, which is commonly described as ‘primum non nocere’ or first not to do harm. Depending on the purpose of the animal testing, the damage inflicted to the animals’ competence and decision-making also opposes the principle of autonomy; however, this argument is refuted if the results of the experiment directly support human welfare by combating a threat to autonomy. In the latter case, the notion of beneficence, described as a moral obligation to do good, is also fulfilled if the net-benefit significantly outclasses the consequences of the experiment. Lastly, the ethical proposition of justice generally opposes experimentation with animals as the practice is not an appropriate treatment of animals and ignores their free will. Overall, the influence of animal testing cannot be ignored, but the practice of inflicting harm has clear drawbacks; thus, as our understanding of biology deepens along with technology, it is imperative to search for alternative methods that reduce our reliance on animal testing while ensuring safety and efficiency of our medical practices. Ultimately, the ethical evaluation of animal testing requires careful examination prior to committing to a conclusion.

“True success requires sacrifice.” -Rick Riordan. The Necklace is a famous short story written by French author Guy de Maupassant in the late 18th century. The short story follows a young middle-class couple in 19th century France. Although Mr. Loisel is fairly comfortable with his position in society, Mrs. Loisel constantly pursues wealth to ensure her own happiness. When she is invited to a formal event, she feels ashamed and desperately attempts to fit in; in the process, she loses the fancy necklace she borrowed from her friend and is then forced to work hard labor in order to pay off her debt. At the end, Maupassant reveals an ironic twist: the necklace was paste. The Gift of the Magi is a famous short story written by American author O. Henry. The story starts by introducing the Dillingham couple, who are both desperately searching for a gift for their significant other. However, they both unwisely sacrifice their prized possessions in search for a precious gift which unfortunately renders their gifts useless for the time being. Ultimately, if something is truly sought after for happiness, only the person can choose to make the necessary sacrifices.

Often the most invaluable items are what require the greatest commitments. In the story, The Necklace, Madame Loisel desperately strives for wealth and beauty yet she doesn’t realize the true commitments and sacrifices those living in wealth have made. However, after she loses the necklace and is forced into hard labor, she finally understands that nothing comes without a cost: “‘Do you remember that diamond necklace you lent me to wear at the ministerial ball?’ […] ‘it has taken us ten years to pay for it.’” Although her sacrifice was arguably for nothing, she has particularly learned appreciation. In the novella The Gift of the Magi, the couple realize that they must indeed sacrifice something if they are to get a gift for one another. At the inception of the story, O. Henry boldly states, “Had the Queen of Sheba lived in the flat across the airshaft, Della would have let her hair hang out of the window some day to dry just to depreciate Her Majesty’s jewels and gifts.” When comparing James’ prized possession, the writer also employs allusion to strengthen the depiction: “Had King Solomon been the janitor, […] Jim would have pulled out his watch every time, […] just to see him pluck at his beard from envy.” The narrator’s analogies emphasize the value of the couples’ prized possessions. As subtly foreshadowed, Della has her, “…hair cut off and sold because I couldn’t have lived through Christmas without giving you a present.” and James also, “…sold the watch to get the money to buy your combs.” Hence, The Gift of the Magi shows that the cost of our goals require sacrifice. Both stories ultimately highlight the great commitment required in accomplishing our goals.

Things are never exactly as they seem. The stories, The Necklace and The Gifts of the Magi, illustrate the false illusion of control in society. No matter how much control an individual has, they will never be able to control all outcomes to a situation. In The Necklace, there are multiple scenarios which highlight the unpredictable nature of life. After returning from one of the happiest experiences in her life, Madame Loisel realizes something, “She no longer had the necklace around her neck!” Following a desperate exchange with her husband, she realizes, “That dreadful debt must be paid.” Thereafter, Loisel spends ten years of her life in difficult labor, likely to be the lowest part of his life. The sudden loss and abrupt changes to lifestyle in the tale emphasize the unpredictable nature of life. As the tale concludes, a significant revelation is made: “‘…my necklace was paste! It was worth at most only five hundred francs!’” Madame Forestier’s information is important as it reveals how small details can completely change the course of Madame Loisel’s life. Equivalently, there is also an ironic twist in the short story, The Gift of the Magi; when Della and James are finally giving their gifts to one another, it is finally revealed that their sacrifices may have a deeper significance than they originally thought: “They were expensive combs, […] [and] now, they were hers, but the tresses that should have adorned the coveted adornments were gone.” Tt is revealed that Della cannot use James’ gift as the gift was meant for hair, which she sold off to buy her present for James. In addition, James also reveals, “They’re too nice to use just at present. I sold the watch to get the money to buy your combs.” The story’s ending moments crucially exhibit the nature of uncertainty in everyday life; The stories both follow a premise that highlights the idea that anything can happen.

Happiness can only be defined by oneself no matter the circumstances. The tale, The Necklace serves as a poignant reminder to appreciate and be more grateful for our own situation even if it remains not up to our standards. Since the introduction of her character, Madame Loisel is almost constantly depreciating her personal life: “She had no gowns, no jewels, nothing. And she loved nothing but that.” Moreover, when she is granted her wishes of a ball gown, her expectation rises again which clearly indicates that her constant pursuit of wealth will never fully satisfy her: “‘I will give you four hundred francs. And try to have a pretty gown.’ […] ‘It annoys me not to have a single piece of jewelry […] I would almost rather not go at all.’” Despite the fact that she has already been given the monetary value she requested, her emotions return back to her original displeasure in which she would not like to attend at all. In contrast, the novella The Gift of the Magi shows the importance of remaining happy and optimistic in displeasing scenarios. Despite the fact that their gifts are rendered useless, James remains optimistic, and almost amused at their situation. After Della presents her gift, James responds by, “…[tumbling] down on the couch and [putting] his hands under the back of his head and [smiling].” Their reaction to the unfortunate event indicates that the true keys to happiness lay in oneself. In fact, James comforts Della, “let’s put our Christmas presents away and keep ’em a while. They’re too nice to use just at present,” which is further evidence of his composed manner. Moreover, judging by the couple’s need to sell off their prized possessions, it can be inferred that their financial situation is quite similar to Madame Loisel’s which reveals the mistake in correlating materialistic wealth with happiness. Quite ironically, the couple in The Gifts of the Magi coincidentally sacrifice their prized materialistic possessions for their well-being and happiness. Ultimately, the differences in the stories underscore that happiness starts through by finding joy in our current circumstances.

In conclusion, the timeless tales The Necklace and The Gift of the Magi underscore that true fulfillment and success demands great commitment and sacrifice. In The Necklace, Madame Loisel constantly pursues happiness and loses sight of appreciating her current circumstances, but her experiences in facing adversity broaden her perspective. In the short story The Gift of the Magi, the Dillingham couple understand the keys to true happiness lie in themselves rather than in their materialistic possessions. Their strong wills can be viewed clearly in how they approach unfortunate events with optimism. Additionally, both stories exemplify the erratic nature of life. Despite an illusion of control, the tales show there will often be unforeseeable challenges or events. As someone wise once said, “If you don’t sacrifice for what you want, what you want becomes the sacrifice.”

“Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally on our planet. Doesn’t the idea of making nature against law seem to you a bit … unnatural?”

Bill Hicks

Marijuana is one of the most popular psychoactive drugs in the United States; its widespread popularity can be observed in individuals of all ages, being quite common in young adults. The argument behind the legal state of marijuana is a balance between proper regulation and health concerns. Despite the numerous detrimental health effects, the case for legalizing marijuana originates from debilitating the illegal market; for the general public, the solution is proper regulation of the drug which will minimize the consequences of the psychoactive substance. Thus, although the recreational use of marijuana has significant negative consequences towards the environment and society, the legalization of recreational use would create helpful regulations while also resulting with a multitude of economic and societal benefits.

What Regulation Would Allow

The legalization of marijuana would allow for regulation of the drug. In its current state, marijuana has numerous detrimental health and societal impacts, and as it is considered illegal to consume, nothing can be implemented to ensure the safety of consumption and sourcing. By legalizing the substance, individuals can safely consume the substance without other consequences. For instance, Washington law requires proper labelling of health warnings, T.H.C concentration, and other important information for consumers. Moreover, the legalization would come with regulations discouraging consumption at a younger age; in regulations implemented in states such as Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska, sometimes child-resistant packaging is used to accomplish this goal. However, a federal legalization of the substance could also bring up many different consequences. Although regulation can be implemented, there are still severe societal costs associated such as increased emergency visits, medical care, and addiction treatment. Furthermore, there will also be more drug related driving or workplace accidents. After marijuana retail stores opened up in Colorado, emergency visits related to marijuana rose 30%, while hospitalizations related to the substance increased by 200%. Nonetheless, the immediate ramifications of legalizing marijuana can be easily avoided through proper implementation of regulations to prevent the negative health effects. Moreover, the current state of marijuana being illegal has led to more severe and fatal accidents related to marijuana as a result of improper regulations. In states that have legalized the consumption of marijuana, traffic deaths have dropped 11% as drivers tend to be more aware and cautious when under the influence of psychoactive substances. In addition, the regulation of marijuana is crucial for public safety as it is a safer option in comparison to alcohol and tobacco, which yield a greater danger to public health albeit they are legal. Ultimately, the legalization of cannabis ensures proper protocols and implementation that overall will bring greater benefit to public health.

The Cost of Enforcement

The legality of recreational marijuana would also end the costly and racist enforcement of the substance, while stopping the illegal marijuana market. The enforcement of marijuana laws has become an increasingly expensive endeavor each year; in the United States alone, one to six billion USD is used annually to arrest individuals for marijuana possession; the enforcement consists of police, judicial, legal, and corrections expenses. A Harvard economist, Jeffrey Miron, estimated that legalizing marijuana federally would save between seven and thirteen billion USD annually. Despite the economic effects, there is a growing concern around the repercussions of a large marijuana industry and the negative consequences towards younger individuals. In Colorado, kids, 9 and under, received an increase of five-fold in exposure to marijuana. In fact, companies such as “Big Marijuana” have been using malicious tactics to advertise to kids or younger people. Increasingly, marijuana food products are frequently more colorful, sweet, or branded with cartoons to attract children; they are also advertised in kid-friendly forms such as gummy bears and lollipops. Rarely, companies even include names resembling other popular food products such as “Buddahfinger” or “Keefkat”, which copy Butterfinger or Kitkat. Regardless, the concern for younger individuals is futile as the general public is becoming increasingly aware of edibles tailored to kids. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, teenagers in Colorado experienced a 12% drop in marijuana use only two years after adult-use was legalized. Also, the legalization of the drug could also bring regulations to ensure candies/products laced with cannabis are difficult for younger people. Besides, a more prominent issue with exposure to kids is tobacco and e-cigarettes which are both legal. Hence, the legalization of marijuana is critical to stop the illegal market and costly and racist enforcement of the substance.

Employment and Revenue

The legalization of marijuana would open up more employment while creating a massive industry, boosting the economy. In 2021, the marijuana industry for medical and adult use hit 24 billion USD in revenue, exceeding the market for energy drinks, milk, and orange juice. In Colorado, marijuana brings in three times more tax revenue than alcohol while the state of California estimated marijuana revenue to exceed 5 billion annually. In addition to tax revenue, legalizing marijuana creates more employment opportunities. As of January, 2022, the legalization of marijuana has created over 400,000 jobs. Furthermore, legalizing cannabis would also deter Mexican drug cartels as the demand for smuggling cannabis has diminished within the states where it has been legalized. A Mexican cannabis farmer told NPR, “If the US continues to legalize pot, they’ll run us into the ground.” The legalization in Washington and Colorado has caused an estimated loss of 2.7 billion USD for Mexican drug cartels. In spite of the dramatic economic impacts of legalizing marijuana, many health experts believe that the health concerns related to marijuana cannot be overlooked. Studies have shown that smoking one marijuana joint can be compared to smoking five tobacco cigarettes. Marijuana can also contain up to five times as much carbon monoxide concentration and three times as much tar in comparison to tobacco. According to the American Medical Association, there is also an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes hours after smoking cannabis; ultimately, the AMA opposes the legalization of cannabis for adult-use, stating its role in contributing to accidents and fatalities. However, many other sources argue that cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco as its health effects are less severe. According to the CDC, 88,000 people die from alcohol overdoses annually, yet there are no recorded cases of marijuana overdose. Similarly, an article by Healthline Media stated that: “… most experts say you can’t die from cannabis alone.” and “Most medical experts agree that while marijuana can have negative health consequences, it’s unlikely to cause death. The psychoactive effects of marijuana can be concerning, but not necessarily harmful.” There seems to be a general consensus that although marijuana may contribute to accidents and fatalities, the drug is inherently not as dangerous as it seems. By comparing marijuana to other drugs, there have been drastically fewer deaths caused by the substance despite other products such as alcohol and tobacco being legal. In short, the legalization of marijuana can significantly boost the economy while also providing healthier and safer drug alternatives.

Weighing Both

While marijuana does bring a series of health and societal concerns, the argument for its legalization is extremely cogent. Only through legalization can marijuana be properly regulated at a national level, which can reduce most of the concerns associated with its use. These regulations could include implementing safe packaging by accurately informing consumers and reducing the appeal for younger people. Economically, legalizing marijuana also comes with significant benefits, with numerous savings in enforcement, a substantial amount in tax revenue, and increased job opportunities. Critically, legalization also removes the biased and racial practices and approaches present in enforcement. Lastly, marijuana is considerably less harmful than other legal substances like tobacco and alcohol, suggesting that legalization could offer a safer alternative, if properly regulated. Fundamentally, while the recreational use of marijuana is not without drawbacks, the overall advantages to legalization, surrounding economic and health aspects, make marijuana a strong legal case to reconsider.

“The most beautiful dress you’ve ever worn?” “School dress,” replied with a smile and tears.

The mandate for school uniforms is a common question pondered by school boards across the globe. Notably, school uniforms limit personal expression, restrict religious values and culture, and act as only a financial burden for parents. Additionally, many students have a negative attitude toward uniforms as they are quite uncomfortable and limiting. On the contrary, school uniforms provide a unique set of benefits such as increasing the safety of the students, reducing bullying rates, and creating an egalitarian environment for individuals of different socioeconomic statuses. Furthermore, uniforms allow students to build a healthy habit of dressing professionally while uniforms also create less distracting and more productive work environments. Although many students find uniforms uncomfortable to fully express themselves, uniforms are a critical need for developing a safe, efficient, and equal learning environment.

Safety

School uniforms increase the safety of the students while in and out of a school environment. As uniforms are standardized for the school, it is easy to identify intruders or individuals dangerous to the learning environment; particularly, school uniforms help identification whilst travelling out of the school into larger, more public environments. Besides, uniforms also reduce bullying rates in a school as clothing is a large catalyst for bullying. Different clothing choices in a school environment can lead to bullying of cultural values or financial situation. Ultimately, uniforms allow schools to limit bullying while increasing the safety of students in spaces within and out of a school.

A Space for Learning

A school environment with standardized clothing will also promote a more efficient learning space. Schools can utilize school uniforms to ensure more productivity and learning in a school environment as individuals are not distracted by their clothing, or more notably, someone else’s clothing. School uniforms also build up a more professional mindset early on which increases productivity through better behavior within a classroom setting. Furthermore, a standardized uniform rule reduces the time in school to check for inappropriate clothing as it is fairly obvious if someone is not wearing their uniform. School uniforms also reduce students having a habit of coming in late as individuals, who particularly care about their self-image, do not have to decide what clothing to wear before school. Thus, school uniforms redefine a classroom to become a more effective educational landscape.

An Egalitarian Landscape

School uniforms establish an egalitarian landscape which aids many aspects of student life. Since students are to wear the same uniform, people will not feel vulnerable about comments to their religion, financial situation, or personal values; thus, uniforms significantly reduce bullying in schools, which is commonly caused by picking on clothing. Ultimately, students gain the self-confidence to contribute more to the community. Additionally, school uniforms have also been proven to improve group identity as individuals feel proud of being a part of their school. Group identity is a particularly powerful aspect of school life that brings the school together on sporting events or accomplishments made by students. In short, school uniforms encourage a positive school environment where everyone can feel equal within the community.

The Case Against

On the contrary, many individuals find school uniforms limiting freedom of expression while negatively impacting students’ happiness. It is no secret that school uniforms limit personal expression as students must wear a specific set of clothing that they personally dislike or even is against their culture. Many students also find school uniforms extremely uncomfortable and expensive in addition to not being able to choose their clothes; as a result, many students and parents alike have a negative perspective on the mandate of school uniforms. Now, although these points are rather valid, they critically miss the general purpose of school uniforms. Arguably, there are many other methods for students to express their creativity and values that are as important or more so than through uniforms; classes that use project-orientated studies or art classes are a general way for a student to express their own values or culture. Additionally, school uniforms allow students to look past their situation and focus more on each individual’s personality which is more important; consequently, school uniforms allow people to forge deeper connections as people cannot learn enough from someone without fully interacting and engaging with one another. Thus, school uniforms improve engagement in school activities and opportunities, so although uniforms limit expression to a certain extent, they further increase positivity and foster deeper connections within a larger community.

Weighing Both

In short, the argument on school uniforms centers around individual expression and the unique benefits uniforms offer to the learning landscape. While it is undeniable that uniforms limit a student’s expression and creativity, a uniform’s paramount role in learning cannot be overlooked. School uniforms act as an equalizer of the diverse school landscape, encouraging students to concentrate on their studies rather than on their self-image. Uniforms also contribute to a sense of unity and pride in a school which is extremely crucial for developing a supportive and strong community. Moreover, the practice of wearing school uniforms prepares students well into the future as students develop skills to remain professional in work environments, where dress codes are standard. Finally, it’s essential to acknowledge that self-expression transcends our exterior appearance and is rather a reflection of our actions, our distinctive personalities, and our contributions to the community. As such, the benefits of school uniforms in creating a safer, more focused, and egalitarian educational environment make them a necessary aspect of school life.

“…it crept close to the man and caught the scent of death.” To Build a Fire is a famous short story written by American novelist Jack London in 1902. The narrative follows a middle-aged man and his dog in the dead of winter in Yukon. Despite numerous indicators of dangerous conditions, the man persists, gradually trekking to a camp where his friends are. However, he faces many different setbacks in the harsh environment and eventually accepts his fate; he decides to lie down in a peaceful state where he finally succumbs to the cold weather. The short story To Build a Fire teaches the important role of optimism in perseverance, the dangers of ignorance, and the unpredictable nature of life.

The man’s responses to adversity demonstrates the imperative need to remain in a composed and optimistic state in order to perserve. While the man is outwardly ignorant or arrogant in evaluating the conditions and temperature, the man is also observant and strong-willed, shown in the most desperate scenarios. When he first experiences a struggle in navigating the dangerous environment, “He […] studied the creek-bed and its banks, and decided that the flow of water came from the right. He reflected awhile, […] then skirted to the left, stepping gingerly and testing the footing for each step.” His astute analysis highlights the importance of being decisive and calm in this atmosphere. Later on, “he came upon several similar traps,” but cleverly he noticed that, “the snow above the hidden pools had a sunken, candied appearance that advertised the danger.” His accurate observations substantiate how crucial it is to stay controlled when in distress as he would not have learned from his previous experiences without being in a calm state. After trekking for a long period of time, the man falls through an area of snow hiding water underneath. Despite delaying his progress by roughly an hour, he expresses a small burst of anger before calmly creating a fire. His brief reaction to his misfortune demonstrates that he understands how imperative his attitude is for survival. However, before he warms himself, the snow from a nearby spruce tree kills his fire: “The man was shocked. […] For a moment he sat and stared at the spot where the fire had been. Then he grew very calm.” The man’s near-instant response is a clear indicator of his wisdom; he knows any large hesitation could cause him trouble, so he calms himself and expertly responds to the situation at hand. Therefore, the man shows how vital it is to stay optimistic and calm in harsh circumstances.

Through the short story’s compelling plot, Jack London teaches the dangers of overconfidence while stressing the implications of accepting guidance. When the dog was trudging slowly behind the man, “…it knew that it was no time for travelling. Its instinct told it a truer tale than was told to the man by the man’s judgment.” Although the man has just been introduced, the author has already given insight that the man’s judgement is incorrect. The man also appears to be overconfident in his ability as “ …the absence of sun from the sky, the tremendous cold, and the strangeness and weirdness of it all–made no impression on the man. He was a new-comer in the land, […] and this was his first winter.” Despite it being his first year in the harsh environment, he still confidently walks alone, which ignores an old-timer’s advice. There are also numerous other occasions where he regrets not following the veteran’s guidance for travelling in the winter; however, he can only see how the advice is applicable when it is already too late. The old-timer advised him about, “…how cold it sometimes got in the country,” yet he only accepted the truth after struggling in the landscape. The man also ignored the old man’s guidance to travel with others and even remarked that “…old-timers were rather womanish,” after he survived one incident. Notably, he failed to realize that survival is much more than one accident as moments later he acknowledges the guidance was correct: “For a moment he sat and stared at the spot where the fire had been. […] Perhaps the old-timer on Sulphur Creek was right. If he had only had a trail-mate he would have been in no danger now.” After trying and failing once again to light the flame, he finally acknowledges his ignorance in not taking the old-timer’s advice: “‘You were right, old hoss; you were right,’ the man mumbled to the old-timer of Sulphur Creek.” Ultimately, the man’s ignorance towards the old-timer’s advice and confidence in his own abilities led to his tragic demise. By using foreshadowing, the author emphasizes the dangers of not accepting guidance.

The man’s constant misfortune in the short story highlights how life’s erratic nature challenges our illusion of control. Throughout the novel, the author reminds the reader of the harsh circumstances the man is facing. Despite being fairly prepared in equipment, food, and skills, he becomes a victim to the inconsistent and brutal side of nature. After learning from his previous mishap, he learns to navigate through the snow-covered landscape; however, “at a place where there were no signs, […] the man broke through.” This key moment crucially captures how nature cannot be controlled and is instead variable since even with man’s careful analysis that “…the […] unbroken snow seemed to advertise solidity beneath,” he becomes a victim of misfortune. Briefly after creating a fire to recover, nature proves once again to be unpredictable: “high up in the tree one bough capsized its load of snow. This fell on the boughs beneath, capsizing them. […] it descended without warning upon the man and the fire, and the fire was blotted out!” This incident presents itself as another pivotal moment as it stands as one substantial accident that potentially caused the man’s death; furthermore, it stands as a very unprecedented event which exhibits the erratic qualities of nature. When considering that the man tried to optimize his scenario by building the fire closer to a tree, it can be inferred that the man was quite wise and careful in his plan, yet it still failed. In short, the man’s difficulties against nature demonstrates that despite rigorous preparation, life can always find a way to surprise us.

In short, the story To Build a Fire serves as a harsh reminder of the erratic forces of nature, underscoring the consequences of ignorance and overconfidence. Through the protagonist’s journey in the snowy Yukon landscape, Jack London emphasizes the necessity to remain optimistic and focused in the harsh climate. Between the character’s struggles, London demonstrates the importance of embracing guidance and recognizing the uncontrollable forces of nature. He explores this illusion of control as the character faces unexpected hardship.

“Then the sniper turned over the dead body and looked into his…” The Sniper by Liam O’Flaherty is a famous short story written in 1923. The story is set in the Battle of Dublin, a series of streetfights in June 1922, and follows a sniper who is caught in a bad situation. When he is lighting a cigarette, an enemy sniper spots him and manages to successfully hit his arm. By masterfully using his resources, his hat and rifle, he manages to trick the enemy sniper into thinking he is dead. When the enemy stands up, however, the sniper manages to shoot him fatally with his remaining pistol. Curious, he decides to identify the individual he has killed, where he finds out the dead body is his brother. Through the use of foreshadowing and situational irony, Liam O’Flaherty effectively underscores the unpredictable essence of life and the fleeting nature of pleasure.

Liam O’Flaherty employs foreshadowing and irony by consistently making the protagonist’s risks seem inconsequential before they reveal a harsh truth. At the outset, the sniper decides to risk his position by lighting his cigarette: “The flash might be seen in the darkness, and there were enemies watching. He decided to take the risk.” Immediately, his position is revealed to an enemy informer who exposes his position to an armoured vehicle that attacks the sniper; luckily, he manages to fatally wound both the attacker and the informer while remaining fully unscathed. Although the favourable result may seem to stand as a testament to his aptitude, the outcome of his reckless decision still displays how insignificant the consequences of his careless actions stand. The author additionally magnifies this point later on when the sniper must desperately create a scheme that is particularly risky as he must lose his rifle to trick an enemy sniper. Furthermore, the sniper must expose his arm for several seconds to make his ploy more believable. Fortunately, his ruse succeeds, and he fires lethally with his remaining pistol killing his rival. The overall outcome of the protagonist’s risks so far is generally positive which builds great anticipation towards the end of the story; the author also subtly foreshadows the sad conclusion of the story by constructing the sniper as an individual without loss or struggle at first; he further foreshadows through the sniper’s sudden shift in mood when witnessing his foe’s death: “The lust of battle died in him. He became bitten by remorse. […] cursing the war, cursing himself, cursing everybody.” His sudden realization sets the mood that his sucess of killing his enemy may not be a success at all. As the story progresses, the sniper, now filled with curiosity, decides to take another risk and check the identity of his opposition: “He wondered did he know him. Perhaps […] in his company.” In this scenario, O’Flaherty foreshadows that the sniper may have a deeper connection to his enemy as the sniper wonders if he personally knows the enemy sniper. The author’s decision to look at the sniper’s thoughts allows for more speculation and anticipation for the dramatic moment. As the sniper barely escapes a barrage of bullets, O’Flaherty adds more to the image that the protagonist faces no consequence or large obstacles despite his risky actions. He slowly reveals, “…his brother’s face.” Although the author has mostly utilized foreshadowing in the short story, he employs situational irony in this moment as the identity of the antagonist is very unexpected. Thus, through the story’s use of foreshadowing and irony, O’Flaherty builds up the suspense more intensely and adds more significance to the abrupt yet sad ending.

The short story The Sniper reveals the harsh reality of conflict and the fleeting nature of joy by both showing how the protagonist’s hard work only amounts to brief moments of satisfaction and revealing the inevitable truth of battle. At first, when he is attempting to light his cigarette while stationed in the building, he is attacked by numerous enemies. This scene is a demonstration of how cruel conflict may be; despite innocently trying to enjoy himself with a cigarette for a brief moment, the other individuals, who do not know the sniper’s identity, attack him without hesitation. The sniper’s quick reaction of firing back and killing the other individuals appears insignificant at first as it is self-defence, but the death of his brother at the end of the tale highlights the cruel yet inevitable consequence of conflict which is death. Immediately after defeating the enemies on the street, he has no time to relax or even think, as his moment is cut incredibly short when he is hit in the arm. Instead, he has more time to think when he is trying to overcome his pain in which he uses the time to create a plan. After creating a ploy to trick his enemy, the sniper aims and successfully kills the enemy sniper with a pistol from fifty yards away. In the aftermath of their conflict, he has lost his rifle and his hat and is also badly wounded in his right arm, but he manages to defeat three different individuals by himself. At his success, he finally expresses, “a cry of joy.” However, even his moment of relief and satisfaction is cut short as he suddenly is, “bitten by remorse,” and, “the lust of battle died in him.” Instead of embracing the moment, he acts on the contrary by cursing his circumstances as he realizes how unjust war is. Very shortly after, it can be inferred that his emotions are further magnified at the discovery that he killed his own brother. In short, The author emphasizes the brevity of joy and the grim reality of war.

Through the story’s anticipation and unexpected moments, The Sniper captures the unpredictable nature of life. From the start of the story, the main character, the sniper, is introduced to take different calculated risks. The author even describes, “His face […] was deep and thoughtful, the eyes of a man used to looking at death.” It can be inferred that the sniper is very careful when he is doing his job as the author emphasizes his familiarity with death. After he successfully defeats the armoured vehicle and an enemy informer, he is shot by a distant enemy. Nevertheless, he manages to astutely recover and create a plot to kill his enemy which succeeds. Curious, he decides to see the identity of his former foe: “the sniper turned over the dead body and looked into his brother’s face.” In this pivotal moment, the author underscores that despite the sniper’s care, life will always be unpredictable. Moments before, the sniper had pondered that he had taken the risk that he may have killed someone in his company, yet he failed to predict it would be his own brother. The Sniper is an excellent example that a person is never in full control of their life.

The short story The Sniper stands as a poignant reminder that no one can foresee the future. Instead, people can only take calculated risks. Liam O’Flaherty employs elements of foreshadowing throughout to add necessary anticipation and tension to the significant plot points. The sniper’s vivid thoughts near the end of the story foreshadow the ending, enhancing the realism of the story. The consequences of the sniper’s work highlights the momentary nature of happiness. Ultimately, the events in The Sniper are an excellent metaphor for the obstacles, risks, and unexpected moments in life.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

Martin Luther King, Jr.

In The Outsiders, the characters are not defined by their wealth or upbringing, but by their personality and experiences. Even though most Socs think Greasers fit the role of an impoverished and dangerous individual, the stereotype does not accurately depict the more extensive image. For Ponyboy, he does not live confined by his social class; instead, he carries his own unique qualities and interests which allow him to mold his identity in the community; similarly, Johnny overcomes his rough background, so he could become the individual that he wants to be. Ultimately, the characters in The Outsiders show that their background does not necessarily define their identity, but is rather a culmination of their values and experiences.

In the story, many characters recognize that Ponyboy’s background is not reflected in his personality. Having both parents deceased and living in an impoverished family at a young age, Ponyboy is expected to be a grief-stricken, violent, and unstable Greaser; however, his experiences with others allow everyone to see how he truly acts. The night after Ponyboy gets jumped by Socs, he and Johnny pick up two Soc girls at a drive-in movie theatre when one of the girls, Cherry Valance, remarks, “What’s a nice, smart kid like you running around with trash like that for” (23). Cherry’s quick analysis of Ponyboy’s character is essential, as it shows that Ponyboy has a unique disposition that contradicts what Cherry thinks as a Greaser; their interaction also reveals that Cherry thinks the content of Ponyboy’s character is more important than the reality that he is a Greaser. Additionally, their conversation also highlights how even though Dally, Ponyboy, and Johnny are all Greasers, they have vastly different qualities. Later in the story, Ponyboy and Johnny are about to turn themselves into the police for stabbing Bob, but they hear cries for help inside the blazing church and decide to save the children inside instead. Dally’s immediate reluctance to the situation confirms how they have different traits despite all being Greasers, as Johnny and Ponyboy have a more considerate view in the same circumstances. After Ponyboy and Johnny rescue the children, Ponyboy admits that he and Johnny are Greasers to Jerry: “Are you kidding me?” (94). Jerry’s reaction shows that he presumed Greasers were incapable of being heroic and selfless because their attributes are against how Greasers are portrayed in society. Undoubtedly, Ponyboy effectively develops his identity in multiple environments by exhibiting his qualities and forcing others to look beyond his background.

Ponyboy’s character development illustrates how personality adapts over time, and that background fails to define someone’s change. Following Ponyboy and Johnny’s acts of heroism, the news eventually travels back to their hometown where Randy also questions Ponyboy regarding why he saved the children: “Greaser’ didn’t have anything to do with it. […] It’s the individual’’ (115). Ponyboy’s answer indicates that he recognizes the importance of a person’s qualities rather than trivial labels in society after his friendly interactions with Socs. Ponyboy assures Randy, “I said. ‘You’d have save them the same as we did.’ ‘Thanks Grease,’ he said, trying to grin. Then he stopped. ‘I didn’t mean that. I meant thanks kid ’” (117-118). Concluding their interaction, Randy and Ponyboy both realize the harm in categorizing individuals solely because of their wealth, as the attributes they associate with each other fail to accurately reflect their special characteristics; by directly setting expectations around someone’s nature because of specious labels in society, categorizations can unfairly punish individuals for their background. Around the end of the story, Ponyboy meets Johnny for the last time on his deathbed; in his last breaths, Johnny tells Ponyboy, “Stay gold, Ponyboy. Stay gold” (148). Although it can be interpreted that Johnny’s last words refer to Frost’s poem, Nothing Gold Can Stay, and its reminder about the transience of youth and pleasure, Johnny is also hinting to Ponyboy to be his own character regardless of any constraints in his way. Furthermore, Ponyboy has always been fairly different in comparison to the rest of the gang through many different characteristics. In particular, Ponyboy is more academically focused than the rest of his gang members, and is looking to pursue education in the future, so he can eventually escape their family’s financial situation; moreover, Ponyboy has a more thoughtful and empathetic view of the world, as he is willing to set aside superficial differences and resort to violence or conflicts only when necessary. In short, Ponyboy realizes the issues of labels in society and the value of being happy with your personal identity.

Although Johnny has a challenging childhood, he is able to overcome his difficult upbringing to become a loyal, brave, and considerate character. In the beginning, Hinton reveals that Johnny was habitually abused by his parents which led to him being jumped by Socs. Being fairly impoverished, Johnny appears to be a nervous and unstable wreck: “If you could picture a little dark puppy that has been kicked too many times and is lost in a crowd of strangers, you’ll have Johnny” (11). Ponyboy’s metaphor of a lost and unfairly treated puppy can ultimately have two conclusions. One interpretation is that although Johnny is in a difficult situation at the moment, he can develop to become a better person while revealing more of his personality given certain circumstances. The first instance of Johnny’s true motives is revealed when he stands up to Dally for annoying two Soc girls at a movie theatre: “Leave her alone, Dally. […] You heard me” (24). Johnny’s dialogue reveals his compassionate nature, as he stands up to his hero, Dally, for two random Soc girls; clearly, Johnny shares a similar worldview from Ponyboy, as he looks past superficial differences while defending his values. As a result, Hinton develops Johnny’s character by gradually showing the lessons he has learned from overcoming his difficult background.

Through his actions, Johnny shows his true character by disassociating from his past while developing stronger relationships with those around him. When Ponyboy is in a near-death experience after being attacked by Greasers, Johnny’s actions once again become a test to the extent to which he will defend his values. Johnny makes the decision to save Ponyboy by killing the Soc: “‘You really killed him, huh, Johnny?’ ‘Yeah.’ His voice quavered slightly. ‘I had to…’” (57). Johnny’s reflection on the incident shows his maturity, as while he demonstrates loyalty and companionship for his friend, he also shows thoughtfulness and a lack of vengeance by weighing his choices and showing his guilt of resorting to violence in the end; his reluctance to engage in violence also indicates how his abusive background in his family has no reflection on his actual character, as generally, people become violent following abuse from parents at an early age. Despite Johnny’s rough background in a gang after being abused by his parents, he manages to become a bright and selfless individual within society.

In The Outsiders, the individuals allow themselves to be defined by their own experiences and values rather than their inherent background. Ponyboy and Johnny both overcome difficult experiences in their childhood, so they can develop an identity that aligns with their personalities. By breaking out of most Greaser stereotypes through their actions, they are able to show others to not evaluate individuals without knowing the content of their character first. Ultimately, the characters show the damage of stereotyping individuals and the importance of creating a solid identity in society, so people can judge you by your true characteristics.

“Happiness is a true wealth, which no money can buy.”

Alon Calinao Dy

The Necklace is a famous short story by the French author Guy de Maupassant. Henri René Albert Guy de Maupassant, better known by his pen name, Guy de Maupassant, was a famous French writer in the late 18th century. In The Necklace, the reader follows the Loisel couple in 19th century France. The wife, Mathilde Loisel, pursues beauty and wealth, which she equates to happiness. When given the opportunity to attend a fancy party, Mathilde purchases a fancy gown and borrows a necklace to fit in. However, she loses the necklace at the end of the party and is forced to pay a large sum of money to replace it. The couple endures ten years of work to repay the money for the necklace. At the end of the story, we find out the lost necklace had been fake, and the Loisel couple had worked tirelessly for nothing. In this society, wealth and beauty are not reliable sources of happiness.

Wealth only serves as a status which does not ensure happiness. In the story, Mathilde strives for wealth as she thinks it will bring her pleasure. However, her husband can find many instances of joy himself. At the beginning of the short story, he remarks, “Ah, the good soup! I don’t know anything better than that.” This quote serves as an example of finding pleasure without being the most fortunate. His wife is quite the opposite as wealth actually makes Mathilde feel displeasure because it makes her feel jealous. One example of Mathilde’s jealousy is when she doesn’t like visiting her friend’s house since it makes her feel bad about her own position. Mathilde’s greed forces her not to see how fortunate she is already, in which she can easily find happiness through gratefulness. As a result, wealth does not guarantee pleasure unless utilized wisely.

Beauty is one trait that will not grant one pleasure, but only change one’s opinion on happiness. Appearance is also a trait Mathilde equates to happiness, and strives to accomplish. She feels displeasure in many scenes because she doesn’t like her appearance, which she compares to other wealthy people. One clear example is shown when she complains, “It annoys me not to have a single piece of jewelry, not a single ornament, nothing to put on. I shall look poverty-stricken. I would almost rather not go at all.” This dialogue shows that Mathilde’s standard of beauty changes, as she only requested a gown initially. This quote also proves her constant jealousy, even though her conditions continuously improve. Evidently, beauty has only made Mathilde feel discomfort about her own position. Therefore, beauty is a strong quality that can correlate to joy or displeasure.

Wealth and beauty serve as temporary attributes that can change very easily. In the story, the couple experiences a brief moment of happiness during the fancy party. However, their pleasure is interrupted after losing an expensive item, forcing them to devote their lives to repay their debt. As Mathilde put it, “What would have happened if she had not lost that necklace? How strange and changeful is life! How small a thing is needed to make or ruin us!” This plot alone demonstrates how temporary wealth and beauty are. Although vaguely portrayed during the story, wealth and beauty are both features that depend on the beholder. In the story, Mathilde changes her view on beauty, after requesting a necklace. Through her experiences of labor, her perception of beauty alters. Presumably, her view of a good status will have also changed drastically. Hence, a person’s view of beauty and wealth alters so drastically that one’s happiness is unreliable.

“Many a happy hour she had spent planning for something nice for him. Something fine and rare and sterling—something.” The Gift of the Magi is a short story by American Writer O. Henry, initially published in December 1905. William Sydney Porter, better known as O. Henry, was an American writer primarily known for his non-fiction and poetry, including The Gift of the Magi and The Ransom of the Red Chief. In the short story, we follow the protagonist, Della Dillingham Young, who longs to buy her husband (Jim) a Christmas gift. With a meager budget, Della decides to sell her prized hair to afford a gift. At the end of the story, we find out the couple has both sold their most valuable possessions to buy a gift that is now rendered useless. The motivating theme of this story is how Della’s and Jim’s love prompted sacrifice.

In the story, Della gives up her most valuable possession to buy her husband a gift, showing her love for Jim. Della sacrifices her hair, which is very valuable to the Young family. As referenced by the narrator, “Had the Queen of Sheba lived in the flat across the airshaft, Della would have let her hair hang out of the window some day to dry just to depreciate Her Majesty’s jewels and gifts.” Evidently, selling her own hair was a significant sacrifice, which helped Della purchase a valuable gift. We also know Della’s sacrifice was influenced by love, as Della told Jim, “Nobody could ever count my love for you.” Overall, Della’s desperation and sacrifice prove the main theme of the short story.

At the end of the story, Jim sacrifices his watch so he can buy Della a gift, clearly showing how much Jim loves Della. After Della asks to see Jim’s watch, he replies, “I sold the watch to get the money to buy your combs.” This quote proves the theme of sacrifice, as Jim’s most valuable object is his watch. We can also conclude that Jim loves Della dearly through his dialogue in the story. An example of this is when Della questions Jim’s love; he replies, “I don’t think there’s anything in the way of a haircut or a shave or a shampoo that could make me like my girl any less.” Hence, Jim’s actions and character traits show the story’s main themes.

During incidents in the story, Della is shown to sacrifice an abundance of her time and energy, displaying her love and sacrifice. All of her time in the beginning mourning shows Della’s love for Jim. It is also evident she uses a lot of her time through narration at the beginning of the story, like “Many a happy hour she had spent planning for something nice for him.” This quote tells us she uses time thinking about a gift, which shows true dedication and love. We also know she began saving pennies months before the story takes place, proving how much time and energy she uses. Later, she sacrifices two hours trying to find the perfect gift for Jim. Consequently, Della’s actions to buy a gift used time and effort, demonstrating her love.

Ultimately, The Gift of the Magi uses the primary themes of love and sacrifice to create an interesting short story with a twist. The primary theme of sacrifice is shown through Della’s and Jim’s sacrifice of their valuables. Their dedication and effort to buying gifts express the driving theme of love. Sacrifice and love are significant since the theme correlates with the moral of this short story. The story highlights that achieving our goals comes with sacrifices, while also teaching that the value of love is more significant than material possessions. In short, the themes of The Gift of the Magi illustrate important life lessons on love, sacrifice, and the unpredictability of life.