2nd Monthly TOEFL Essay; 21st century

2nd Monthly TOEFL Prompt; The 21st century has begun. What changes do you think this new century will bring? Use examples and details in your answer. 

 The 20th century was coined as the Age of Extremes by the famous modern historian Eric Hobsbawm. It was the age of dichotomy, the age of clashes and the age of the world turning upside down. It engendered many changes and development, as well as numerous victims. The 21st century is the initiation of the Third Millennium and many different figures are trying to predict and at the same time carve the new era, mostly to the good way; to embrace and go with the former victims. Thus, the changes of this new century are followings; the equality of the knowledge, tolerance on the diversity, and, ironically, integration.

 First of all, the equality of the knowledge would be one of the most foremost change in 21st century. The development of internet leads the wave of the equality and countless companies, universities and scholastic academies have established their archives on the internet.  Before the wave, the people in the distance place or relatively lower classes were hardly able to access to the high-quality sources, but the internet marked the watershed. Students in Korea now can access library catalogues of Cambridge, bloggers who are no more than common citizens are able to approach Wikileaks to analyze current affairs and people under repression use SNS to urge for cooperation. Confidences are opened and dictatorship based on mobocracy cannot stand anymore. The age of intellectual equality arrived and the equality is spreading to other parts of the society.

 Also, the increase of the diversity should be noted. Under the dichotomous circumstance (the Cold War) of the late 20th century,the calls for the diversity and minority was often ignored. However, as the former system collapsed the demand for the diversity was realized as the drastic increase of religious, cultural, national and terrestrial conflicts. Not only clashes but also the rights of the minority groups extended such as homo-sexual, transgenders, feminists, immigrants, paupers and minority races. Not even a century before, it was normal to repress and even to commit homicide to these kinds of people, but the Volonté Générale of the 21st century doesn't allow such 'crimes'. The age of ideology passed and the age of the tolerance and the diversity is coming. Although we have a long way to go, and the upcoming age still coexists with terrorism, violence and prejudice, but the new century will bring a progress and that would be the tolerance on the diversity.

 The third one seems to be a contradictory change; the integration, or collaboration. The globalization had now become a irresistible tide, and quite a number of futurologist predicts that the boundary splitting countries to countries would soon disappear, or at least become meaningless. World economy will be united; such as ASEAN, OPEC, APEC and various free trade agreements, political powers are trying to consolidate; European continent already finished the task, and cultural mixture will be conducted; American adolescences dance Mal-chum by a Korean singer and Japaneses are used to English-derived terms. It might means the annihilation of minor cultures and languages. However, to think differently, the customs of tolerance which would be developed by the process of integration will permit the coexistence of the diverse identities in integrated system. 

 To sum up, the 21st century would be a quite different, progressing time, and it will engender a more complex and intriguing world.

Earthlings; distorted and deviated

Earthlings. The movie, or the documentary begins with the definition of the word "Earthling", one who inhabits of the earth. This movie is consist of five parts; Pets, Food, Entertainment, Clothes and Science. Without exception, in each part, the director shows terrible, or somehow disgusting scenes to show the cruelty of human-being. For examples, pets are mistreated, domestic animals are living in bad condition that we cannot even imagine, bulls in Spanish bullfighting are abused and weasels are skinned while they're alive. Science is no exception. Narrator criticizes the animal experiments as quasi-science, not that much apart from mere animal abuses.

 However, let us just put the scenes of cutting tails of piglets and such, and thing about the real aim of the movie. This movie is eager to convey the message that Nature, animals, and humankind are all earthlings and need to make connections, as we can quote from the end of the movie. However, is the movie really talks about "earthlings", all the inhabitants on the Earth? According to the movie, "there is no sexism, no racism or speciesism in the term earthling", but the movie doesn't share its film to plants, micro-organisms or even reptiles and amphibians. Even birds and fish simply shows their glimpse and what holds dominion on film is mammals, especially pets and domestic animals which are familiar to us. Let me ask, is there no speciesism on this film? Maybe the director would like to argue that creatures which 'feel pain' are quite different from those which don't. Is that a true implementation of the term "Earthlings"? Maybe mammalism, or at least vertebratism is the term that the director actually wanted to express. Then, there is hardly any difference between the propaganda on movie and that of Mrs. Brigitte Bardot?

 Also, to think rationally and logically, it would be the contribution of such cruel slaughters which enable humankind to enjoy meat with such low prices. Oh, this would be a more terrible result butchers brought in the perspective of vegetarians. It isn't difficult to be told from your father or grandparents that meat was only allowed on public holidays when they were young. For the majority of the people consume mixed diets, it is rather a blessing than curse to adopt this new kind of animal-herding method, although it seems cold-blooded. The system should be modified gradually, than making a revolution.

 What I felt the greatest inconvenience was neither the castration(it was horrible though, as a male), nor bullfighting but the narration analyzing the animal experimentation. Following is a quotation from the movie (1:13:44~1:14:26)

those who hope to find remedies for human ills by inflicting deliberate sufferings on animals commit two fundamental errors in understanding. The first is the assumption that results obtained on animals are applicable to mankind. The second concerns the inevitable fallacy of experimental science in respect to the field of organic life. Since animals react differently from human beings ... every new product or method tried out on animals must be tried out again on man ... through careful clinical tests, before it can be considered safe. This rule knows no exceptions.

Although I'm not that well-versed in science, I can confirm that is wrong. According to the well-established pharmaceutical process, clinical experimentation must be followed after the animal experiment. Pharmacologists are not fools. They are fully aware of the fact that humankind has different organs than animals. The experimentation on animals is to assure that certain medicine doesn't contain component on creatures. In this context, Clasude Bernard, the "prince of vivisection" and the "father of psychology" mentioned; "experiments on animals ... are entirely conclusive for the toxicology and hygiene of man...the effects of these substances are the same on man as on animals, save for differences in degree"

 However, it is said that all the chemical process that are done inside human body are done inside the banana just alike. Apes share the DNA with us with the difference less than 5%. Definitely, the results obtained on animals are applicable to mankind, although not 100%. No pharmacologist overlook the process of human try-out. The process depicted on the screen is completely distorted and it is the result of either total ignorance or deliberate lie... or both.

 What is really problematic is this; as we have already seen, the documentary tries to depend greatly on emotional and visual appeal, and it is hardly possible to find any reliable table or statistics that would show the general tendency and the prevalence of those "cruel" treatments on animals. We should only believe the notification that those on the movie are not the particular cases.

 It is agreeable that we need to take certain actions; there indeed are some farms with extremely bad condition and mistreatment, the environmental pollution does exist, and we should co-exist with earthlings. However, facing such distortion, fabrication, cherry-picking and agitation, I felt rebelliousness rather than the seriousness on the urgent situation. Absolutely, it is a good movie in propagating its message, but quite uncomfortable, not only because of its contents, but also its contention.