Space exploration requires vast sums of money. Is the amount of money spent on space research justifiable?

Could the money be better spent? There has always been considerable discussion about whether governments should spend tax payers money on space research. In my view it is impossible to justify the amount of money spent on such projects. Generally speaking, the main reason for this position is that there are several areas in which the money could be invested better. The first point to make is that politicians have a responsibility to spend public money on projects that bring a benefit to the general public. This has not been the case with space research as most developments have been limited to helping astronauts in space or have been very specialised. For example, it is not of great value to the general public that we now have pens and biros that can write upside down. This does not merit the huge amount of money spent. The second point to make is that there are many much more urgent projects on Earth that require investment. If governments spent less money on space research, then they would be able to help solve some of these problems such as population control, elimination of diseases like cholera, global warming and food shortages. It seems to me that all of these issues are more important because they affect the lives of millions of ordinary people. An illustration of this is that the US government could provide food for all the starving people in the world if they did not spend so much on NASA. My conclusion is that politicians should not fund space research. The grounds for saying this are that it is very costly and provides few real benefits. Furthermore, there are several more urgent issues that need to be funded.

Television has had a significant influence on the culture of many societies. To what extent would you say that television has positively or negatively affected the cultural development of your society? It is unarguable that television has had a considerable impact and changed the world in which we live. However, there is debate whether that change has been for the better or the worse, when we consider cultural development. While there are certainly strong feelings on both sides of the argument in western Europe, my own view is that television has had a largely positive influence on our society. There are, however, several reasons why it can be argued that television has a negative effect on cultural development. Perhaps the principle argument is the lowbrow nature of many programmes, particularly sitcoms and soap operas. People who watch these programmes do not learn anything, they are simply entertained. The other major argument is that because people watch so much television, they no longer take part in more traditional forms of cultural entertainment. An example here is how traditional dancing and music is becoming much less popular because people are staying at home to watch the television. On the other hand, there are a variety of ways in which cultural development has been assisted by television. Here the major argument is that television has allowed the whole of society access to cultural entertainment. For example, in the nineteenth century only a small proportion of people could go to the ballet or the theatre. However, it is now possible for everyone to enjoy these on television. A second positive effect is that on television we can learn more about other cultures and societies because there are so many interesting documentaries about other countries. My personal conclusion is that television is a largely positive influence. However, it is important that we do not watch it too much and that we watch the right sort of programme. If we watch the wrong sort of programme and watch too much television, we may become couch potatoes.

Subjects such as Art, Sport and Music are being dropped from the school curriculum for subjects such as Information Technology. Many people children suffer as a result of these changes. To what extent would you support or reject the idea of moving these subjects from school curriculum? In recent times there has much debate about which subjects should be included on the school curriculum. One particular issue is whether the introduction of more modern subjects such as IT for more traditional subjects such as art and music disadvantages the pupils. I believe that this is a difficult question and different solutions need to be found for primary and secondary schools. There is one major argument in favour of replacing art, music and sport on the curriculum with subjects like IT. This is that the purpose of school is to prepare children for their working life after school, so the subjects on the curriculum should be relevant to their potential careers. From this point of view, IT is much relevant to schoolchildren as they need to be computer literate if they want to survive in the workplace. For example, it is easy to see that word processing and programming skills will impress employers more than the ability to run fast or draw well. There are also, however, strong arguments for retaining the more traditional subjects as part of the curriculum. One significant counter-argument is that the purpose of education is not just to prepare children for later careers, but also to develop their all round culture. It is important that children leave school with some knowledge of art, music and sport as all these are all help develop aspects of young peoples personalities. My own personal point of view is that there is merit in both sides of the debate and that all children should study some IT, art music and sport at least at primary school. At secondary school, however, children should be offered a choice between these subjects so that they can continue to study them if they wish.

The best way to solve the worlds environmental problems is to increase the cost of fuel. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Most people would accept that one of the highest priorities today is to find a solution to the various environmental problems facing mankind. It has been suggested that best way to achieve this is for governments to raise the price of fuel. I am, however, not sure that this is necessarily the case. One reason why this approach may not work is that there is not just one environmental problem the world faces today. If governments did make fuel more expensive, it might well help reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we produce and so slow down the rate of global warming and air pollution. However, it would not help with other major problems such as intensive farming, overpopulation, the hole in the ozone layer or water pollution. For these problems we need to find other solutions. A second reason why this policy may not be the most appropriate is that it places the emphasis on governmental policy and not individual responsibility. Ultimately, most environmental problems are the result of the way we as individuals live our lives. If we wish to find a long-term and lasting solution to them, we need to learn to live in a way that it is greener or kinder to the environment. What governments need to do to make this happen is to ensure there is a global programme to educate people of all ages about the environmental consequences to their actions. In summary, I believe that increasing the level of taxation on fuel is at best a short-term solution to only one environmental problem. If we wish to provide a home for our childrens children, education is likely to be the key to making this happen. (283 words)