Prep101 - Free Writing Sample Feedback **Thread #4**

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt #33 (deadline = Saturday July 21)

 

Health care for all is a realistic goal.

Describe a specific situation in which health care for all might not be a realistic goal. Discuss what you think determines whether or not health care for all is a realistic goal.

 

Instructions

In 30 minutes, write an essay for the prompt and instructions above and post your essay in this thread.

 

Use the Notepad accessory on your computer so word processing functions are turned off.

 

Note: Do not read other essays replying to this prompt on the forum until after you have written and submitted your own essay.

 

Deadline

11:59pm Saturday, July 21.

 

Essays posted after the deadline will not be scored but a new Prompt will be posted on Sunday, July 22.

 

Note: I just moved into a new apartment in a new province before medical school. My internet situation is pretty sketchy. I will try to find a Second Cup close by to try and get some marking done. Sorry for the delays.

[sixstar]

Health care for all is a realistic goal.

 

Describe a specific situation in which health care for all might not be a realistic goal. Discuss what you think determines whether or not health care for all is a realistic goal.

It is often regarded that the life expectancy of citizens living in a particular nation is directly related to the citizens access to adequate health care. For some countries, providing health care to all citizens, without consideration of factors such as wealth and previous health conditions, is one of the government's main priorities, with health care spending often commanding a significant portion of the federal budget of many countries. Considering the number of jurisdictions that have programs in place to offer all citizens health care services, one can argue that achieving health care for all is a realistic goal. For instance, many countries, such as the United States of America and Canada, provide a significant amount of financial aid to other countries in need, especially to those in need of health care services. In particular, a charity organization, known as Doctors Without Borders, was established precisely to provide health care services to those in need in other countries. This organization sends volunteer doctors, nurses and other health care providers to third-world countries who in need of health care services. This organization and their operations have continued to expand ever since their establishment, highlighting how many people, especially health care providers, believe that providing health care to all is important. As the health care providers going on these aid missions to third-world countries are volunteers, the financial restrictions on providing health care to all are not as great as it would seem, and thus, through volunteer organizations such as Doctors Without Borders, providing health care for all, especially those in third world countries is a realistic goal.

 

However, providing health care for all may not always be a realistic goal. Recently, in Canada, a country known for its universal health care policies, new legislation was proposed by the Immigration Minister, Jason Kenny, that limits the health care services that new immigrants receive when they come to Canada. The legislation states that services such as dental care, among others, would no longer be covered by the Government of Canada and would be the responsibility of the newly landed immigrant. While this legislation received harsh backlash from many citizens angry that the government chose to not provide health care for all Canadian citizens, including newly landed immigrants, the basis of this legislation was mainly to save money. After the economic crisis of 2008, the Government of Canada still had a deficit, and cutting some health care services to newly landed immigrants was one of the ways of saving money (reportedly over 20 million dollars). As such, providing health care for all was not a realistic goal for the Canadian government due to financial constraints stemming from the 2008 economic crisis.

 

It would seem that whether or not providing health care for all is a realistic goal depends on the financial constraints facing the health care provider. If the health care provider does not face significant financial constraints that would limit their ability to provide health services for all, providing health care for all is a realisitic goal. The volunteer organization "Doctors Without Borders" is an example of an organization that has less financial constraints, due to its workforce being volunteers, and are able to set a realistic goal of providing health care to those citizens in need in third-world countries. However, when the health care provider faces significant financial constraints, health care for all may not be a realistic goal. The Government of Canada faced signifcant financial constraints due to their deficit budget stemming from the 2008 economic crisis, and thus, had to cut back health care services to newly landed immigrants, exemplifying a situation when providing health care for all may be be a realistic goal. As providing health care is a costly endeavor, the financial state of the health care provider is of utmost importance when determining whether or not health care for all is a realistic goal.

 

_______________________

 

Thanks! Congratulations on getting into med school!

[funtimess]

Health care for all is a realistic goal.

Describe a specific situation in which health care for all might not be a realistic goal. Discuss what you think determines whether or not health care for all is a realistic goal.

 

An efficient and comprehensive health care system is the only safeguard to our most precious commodity. Countries like Canada hold universal health care for its citizens closely – despite a current conservative government known to often attempt spending cuts, any politician with the intent of attacking the health care system as a whole would be committing political suicide. Furthermore, countries such as Cuba exemplify that the health care system is not only a priority in democratic countries, nor countries with high GDP. In fact, Cuba spends only a fraction of its GDP on health care compared to Canada or the United States, while maintaining a similarly high life expectancy to such countries, and providing services to all citizens. Thus, it is possible to have an effective universal health care system in many types of countries with different political agendas.

 

Surprisingly, there is resistance to a more socialized health care system in the United States. Although the USA is a powerhouse in terms of its GDP and aid sent to help provide health care in developing nations, often its own citizens are left with enormous medical bills resulting in financial ruin when they lack insurance. Even as programs like Obamacare finally emerge in the political spotlight, there is backlash from many citizens complaining about the governments spending practices. It is unfortunate that some people opposing programs like Obamacare would end up losing the most if it was repealed.

 

Health care around the world has seen vast increases in effectiveness and availability over the past few decades. Both wealthy democratic countries like Canada, and less wealthy, communist countries like Cuba have universal health care offered to its citizens. However, in countries like the United States, the goal of universal health care faces an ongoing struggle. The struggle is due to the will of the people – in order for universal health care to exist, the people must want it and make it a high priority.

 

P.S. if this is absolute crap, it's my first time writing out one of these and I haven't taken an MCAT prep course hehe. I realize now that the more details i know about my examples the better, and that it's really hard to get started, but I wrote this under timed conditions without using the internet to learn more facts so here goes nothing...

[chris67]

A good health care system is one of the most important concerns for a government. Most governments want what is best for their citizens, and having an effective health care system in place goes a long way to improve their citizens' quality of life. Ideally, a government would be able to ensure all of its citizens have access to adequate medical care, and this is a goal that has been reached by certain countries. Through the use of money collected from taxes, the Canadians government is able to provide equal health care to virtually all of its citizens free of charge. Everyone has access to the same medical procedures, and such procedures are performed by competent professionals. Other nations, such as the United States, provide health care of a similar quality, but have privatized their medical care. This means that citizens' health care is not paid for through taxes, but the individuals must pay for it themselves, with the cost depending on the procedure. Although not all individuals receive equal health care under this system, even the lowest quality medical care is adequate for most people's needs, and is still provided by trained professionals. Both systems effectively provide access to health care to all of its citizens.

 

In some other countries, however, not all citizens are able to have access to health care. Countries that have their population spread over a large geographical area would need a large amount of health care professionals to reach all of their citizens, and for some nations training such a large number of individuals is not realistic. In Sudan, for example, almost all of the population lives in what can be described as sparsely populated rural areas, with few health care practitioners. Sudan relies largely on foreign aid organizations, such as the Red Cross, to supply medical care to its citizens, but such organizations cannot be expected to reach everyone. The result is that a large number of people go through life without adequate health care.

 

Ultimately, what decides whether or not a nation can supply health care to all of its citizens is where the health care comes from. If it comes from within the country's borders, then it is possible for all citizens to have access to adequate medical care. In Canada, the Canadian government funds hospitals and clinics in Canada to ensure that all of its citizens are cared for. In the United States, private organizations provide health care to those willing to pay. Not everyone is able to afford the same level of health care, but it is still available to all. However, if a nation relies on aid from other countries or non-profit organizations to fund and provide its health care, then all of its citizens will not be able to receive adequate care. In third world countries, such as Sudan, non-profit organizations set up camps to provide free healthcare to those who desire it, and while this system does satisfy basic health care needs of some it is unlikely to reach each and every individual.

[souljaboy]

Health care for all is a realistic goal.

 

Describe a specific situation in which health care for all might not be a realistic goal. Discuss what you think determines whether or not health care for all is a realistic goal.

 

Universal health care isn't a new novel concept; it has been present in many developed countries around the world for decades. In Canada, universal health care was barely discussed until the idea was presented by the Premier of Saskatchewan in the 1960s. Prior to that, there was no health care system in place. At the time, there were many politicians who argued that such a system would not work financially and the burdens on the government as well as taxpayers would be too high. Many citizens liked the idea but thought that it was not a realistic goal to achieve. However, the plan was eventually put in place and continues to operate without any significant issues today. The same system is present in many European countries as well, and the opponents always argue that the goal is unrealstic but so far, none of the universal health care plans around the world have failed.

 

In most developing countries, though, health care for all is simply not possible due to limited resources. In poorest African countries that has been ravaged by war, the economy and systems currently in place is not capable of providing universal health care. In a country such as Congo, there are very few native doctors available and is nowhere close to being what is needed to look after the population. The government is also not able to provide the fundings that would be needed because the war ravaged economy cannot support it. Congo and other similar African nations require foreign doctors and foreign aid to provide some semblance of health care for its citizens. In such countries, health care for all is not a remotely attainable goal.

 

What determines whether univesal health care is a realistic goal for a country is mainly the economic situation of the country. Developed nations around the world, including Canada, has been able to provide health care to al because they are in a stable economic state and possesses the resources necessary to support health care. Most developing countries does not have this luxury as they have not been able to dedicate significant spending to the health care sector. Their economy cannot support the significant resources needed to train doctors, build facilities, or provide the large number of factors required for universal health care. Hence, health care for all is completely dependent on whether the provider can support the financial burdens assocaited with it.

[tms]

Health care for all is a realistic goal.

 

Describe a specific situation in which health care for all might not be a realistic goal. Discuss what you think determines whether or not health care for all is a realistic goal.

 

Health care is an essential service that is either funded by the government, private insurance companies or patients and their families. Health care consists of all medically related services and medical procedures performed by trained and licensed health care professionals. In a developed nation such as Canada, health care for all is a realistic goal due to the relative abundance of resources and the relative absence of other social, political or economic factors requiring the government’s attention. In Canada, the health care system is publically funded via tax dollars and is highly regulated by the government. The Canadian health care system is designed to ensure that no individual is placed in a vulnerable state of not being able to get the proper medical attention if they were not able to afford the required treatments. Health care is considered as an essential service and all citizens have the right to access to heath care as per the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All citizens are issued a health care card by the provincial government that provides them with the access to health care services in their province of residence. It is important to note that at present, Canada is in a relatively stable social, political and economic state and can afford to devote valuable resources and funds towards providing health care for all citizens. Furthermore, the model of the public health care system has been around in Canada since the mid-1900’s and has been modified and improved over the course of time. The government has established a model that operates well and can be regulated to ensure proper delivery of health care services.

 

In contrast, for a developing nation like Bangladesh, health care for all is not a realistic goal since the nation has a number of other social, political and economic factors at play. Moreover, a developing nation often has limited resources in comparison to those enjoyed by the developed nations. As such, health care for all is not a plausible or realistic goal for a developing nation. In Bangladesh, health care is privately funded meaning that it requires patients and their families to cover the costs of all needed services and treatments. There is an absence of a centralized health care system where records are manually kept and updated at individual health care facilities and health care providers are not required to report details or billing information to the government. This does not allow the goverment to have control over the activities of health care providers and there is a lack of governmental regulation. Moreover, at present, Bangladesh is a developing nation that is facing other factors including slow economic growth, high unemployment rates, civil problems due to clashes between religious groups and weak international relations with neighboring nations. Such factors require resources and attention of the government. Thus, under such circumstances, health care for all is not a realisitic goal.

 

In conclusion, whether or not health care for all is a realistic goal depends on whether the nation can be considered as a developed nation or an undeveloped/developing nation. In the case of a developed nation as seen in the example of Canada, there is a vast amount of resources, stable political state, a relative lack of other social, political or economic matters. The government of a developed nation also has a relatively stable operating model such as the funding of health care via tax dollars and strict government regulations as seen in Canada. However, for undeveloped and developing nations as seen in the case of Bangladesh, health care for all is not a realisitic model since there is often a relative lack of resources, other social, political, and economic factors requiring attention of the government and political unstability that does not permit for proper regulation and delivery of health care services. Therefore, if a nation can be classified as developed, health care for all is a realistic goal but if a nation is classified as a developing nation or even an undeveloped nation, health care for all is not a realistic model.

 

Thanks!

[Raiya]

Health care for all is a realistic goal.

 

A universal health care is a goal that everyone would like to achieve. Whether you live in a poor or rich country, health care is of prime importance to you and those around you. And thus, it is a goal that many societies try to achieve. In most societies, health care for all is a very realistic aspiration because of the conditions and environment that already pre-exist. For example, cervical cancer affects females and males, but can be avoided and easily treated in a society like Canada. It can also be easily detected by regular screening. Virtually all cervical cancers are caused by HPV infections, with just two HPV types, 16 and 18, responsible for 70% of all cases It's characterized by abnormal bleeding and spotting from vagina, bleeding after sex. To combat this problem, Health Canada issued to have a Papanicolaou smear test starting at 18 as part of a routine health examination, or as soon as the patient becomes sexually active. If the tests show no abnormality, the patient is re-screened every three years to age 69 to ensure no cervical abnormalities crop up. Because of advanced technology and excellent diagnostic tools, many patients are treated at their pre-cancerous state. Additionally, access to free vaccines such as Gardail and Cervarix are funded through the Canadian government and the education school board to encourage young teens to receive protection at an early age. Thus, by having a well-rounded health care system that targets the at-risk population, achieving proper healthcare is a realistic vision, thanks to advancement in preventative medicine and accessibility.

 

On the other hand, in 2006 across the world in India, a drug-resistant tubercolosis emerged (TDR-TB), raising concerns for families, government and the health care system in India. Tubercolosis is a potentially fatal contagious disease that mainly infects the lungs. This drug-resistant form of tubercolosis was created by a case of mismanagement where wrong treatments, wrong regimens were given to patients by private sector physicians who are unregulated in terms of practice and treatments.A study conducted in Mumbai showed that only 5 out of 106 private practitioners could prescribe correctly for a hypothetical patient with tuberculosis. In such a condition of having unqualified healthcare officials, poor economic status and a booming population, a universal healthcare simply cannot be achieved. Additional to this, pharmaceutical companies seek to earn profit by selling TB vaccines; but by judging the economic status and the increased population of India, it does not serve as an attractive market and thus, accessibility to vaccines is low. As diseases like TB progresses, palliative care is enforced but with a lack of professionalism and due to economic issues accessibility to preventative care is far from reach. Thus, the hope of reaching a goal of healthcare for all seems to be slim.

 

Where can we draw a line between when a universal healthcare can be achieved and when it cannot? In a society like Canada, where the economic status is stable and healthcare education system is well-supported, physicians are properly trained and tested rigorously in their field. As well, because of advancement in technology, there are better tools to screen for cervical cancer, thus leading to better preventative care for patients' health. As well, vaccines such as Gardasil and Cervarix are freely distributed in school boards across Canada and are given to adolescents to provide the first step in preventative medicine and to a healthy start in their lives. With a health care system focused on preventative care and high accessibility like Canada, healthcare for all is a very realistic goal. However, in a country that is suffering from financial instability and rapid population climbs, obtaining a proper healthcare for all is pushed aside. Having more people mean that each individual receives less time and care. Not to mention, most of the practitioners are not properly trained for medicine and can even escalate the problem as seen in 2006 with the rise of the drug-resistant tuberculosis.Accessbility to vaccines and market interest for pharmaceutical companies becomes even lower when looking at the economic status of India and its financial systems. Thus, whether or not a society can obtain healthcare for all depends on the economic status which governs accessibility and the management of the health care system in that country.

 

 

Thanks

[ann2012]

Health care for all is a realistic goal.

 

Thank for Raymond!!!!!!!!

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Every citizen in a nation should have equal access to basic resources such as, health care, and no one should be rejected from these basic rights. It is a realistic goal that everyone in the country would have access to physicians when needed. For example, all citizens in Canada can go to their family doctor whenever they think it's necessary, because such fees are covered by the government in the form of health insurance. Even a person without a job or without any income can afford visits to a physician, since the government will be paying for him. This governmental coverage is made possible by the Canadian health care system, but more importantly because the Canadian economy is developed well enough to afford such expense. Thus, having no one rejected from health care is an achievable goal.

 

On the other hand, if the country's economy is underdeveloped and the government cannot afford health care coverage. Then there may be situations where some people cannot have equal access to health care. Take the Chinese health care system as an example. The Chinese government decided that people in the nation will pay for their own health care, because the country's economy is still developing and cannot afford this additional expense. People who are unable to pay for their own visit to the hospital do not have access to a physician when needed, because unlike in Canada the Chinese government does not cover health insurance for all.

 

Therefore, whether people have equal access to health care depends on whether the country's economy is developed well enough to afford health insurance coverage. In a developed country such as, Canada, no one is rejected from the health care system, because related fees are covered by the government. The government have the ability to afford such coverage since their economy is well developed. However, in a developing or underdeveloped country such as, China, people who are unable to afford fees needed for health care would be rejected from the health care system. The government is not covering such fees because the nation's economy is still developing and cannot afford any additional expense. Hopefully one day health care for all will be a realistic goal in all countries around the world.

[perspectives]

Health care for all is a realistic goal.

 

Health care is the medical attention provided to individuals by professionals in the medical field. In the past, it has often been a service reserved for those with money and power. However, in the modern society we live in, it is becoming increasingly realistic to provide health care for everyone. Previously, the shortage in supply of health care professionals could not meet the demands of those requiring health care, and thus only those with money and/or power were able to gain access. The medical industry has since made great improvements in efficiency to narrow the gap between supply and demand. Health care is often divided into a private and public sector depending on the country. Canada for example, has a public health care program where all Canadian citizens have access to basic health care. Everyone has the opportunity to consult with a primary care physician and to basic drugs and medicine. Thus, in Canada, health care for all is a goal that has been realized by the Canadian government.

 

However, despite the improvements made in health care, there are still individuals that do not receive proper health care. The demand for health care is inelastic, but the supply can only increase as quickly as medical professionals can be nurtured. Thus, in locations such as Hong Kong, where there is a public and private sector and a great shortage of doctors, many individuals do not receive health care. In Hong Kong, health care provided in public hospitals is cheaper than private, but due to the shortage of doctors, many individuals have to wait for an excessive number of hours before being tended too. Many choose to rather not go to the doctors due to this waiting time. The private hospitals will often have room to take in new patients, but they charge an amount substantially greater than the publicly owned hospitals. Therefore, not all citizens are able to afford this luxury service.

 

Whether or not health care for all is a realistic goal depends on how much funding the the health care system is given. Public health is governed and funded by the government and thus ensures that all individuals have access to health care, although it may not be as quick. Canada has a publicly owned health system that does provide health care for all, and it is funded by the government revenue such as taxes. Backed by the Canadian government, the public health care system has a stable source of capital sufficient to provide health care for all. In predominantly privately owned health systems, due to the lack of financial support from the government, only those with money will be able to gain access to health care. Hong Kong's mixture of private and public health attempts to provide quick access for those with money and slower access for those without. But in the end, many individuals are hindered from receiving health care at all. Therefore, it can be seen that health care is a realistic goal only in certain countries depending on the financial stability in the health care system.

 

Thanks Raymond! Congrats on med school!

Also, I want to ask is it okay to use examples taken from a movie?

[wendyokoopa]

In Canada, and other countries with socialized health care systems, most citizens believe that access to free medical care for every citizen is possible. Universal access to health care for all citizens is only really truly granted by the removal of barriers such as cost (e.g., fee-for-service). In the example of Canadians, those in support of socialized medicine believe that with the abundance of national resources and country-wide economic prosperity, the nation can afford to fund medical care through taxation. In this country, the federal government pays the provinces to offer health care through hospitals, doctors offices, public health units, and clinics. Citizens are able to use the system whenever they want, at no additional cost per visit. By capitalizing on the wealth generated by the nation as a whole, the federal and provincial governments are easily able to fund health care access for all citizens.

 

However, while this system is enjoyed and lauded by fortunate Canadians, in the current global economic and political climate, this is not realistic for everyone in the world. Many would point out that the provision of health care for all requires a large amount of resources and funding that is simply not possible in many countries in the world today. For example, a country such as Somalia, with a low gross domestic product, wherein citizens face poverty and economic strife, could simply not raise the funds to provide universal health care to their own citizens. In this case, the wealth of the country would not support the taxation necessary in order to provide free, accessible health care for all Somalians, and such a goal is likely unattainable given the current context.

 

Thus, it is likely that the provision of free, accessible health care for all members of a country is only a realistic goal if the country generates sufficient wealth to support such a system. In Denmark, national income levels are sufficient to allow taxation for many government supplied services, such as 'free' (i.e., no cost to the user per visit) health care, without significantly affecting the standard of living for those taxed. In contrast, for the citizens of developing or low-income countries, such as Haiti, access to health care is not likely feasible, as more important places to allocate resources exist for individual citizens (e.g., food, shelter), and would take precedence over any attempts to generate revenue for a socialized health care system. While this is highly unfortunate, it is likely the case that in the absence of a nation's wealth, real access to health care is likely a very distant prospect indeed.

 

 

THANK YOU SO MUCH!!

[blue181]

Thanks for all the feedback Raymond!

 

Health care for all is a realistic goal.

 

All people, no matter how healthy, will probably run into health issues at some point in their lives – be it an illness, need for surgery, vaccinations etc. At that time, they will need health care facilities and physicians to provide the care they require in order to recover. Ideally, a country would be able to make quality health care readily available to all its citizens, so that their quality of life may be maximized. The maintenance of health care facilities and personnel is pricey, but it is a realistic goal to provide universal health care in a developed country with a stable economy, like Canada for example. Each province in Canada has a health insurance plan available to its population, free of charge. In Ontario, this plan is called OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan). If a citizen has an OHIP card, then the government will cover almost any physician prescribed medical treatment they may need to undergo, no matter if the citizen can afford the treatment or not. Although it is good that Canadians do not have to worry about affording health care, this system is only possible because Canada has a stable economy, and because the majority of its citizens are working class and able to pay high amounts of federal and provincial taxes. Furthermore, due to quality living conditions and effective distribution of vaccines, the fraction of the population that requires costly health care treatment is not incredibly high, thus the government is able to cover the cost without too much damage to the economy. So in Canada’s case, health care for all is a realistic goal, because it has a strong enough economy and a healthy enough population to maintain it.

 

However, sometimes health care for all is not a realistic goal. This is especially true for developing countries that simply would not be able to afford providing all its citizens with the health care they may require. Many countries in sub-Saharan Africa suffer from this inability to provide health care. Firstly, many of them suffer from poverty, as they do not have strong governments to establish a market and foreign trade. Without a stimulated market, most of the citizens cannot earn enough money to maintain a good living, and it all results in a weak economy that is unable to pay for health care facilities and doctors to treat all the citizens. Secondly, due to the continuous state of poverty creating poor living conditions, many people in Africa are in very poor health. In fact, in sub-Saharan Africa over 5% of the population is affected with HIV/AIDS, and a staggering fraction suffers from malnutrition and disease due to consumption of unclean drinking water. With such a high percentage of the population requiring medical attention, combined with a feeble economic status, those countries in Africa are simply unable to maintain the required facilities, or cover the cost of health care for the citizens who cannot afford it themselves, which is the majority. Thus universal health care would be an unrealistic goal in this case.

 

Overall, whether or not health care for all is a realistic goal depends on if the country is developed or third world. For a developed country like Canada, it is not unrealistic for health care to be available to all its citizens whenever they may require it because the government has enough money from taxpayers and the economy to cover expensive health care costs for the relatively small fraction of the population that requires it. However, the opposite is true for developing countries. Many of them, like the countries in sub-Saharan Africa, suffer from weak economies, resulting in poverty and overall poor living conditions that cause a high percentage of the population to be in poor health. Due to the high price of health care, those countries would be unable to afford treatment for all their citizens that need it, especially if so many of them do. Thus in developing countries, it would be unrealistic to have health care for all as a goal.

[meniscus]

Health care for all is a realistic goal.

 

Health care is really important service that all citzens should have access to since your health can determine how long you will live or the quality of your life. Health care entails any services related to your health, such as getting an annual physical exam from a family physician. A realistic goal is one that is practical, meaning it could actually be fulfilled without any major negative consequences. Health care for everyone is a realistic goal. For example, in Canada, the province of Ontaio offers free health care to Canadian citizens through OHIP. Everytime a citizen wants to go see a family physician, he simply has to use his health card to get free health care through OHIP. If an individual wants a flu shot for the upcoming winter, he simply uses his health card to access OHIP services and gets the flu shot for free. This free health care system has been in used for many years in Ontario. Thus, health care for everyone is a realistic goal.

 

However, in some cases, health care for all is not a realistic goal. For example, in Vietnam, health care for all is not a viable goal. The country does not have enough funds to operate a system that provides free health care for its citizens. If a free health care system was implemented, the citizens of the country may be unwilling to pay additional taxes for the free health care since many citizens have barely enough money to survive or their cash flow is very small. Many of the citizens will just try to ignore their health problems unless it is a major issue, such as cardiovascular diesease. If free health care were to be run in Vietnam, it may just make the economic climate of country go downhill since it not a viable system due to the citizens and the country's lack of funds.

 

Therefore, what determines whether or not health care for all is a realistic goal depends on the development of the country. In a developed country, health care for everybody is realistic goal. In an undeveloped country, health care for all is not a realistic goal. For example, Canada is a developed country that has enough funds to operate OHIP, a free health care system that provides citizens with a number of free health care services, such as annual check-ups and flu-shots. Canadian citizens have enough funds to pay taxes for this health care service, allowing the health care system to be viable. However, in Vietnam, an undeveloped country, health care for all is not a realistic goal since the country does not have enough funds to operate a free health care system to provide health care for everyone. If such a system were implemented, it may even cripple the country's economy and put the country in a worst state than before.

 

Thank you Raymond!

[polarbear89]

Health care for all is a realistic goal.

 

Describe a specific situation in which health care for all might not be a realistic goal. Discuss what you think determines whether or not health care for all is a realistic goal.

 

People rely on health care in times of sickness and need, and in some parts of the world, health care is considered a right not a privilege. In fact, health care for all people can be considered a realistic goal. A realistic goal is a goal that can be and has been achieved. For example, Canada’s public health care system provides health care for all members in society, regardless of their race, economic resources and connections. Medical costs are covered by the government and therefore, sick people and their families do not have to worry about the cost of being sick and can focus on the ordeal at hand, rather than worry needlessly about the ability to cover such a cost. Public health care is considered to be an intrinsic part of the Canadian value system and because of this consideration, health care, in Canada, is a realistic goal for all of its citizens.

 

However, on the other hand, the American health care system operates under a private, rather than public scheme. This results in citizens relying upon insurance and employment benefits to cover their health care charges. However, this form of health care does not result in health care for all of the country’s citizens. Because health care is based off of insurance, uninsured people may not be able to afford the health care that they need. Furthermore, even if someone does have insurance, the deductible for any health care costs that they may incur may be more than they can handle. Also, insurance companies are notorious for attempting to limit their costs and thus, limiting the amount of health care they will provide for the purchaser. President Obama has acknowledged the problem with the system, and created Obamacare, which would result in health insurance being mandatory. Millions of people in America are currently uninsured and are unable to afford health care insurance, which thus bars them from affording health care. Yet, this new act to bring health care to all the citizens was opposed by many, showing that the American value system does not prioritize health care as a right, not privilege.

 

Whether or not health care is a realistic goal for all depends on the values of the society that these people are in. If a country values health care then they will focus their resources on providing this care to the citizens. For example, a significant portion of Canada’s spending goes towards providing health care for its citizens and because the government spending is allocated according to its values, citizens of Canada have equal access to the public health care services that are provided. On the other hand, the American society does not view health care as a right; rather they view it more as a privilege. This view results in opposition towards movements to provide health care to all equally and results in health care not being a realistic goal for all of the country’s citizens.

 

 

Thank you!

[RaymondPrep101]

New developments in technology have caused us to become less creative.

Describe a specific situation in which a development might not cause us to become less creative. Discuss what you think determines when new developments in technology cause us to become less creative.

 

Instructions

In 30 minutes, write an essay for the prompt and instructions above and post your essay in this thread.

 

Use the Notepad accessory on your computer so word processing functions are turned off.

 

Note: Do not read other essays replying to this prompt on the forum until after you have written and submitted your own essay.

 

Deadline

11:59pm Thursday, July 26.

 

Essays posted after the deadline will not be scored but a new Prompt will be posted on Friday, July 27.

[tms]

New developments in technology have caused us to become less creative.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a development might not cause us to become less creative. Discuss what you think determines when new developments in technology cause us to become less creative.

 

In most modern societies, new developments in technology are taking place at a very rapid rate than ever seen before. Such developments include the advancement of the internet, social media networks and other uses of the internet as well as technological devices including computers, laptops, handheld devices, touchpads, telephones and many others. In cases where such developments are used to substitute for basic tasks such as one-on-one personal interactions with others around us as well as our surroundings, such developments can cause us to become less creative. For example, individuals suffering with a psychological disorder known as schzoria tend to avoid interactions with others and their surroundings whenever possible. With the advancements in technology, such individuals are often able to carry out their basic tasks and fulfill their needs without having to step out of their homes. For instance, they are able to buy groceries online and have them delivered to their door without having to interact or personally communicate with someone or interact withtheir surroundings outside of their homes. Interactions with others and ones’ surroundings play a key role in inspiring and motivating an individual to be creative in how they conduct themselves. In this example, when technology is used to substitute for such intercations, it can cause one to lose creativity.

 

However, when new developments in technology are used to help supplement tasks that we must carry out, they do not cause an individual to become less creative. In this case, new developments in technology can lead to further enhancements in ones’ motivations and creativity. For example, Salman Khan is a highly intellectual individual who graduated with a business degree from Harvard University. As an effort to help his nephew with some homework, he made a couple of youtube videos for his nephew to watch. Khan’s educational videos received a shocking degree of positive response from many students around the world and since then, Salman Khan has lauched a website known as The Khan Academy which is also linked to his youtube channel. Over the last 5 years, Khan has delivered over a million educational videos on a variety of subjects. The primary goal of his videos is to help supplement student learning on materials they are learning within a traditional classroom or lecture setting. Salman Khan uses a variety of different technological ways to help capture the attention of the students and delivers lessons in a very unique and creative manner. His website also features an interactive component where students can interact with one another as well as ask questions and participate in discussions. In this case, with the help of technological development, Salman Khan can use his creativity to make such videos and students can also be inspired to learn and be creative in their own learning process. It is important to note that in this case, technological advancements are only being used to suppliment ones’ task of learning and not substitute for the personal one-on-one intercations that one has in their regular classrooms.

 

In conclusion, whether or not new developments in technology have caused us to become less creative depends on whether we use such technology to substitute for basic tasks or to suplement our such tasks. When new developments in technology are used to substitute for basic tasks such as one-on-one personal interactions with others around us as well as our surroundings, such develpoments can cause us to become less creative as seen in the case of individuals sufferring with schzoria. In this case, individuals greatly rely on technology in order to carry out basic tasks in order to fulfill all of their needs. This prevents individuals from having to go out of their homes and interact with others around them. One-on-one personal interactions can help an individual get ideas and interactions with ones’ surroundings can also lead to further inspiration and creativity in how we carry out our lives. In contrast, when new developments in technology are used to further supplement the ways in which we carry out certain tasks as seen in the case of Salman Khan from The Khan Academy using Youtube and the internet to deliver educational videos free of charge to thousands of students around the world. In this case, since new developments in technology are being used to supplement a student’s learning process in an interactive manner rather than substituing for the task of learning within a traditional setting itself, new developments in technology can be seen to enhance ones’ creativity. Ultimately, the role that new developments in technology play in our modern day society is highly diverse and whether it causes a loss or enhancement of creaticity depends on how we choose to use it.

 

Thanks!

[chris67]

Our society is fueled by technological advances. People rely on technology to make our life easier, and there are few things more exciting than acquiring a new gadget. Most technologies are designed to make certain tasks easier and improve the overall efficiency of life, however, by doing so they take out much of the intellectual aspect of tasks thus decreasing creativity. An example of such a device would be the GPS, which was introduced to the mainstream public during the mid 1990's by communications giant ComTech. Before GPS, drivers would have to consider and integrate a variety of factors in an attempt to get to their destination as fast as possible. Traffic along all possible routes, actual distance of the routes, and overall connectivity of possible routes all must have been considered. Finding the msot efficient way to get somewhere involved a fair amount of thinking and creativity. The invention of GPS took away all of that; it is now possible to simply input your destination and the device is able to spit out the fastest way to get to a place. GPS has definitely made people's lives easier, but it has taken out most of the intellectual aspect of planning a trip.

 

Not all new technology, however, limits creativity. Certain technologies have no effect on people's thinking process, and therefore do not limit creativity, while still accomplishing the goal of making lives easier and more efficient. In 2005, Toyota released a model of the Camry with significantly lower fuel consumption; the new Toyota Camry used about 2 litres less fuel per 100km than the 2004 model. It accomplished this by changing the way the automatic car swithced gears; the new car shifted gears faster, which reduced engine output thus conserving fuel. This technology has since been used by most other automakers. It was able to save consumers a fair amount of money on gas, but since it had no effect on an individual's thinking it had no effect on creativity.

 

Most new technologies are invented in an attempt to lessen a certain burden on individuals' lives. What decides whether this new technology limits a person's creativity depends on whether the technology is designed to improve efficiency by saving time on intellectual processes, or whether it makes people's lives easier by saving them money or accomplishing some physical task. The invention of GPS saved drivers the trouble of thinking of the right route to take, which can be quite time consuming. It consequently took out a significant creative process invovled in driving. On the other had, an improvement in fuel efficiency in automatic cars invented by Toyota allowed drivers to save money, while not affecting their creativity at all. The invention was simply designed to lower the financial burden on consumers, which is a physical, not mental, quality.

 

Thanks!

[FrenchToast]

In recent years, technological advancements have largely centred around computers and related digital devices. Computers were initially designed to replicate the functions of the human brain, but at higher speeds and with the ability to process far more information. Since creativity is characterized by independent, innovative thinking, it would seem logical to conclude that by allowing people to think less, computers diminish people's creative impulses. Although televisions were not initially digitized, they appear to impair creativity, as well. Aside from the occasional channel change, the role of the viewer is largely passive. He is told what to think and what should interest him. Often, while watching television, the quantity of thoughts running through one's mind is severely reduced. The reduced quantity of thoughts coupled with the passive role of the viewer severely impairs the creative process.

 

However, some technological advances can actually serve to improve creativity; they do so by putting the user in an active position and providing him with new tools with which to express creative thought. For example, Photoshop enables the average person to design digital media - including posters, websites, and greeting cards - even if that person lacks the physical ability to do so by hand. The user is provided with a blank slate and a battery of options to allow the innovative thoughts running through his mind to come to fruition. The program thus makes visual design accessible to all those who have creative minds, even if they do not have the best drawing skills. Photoshop does so by providing an active user with tools that promote his pursuit.

 

Since technological advances are vast and diverse, the role that they give the user is varied, as well. When the user is placed in a passive role in which minimal thinking is required, the conveniences of technology often obliterate the potential creative thoughts lying in the recesses of one's mind. In contrast, giving the user control over a situation and providing him with tools that allow him to implement his ideas makes creative thought accessible to all. Ultimately, the effects of technology depend on how the designer envisions the user: as an actor or as a viewer.

 

***

 

Thanks so much for your help . It is very much appreciated. (And sorry if this was a pain to read!)

[Raiya]

New developments in technology have caused us to become less creative.

 

 

Technology has advanced at an ever increasing rate. As it progesses, it affects users like us who now heavily depend on such technology for everyday tasks. Despite its positive influence on our lives, it has also caused us to become intellectually challenged, or less creative. Creativity is the ability to produce intellectual thought processes and mental capabilities to deal with problems. With new technology that has started to dominate in the past decade, we are slowly becoming more handicapped and less critical. For example, the recently developed global positioning system (GPS) is a satellite navigation system that can provide accurate location and destinations anywhere on Earth, in any weather at any time. Before the invention of this new technology, humans had to rely on their intellectual abilities to plan out directions and think of efficient ways to reach their destination. This involves a lot of mental preparation and communication with others for advice. With the advent of the GPS, our thought processing and critical thinking skills have slowly diminished. Our creativity in planning and determining the most efficient route is now simply governed by a swift click of a button. With new technologies like the GPS, it has minimized the our thinking process and intellectual capacity to contemplate and deal with problems.

 

On the other hand, new developments in technology such as the use of internet as a tool to enrich creativity is also present. For example, Salman Khan, an American educator and the founder of Khan Academy took advantage of this newly developed technology and uploaded over 3000 videos online explaining a wide spectrum of academic subjects including chemistry, biology, economics, history, etc. He has attracted more than 355 000 subscribers on Youtube has gained popularity amongst students worldwide. Through this new innovative method of teaching on Youtube, he is able to reach out to an unlimited number of students with very little effort. Khan teaches in a clear and concise manner that may be difficult to find in a classroom or lecture hall. By utilizing new developments in technology through internet, paint and Youtube, it provides another method of reaching out to students and building their fundamentals in a very creative and efficient manner.

 

So where can we draw the line between when technology makes us less creative or more? The answer stems from how the new technology will affect the way we think. If the technology is capable of diminishing our own abilities to think and analyze, then it is capable of lessening our creativity. In the case of the GPS or any other electronic devices such as calculators, we have slowly lost our abilities to contemplate about how we can deal with problems without these devices. Because the problems can be solved with a simple touch of a finger, we lose the thought process that goes behind, for example, planning a trip or solving a simple mathematical problem. However, if the technology is capable of increasing knowledge and critical thinking, then it is in fact a benefit to our creativity. By utilizing the internet, the creative idea of teaching students online through Youtube videos serve as a perfect example of how a technology can create an innovative way to enrich intelligence especially for students who do not have access to classroom based education or who are simply interested in learning a new subject. Through this technological advancement of the internet, many educators like Khan and even medical school students have taken this opportunity to be creative and utilize an efficient and cost-effective way to reach out to communities worldwide. Thus, technology would make us less creative if it harms our ability to think critically, but would make us more creative if it enables us to elicit innovative ideas to solve problems.

 

 

Thanks!

[dinosaur]

New developments in technology have caused us to become less creative.

 

Is it my first shot at this, let's see how it goes.

 

***

 

Human technology has come a long way since the beginning of the 20th century. Whether it is the design of the engine or the emergence of mobile devices, humankind has greatly benefited from such inventions which greatly simplified daily activities and tasks. On the other hand, this easier lifestyle may have been a detriment to overall human creativity. For instance, before heavy machinery became an integral part of construction procedures, people had to be very creative and ingenious in order to complete the tasks at hand. Good examples of this are the pyramids in Egypt. With today’s tools, such an endeavor would practically be a piece of cake. Back in the day, very intelligent and creative human beings had to design novel procedures in order to get the task done.

 

However, in other projects, new developments in technology are beneficial to overall human creativity; they serve as a stepping stone towards a greater invention or novel procedure. Creativity is not solely the capability of developing new ideas; it is also how one can use what is available in order to make something even better. With global competition of multinational companies, originality and creativity play a crucial role in maintaining financial viability. A stellar example of this is Research in Motion (RIM) vs. Apple. In the early 2000’s, with the unveiling of the blackberry as a groundbreaking mobile device, RIM shocked the world and quickly rose amongst the elite of consumer electronics. Lately, due to their lack of creativity and the failure of their PlayBook, RIM is on the verge of bankruptcy with thousands of jobs on the line. During that time, Apple remains at the top, due to their originality, which allows them to release better products every year.

 

In conclusion, whether the new developments in technology have caused us to become less creative depend on the point of view. Perhaps, due to our numerous tools, our daily activities have become trivial and do not require instant creativity due to an overly simplified lifestyle. But humans have always strived for more. Humankind will always improve on their technology by introducing new concepts. Every day we are pushing the boundaries of human knowledge which allows us to move forward. For instance, new developments are keeping companies afloat. Creativity is still at the forefront of new human technology, just ask RIM.

 

****

Thank you so much Raymond! (bare with me)

[souljaboy]

New developments in technology have caused us to become less creative.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a development might not cause us to become less creative. Discuss what you think determines when new developments in technology cause us to become less creative.

 

Technological innovations in the past 20 years has made our lives easier, but it has also hampered our creativity by creating many commonly used items that replaces the need to create our own. Before major technological innovations in programming and hardware, video game developers always needed to rely on their own creativity to come up with a way to create their game. Different developers all needed to be creative and come up with their own coding and programming, leading to a games that are always unique. Recently, the majority of developers license game engines from a third party, leading to many games that appear alike and have very similar mechanics because they are all built from a common engine. Developers and programmers are much less creative with what they do to make their game stand out because of the availability of this technology making the job easier.

 

In other cases. technological advancements has increased our capacity to be creative in ways that was no possible before. In the film industry, film makers have been able to use the advancements in technology to create films that are both ambitious and creative. James Cameron was able to use new 3D technology in an extremely creative way to make a movie that stands out from others. He used filming methods that were never used before to create the highly acclaimed film Avatar. While others detracted on the technology, Cameron used creatively to make something oustanding. Avatar was not possible without the advancement in filmaking technology, but to make such a movie required the technology to be used in a creative way.

 

In the end, technological advancements mainly serves as a means to limit or expand creativity, but everything is still dependent on the creativity of the person utilizing the technology. In the video game industry, many game developers use technological advancements as a way of making their job easier and allows it to limit the creative effort that they put into the game, so it appears that the technology has limited their creativity. On the other had, a director such as James Cameron manages to use the new 3D technology as a way to further his creativity, resulting in the highest grossing film worldwide.

[meniscus]

Thanks Raymond!

 

New developments in technology have caused us to become less creative.

 

New developments in technology are suppose to advance human life in some way. A new devlopment in technology is a novel feature of a piece of technology. Novel developments technology often cause us to become less creative. That is, our ideas become less original. For example, when microsoft publisher came out, it gave people the ability to print off cards for all sorts of events (e.g. birthdays, anniversaries, mother's day, etc.). Before this software came out, a number of individuals made cards by hand, designing and drawing the card by hand. However, when microsoft publisher came out, most of the people who made cards by hand decided to just print off cards from the software since it allowed them print a card practically for free just like making a card by hand is free. Nonetheless, these individual's creativity skills decreased since they no longer had to think about how to design cards since they could select their card design with just a click of a button. Thus, these individuals become less original in their ideas even in their artwork for school. Thus, novel developments in technology have often causes us to becomes less creative.

 

However, a new developments in technology do not always cause us to become less creative. For example, the introduction of AutoCAD allowed one to create blue prints on a computer for a number of structures, including houses and cars. This software allowed one to visualize what their designs would look like virtually and to make adjustments to thier liking. It also allowed them to see minute details that would be difficulty to see on paper. Additionaly, it gave them the capability to see their designs from variety of angles just by rotating their desings on the monitor. AutoCad allowed car designers to come up with their own styles for car parts, making them more creative in designing cars since drawing blue prints by hand and picturing visually is just too much of a hassle, time consuming, and much more inconvenient to make changes to a designer's favour.

 

Thus, what determines when new developments causes us to become less creative depends if the development offers humans a idea that could not be done by humans by hand. For example, the card print ability of microsoft publisher was a novel idea, but cards can also be made by hand and be made just as nice as printed cards. Thus, microsoft publisher made a number people who use to make cards by hand less creative since they no longer had to think of designs for cards. That is, they no longer had to use their brains as much. However, the introduction of Autocad offer humans the ability to see their blue prints in a different perspective and modify their designs very quickly in order to experiment with new designs. The capability of this software could not be offered by pen and paper. Thus, it made people more creative since it was something truly novel that enhanced designer's ability to play with new designs in a convenient way.

[polarbear89]

New developments in technology have caused us to become less creative.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a development might not cause us to become less creative. Discuss what you think determines when new developments in technology cause us to become less creative.

 

Technology has rapidly evolved during the past 100 years. Though many people consider the evolution of technology to be a positive one, the new development of technology may have actually caused us to be less creative. Firstly, the coming of the television marks the departure for people to actively engage in finding an entertaining activity. Compared to now, people used to go outside, invent games and pursue intellectual activities more often and engage their thought process. Furthermore, the use of television as a form of entertainment has vastly overridden the time people spend reading books and listening to the radio. Watching television does not require any imagination and any aspect of creativity on behalf of the watcher is removed from this scenario and passively accepts the information given to him. On the other hand, listening to the radio or reading a book gives much leeway to the listener or reader. They can interpret the information they are given and imagine the scenes that are occurring in their own unique way. The experience from reading and listening to the radio are much different from when one is watching television. Television, in fact, is a medium that distracts the watcher from life and does not allow the watcher to engage in real life and have creative thoughts. In terms of seeking entertainment, technology has caused us to be less creative by limiting the mental engagement we have with the technology.

 

On the other hand, technology also has allowed us to tackle our difficulties and find ways to overcome them. For example, a computer that has typically been used for word processing has evolved into a communication device that can be used creatively to overcome our difficulties. For example, shy people have always been at a disadvantage when it comes to in person interactions. A study has recently been done that shows that if a shy person uses online communication methods, the barrier that the shy person experiences in in-person communication dissipates and this puts them on an equal level with extroverts. The study also examined dating websites and found that once these online relationships were translated into real life, the shy people did not lose the advantage they found by using online communication and their relationships translated just as easily from the online medium to the in-person medium as an extrovert’s relationship. In this situation, the online medium does not detract from the person’s interactions with the other person, it merely supplements it and allows them to continue to engage and communicate without the barrier they face in real life. By allowing the person to engage with the medium, the person’s creativity is not stifled, they are still actively participating and engaging with the other person. In fact, their creativity is enhanced because the use of this medium allows them to overcome barriers and interact with the other person with their full potential.

 

Whether or not a technology causes us to be less creative depends on whether or not the technology removes the person’s engagement with the medium or supplements the process. In the instance of television, the direct deliverance and passive acceptance of the information by the viewer does not allow the viewer to engage critically and engage creativity. However, in terms of online communication for shy individuals, the computer is merely a medium, which allows the individual to overcome their barrier and allows them to actively engage in a conversation with another individual. The use of technology as a way of overcoming our barriers does not cause us to lose our creativity, however, if a technology does not allow for our full intellectual engagement while using it, it may cause us to be less creative.

 

thank you

[perspectives]

New developments in technology have caused us to become less creative.

 

Advancement and progress in technology is perpetual in society and it has been a strong dictator of how humans currently live. One of the growing concerns is the fear that the new developments in technology may have caused humans to become less innovative. A loss in creativity would be indicative of humans ability to innovate and produce novel ideas. An example of such an incident is evident in the field of Archeology. New advancements in technology have allowed us to gain a much stronger understanding of indigenous people and their cultures. Technology has allowed us to trace many facts about the prehistoric nature of the Earth, and thus new theories or ideas are no longer produced to fill the voids in our knowledge. In the field of Archeology, creative theories to explain unclear phenomenons are no longer required due to the discoveries revealed by technology.

 

However, there are also situations where technology has allowed humans to become more creative than in the past. Technology has provided humans with the ability to visualize and test certain theories that would not have been feasible without the new developments. The new advantaged gained from technology may stimulate new ideas and thus improve creativity. Such an example includes the idea of DNA and medicine. New technology has allowed humans to view the human genome in its entirety and provided scientists with new clues on novel treatments to many of the pertinent ailments in today's society. An extreme example can be seen in the Ultimate Spiderman movie where a scientist tests theories of inter- species recombinant DNA in order to try and reproduce a lost limb.

 

Therefore, it can be seen that technological developments have contributed to losses and gains in creativity depending on the field the technology is applied. In the field of science, where many theories are unverifiable and tests impractical, technology has given us the ability to put those theories to the test. The new knowledge gained will only continue to stimulate new ideas and new research as the boundaries of science are unforeseeable. In the field of archeology, the study of prehistoric people and their cultures, everything has already taken place and set in stone. Technologies ability to allow us to go back in time and unsheathe the truth diminishes the need of creative thinking in this field. When is it then, that technology decreases creativity, depends on the field of interest and whether it is limited in its growth or not.

 

Thanks Raymond

[sulfamethoxazole]

In modern society, technological developments are often welcomed with open arms, another invention that will somehow improve our lives. However, technology also brings with it many potential problems. One adverse effect of new technology is that it may lead us to become less creative. At the same time that a technological invention might simplify a process of creation, it can also lead creators to become more lazy and innovate less. The modern music industry is a good example of this. With the help of computer audio systems, songwriters and producers can write, record, and edit new songs faster and more easily than before. At the same time, it has also become easier to recycle music, creating songs that are a rehash of already-existing music, with just enough modifications to make it passably different. Many modern pop songs sound similar, as a result of this type of assembly line production. Although technology has made it easier for songs to be written and recorded, it has also arguably lead to a decline in the quality of songs that are made.

 

However, not all technology hinder creativity. When a piece of technology allows people to do what was previously impossible, a lot of innovation can happen. The use of smart boards in classrooms is a good example of this. Smart boards are sort of like whiteboards connected to a computer. In addition to allowing teachers and students to write and draw on it, smart boards also allow for multimedia to be presented in an engaging manner. The technology of smart boards allow for a more innovative learning experience and bolster creativity, rather than stifle it.

 

Although technology helps to simplify our lives, sometimes technological advancements can limit our ability to innovate and improvise. What determines whether a technological development encourages or discourages creativity? One important consideration is whether the technology completely changes the way things are traditionally done or if it only makes an existing process easier. When technology changes the way we traditionally do things, it creates room for creativity. Smart boards are a huge departure from traditional teaching tools of blackboards and overheads. Because it allows teachers and students to do things in a novel way, it encourages experimentation and creativity in the classroom. On the other hand, when technology only makes an existing process easier, it only serves to make creators more complacent. Computer software that aids in music composition and mixing makes it easier for producers to put together songs from recycling tracks, but at the same time, makes it less likely for producers to put in the effort to create music that is completely new.

 

-----

 

Thanks Raymond!

[blue181]

New developments in technology have caused us to become less creative.

 

The field of technology is incredibly fast-growing, and many efforts are placed on creating new technologies that can make people’s lives more manageable. From cell phones, to cars, to microwaves, these technologies all make the basic human tasks of communication, transportation, cooking etc. easier to accomplish than before. However, a possible drawback of these widely available and simple solutions could be that they reduce the need for people to be resourceful in creating their own solutions, thus reducing their creativity. Evidence for this reduction in creativity can be seen in children who have access to video and computer games. These games have preset functions and storylines, which in many cases take away the need for children to engage their own imaginations and create games from ordinary objects like children did before this technological age. For example, in her autobiographical novel “Little House in the Big Woods”, Laura Ingles Wilder described her life growing up as an early American pioneer. She described how she and her sisters would clean the bladder of a butchered pig, and tie it into a balloon to play with. Since they did not have the multitude of gaming options that technology has provided children with nowadays, they had to be creative, and worked with what they could find. Video and computer games reduce the need for children to use their own imaginations as it gives a simple solution to the task of finding something to play with, and cuts out most of the creative process. So in this case, new technological developments have caused people to become less creative than they were before.

 

However, some new developments in technology can enhance people’s creative ability. This is especially true for technologies which are tools that allow better application of imagination and creativity, like Adobe Photoshop for example. Photoshop is a computer software program that is quite technologically advanced because it allows just about any photographer, whether professional or amateur, to edit and manipulate digital photographs. These functions include, but are not limited to adjusting colour and contrast, erasing mistakes, layering multiple pictures, creating special effects with texture, and drawing by hand, all of which allow people to create interesting, and unique works of art. Before the advent of Photoshop and digital photography, it was quite difficult just to develop film, as special equipment and a dark room were required. Creating special effects like those made possible by Photoshop were even more difficult, and could only be done with professional expertise. With Photoshop, however, being imaginative and manipulating photography becomes as easy as clicking a few buttons. In this case, Photoshop is a technology that encourages the creative process instead of bypassing it, thus allowing more people the opportunity to be more creative than previously possible.

 

Overall, although new developments in technology generally make people’s lives easier, whether or not they cause people to become less creative depends on if the technology bypasses the need to engage the imagination or encourages it. If a technology offers a straightforward solution to everyday tasks, like video games that offer children and easy choice of play, they can cut out the need to be creative and utilize their own imagination to come up with a solution, since one has already been given. In this case, technology has caused children to become less creative than they could have been without access to technologically advanced games. However, with technology like Photoshop, instead of offering a bypass to being creative it is a tool that can be used to unleash the imagination, and create works of art with photography that would have been difficult to accomplish previously; thus it actually enhances creativity, instead avoiding it.