Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Pesticides should not be banned completely because of its need in agriculture and the effect on the
industry if banned. Pesticides are necessary for the production of large quantities of produce. If
pesticides are not used the overall quantity of the produce will decrease because of the damage
caused by the insects. The economy will also be affected because there is a whole industry revolving
around the production of pesticides. If the banning of pesticides go through the whole industry will
collapse, and there will be no doubt that there will be a ripple in the economy as a whole. Instead of
banning pesticides, stronger control and regulation is a much better solution.
People may depend upon the jobs and tax base that pesticide manufacturers, distributors, dealers,
commercial applicators, and farmers provide. Next, pesticides play an important role in agriculture. It
keeps insects and disease organisms like weeds away from the crops so that they don't die or get
ruined. Without pesticides a lot of plants would be dying. And that causes a large economic issue. For
example, in local supermarket, fruit and vegetable prices would increase by about 40% because it
would be harder to produce organic crops. The farmers would have a harder time and would have to
charge more. For the lower class people, this can be very bad for them. Overall, there would be a lot
of problems being created if we get rid of pesticides.
No, pesticide should not be banned, they allow the production of large quantities of food.
Pesticides allow the production of large quantities of food. Without them, bugs and pests would take
over our agricultural supply diminishing the amount of food we have available. This would cause a
great increase in food prices and even food shortages leading to mass starvation. Pesticides are
necessary evil in order to control pests.
Is Peer pressure harmful or beneficial to individual?
The media is the single most powerful entity on Earth today, they have the power to create and change
public opinion with ease, armies are not needed anymore, the media is far more powerful than any
army could ever be, they control public discussion, they create opinions, they change opinions, they
create sentiments, they create realities. The media has the power to literally change societies if they
wanted to. How is it being used? It’s used as a propaganda machine, and an instrument to persuade
people into believing your selfish ideas. There are two types of journalism - advocacy journalism and
informative journalism. Advocacy journalists have the objective to persuade you into believing their
narrative and their view, they are not concerned with informing you of the whole picture, they want to
persuade you to believe the narrative that they believe, everything they say can be 100% true and fact,
but they selectively omit certain information and craftily construct an information which serves their
own purpose of advancing and pushing forward their views. Informative journalists on the other hand
are there to inform you, they don’t selectively report only certain information, they report everything
without picking or selecting parts only, they give you the full picture.
Here’s one example of how Media creates division. They say - a white cop shot a black teen, and when
you say this sentence you instantly create grouping of people, and then they spend 10 days speculating
what might have been their motives etc. and at the 11th day when the facts come out, people have
already created their opinions based on the speculations and grouping reporting, they don’t believe
the truth anymore.
Mass media and other forms of communication technology have an enormous influence in helping to
shape public opinion and underlying sentiment. Newspapers, TV and radio are all important sources
of basic information about other people and other places and this can itself help to engender
understanding if presented in a fair, even-handed and non-inflammatory way.
The media is also an important accountability mechanism: it raises important issues, corruption for
example, that might otherwise never be publicly debated or addressed. The media also has an
important role in stimulating governments to take action on social policy: although stories about
migrants or refugees might reinforce prejudice in some quarters, they also expose problems that need
to be addressed, for example poor living conditions or lack of access to services, the citizenship status
of migrants, the response of local communities to their settlement and so on.
But the media can also, in some cases, become an instrument for the dissemination of false and
inflammatory messages and values that do not promote respect or well-tempered dialogue and
discussion. Negative messages can divide communities and can help perpetuate the stereotypes that
nurture violence. Media portrayals can sometimes serve to exacerbate the narrative of oppositional
forces and irreconcilable, value-based differences. The media often prefers to dwell on conflict, since
conflict and drama sell newspapers and attract an audience. This inevitably means that the more
extreme points of view get airtime rather than the feelings of the majority of citizens that may have
more accommodating and balanced perspectives. For example, during the 1994 Rwandan genocide, the
state-supported Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) station broadcast hate propaganda
against Tutsis, moderate Hutus, Belgians and the United Nations, and was used as a tool to organize
massacres. And even when the media are truly independent, there can be a tendency by some (though
not all) of the media to oversimplify the complexity of current problems and reduce the news to catch
phrases and sound bytes – on the assumption that people want drama and entertainment rather than
informed analysis. An emphasis on the constructive role of the media, which we strongly support, has
to go with a realistic recognition of the problems that the media have reason to guard against.
Recreational Marijuana should or should not be legal?
Marijuana is bad=Marijuana Sales: Bad or good?
Marijuana sales in Colorado skyrocketed after the government changed the law about recreational
use of the dangerous plant, Marijuana. Marijuana is the drug usually used in a cigarette that people
smoke, commonly known as Pot, or Weed. It is one of the most recognizable plant in the world. It
has a drug inside the cigarette called THC which is causes the “high” feeling. This drug has been
around for a long time, since ancient Egypt. It is known to damage your short term memory. The law
changed so that you may buy Marijuana for recreational use. Many people like the idea of this
change in law and some don’t. I think that this was a very horrible idea and say that Marijuana sales
of recreational use is a very dangerous idea and could get many people killed. People could get high
on Marijuana and cause a car crash and several people could die or get injured. People also get
cancer very easily from smoking pot. Drug dealers could sell it in states where the law still stands
about non-recreational use of Marijuana. Officer Susi came in about the DARE program and talked to
us all about how dangerous it is to use Marijuana and other drugs in abusive ways. It deforms your
cells which might kill you. It is very likely to get in the hands of experimenting teens. This could ruin
their entire life. There is a very high chance of getting addicted and you could get an overdose.
Some people think that smoking Pot can help you and is totally safe. Who would smoke a very
dangerous drug that could kill you very easily once you are hooked? Who would put there life at risk
for just a good feeling? I think that any state like Colorado that accepts recreational use of Marijuana
is in for a big, bad, dangerous surprise.
Send to Kindle
By: PTI | New Delhi | Published: October 6, 2017 9:16:00 pm
Beti Bachao Beti Padhao campaign, India girl child ratio, india sex ratio, Women and Child
Development, Beti Bachao Beti Padhao scheme, India child sex ratio, indian express news The BBBP
scheme is one of PM Modi’s pet projects and was launched by him in January, 2015 in Panipat,
Haryana. It focuses on districts with the worst child sex ratio (CSR) as per the 2011 Census.
(Representational Image)
The government on Friday claimed that there has been an improvement in sex ratio at birth in 104
districts selected for the Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao (BBBP) scheme, which aims at checking female
infanticide and educating the girl child. “An increasing trend in Sex Ratio at Birth (SRB) is visible in
104 districts, 119 districts have reported progress in registration of pregnancies in the first trimester
and 146 districts have shown improvement in institutional deliveries,” Secretary, Women and Child
Development (WCD) Ministry, R K Shrivastava told reporters.
The WCD ministry now plans to extend this programme all the districts of the country. The senior
official was comparing 2016-2017 figures with those of 2015-2016. The data for the above three
parameters is derived from health ministry’s Health Management Information System (HIMS).
The BBBP scheme is one of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s pet projects and was launched by him in
January, 2015 in Panipat, Haryana. It focuses on districts with the worst child sex ratio (CSR) as per
the 2011 Census.
The goal of the programme is to address the issue of decline in child sex ratio in critical districts
through an awareness campaign as well as multi-sectoral interventions, which include registration of
pregnancies in first trimester, increased institutional deliveries, and prohibition of sex-
determination. Of the 161 selected districts, the top five districts that showed improvement in sex
ratio at birth (SRB) in 2016-2017 as compared to the previous year were Dibang Valley (761 to 1176);
Lakshwadeep (832 to 955); Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh (849 to 943); Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh (500-
594) and Pulwama, Jammu and Kashmir (949-1018).
The five districts that have shown the sharpest decline during the same time period are Saiha,
Mizoram (1022-898), Nicobar (948-839), Shopian, J&K (1062-959), Bandipore, J&K (964-885) and
Ghaziabad (977-908). SRB is the number of girls born for every 1,000 boys and is recorded at birth.
This data is collected annually. CSR is recorded for a population in the age group of 0 to 6 years and
is collected once in 10 years. It is primarily influenced by SRB and mortality in early childhood.
Haryana, which has the worst child sex ratio according to the 2011 census (834 girls for every 1000
boys against the national average of 918), has shown improvement in sex ratio at birth in 18 of the
total 20 districts selected in the state for the programme. The other two districts have shown a
decline, according to Joint Secretary, WCD, K Moses Chalai. “Ten years of SRB is equal to CSR. So
naturally, if SRB improves it will result in an improved CSR. While we can’t compare CSR with SRB we
have seen that broadly SRB for two years is on an improving trend and above the CSR of 2011,”
Moses Chalai told reporters.
In Rajasthan, of the total 40 districts selected, 10 have recorded an improvement in sex ratio at birth
and in Punjab 14 out of total 20 districts have shown an upward trend, according to Moses.
In Uttar Pradesh, 21 districts were selected for BBBP and 15 have shown an improvement in sex ratio
at birth. Five have shown a decline and the remaining one district has been “stable”.
In the national capital region, three districts have shown a decline (East Delhi, South Delhi, South-
West Delhi) and four have shown improvement (North-West Delhi, North Delhi, West Delhi and
North-east Delhi).
For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App
Tags:
Beti Bachao Beti Padhao