Media

The advocate of the media have always supported that the media "creates" the values for the society rather than "relect" it. However, close examination reveals that the media is just a mere reflection of the society. It does not invent and certainly not create values.All it does is to "discover" the old values and blend it to create a new better value.

First and foremost media is progeny of the society. All its element like authors, editors, musicians, reporters etc comes from the society. Thus it is effected by the society it is part of. There views are the one reflected from the society. The difference they create is that they give a common platform to the all kind of the views. Its maturity of depends upon the maturity of the society. For instance, lets take the media of developing countries, the content of the media there are not as variegated as the developed countries. Their issues are limited to the religion, culture and internal issues. Thus they reflects the society they live in.
Any cataclysmic thought that may appear can only come from the elements of the society. If it comes then it can be assumed that such thoughts already exists in the society and media is giving the platform.


Further, media cannot afford to digress from the society. Remember the media is business and like all the business the its centrality lies in the money and self sustaining. Money drives the media to get support from the majority. This essentially leads to compliance to the issue which the majority supports. Thus media have hardly any room to digress from the democracy. But it do well to utilize the room offered. It give enough representation to the minorities of the societies to express it views, which finally percolates to individual's view. Thus the media have representation to the individual level. It can be vey well said that media is paradigm of the society , tough not Utopian.

But beyond the media creation or reflection of the values of the society, the bottom line issue is Media is proving helpful to society and helpful to the democracy to overall. By creating conducive environment in society, easing tension between the nations and better communication between culture. Thus it worth has been proved in creating a common unified society what we call modern society, which is far more rational and flexible than the antiquated ones. The media has done it part of discoverer(not inventor) very well, making world far better place to live in. While it may now be clear that the media acts as mirror for the society rather than a painter of new picture, its positive influence to the society is really laudable.

Contention is bound to increase

Environmentalist have always argued as "declining environment" is "global in scope" it has
potential to bring the Nations together. However, a closer examination of the issue reveals
that we are trying to predict the future only by looking at one side of the coin.The degrading
Environment is not going to the bring world the together, rather it will increase the
hostility between the nations.

Fist and foremost, with development of the underdeveloped countries their consumption of the
fuel will increase. There will greater contention among nations for limited fossil fuels. When
a nation develops, it have to ignore the long term issue and concentrate on issues which is
exigent at hand. As the nation will try to increase their industrial productivity they will
seek more energy. These nations will only care for the increasing the productivity and in turn
overall profitability. This will in turn effect the environment, as the energy efficient
techniques are capital and investment intensive. The situation has started to appear with the
emergence of the BRIc(Brazil. Russia, India and China). They are the power hungry. They have
just started to develop and started to show there tooth of cub. They are ignorant of the
declining environment as their priority is the sole development.


The Developed nations are not also solving the problem. In fact they form the other group of
the contention. The Developed nations have much higher per capita consumption of fuel or term
more relevant to us per captia emission, which represent the percentage share of envirnoment
decline by each individual. In such a scenario, it gravely unfair to ask the developing
countries to cut back emission. Only when the developing country can come in par with
developed country, contention can be resolved the author conclusion can be said to be valid.
For instance, the recent failure of the kyoto protocol is the glaring example. The difference
,well its economics, between developed and developing nation is progeny of the prevalent
contentions.

The problem relies in the essential mentality of the people. They try to overlook the long
term loss in advent of the short term gain. Going with the same logic each of the player will
think of their short term gain than that of the long term loss which is envirnoment decline.
This is compliance with the game theory in which the future condition will not only depend on
the one player decision and market decision but also with decisions made by the other player.
While it is clear that the decline in the environment will essentially leads to more
contention amongst the nations. The problem can be resolved by each nation looks their long
term loss and abide the responsibilities they indebted to the world. The invention of the more
cleaner alternatives of the fuel is also big bet although a distant one.

an inconvenient truth

Pacifists have always considered the "truths" as mere logical extension of the eminent wisdom. However, a close re-examination reveals that the most of the Important truths have begot from the a cataclysmic opposition to this accepted wisdom.

First and foremost, the problem is wisdom are not absolute. it is the interpretation of the facts and events. The presonal prejudice and experience play a great role in defining wisdom. Therefore with person opinion defination of the wisdom changes. As with time the facts and event changes, defination become more erractic. Thus the chaolic of wisdom again become falliable with time. The notions, which tries to chanlleges the absoluteness of the this preconcieved defination, are progenitor of Important truth. For instance when Galelio tried to questions theory of centrality of earth in universe, then only he arrived to truth that earth is revovling around the sun, infact its a tiny part of universe. This was origin of truth.


Further some of the preconcived definations , however outrageous, are never questioned. For intance, divison of the countries on the basis of reason which are absolutely incomprehensible. It is known that a greater good a can be achieved by the free world with no resitrication between peoples in communication and economy still such divison is considered to be subtle. Untill and unless leeway is given for challenging such grosly incorrect assumptions, the broader truth will remain nebulous.

Peoples always tends to reamin adtherent to exisiting defination. As they are proslytize for its accuracy. In step ahead this people try to proselytize others.This cascading progrom hinders the progress of individualism and to in humanity in it global scope. Religion and culture are glaring example for it. They have exsisted from the moment the mind has tried to understand the world as a whole. Their idea are fixed from pre-historic times, peoples till now continues to follow them. Everytime they are challenged there is large uproar against it.

In essence, accepted notions tries to slow down the world. The truth tries to attain the opposite, that is to blow wind to keep the cycle of life running. Therefore there is inherent conflict underlying them. The hope that the current wisdom is not absolute is next truth.

Ephemeral Scientific theories

As the science and technology is advancing, its belittling the old traditional theories. The pace at which these new theories are replacing the passe scientific theories, which were once considered well established, compels us to look the existent theories with skepticism. There are many reason to believe so.

First and foremost is some of the basic theories which were once seems to be completely obvious and logical, has been consistently proven to be wrong. For instance, the Newtons law of gravitation. It was perhaps impeccable in its time. The falling of the apple was completely defined by the attraction of earth. He gave the formula which was defining all the forces that can exist between the mass, completely unassailable. But as soon Enstien put his revolutionary theory and redefined the gravitation as mere curve in space time co-ordinate. The Newton's theory was discarded in no time. There are many such numerous examples.

The problem invariably lies in assumption which scientist take while defining this theory. While this assumptions seems to be empirically flawless, they are never proven abstractly. This preconceived and prejudiced notion and axioms are progenitor of the errors.

There is one more aspect to this. Skepticism itself is fundamental of the scientific developments. In fact skepticism has beget all the new theories. Skepticism is partisan for scientist that they are curious about the specific field. The only logical conclusion can be scientific fraternity should see each and every pre-existing theories with absolute skepticism and they should not take any of fact as granted.