So you say you like Animals…But how much do you really care?

 It is a well-known truth that we all love kittens and puppies and we think monkeys and pandas are cute. However, does that make us animal lovers? I used to think so, but lately I have been seeing it differently. The definition itself suggests that an animal lover cares for all animal species, yet there is no single person I know that loves spiders, or bats. Because of the large effects that humanity has on nature, species are already being extinct at rates never seen before due to increased farming, urbanisation, and industrialisation.

Recently, one of my lecturers said that people don’t really care about animals unless they are fluffy and cuddly. The cruel truth behind those words upset me a lot. For example, did anybody know that wind turbines kill up to 900,000 bats per year? Apparently, the turbines cause changes in air pressure as they move, which could make a small animal’s lungs explode. This is a very disturbing fact and yet no one is voting against wind turbines in order to save these currently endangered species.

Another example are oil spills in oceans, which are the cause of death for millions of sea birds, marine mammals and fish. Oil spills in the oceans are technically a death sentence for sea birds, because once their feathers are covered in oil, they lose their ability to fly.

Furthermore, oil also destroys their natural waterproofing and insulation, leaving them vulnerable to hypothermia or overheating, and not to mention that swallowing some of the oil can severely damage their internal organs and lead to death. Did you know that the Exxon Valdez oil spill killed somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 seabirds, plus a number of shore birds and bald eagles? Not to mention BP’s oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico or Alaska. What about the marine mammals like whales, dolphins and seals? Oil damages whales and dolphins’ ability to breathe as it clogs their blow holes, and leaves seals vulnerable to hypothermia by coating their fur.

Both of these cases bring up ethical issues, because we do need wind turbines in order to generate electricity. One turbine is enough to provide half of the electricity needed for a single home for an year. As for oil, it is much needed for petrol and many machines. So it turns out that in order to satisfy our own needs, we are killing billions of animals each year. Of course, nobody spilled oil in the ocean on purpose, but still the accidents ended the lives of many species.

Do you think it is fair to kill so many sea birds and marine mammals in order to get oil? Do you think that bats deserve to die, so that farms can get electricity?

A completely different, yet related topic is hunting. Did you know that currently the Atlas Bear is under extinction, because it was hunted for sport? Not to mention how many deers and other forest inhabitants are murdered just for fun. Do you think this is fair at all? If we learn that someone has been keeping their kitten or puppy hungry, we already have a number of organisations with cruelty lines, so that we can report it. However, we cannot report that a deer has been murdered just for sport or in order to become a decoration to one’s home.

Have a look at this video for example.

Cruel isn’t it? It is one thing to kill an animal for food and completely different to kill it for fun. What is your opinion?  

S.

Do Celebrities lose their right to privacy when they become famous?

As we all know, many celebrities are famous because they crave the media limelight but does that come at a price in the form of their privacy?

In the current technological age, ordinary people have access to smart phones with built in cameras and have ability to upload a picture to the web in a matter of seconds. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other social media platforms are full of ‘spotted’ celebrities going about their daily lives. Is it not unethical to pry into a person’s life regardless of their social status? If we did this to a random person on the street would we have a bigger issue on our hands of perhaps even being branded as a stalker?

Those pictures you admire/criticise in newspapers and glossy magazines, someone paid the paparazzi to publish them. How is this ethical? That the photographer needs permission for the picture to be used but the celebrity doesn’t get an option?

In the modern day, digital media has made it difficult for the paparazzi, with competition from the average citizen’s automatic photo uploads and therefore are going to extreme lengths to get their shot which can be unrivalled.

With technology being so advanced, paparazzi have access to James Bond style gadgets such as drones with cameras that can be concealed on their clothing that are invisible to the naked eye; this creates a massive ethical issue of deception as the person doesn’t even stand a chance of hiding themselves. Other methods have been going undercover to gain their million dollar shot; with dressing up as an interior designer to get into the living room of the stars. Take for example Julia Roberts’ pregnancy photograph, taken by the German paparazzi Hans Paul that was worth £73,000.

So where are the boundaries for the paparazzi? Or aren’t there anymore? Do celebrities lose their rights to privacy because they appear in the public eye so many times?

Again this topic gained a lot of attention in Germany when the famous ex-formula one driver Michael Schumacher had a skiing accident in Grenoble on the 30^th December 2013 and has been lying in coma since. But even in this horrible and dramatic situation the paparazzi still try everything to get a picture of the vulnerable star. Someone even dressed up as a priest to get inside, but was luckily he was caught.

I don’t like this kind of unethical medial attention and scandal. I think the stars are a part of the public life and have to expect to get photographed in the public, but also they have a right of privacy when it comes to unexpected conditions like an accident. Even if we want it, we don’t have the right to know everything about someone and “we” don’t have the right to ignore his or her right of privacy.

What do you think?

Did they choose to be famous and have to deal with it? Or do you agree with me? 

L.V.M & L.C 

Benefits Street, Are you Leading by Example?

The very first episode gave us a shocking insight into how ‘the other half live’, and has left most of the nation gripped.  I’m referring to the Channel 4 TV series, “Benefits Street”.

The documentary series about the residents of deprived James Turner Street in Birmingham has prompted almost 300 complaints to Television Standards Agency, Ofcom and more then 100 to Channel 4 themselves.

Many concerns over the negative portrayal of benefits claims and criminal activity are among the more serious issues complained about. References to drug and alcohol usage as well as watching two men removing alarm tags from stolen items of clothing can be considered to encourage younger viewers of the programme. Is it acceptable for the younger generation of this country to witness this sort of immoral behaviour?

The programme also gave a very sorrowful vision into the struggle that newer residents on the street faced. The new influx of Romanians to James Turner Street wasn’t very warm and pleasant, and it gave a very sad but realist perception of what life is like since coming to the UK and the struggles they are facing. It could be argued that highlighting the struggles faced by newer international residents could insight more hate campaigns and anger surrounding their presence.

Ofcom's regulations state "material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder must not be included in television or radio services".

Channel 4 have stated the programme is “purely observational captivity” and that it is not designed to encourage or condone this type of behaviour, but it still poses the question, that if it is broadcast on national television, is it acceptable?

Mental Health, What is Really Going on with the Adolescences of Today?

1 in 10 young people can suffer with mental health problems during a crucial time in their lives, but is enough being done to support and confront the issues they are facing? It has recently come to light that mental health problems in young people are a growing concern for organisations such as Sane and Rethink Mental Illness.  

Several charities believe that not enough is being done to spot the early signs of mental health issues, which are putting lives at risk. A call for more training for key figures such as teachers and GPs to be better educated in identifying early signs as it is said to be crucial to raise awareness. Should more pressure be put onto educators and doctors to be more proactive and aware? Should young people be able to spot mental health issues for themselves or should more be done to help from the outside?

Mental health symptoms are easily relatable and shockingly, can include problems such as paranoia, delusions, depression, anxiety, personality changes and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Simple signs such as not going to school or work can also be indicators of mental health problems.

The lack of early recognition can often result in serious injury, both to the sufferer and those surrounding the individual. It can however, be argued that mental health is sensitive subject area for teens and young people who don’t want to recognise that there is an issue or want to ask for help. This poses the question, why is there a certain amount of stigma surrounding mental health in young people?

Barbara McIntosh who works for the Mental Health Foundation believes that anyone who comes into contact with children should know more about what signs to look for. Although they already have a very tough job to do, with the right tools and support, a lot more can be done to acknowledge and help young people with mental health issues. She states that friends, families and anyone who comes into contact especially with children are being urged by charities to have a better understanding of mental health issues and know the tell tale signs.

The sooner mental health problems are diagnosed and treated, the better the outcome can be and it is less likely to develop into a more problematic issue later on. Time to Change encourage people with mental health problems to discuss their issues and stand up to the stigma. Mental health is not generally represented in a positive light and therefore stereotypes are formed making the subject even more difficult.

Therefore, whose responsibility is it to recognise the issue of mental health problems among children and young people? These issues may be occurring from a young age in any number of situations at home or school and other such places, but, should it fall on friends and family to do something, or that of the educators and professionals who are more knowledgeable in the subject area?

What is your opinion on mental health amongst children and young people? Do you think more should be done to recognise and contain it by parents or professionals?

It is acceptable that we as a society have a stigma surrounding mental health issues and find it difficult to discuss these matters?

Do you have any past experiences personally or know of somebody who has suffered with mental health issues?

N.

The Future of Tomorrow…the XXXL Generation?

Do today's children need help? 

As we welcome the New Year and a new start in 2014, many people will be making a list of their New Years Resolutions. Typically, many women will be aiming to get healthy or to shift a few pounds, but I ask; should children be doing the same?  

Shockingly, one third of children were overweight in the UK in 2013. However, being overweight is not just labelling someone as fat; it’s establishing an unhealthy lifestyle and possible dangerous health issues. So why is everyone so scared to tell children their health is at risk?

Obviously, one has to take into account the mental effects of telling a child they are fat or overweight. Especially in today’s society with the increasing demand for women to look like a size 0 and teenagers struggling with eating disorders.  Due to this it is apparent that the subject has to be dealt with correctly.

Take for example, the 2011/2012 National Weigh in Programme, which calculates school children’s BMI results and sends out letters to parents informing where on the scale they would be classed from underweight to clinically obese. These letters sparked outrage from parents of children who were clearly not overweight, which was evident in the case of one active 6 year old girl who would still wear aged 4-5 clothing.

But does this also pose the question of whether parents with children who are actually overweight refuse to take the news and help make a change? Are parents neglecting health advice and still feeding their children badly? But, who is really to blame?

If we take the argument from a different perspective, one may argue that schools are to blame. You may remember Jamie Oliver’s campaign to get school dinners healthy and banning the school canteen junk food. Jamie was successful in the removal of Turkey Twizzlers from the lunch menu and creating a more healthy lunch time for children. However, there are still many schools with junk food and vending machines for children to have easy access to multiple times throughout the day, which can become a routine indulgence.  

So consequently, could it fall to children who are at fault? Parents may be supplying children with a healthy packed lunch which finds itself in the bin in favour of a greasy school dinner, or nipping to the local news agents after school for their daily supply of sugary snacks. 

What do you think? Who's responsibility is it to keep kids healthy and what is the best way to tackle the issue? 

Is it morally ok to label an overweight child as overweight? Surely the 22st 15 year old in the news would clearly not disagree with the comment he was obese? 

Or do you have any past experiences with this topic to share an insight? 

L.C