A Toast to the Human Race

2031

Earth is a bustling world, filled with so many animals, plants, objects. The objects lay lifeless on floors and surfaces, holding no emotions and letting the heat pass in and out of them like wind. The plants also lie on the ground, many dead as they are cut off from their source of life; the soil, and water too. Yet most of the animals still live, with the smaller ones slowly dying out in their millions, and the bigger, more brutal ones dominating the planet.

In a large industrial city clouded with infectious smoke from the factories in the nearby area, people are walking, running and driving about. The noises is deafening to children, but the adults are used to it. Many of them are on mobile phones chatting away in either loud or hushed voices and ignoring everything else around them except the ground they move on. Many high-tech shops are displaying a news report on the televisions, where some teenagers are brutally kicking their teacher, laughing and swearing loudly. Another picture is shown of this young woman, only trying to do her job, and then one of her beaten, swollen face with caked blood still showing her scars for life. A little girl, looking no older than seven years of age, stops in her tracks at laughs at the victim because she's "ugly". Her mother, tired and depressed, makes no attempt to scold her. She just drags the girl along on her way.

Suddenly, attention is brought between a meeting-turned-debate between a vicar and an iman, two zealous followers of the biggest world religions, who are arguing about their beliefs. The pastor speaks of God, Jesus and forgiveness and criticizes the Muslim ways and Muhammad (peace be upon him). The iman vehemently shouts back, cursing Christianity's dominance over world powers and the wars they cause. A policeman is watching this argument intently, but is torn between supporting his own religion and completely stopping the fight. Besides, certain laws are preventing him from defending the iman, due to him being a Muslim.

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


That is my perception of a possible future. It is fictional (obviously), but I'm just trying to give an idea of what my thoughts are like. It could continue past that for years and years, but destruction must come in one form or another; destruction could eat up the world like a cream cake- slowly and in many slices until it is finished.

We humans are intelligent. We know how to make and produce food. We can do things other animals cannot do (or for at least another million years yet). But if we don't put our benefits over others then we are no better than dogs or monkeys. Starvation could come quicker to more powerful countries than we expect. People are already starving in third-world countries, and we could join them soon considering how projects and wars are moving today. Through our neglect and selfishness for ourselves, plants and animals could die off; those are our sources of food gone. Mother Earth works hard, but we are deaf to her pleas to enjoy her burdens and so she bears food less and less each day.

We cannot blame whatever deity you worship for deaths, sinful actions and whatnot. It is us that must take responsibility somehow. The differences between us is what causes wars. This happens because we cannot except these differences, so we try to neutralize them before it affects others. What makes life will make its death too, and that generally can go for the human race. We will be leading ourselves to the death of humanity, and if we don't care now then why bother care for the future? Every one of us old enough to understand the world, including myself, should accept that we are doing something to bring down its quality.

Barriers between certain countries should be knocked down, including and especially religion. We should all stay as neutral in that aspect, because each major world religion has its flaws and it makes people more deluded. Now we don't need to join hands and dance around in circles like in satirical comedies, but we need to rely and depend each other. Soon, countries can become teams. There will be no fuss, no stress, no cravings or fears of war and starvation. We don't have to live the same or speak English or Spanish; that's another aspect we should stay away from. The world should develop together and make its own choices together; that way fewer humans can complain.

So, you say, suppose it doesn't work out in the end? The world isn't perfect and everyone knows that. I guess people don't want the world to change because they're happy the way that their lives are. Well, Earth can always stay the same much to others dismay.

(NB: My title is a bit long-winded, so any suggestions for a new one are much appreciated).

You've got admirable thoughts, Anti, and I think it's inherently human - whatever the circumanstances - to look for hope in the future.

But as an essay? It's not organised, nor are its presuppositions defended by any more than good feeling or opinion. It's an excellent draft, a lot of good material and many threads to follow.

2031

Earth is a bustling world, filled with so many animals, plants, objects. The objects lay lifeless on floors and surfaces, holding no emotions and letting the heat pass in and out of them like wind. The plants also lie on the ground, many dead as they are cut off from their source of life; the soil, and water too. Yet most of the animals still live, with the smaller ones slowly dying out in their millions, and the bigger, more brutal ones dominating the planet.

In a large industrial city clouded with infectious smoke from the factories in the nearby area, people are walking, running and driving about. The noises is deafening to children, but the adults are used to it. Many of them are on mobile phones chatting away in either loud or hushed voices and ignoring everything else around them except the ground they move on. Many high-tech shops are displaying a news report on the televisions, where some teenagers are brutally kicking their teacher, laughing and swearing loudly. Another picture is shown of this young woman, only trying to do her job, and then one of her beaten, swollen face with caked blood still showing her scars for life. A little girl, looking no older than seven years of age, stops in her tracks at laughs at the victim because she's "ugly". Her mother, tired and depressed, makes no attempt to scold her. She just drags the girl along on her way.

A bleak image. You have a good sense of the blunt here, saying what you mean, I think. It's an intriguing place description to a great extent, a sketch - but it really doesn't lead into your argument as more than pointed opinion or fantasy. Why are things the way they are? What's the matter with so much noise - or is the noise of people trying not hear?

Questions are what make good thought, and often, good writing.

Suddenly, attention is brought between a meeting-turned-debate between a vicar and an iman, two zealous followers of the biggest world religions, who are arguing about their beliefs. The pastor speaks of God, Jesus and forgiveness and criticizes the Muslim ways and Muhammad (peace be upon him). The iman vehemently shouts back, cursing Christianity's dominance over world powers and the wars they cause. A policeman is watching this argument intently, but is torn between supporting his own religion and completely stopping the fight. Besides, certain laws are preventing him from defending the iman, due to him being a Muslim.

...Then Muslims and Christians? Rather jumped out of nowhere - in this new society, there are still both religions, and they argue on street corners with policemen watching? Is Christianity dominant? How?

Is the policemen then, Christian? If Christianity is dominant - in a negative sense, oppressive - then how are Muslims protected from being told to stop screaming at 'Christian pastors'?

The tension in the tone, and the way you set out the dialogue - telling it in summary - is good. It does set a scene. But it's rather difficult to fall into the writing when - with what comes before and after - the tone is only of insisting on a point. It becomes disjointed, loses point.

That is my perception of a possible future. It is fictional (obviously), but I'm just trying to give an idea of what my thoughts are like. It could continue past that for years and years, but destruction must come in one form or another; destruction could eat up the world like a cream cake- slowly and in many slices until it is finished.

Excellent idea - ...trying to give an idea of my thoughts.... Again, you do have the material. The difficulty in the way it's approached is that the reader, I'm afraid, is getting less of your thoughts and more of your fears, opinions sans reason.

We humans are intelligent. We know how to make and produce food. We can do things other animals cannot do (or for at least another million years yet). But if we don't put our benefits over others then we are no better than dogs or monkeys.

Here's an example of where you did set forth an idea, and then why. Humans are intelligent - yes, in possibility. We do produce things, such as preparing, growing food. But are our lives worth living merely for ourselves?

Are our lives worth living merely for ourselves?

In the end, I think that is - or very well could be - the thesis or theme of this. It's difficult to find it sometimes - again, a lot of answers and images in this without 'whys' or reason.

Soon, countries can become teams. There will be no fuss, no stress, no cravings or fears of war and starvation.

As in this above. Soon countries may become teams - and that will end fuss, stress, craving, fear how? History has had peace (at times) and has had alliances; but humanity's eristic tendencies bring discord even into that.

With that all in mind, again - a draft with plenty of room to find its final form. It mayreally be more affecting if you dropped arguement and merely wrote science fiction, speculative fiction in the tradition of 1984. I liked some of the conflict and imagery in the first bit, and you seem more inclined to tell a good story than to argue one. ^_^ Which in the end, stories convince more fully than any scholarly exposition.

...If you've got any questions - or if that did not come out as clearly as I meant, feel free to PM me.


IMP

Yes, we know what you think, but what is your reasoning? You don't provide much facts about how our world can turn into this one, and that's the thing that really becomes worl weak. Who is to say that the world is selfish? See, in nonfiction writing, it's not enough to say that we have a selfish inclination. Why? Because there's something known as "rational self-interest" which is perfectly acceptable. So you have to give us facts and evidence that's solid. What trends show that we're selfish? For whom does it show? Why does it show? Answering these questions will make this paper more indepth and logical instead of just a bleak world based on emotional responses.

Good luck!