Although people argue that 21, the magic number of our society, was pulled out of thin air as the suitable drinking ageheres the reasoning behind. The drinking age originally started at 21, but in the 60s and 70s it slowly lowered. Yet states recognized a huge increase in highway deaths due to teens affected by these laws. Then states realized that before the change, the roads were much safer. This is ultimately why 21 was the suitable number. But keeping the roads safe was the only resume reason for raising the age. This may be cliché, considering we hear this from our parents all the time, but our brains dont fully develop until around the age.
Maybe some are, but some means there are exceptions. Do you really want those exceptions to be exposed to drinking if they are not ready for it? Because those same exceptions will be the ones causing accidents that could have been avoided. If we allow these people to drink, we are not allowing them to mature at their rate. Instead of taking chances, why dont we make sure we give everyone in this age group a chance to grow up and reach their full potential? Lets look at this another way. In 1987, the United States raised the drinking age from 18. Since then, the rate of teenage accidents related to drinking has lowered dramatically. The reality is that well over 300,000 people have died in the United State as a result of drunk driving in just the last 20 years.
Why the Drinking Age Should be lowered
In Italy, france, and Spain its. In New zealand its. In the United advertising States its 21, and in places such as China and Portugal there isnt one at all. But what is this Im talking about? Its the legal drinking ages of countries around the world.
Many people argue that the drinking age should be lowered to 18, just look at our surrounding countries with lower drinking ages. Some argue that the United States has the most careless drinkers with little self-control when it comes to alcohol usage, and some may even say that this is because we were not exposed to alcohol as children like the germans or French are. Yet, how can you disregard the fact that we have careless drinkers and still want the drinking age to lower to 18? I believe the drinking age should remain at 21 for the benefit of our society. One argument brought up for lowering the drinking age is that we mature based on experience rather than time, and that there may be little difference between ages 18 and 21, so why not just lower the age. Although that is a good point, take this into consideration. Are freshman in college really as experienced and mature as students ready to graduate?
So if we choose option one — if we avidly participate in the industrial economy — we may in the short term think we win because we may accumulate wealth, the marker of success in this culture. But we lose, because in doing so we give up our empathy, our animal humanity. And we really lose because industrial civilization is killing the planet, which means everyone loses. If we choose the alternative option of living more simply, thus causing less harm, but still not stopping the industrial economy from killing the planet, we may in the short term think we win because we get to feel pure, and we didnt even have. The third option, acting decisively to stop the industrial economy, is very scary for a number of reasons, including but not restricted to the fact that wed lose some of the luxuries (like electricity) to which weve grown accustomed, and the fact that those. Any option is a better option than a dead planet.
Besides being ineffective at causing the sorts of changes necessary to stop this culture from killing the planet, there are at least four other problems with perceiving simple living as a political act (as opposed to living simply because thats what you want to do). The first is that its predicated on the flawed notion that humans inevitably harm their landbase. Simple living as a political act consists solely of harm reduction, ignoring the fact that humans can help the earth as well as harm. We can rehabilitate streams, we can get rid of noxious invasives, we can remove dams, we can disrupt a political system tilted toward the rich as well as an extractive economic system, we can destroy the industrial economy that is destroying the real, physical world. The second problem — and this is another big one — is that it incorrectly assigns blame to the individual (and most especially to individuals who are particularly powerless) instead of to those who actually wield power in this system and to the system itself. Kirkpatrick sale again: The whole individualist guilt trip is a myth. We, as individuals, are not creating the crises, and we cant solve them.
Essay, example, on Lowering The Drinking Age
I want to be clear. Im not saying we shouldnt live simply. I live reasonably simply myself, but I dont pretend that administrator not buying much (or not driving much, or not having kids) is a powerful political act, or that its deeply revolutionary. Personal change doesnt equal social change. So how, then, and especially with all the world at stake, have we come to accept these utterly insufficient responses? I think part of it is that were in a double bind. A double bind is where youre given multiple options, but no matter what option you choose, you lose, and withdrawal is not an option. At this point, it should be pretty easy to recognize that every action involving the industrial economy is destructive (and we shouldnt pretend that solar photovoltaics, for example, exempt us from this: they still require mining and transportation infrastructures at every point in the production.
You bring cloth bags shopping. You fix your toaster. Your toes poke out of old tennis shoes. Youre not done yet, though. Since municipal waste includes not just residential waste, but also waste from government offices and businesses, you march to those offices, waste reduction pamphlets in hand, and convince them to cut down on their waste enough to eliminate your share. Uh, ive got movie some bad news. Municipal waste accounts for only 3 percent of total waste production in the United States.
energy. Kirkpatrick sale summarized it well: For the past 15 years the story has been the same every year: individual consumption — residential, by private car, and so on — is never more than about a quarter of all consumption; the vast majority is commercial, industrial. So, even if we all took up cycling and wood stoves it would have a negligible impact on energy use, global warming and atmospheric pollution. Or lets talk waste. In 2005, per-capita municipal waste production (basically everything thats put out at the curb) in the. Was about 1,660 pounds. Lets say youre a die-hard simple-living activist, and you reduce this to zero.
Scientific consensus is that emissions must be reduced by at least 75 percent worldwide. Or lets talk water. We so often hear that the world is running out of water. People are dying from lack of water. Rivers are dewatered from lack of water. Because of this we need to take shorter showers. Because i take showers, Im responsible for drawing down aquifers? More than 90 percent of the water used by humans is used by agriculture and industry. The remaining 10 percent is split between municipalities and actual presentation living breathing individual humans.
Drinking Age Speech
By derrick jensen, would any sane person think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery or brought about the eight-hour workday, or that chopping wood and carrying water would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons, or that dancing. Then why now, with all the world at stake, do so many people retreat into these entirely personal solutions? Part of the problem is that weve been victims of a campaign of systematic misdirection. Consumer culture and the capitalist mindset have taught us to substitute acts of personal consumption (or enlightenment) for organized political resistance. An Inconvenient Truth helped raise consciousness about global warming. But did you notice that all of the solutions presented had to do with personal consumption — changing light bulbs, inflating tires, driving half as much — and had nothing to do with shifting power away from corporations, or stopping the growth economy that. Even if every person in the United States did everything the movie suggested,. Carbon emissions would fall by only 22 percent.