Amal Shafiq and the Cat Burglar

It was eleven o’clock in the night and the village of Alfriston was as silent as a graveyard. In the upstairs bedroom of a rundown little cottage lay Amal Shafiq, a girl of twelve with far too much imagination and far too little sense.

Amal had been tossing and turning in bed for hours, terrified at the thought that she was all alone at home. Her family had relocated to this part of East Sussex a mere month ago, and she had already heard stories of the skilled cat burglars who frequented the area. She had brushed them off as tall tales then, but now that she was all by herself in her spooky new house, they seemed a lot less likely to be fabricated.

Just as she was finally on the verge of sleep, Amal heard a loud, crashing noise from the driveway. She shot up immediately, scrambled out of bed, and stumbled down the creaking staircase. Someone was outside the front door! The scared twelve-year-old peeked out of the window, trying to catch a glimpse of the intruder. Unfortunately, the foggy air outdoors made it impossible to catch sight of anything other than vague silhouettes.

Amal collapsed on a sofa, overwhelmed with terror. She was home alone in the middle of the night, with a robber outside who could break in at any moment. She had no way of contacting her parents, as the ancient telephone still hadn’t been repaired. Amal racked her brains, trying to come up with a plan. She decided to be brave, and live up to the example set by Jo March and her other role models. So she crept into the kitchen and grabbed the deadliest-looking knife she could find. She would sneak out through the back door and attack the looter from behind. Hopefully, the element of surprise would be enough to defeat them. If it wasn’t... well, at least she’d go down in history as a true heroine. With her family’s social standing, she may even be featured in the Good Night Stories for Rebel Girls series.

Silencing her daydreams before they could carry her away, Amal turned the knob of the back door and slipped into the narrow lawn outside. She slunk around to the front, ready to pounce as soon as she saw the invader. She took one step further, expecting to finally encounter them, only to see the tail of a cat disappear around the corner, leaving behind the debris of a plant pot it had destroyed minutes ago.

The Future of Transportation: Boring?

Did you know that depending on where you live, you could spend upto 243 hours in traffic every year? Yes, it’s true! This means that you may have wasted upto 10 days a year stuck in a vehicle. This may seem inevitable, but what if I told you that there could be a solution to the problem of soul-destroying traffic?

Elon Musk, best-known as the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, believes that the answer lies in underground transport. Since 2016, The Boring Company started by the American multi-millionaire, has been designing and constructing “safe, fast-to-dig, and low-cost” tunnels for transportation. Along with this, Musk has come up with an effective means of movement through these tunnels - a speedy yet safe system he calls Loop. If The Boring Company succeeds, the issue of traffic will be resolved for good. But is this success possible? It’s time to find out.

First, let’s understand what sets The Boring Company apart from other tunnelling corporations. The Boring Company, unlike most other companies in the burrowing business, is constantly modifying its methods to reach maximum efficiency. So far, it has iterated three generations of Tunnel Boring Machines - Godot, Godot+ and Prufrock. According to Elon Musk, each of these machines was “developed to further increase tunneling speed and reduce tunneling cost”. Most tunnelling companies spend between $100 million to $1 billion per mile. The Boring Company, however, has brought tunnelling prices down to 10 million dollars per mile, which is far cheaper than they have ever been.

The Boring Company dreams of not only improving the efficiency of tunnelling, but also revolutionising transportation today. Thus, its tunnels will be built to accommodate Elon Musk’s new transportation apparatus, Loop. Which brings us to our next question - what exactly is Loop and how does it work?

According to The Boring Company’s website, Loop is “an all-electric, zero-emissions, high-speed underground public transportation system,” that uses Autonomous Electric Vehicles (AEV), Tesla creations that can travel up to 150 miles per hour. These vehicles will “operate autonomously within the Loop system”. Every vehicle will carry a limited number of passengers, who can enter and exit the machine at surface stations, subsurface stations, and subsurface open-air stations. Each station will be approximately the size of two parking spaces, as it only needs to hold one AEV at a time. This is an advantage, as it means a station can be built anywhere from outside a school to inside a parking garage. Now, how is Loop different from a subway or metro?

Source: https://www.boringcompany.com/loop

In the words of Elon Musk, “Loop resembles an underground highway more than a subway system.” While in a subway, a train stops at multiple stations before reaching a final destination, Loop consists of smaller, car-like vehicles that, carrying upto 16 passengers per ride, travel directly to their terminus without stopping at each station on the way. For example, I imagine that if there were three groups of 16 people in a station, each group would be assigned to one AEV. The group travelling to the furthest location would set off first, followed by those headed for a midpoint, and finally the group going to the closest stop.

 Thus, using Loop is far more convenient than riding a subway train, for an equal or lower price.

 The Boring Company’s triumph would mean the eradication of traffic, which in turn would significantly lessen pollution, wastage of time, and road accidents.

The last question we must ask ourselves is, is “The Boring Company” a suitable name for this institution? My answer to that is yes, definitely. My mind almost turned to sludge while researching it. I have taken a major risk for your entertainment, and all I ask in return is that you share your feedback on this blog.

The innovations we need to avoid a climate disaster: A TED Talk by Bill Gates

Ever since the mid-twentieth century, humans have been at risk of a major climate disaster caused by global warming. Several philanthropists, including Jeff Bezos and Jeremy Grantham, have donated millions of dollars to the prevention of this calamity. One such benefactor is Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, who has not only funded the fight against climate change, but has also written the book “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster”. In this 47 minute podcast, Bill Gates explains the actions we must take to preempt a climatic catastrophe.

Gates, who has invested two billion dollars in combating climate change so far and plans to continue funding it, speaks about the “green premium”. This term refers to the additional cost of choosing a product with no emissions of greenhouse gases, such as an electric car, over a product that is not environmentally friendly, like a car powered by fuel. As the green premium drops, it becomes easier for ordinary people like us to switch to green products. Thus, Gates suggests that our goal should be to bring the green premium down to zero. To accomplish this, we need:

• people designing eco-friendly technology - Innovation
• investors funding these designs - Supply
• and customers choosing to buy these items - Demand 

Some of Bill Gates’ other priorities when stopping climate change are a) creating green hydrogen (a form of hydrogen that comes from renewable resources and can provide clean power for manufacturing, transportation and more), b) practising direct carbon capture (filtering the air, removing carbon dioxide, and sequestering it into a pressurised form for millions of years) and c) developing nuclear energy. He believes that he is doing his part to avoid a climate disaster by taking the above measures.

Gates tells us that we must begin fighting global warming now, as there is so much to work on, and so little time, before a climate disaster occurs. If we manage to prevent such a disaster, it will be one of humankind’s greatest accomplishments - far greater than even the prevention of World Wars. 

Karnataka's Anti-Cow Slaughter Bill Explained

                  

                    Image source: https://bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34513185

 

On Wednesday, 9th December, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) passed the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Bill, 2020 in the Legislative Assembly, despite much dissent from the Opposition. While this Bill may sound insignificant, there is more to it than meets the eye. So what exactly does it entail? How is it different from the previous laws against the slaughter of cattle? Why is it so controversial? And most importantly, what does it mean for the citizens of Karnataka?

 

The Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Bill, 2020 seeks to ban the slaughter of all cattle, which the Bill defines as buffaloes under the age of 13 years, cows, bulls and bullocks. This means that if the Bill is passed, citizens of Karnataka will only have access to beef in the form of buffaloes above the age of 13. Unlike its predecessor (a bill that was proposed by the BJP in 2010 and later shelved by the Congress when the Governor did not accede to it), this Bill is extremely stringent, and advocates severe punishment for offenders. 

 

The primary motive behind the Bill is the protection of cattle in the state. Numerous atrocities have been committed against cattle in Karnataka, including abandoning them on the streets after they cease to produce milk, smuggling them into slaughterhouses and stabbing them to death the “halal” way.

 

“In a country where the cow is revered as a scared animal, it is shocking to see how brutally cows are slaughtered everyday,” says a citizen of Bengaluru. If the Bill is passed, it will certainly address the issue of cruelty towards this species.

 

Unfortunately, the drawbacks to this Bill are equivalent to, if not more than, its benefits. 

 

One such drawback is the harsh disciplinary measures the Bill takes against offenders. The consequences for transgressions include a penalty of any sum of money from 50,000 rupees to five lakhs for the first offence, and one to ten lakhs on subsequent offences. Anyone caught smuggling cattle or slaughtering them en masse will likely even be sent to prison for anywhere between three to seven years. This is, in both relative and absolute terms, a drastic penalty for what used to be a negligible offence. For perspective, the penalty for human death caused by rash negligence in India is only two years in jail. Does it really make sense that the consequences for the illegal sale and slaughter of cattle are harsher than this?

 

The draconian punishment, however, is just one reason that the Bill has caused so much contention. Another is the fact that the Bill allows search and/or seizure of property by a “competent authority” from the police, based on mere suspicion! In a country like India, with a long history of corruption, it’s easy to imagine how frequently this rule would be misused, to settle personal or political scores. Thus, many believe that the Bill will result in civilian harassment and violation of privacy by the police force.

 

Last but not least, the Bill eliminates an important source of nutrition for the citizens of Karnataka, as it places a blanket ban on all forms of this meat, aside from that of buffaloes above 13 years of age. According to Sylvia Karpagam, a public health doctor and researcher, this is “an attack” on our cultural and nutritional rights . After all, the Bill is interfering with, and even going so far as to criminalise, the cultural habits of the nine lakh people in the state who consume beef.

 

So now it’s your time to decide - do the advantages of this Bill outweigh its flaws? Is it fair to impose the majority’s morals upon both the majority and the minorities? 

Vaccines, Veracity and Vladimir Putin

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/03/johnson-johnson-says-coronavirus-vaccine-prevents-severe-illness-in-hamsters.html

On Tuesday the 11th of August, Russia announced its creation of a vaccine to prevent COVID-19. Shortly after, on the 16th of August, China stated that it had invented a similar vaccine. Considering that most countries have been under lockdown since the first quarter of the year, and two extremely powerful countries claim to have found a solution, this news should have been sensational. However, these declarations have prompted absolutely no response or reaction from other world leaders! Could this be because nobody believes these claims? If so, what prompted such disbelief in China and Russia?

First of all, let’s ask ourselves a simple question- what is the probability of either China or Russia coming up with a vaccine so quickly? Usually, the research, discovery and development stages of a vaccine take at least two to five years. Hence, it is extremely unlikely that either of the countries has created a vaccine in less than a year of experimentation.

Even when the vaccine is ready, it must go through a series of examinations before it is released to the public. First is a preliminary study, which checks that the vaccine will not cause any harmful side-effects. The second is a test of safety and efficiency, with about a few hundred test subjects. Finally, if the vaccine passes the first two trials, it is evaluated on its effectiveness compared to other available treatment. This third stage requires a few thousand people to be tested, and takes several months. The fact that neither China nor Russia has had enough time to follow this entire procedure makes us believe that their COVID-19 vaccines at best, do not work, and at worst, are harmful to humans.

Now, let’s take a look at the track records of the two nations. Ever since the COVID-19 outbreak, China has lost a large part of its credibility for allegedly concealing the true danger of the virus at the beginning. After this, the country further damaged its reputation by sending supposedly faulty Coronavirus test kits to India and substandard masks to Canada.

Now, what about Russia? According to the Pew Research Centre, “majorities in North America and much of Europe see Russia in a negative light.” The institution also mentions that “in only three countries surveyed do majorities express a favorable opinion of Russia: Vietnam (83%), Greece (64%) and the Philippines (55%).” Here is a graph detailing their survey.

Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2017/08/16/publics-worldwide-unfavorable-toward-putin-russia/pg_2017-08-16_views-of-russia_001/

From these points, we can see that most of the world is not inclined to believe the two nations’ announcements. So, could this be an example of the age-old “Boy Who Cried Wolf” story? Have the two countries’ reputations fallen so far that no one is willing to believe their leaders’ statements anymore? Integrity in politics today is definitely not what it once was, but has it really reached the point where hardly any of us have faith in an announcement by a world leader?

Say the two countries haven’t really produced effective vaccines, what could be their motivations behind lying about this?

Russia, for one, was at a Cold War with the USA until about 1960. Now, in the 21st century, tensions between the two countries have risen again. Is this one of Russia’s attempts to pull ahead of the United States in terms of science and medicine? China, too, has been competing so severely with the USA recently, that their current stand-off has been dubbed by many as “a new Cold War”. Thus, it is extremely plausible that the nations’ main reason for lying about their progress in vaccines is a quest for political dominance over other powerful countries such as the USA.

From the above facts, the probability of China or Russia having created a Coronavirus vaccine seems extremely low. Only time will tell whether the two states really have such a vaccine, or are simply misleading us.

A Lifelong Lockdown

Photo by Brett Sayles from Pexels

It’s been 35 days since the lockdown began, and I think it’s fair to state that most of us feel as if we’re imprisoned in cages. That makes me wonder- isn’t this exactly how animals in captivity feel everyday? 

Well, their lives are just as bad as what we’re going through now - worse even. In fact, it is proven that being caged in zoos affects them psychologically. Numerous creatures in captivity, including bears, elephants, monkeys and several others, have developed a disease called zoochosis. Animals suffering from zoochosis are known to rock and sway, bite randomly and pace back and forth excessively. 

To prevent this, zoos often place animals in large enclosures so that they have space to roam around. However, these enclosures are never large enough. For example, a tiger usually needs 60 to 100 square kilometres, but a zoo enclosure can only provide about 22 square metres! Though zoos would like to keep this fact hidden, life in captivity is extremely traumatic for most animals. 

Zoos often defend themselves by claiming that by keeping these beasts, they are protecting them from endangerment. Well, if that’s truly their reason for capturing creatures, why not work towards safeguarding them in their own habitats instead? 

When animals are conserved in their own homes, there is a beneficial effect on the entire ecosystem surrounding them. A classic instance of this is when wolves were reintroduced into the Yellowstone National Park in the USA. Before the wolves were brought in, the numbers of deer had increased dramatically and they had destroyed most of the vegetation in the park by overgrazing. The wolves began to hunt these deer, forcing them to avoid certain parts of the park where they could be easily spotted. Hence, safe from overgrazing, the plants and trees in those parts of the park started to flourish. This led to birds and beavers moving in. The beavers built dams, which served as homes for several more species such as otters, ducks, fish, reptiles and amphibians. Eventually, this resulted in a change in the behaviour of the rivers! And that is why animals should be allowed to thrive in their own habitats.

Furthermore, there is substantial evidence of zoos mistreating animals, including a healthy giraffe being killed and fed to lions at Copenhagen Zoo in 2014 and elephants being beaten and chained at Mysore Zoo in the same year. Even without direct abuse, most animals in captivity die prematurely, because they are just not supposed to live in zoos. 

Several people argue that the existence of zoos is still acceptable as zoos educate their visitors about different species. However, there are a variety of studies that prove that these menageries exist only to make money, and not for any other noble purpose. For example, a survey conducted in four zoos in USA showed that 86% of visitors were only there for recreational, rather than educational, reasons. If you truly want to learn about different types of animals, you don’t have to visit a zoo for it. With today’s technology, you can learn so much by just sitting at home. 

Have you ever wondered what happens to the creatures that are no longer profitable to their zoos? Well, these “surplus” animals are usually just killed, and not in small numbers. In fact, the EAZA (European Association of Zoos and Aquaria) has estimated that its members cull between three and five thousand animals every year! Does your conscience really allow you to contribute to this murder just for entertainment?

Now that I’ve laid out the facts for you, it’s time for you to decide. Can you give up visiting these cruel establishments for the sake of thousands of animals around the globe? Or will you choose to encourage the torture and murder of living beings? The ball is in your court.

Uniformity or Conformity?

Have you ever worn a school uniform? If yes, I’m sure you hated it. School uniforms are dreary, uncomfortable and unnecessary. Most students around the world despise them, but are forced to wear them every weekday. I’m sure most adults out there wouldn’t like to be dressed in baggy pants, an unimaginative shirt, and spiritless black or white shoes. So why should kids have to?

The predominant drawback to school uniforms is that they are an added expense. Instead of wearing clothes they already have, children end up purchasing five to six sets of the exact same outfit, only to outgrow them the very next year! Not all families can afford this cost annually.

Buying uniforms is not only expensive, but inconvenient. To all the parents reading this, I have a question for you. How many times have you driven your son or daughter to an out of the way uniform store and spent two or more hours there (not to mention the time taken to reach the shop), to find that they outgrow the outfits in a couple of months, and you have to repeat the entire cumbersome process? Any sort of shopping for children is a nuisance, but uniform shopping is definitely the worst.

Another problem with school uniforms is discomfort. School uniforms are often stiff, itchy and ill-fitting. Moreover, they create insecurity in students. Different kids have different skin tones, body shapes and heights, and school uniforms don’t always complement these unique features. “I’ve always felt so much more natural and free in my everyday clothes rather than my school uniform,” says a twelve-year-old student at an international school in India.

School uniforms also destroy individuality. Earlier, uniforms and conformity in general were seen as forms of discipline. However, ideas such as these do not belong in today’s world, where expression and creativity are valued much more in children.

Uniforms propagate gender stereotypes, as well. This is due to the fact that many school uniforms require girls to wear skirts while boys wear shorts. Instead of allowing children to choose what type of clothing they wear, they force kids to dress in garments that supposedly conform to their gender.

There is an argument that uniforms increase focus and discipline in school. According to some people (note that these people are adults- no student enjoys wearing a uniform), when there is an absence of a variety of clothing to observe, there is a higher chance of kids focusing on their schoolwork instead. However, this can easily be countered by the fact that they are more comfortable, and therefore more productive, in their regular outfits. In fact, Virginia Draa, a professor at the Youngstown State University, conducted a study which proved that wearing uniforms does not improve the academic performance of students.

These are just a few of the reasons why schools across the globe should stop requiring their students to dress in boring, uncomfortable and sexist outfits. Kids should be kids, free to express themselves in all possible ways, including their everyday attire.