EIKEN Grade 2 — Writing Practice

I strongly believe that governments should significantly increase investment in renewable energy because climate change poses an existential threat that requires urgent action.
Fossil fuels are finite and their continued use drives global warming, whereas solar and wind energy are sustainable, increasingly affordable, and create large numbers of green jobs.
Critics argue that renewable energy is unreliable and expensive to develop, but technological advances have already made solar power cheaper than coal in many countries.
Therefore, government investment in renewables is not only an environmental necessity but also a sound long-term economic strategy.

While I support investment in renewable energy, I believe governments must take a pragmatic approach that balances environmental goals with economic reality.
Rapid transition away from fossil fuels could cause serious disruption to energy-dependent industries and lead to job losses in communities that rely on coal and oil.
However, the long-term cost of inaction on climate change — including extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and agricultural collapse — far outweighs the short-term economic risks.
A carefully planned, phased transition to renewables with strong support for affected workers represents the most responsible path forward.

I believe globalisation has been broadly beneficial for developing countries because it has accelerated economic growth, created employment, and improved access to technology and healthcare.
Countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, and more recently Vietnam have used global trade and foreign investment to dramatically raise living standards within a few generations.
However, critics rightly point out that the benefits of globalisation have not been equally distributed, and that some nations have become economically dependent on wealthier countries.
Overall, I think the solution is not to reject globalisation but to ensure fairer trade policies that allow developing nations to build more self-sufficient economies.

While globalisation has brought some economic benefits, I believe it has largely exploited developing countries by prioritising the interests of multinational corporations over local communities.
Trade agreements often force developing nations to open their markets prematurely, destroying local industries that cannot compete with cheaper imported goods.
Supporters argue that foreign investment creates jobs and transfers technology, but the profits largely flow back to wealthy nations, leaving developing countries with few lasting benefits.
True development requires policies that protect emerging industries and prioritise education, infrastructure, and domestic economic capacity.

I believe AI in the workplace must be regulated because without oversight, it poses serious risks to employment, privacy, and the fairness of decisions that affect people's lives.
AI systems can perpetuate existing biases in hiring, lending, and criminal justice, and the rapid automation of jobs could create mass unemployment without adequate social safety nets.
Some argue that regulation will slow innovation and reduce competitiveness, but history shows that technological progress without ethical guardrails often causes significant social harm.
Thoughtful, flexible regulation that protects workers and consumers while allowing innovation to continue is both possible and essential.

While some regulation of AI is clearly necessary, I am concerned that excessive government control could stifle innovation and give authoritarian states a competitive advantage.
AI has enormous potential to solve major problems including disease, climate change, and poverty, and overly restrictive regulations could prevent these benefits from being realised.
However, completely unregulated AI development risks concentrating power in the hands of a small number of corporations and creating systems that no one fully understands or controls.
The most effective approach would be international cooperation to establish shared ethical standards rather than fragmented national regulations.

I believe the benefits of space exploration clearly outweigh the costs because the technologies developed for space have transformed everyday life in ways we rarely appreciate.
GPS, weather forecasting, water purification systems, and medical imaging technology all emerged from space research, and the potential discoveries ahead — including resources, habitable planets, and scientific knowledge — are immeasurable.
Critics argue that the money should be spent solving poverty and climate change on Earth, but these goals are not mutually exclusive, and space investment represents a small fraction of government budgets.
Ultimately, humanity's long-term survival may depend on our ability to become a multi-planetary species, making space exploration one of the most important investments we can make.

While space exploration has produced valuable technologies, I believe the enormous costs are difficult to justify when billions of people still lack clean water, adequate food, and basic healthcare.
The argument that space technology benefits ordinary people is largely true, but the same investment in terrestrial research and infrastructure would likely produce even greater returns for humanity.
Proponents claim that space exploration inspires young people and drives scientific progress, which is valid, but inspiration and scientific funding do not require the cost of crewed missions or moon bases.
Until the most urgent problems on Earth are adequately addressed, I believe space budgets should be significantly reduced and redirected toward global health and poverty reduction.

I strongly believe university education should be free because the cost of tuition is currently preventing talented people from lower-income backgrounds from reaching their potential, which is both unfair and economically wasteful.
Countries with free or heavily subsidised higher education, such as Germany and the Nordic nations, consistently produce highly educated workforces and strong economies, demonstrating that this model is both feasible and effective.
Opponents argue that free education is too expensive for governments, but the evidence suggests that a more educated population generates significantly more tax revenue and requires less public spending on welfare and healthcare.
Education is a public good, and a society that invests in universal access to higher learning will ultimately be more prosperous, more equal, and more innovative.

While I support widening access to university, I do not believe making it entirely free is the most effective or equitable use of public funds.
University graduates typically earn significantly more over their lifetimes, so requiring them to contribute to the cost of their education through income-contingent loans is a fair and sustainable approach.
Completely free university would primarily benefit middle and upper-class families whose children are already more likely to attend, while the same funds could better support vocational training, early childhood education, and secondary schools.
The goal should be genuine equality of opportunity, which requires targeted investment in the students who need it most rather than universal subsidies for all.

I believe social media is currently causing more harm than good because its core business model — maximising user engagement through emotionally charged content — is fundamentally incompatible with a healthy, well-informed society.
Research consistently links heavy social media use to increased rates of depression, anxiety, and loneliness, particularly among teenagers, while the spread of misinformation has demonstrably undermined democratic processes in multiple countries.
Supporters argue that social media connects people, amplifies marginalised voices, and enables social movements, and these benefits are real, but they do not require the addictive, algorithmically-driven design that platforms currently use.
Meaningful reform — including algorithm transparency, limits on targeted advertising, and age restrictions — is urgently needed before the damage becomes irreversible.

While social media has serious problems, I believe it has done more good than harm by democratising information, enabling global connection, and giving ordinary people unprecedented power to hold institutions accountable.
Movements such as #MeToo and the Arab Spring demonstrated that social media can mobilise millions of people against injustice in ways that were simply impossible before.
Critics point to misinformation and mental health harms, which are genuine concerns, but these are problems of platform design and regulation rather than inherent flaws in social media itself.
With proper oversight, greater media literacy education, and responsible platform design, the enormous potential of social media for positive social change can be realised.

I firmly believe that companies must be required to meet strict environmental standards because voluntary measures have consistently proven insufficient to prevent serious ecological damage.
Without legal obligations, companies operating in competitive markets face strong pressure to cut environmental costs, creating a race to the bottom that harms ecosystems, public health, and ultimately the global economy.
Business groups argue that strict regulations increase costs and reduce competitiveness, but evidence from countries with strong environmental laws shows that innovation, not decline, is typically the result.
The cost of environmental damage — measured in healthcare, lost agricultural productivity, and climate-related disasters — far exceeds the cost of compliance, making strict standards a sound investment for society.

While I strongly support environmental regulation, I believe the design of those standards matters enormously — poorly designed regulations can impose high costs while delivering limited environmental benefit.
Carbon pricing and cap-and-trade systems have shown that market-based mechanisms can reduce emissions efficiently without the rigidity of prescriptive command-and-control regulations.
However, for issues such as toxic waste disposal, water pollution, and biodiversity protection, strict enforceable standards with meaningful penalties are absolutely necessary.
The most effective environmental policy combines clear, science-based standards with flexible compliance mechanisms that reward innovation and efficiency.

I believe wealthy nations have a clear moral and practical responsibility to assist poorer countries because global inequality is partly the result of historical exploitation through colonialism and unequal trade relationships.
Furthermore, problems such as climate change, infectious disease, and mass migration do not respect national borders, meaning that poverty and instability anywhere ultimately threatens prosperity and security everywhere.
Critics argue that aid creates dependency and is often misused by corrupt governments, which is a legitimate concern, but the solution is better-designed aid and stronger international institutions, not abandonment.
A world with less poverty is safer, more stable, and more prosperous for everyone, making international development one of the most rational investments wealthy nations can make.

While I believe wealthy nations should engage with global poverty, I am sceptical that traditional foreign aid is an effective or appropriate way to fulfil this responsibility.
Decades of evidence show that aid can distort local markets, undermine domestic industries, create dependency, and often benefits donor country contractors more than recipient populations.
Supporters of aid point to successes in vaccination programmes and disaster relief, which are valid, but these targeted interventions are quite different from broad development aid.
Wealthy nations can better support poorer countries through fairer trade policies, cancelling unpayable debts, addressing tax havens that drain developing economies, and accepting more climate refugees whose problems were largely caused by wealthy nations.

I believe governments must act to limit the power of large technology companies because their unchecked dominance poses serious risks to competition, democracy, privacy, and the mental health of billions of users.
Companies like Google, Meta, and Amazon have achieved near-monopolistic control over critical digital infrastructure, allowing them to crush competitors, manipulate public discourse, and collect vast amounts of personal data with minimal accountability.
The tech industry argues that regulation will stifle innovation, but the historical record shows that antitrust enforcement in sectors like telecommunications and banking has consistently led to more competition and better outcomes for consumers.
Democratic societies cannot afford to allow a handful of private companies to exercise more influence over public life than governments themselves — urgent, comprehensive regulation is essential.

While I support greater oversight of technology companies, I am concerned that blunt government intervention could damage the innovation ecosystems that have produced enormous economic and social value.
Breaking up large tech companies or imposing heavy-handed regulations could fragment services that users genuinely value and give less democratic countries a competitive advantage in developing the next generation of technology.
However, the current situation — where a few companies control the flow of information for billions of people with almost no accountability — is clearly unsustainable in a democratic society.
The most effective approach would be targeted regulation focused on data privacy, algorithmic transparency, and interoperability rather than simply breaking up companies based on their size.

I believe remote working offers significant benefits to society by reducing commuting time and costs, improving work-life balance, and allowing talented people to contribute regardless of their geographical location.
Studies conducted during and after the COVID-19 pandemic found that many workers were equally or more productive at home, while also reporting lower stress levels and greater job satisfaction.
Critics argue that remote work damages team cohesion, mentorship of junior staff, and company culture, and these concerns are valid for certain roles and industries.
However, a flexible hybrid model that combines the benefits of remote work with regular in-person collaboration represents the most practical and humane approach for most knowledge workers.

While remote working offers some advantages, I believe that for most people and organisations, working in a shared physical environment produces better outcomes for creativity, collaboration, and career development.
Human beings are fundamentally social creatures, and the informal interactions, spontaneous problem-solving, and mentorship relationships that occur naturally in an office are extremely difficult to replicate digitally.
Proponents of remote work cite productivity studies, but these often measure individual output rather than the collective innovation and institutional knowledge that is built through sustained in-person collaboration.
The long-term erosion of workplace community, city-centre economies, and the mentorship of young professionals represents a serious cost that remote work advocates have not adequately addressed.

I believe the voting age should be lowered to 16 because young people are directly affected by political decisions on education, climate change, and the national debt, yet have no formal voice in choosing the governments that make those decisions.
Evidence from countries and regions that have extended voting rights to 16-year-olds, including Scotland and Austria, suggests that young voters participate at relatively high rates and make thoughtful, well-informed choices.
Opponents argue that 16-year-olds lack the maturity and life experience to vote responsibly, but this argument could equally be applied to many adult voters, and maturity is not a prerequisite for having a stake in society's future.
Giving young people a democratic voice at 16 would also encourage civic education, political engagement, and a sense of ownership over society that benefits democracy in the long term.

While I respect the argument that young people deserve a political voice, I do not believe 16 is the appropriate age to begin voting because adolescent brain development, particularly in areas governing long-term thinking and risk assessment, is not yet complete.
The voting age of 18 is not arbitrary — it coincides with other legal responsibilities including military service, full financial accountability, and in many countries, criminal responsibility as an adult.
Advocates point to examples of engaged young voters in countries with lower voting ages, but self-selected politically engaged teenagers are not representative of the broader population of 16-year-olds.
Rather than lowering the voting age, we should focus on improving civic education at school so that young people are fully prepared to participate meaningfully when they do reach voting age.

I believe nuclear energy must be part of a serious national energy policy because it is one of the only low-carbon energy sources capable of providing large-scale, reliable baseload power regardless of weather conditions.
While solar and wind energy are essential, their intermittency means that without nuclear or large-scale storage, a fully renewable grid cannot currently guarantee stable electricity supply for modern industrial economies.
Opponents cite the risks of nuclear accidents and the unresolved problem of radioactive waste disposal, which are legitimate concerns, but modern reactor designs are far safer than older generations, and the climate risk of abandoning nuclear far outweighs the manageable risks of modern plants.
A pragmatic energy policy must prioritise outcomes over ideology, and the evidence strongly supports retaining and expanding nuclear capacity as part of a diversified low-carbon energy mix.

I believe nuclear energy is an unnecessary and disproportionately risky option given the rapid decline in the cost of renewable energy and battery storage technology.
The catastrophic potential of nuclear accidents, as demonstrated at Chernobyl and Fukushima, combined with the unresolved challenge of safely storing radioactive waste for thousands of years, makes nuclear an unacceptable risk when alternatives exist.
Proponents argue that modern reactors are safe and that nuclear provides essential baseload power, but the enormous construction costs, long build times, and chronic cost overruns make nuclear far less economically viable than a combination of renewables, grid storage, and demand management.
Investing in nuclear diverts scarce capital and political will from the rapid scaling of renewables that the climate crisis actually demands.

I believe limited and strictly regulated use of animals in scientific research remains justifiable because certain types of biomedical research cannot yet be conducted through alternative methods without unacceptable risk to human subjects.
Vaccines, surgical techniques, and treatments for conditions including cancer and HIV have all depended on animal testing at critical stages of development, and the resulting reduction in human suffering has been enormous.
Animal rights advocates argue that no human benefit justifies inflicting suffering on animals, and this moral position deserves serious respect, which is why the scientific community must maintain rigorous ethical oversight and actively pursue alternatives.
The goal should be the eventual elimination of animal testing through investment in organoids, computer modelling, and in-vitro techniques, but an immediate ban before viable alternatives exist would halt medical progress with serious humanitarian consequences.

I believe the use of animals in scientific research is ethically unjustifiable in most cases because animals are sentient beings capable of suffering, and using them as mere instruments for human benefit violates fundamental principles of justice.
Modern alternatives including organ-on-a-chip technology, computer simulation, and human cell cultures are increasingly capable of replacing animal models, and the regulatory requirement for animal testing has become a barrier to adopting these superior methods.
Defenders of animal research cite medical advances that depended on animal testing, but many of these advances could have been achieved sooner through human-focused methods, and the predictive accuracy of animal models for human outcomes is frequently poor.
A phased, legally mandated transition away from animal testing, accompanied by substantial investment in alternative technologies, would accelerate medical progress while aligning scientific practice with widely shared moral values.

I firmly believe that environmental protection must take precedence over short-term economic growth because an economy that destroys its ecological foundation is ultimately destroying the conditions necessary for its own long-term survival.
The concept of GDP growth as the primary measure of national success is increasingly questioned by economists, who point out that it fails to account for the depletion of natural capital, the cost of pollution, and the declining wellbeing that often accompanies rapid industrialisation.
Growth advocates argue that wealthier societies have more resources to invest in environmental protection, and there is some historical truth to this, but waiting for sufficient wealth before protecting the environment has already resulted in irreversible damage to biodiversity and climate systems.
The most forward-thinking nations are now pursuing models of sustainable development and circular economy that demonstrate economic prosperity and environmental stewardship are not mutually exclusive but deeply complementary.

I believe the framing of economic growth versus environmental protection presents a false choice, because the real question is what kind of growth we pursue and how we measure its success.
Traditional carbon-intensive growth is clearly incompatible with environmental sustainability, but green growth — driven by renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and the circular economy — can simultaneously create jobs, reduce inequality, and restore ecological health.
Critics of growth point to the physical limits of a finite planet, which is a valid concern, but in practice, the most urgent challenge is transitioning existing economies away from destructive patterns rather than abandoning growth altogether.
Redefining prosperity to include ecological health, social equity, and human wellbeing alongside economic output is the most honest and effective framework for this debate.

I believe governments should not control internet content because state censorship of information is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of free expression, democratic accountability, and the rule of law.
History demonstrates consistently that governments given the power to restrict information use it not only against genuinely harmful content but increasingly against political dissent, journalism, and minority viewpoints — China and Russia being obvious contemporary examples.
Advocates of content control argue that harmful content including child exploitation material and terrorist propaganda must be removed, and this is true, but such clearly illegal content can be addressed through targeted law enforcement without granting governments broad censorship authority.
The appropriate response to harmful online content is independent regulatory bodies, platform accountability, and media literacy education — not government control, which poses a far greater long-term threat to open society.

While I strongly support freedom of expression, I believe some degree of government oversight of online content is both necessary and compatible with democratic values, provided it is narrowly defined, independently overseen, and subject to judicial review.
The internet currently enables the unchecked spread of child exploitation material, terrorist recruitment, medical misinformation, and coordinated disinformation campaigns that cause measurable harm to real people and democratic institutions.
Civil libertarians argue that any government content regulation leads inevitably to censorship, but this slippery slope argument ignores the fact that all democracies already regulate harmful speech in other contexts without sliding into authoritarianism.
The challenge is designing oversight mechanisms that are transparent, limited in scope, politically independent, and subject to strong legal safeguards — difficult but not impossible in a well-functioning democracy.

I believe the preservation of traditional culture is genuinely important because cultural diversity represents a form of collective human wisdom that, once lost, cannot be recovered.
Languages, artistic traditions, indigenous knowledge systems, and local practices often encode centuries of accumulated understanding about sustainable living, social organisation, and human meaning that has real value beyond mere nostalgia.
Critics argue that cultures naturally evolve and that preservation efforts can become exercises in artificial conservation that freeze living cultures in an idealised past, and this concern has some validity.
The goal should not be to prevent cultural change but to ensure that communities themselves have the agency to decide how their culture evolves — protecting it from external commercial or political pressure while allowing organic development from within.

While cultural preservation has real value, I believe the framing of tradition versus globalisation often obscures a more complex reality in which cultures have always borrowed, adapted, and evolved through contact with others.
Japan itself is an excellent example — a country that has selectively absorbed foreign influences for centuries while maintaining a distinctive cultural identity, demonstrating that preservation and openness are not mutually exclusive.
The real danger is not cultural exchange but cultural homogenisation driven by commercial interests, where the diversity of human expression is replaced by a single global consumer culture dominated by a handful of media corporations.
Protecting cultural diversity therefore requires not isolation but investment in local arts, languages, and education systems that give communities the tools to engage with the world on their own terms.

I believe universal basic income deserves serious consideration as a policy response to increasing automation, economic insecurity, and the inadequacy of existing welfare systems to support people through the disruptions of the modern economy.
Pilot programmes in Finland, Kenya, and Stockton, California have produced promising results including improved mental health, greater entrepreneurship, and no significant reduction in work effort — challenging the assumption that guaranteed income creates dependency.
Critics argue that UBI is unaffordably expensive and that the same funds could be better targeted at specific groups in need, which is a legitimate concern about design and financing rather than a fundamental objection to the concept.
As automation increasingly displaces both manual and cognitive work, society will need new mechanisms to distribute economic gains more broadly, and UBI — or a well-designed variant — may prove to be an essential tool for maintaining social cohesion.

While I am sympathetic to the goals behind universal basic income, I believe it is an inefficient and potentially counterproductive use of public funds compared to targeted investments in healthcare, education, childcare, and housing.
A genuinely adequate UBI for all citizens of a wealthy country would cost trillions of dollars annually, and the tax increases required would likely dampen economic activity and be politically unsustainable.
Supporters cite pilot programmes as evidence of success, but small-scale time-limited pilots cannot predict the macroeconomic effects of a permanent nationwide programme, including potential inflation and labour market distortions.
The most effective approach to economic insecurity is a strengthened social safety net with universal services — healthcare, education, affordable housing — rather than cash transfers that give individuals money but not necessarily the services they most need.

I believe genetic engineering for therapeutic purposes — treating and preventing serious diseases — is ethically justifiable and represents one of the most promising frontiers of modern medicine.
Technologies such as CRISPR have already shown the potential to cure inherited conditions including sickle cell disease and certain forms of blindness, offering relief from suffering that no previous generation could provide.
The primary ethical concern is the risk of crossing the line from therapy to enhancement — creating so-called designer babies with selected traits — which raises serious concerns about inequality, consent, and the commodification of human life.
With robust international regulation, transparent research oversight, and clear legal boundaries between therapeutic and enhancement applications, genetic medicine can fulfil its extraordinary promise without opening the door to eugenic abuse.