When I scroll through my Facebook feed, I often see certain friends of mine—the ones who are against tuition-free public college—argue that, instead of putting money towards the current higher education system, we should put money into vocational education. Although I think that public post-secondary education in America should be tuition-free, I also agree that vocational education should be invested in as well.

Too many people treat the reformation of the post-secondary educational system as a zero-sum game. Either you must believe in the promotion of public tuition-free college at the expense of vocational education, or we should keep the current debt-sentence that college currently is and promote vocational education. The truth is, we can have both and there are examples in the world that demonstrate this.

Vocational education is great because it trains people to be high skilled laborers. In manufacturing and other aspects of the economy, skilled labor is in high demand. In Germany, public college is tuition-free. However, they have a very high rate of students going into vocational education. In fact, the rate of students in Germany that attend vocational education is roughly 51 percent.

When people buy an iPhone, they often think the money is going to China, because that is where they are assembled. Contrary to this belief, only 3.6 percent of the money spent on iPhones goes back to China. Germany actually gets a higher percentage — roughly 17 percent. Why is this? Germany has highly skilled workers that put together the components of a computer that are eventually assembled in countries like China. The workers are more important to the production because, without them, the components would not be able to be made.

Vocational education is important for that reason. It teaches people important skills that are vital in the global economy.

In addition, vocational school provides an opportunity for people to explore trades and skills that they enjoy and that provide a greater sense of purpose and fulfillment. Many people prefer to utilize their skills to craft things by hand and produce work that is tangible. This is a preference that is often forgotten in preparation for education after high school. We prioritize college for people who do not see themselves as a member of those communities. Jobs in these fields are more than capable of making a good living in today’s world. As a society, we should accept this reality and fund education institutions that enable people to become skilled in these fields.

The typical four-year education model makes sense for people that are learning liberal arts, business, engineering, science and education. The purpose of these positions is not necessarily in the realm of tangibility—it rests in the larger purpose of providing society with people who think in terms of business, innovation, philosophy and science. The purpose of this outlook is not to craft work—it is to think and to direct non-tangible works, like ideas on how aspects of society should be operated.

There is a reason to support both of these educational models. In the U.S., if we want to be successful, we need to create an environment where both are celebrated and enabled. This is not a zero-sum game. We should invest in all forms of education and get people to choose what truly fits their needs and desires. That is a more ideal post-secondary educational model. Everyone should pursue the field that brings them a greater sense of purpose and worth. Education brings enrichment, but enrichment is different for everyone. In that case, investing in both vocational school and universities ensures an educational system that prioritizes the needs of different people and makes us more competitive in the global economy.

Journalism students are taught professional standards and how to follow them. To me, there is a glaring issue with that and that is the issue of objectivity. Journalistic objectivity is the idea that journalists should remain nonpartisan and equally fair to both sides of an argument, lack an agenda and only be interested in reporting the facts. These sound like good qualities. The simple truth is that objectivity is impossible and harms journalism at large.

There are objective facts and these should be reported. However, there should be an understanding that any decision and thought in response to these facts is a subjective experience. Nothing is free from bias. The moment that a news outlet decides to cover a topic, it is choosing to cover that issue at the expense of the others it could have covered. That is why it is easy to distinguish between right-leaning and left-leaning news organizations. This type of bias is easy to see. People on the political right often criticize the mainstream media for having a liberal bias. Well, except for Fox News. I disagree with them.

As I said before, nothing is free from bias. There is a reason why anyone would want to cover a given story and it’s okay to admit that. Subjective reasoning is not mutually exclusive from the objective truths of the world. In some cases, journalistic objectivity empowers falsehoods and provides a platform for misinformation.

The mainstream and supposedly objective media has another bias. Its bias is in sensationalism. They craft stories to excite people and gain viewership, not to unveil the truth. They play into people’s fears by covering stories that are geared to our basic instincts. People believe that crime is high, but the truth is that crime rates are down. It’s easy to understand why outlets discuss crime and other bad news. The public watches it. Our inner survival instincts want us to believe the world is dangerous, so the worst possible news is always going to be watched. It is a business. It has a profit motive, not a moral one.

I suspect that people see this. According to a Gallup poll from September 2016, only 32 percent of Americans trust the news media. The media caters to people in power. Politicians go on TV and are not held accountable for what they do. Lack of faith in the media is destroying the Fourth Estate.

How do we fix this? We change our attitudes toward professional journalism. The reason I love opinion writing is the fact I don’t need to hide my thoughts. I am not a robot spitting out facts that my producers or editors deem worthy. There is a freedom to be true to who I am and what I think is important. I can do this without misrepresenting facts and remaining true. Why wouldn’t I? Wouldn’t I lose credibility if I got facts wrong? Why would anyone listen to what I thought if I wasn’t truthful? In expressing my opinion, I still have the incentive to seek truth.

A similar attitude can be applied to news. I do believe that it is OK for journalists to have an agenda. Journalists should be skeptical of all people in power, serve the public interest, ask tough questions and seek out and expose hypocrites and abusers of power or privilege. And with these duties, journalists should constantly keep an open mind. This is a bias that doesn’t fit on the typical left-right paradigm. Journalism should be about the duty to expose the truth and to question everything. This is not objectivity. It is a clear mindset that is dedicated to essence of journalism — truth.

Journalists and writers should be open to expressing their thoughts on issues and approach their job with a sense of purpose. No one can honestly say they are unbiased. I think more trust can be found when we accept all of our biases and present ourselves openly. Faith in the press is at an all time low. Everyone needs to come together and say what they think to serve the public interest. From that, maybe together we will find the truth. Keeping with the same industry practices will not fix this issue. Denying journalistic objectivity isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution, but it’s a start to fixing a vital part of society.

We need to stop giving people in foreign countries free stuff. This sounds mean. I want people to do what they can to help their fellow person and that’s why I think we should stop with the charity. The current foreign aid system is doing more harm than good, keeping the people of the third world poor and in poorer living conditions. There are ways we can really help these countries.

When I say foreign aid, I’m not just talking about the federal foreign aid that makes up a tiny portion of the budget. I’m referring to the whole system of governments and nonprofit foundations that send billions of dollars overseas every year. Solving the poverty issue with this model will never work, because it ignores the conditions of countries that build wealth. So, what harm has it done?

Let’s take the classic example of TOMS shoes. Although they have evolved their ways of charitable work, their “buy one, give one” charity should be examined. It seems easy and nice enough to buy a pair of TOMS and feel good that someone somewhere is getting a nice free set of shoes. People don’t tend to think beyond the gesture and realize the economic consequences this has. If poor nations across the world are getting free shoes from TOMS, what does that mean for shoemakers in those poor countries? It destroys them.

It’s hard to compete with free. No matter how cheap the person can make shoes, people are not going to buy shoes from them when they can just get them for free. To me, it would make more sense for a large company like TOMS to invest some of its resources in these countries. If you take someone that wants to make shoes in a poor country and work with them to build the capital they need to make and sell shoes, you will do a lot more good. This provides manufacturing and sales jobs which will create more wealth and give poor people in these countries more agency in their lives. They can make money and spend it in a more robust economy. Free stuff destroys economic potential.

If helping the poorest nations is as easy as giving them free stuff and money, why don’t we just do it? There are several estimates that ending poverty and hunger would not cost that much money. Going on the assumption that these numbers are correct, just giving the people that money won’t work. In order for a country to become economically successful, it needs a few things. It needs a strong infrastructure, the rule of law, uncorrupt governments and a stable mixed-market economy. We should work to promote these aspects of society in order to help them.

Technological advances in the industrialized world are going to create an amount of social and economic inequality unlike anything we have ever seen. Making sure these countries can build stronger economies will help them achieve the same levels of progress of other countries.

We need to help people live the best lives they can. Eliminating global poverty is one of many things humanity will need to accomplish soon. When we are trying to help these people out, we need to make sure we are addressing the right issues. If rich philanthropists want to help, they should not give away free stuff. They should work with these people and invest in their economies to build a better tomorrow. If we do not reconsider our current methods, the world will continue to have perpetually poor people that are dependent on aid.

We all have flaws. Our eyesight may not be that good. Some go bald too early. Some people have more serious issues and they all can trace back to one place — our genetics. Our DNA is what makes us, well, us. It is the building block of everything we ever were, are and will be. With this, there come flaws such as predispositions to cancer, diabetes and heart disease. There is a new technological advancement that has the ability to revolutionize our lives. It is called clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats, or CRISPR for short.

Simply put, CRISPR is a way to edit a genetic code. I would go more into the science of it, but all you need to know is that this exists and can change all the things that you wish to change (to a degree). I want to talk about an ethical dilemma that will eventually arise once this technology goes mainstream. That dilemma is the genetic modification of the next generation.

The ethical challenge of individuals choosing to go through such a treatment is pretty straightforward. Shouldn’t people be free to do as they wish with their bodies? This is a widely accepted concept across much of the world. However, does the same go for children — especially babies?

A child, baby or fetus does not have the agency to choose what happens to them. Therefore, is it right to alter their genetics? Simply put, yes.

When people bring up the idea of designer babies, they often think about altering eye or hair color or other factors to make them more attractive. That’s not what I’m talking about. That kind of genetic modification is shallow and vicarious. I’m talking about changing the genetics of a child to help it live a longer, healthier life.

If we have the ability to make children healthier, it is an ethical imperative that we do so. I would argue that if you can make a child’s life better by decreasing the risk of metabolic diseases and eliminating the possibility of a birth defect — and then you choose not to intervene — that is immoral. With technologies like CRISPR, we can make these changes.

Let’s look at this from an existential perspective. No one chooses to be born, right? You did not pick your genetics. Nothing about you was picked. However, imagine if it were picked. Imagine being born with a genetic defect that caused some health issue for you and then you learn that your parents could have prevented it. Would that be just?

From a parental perspective, this technology also makes sense. There are people in the world who cannot have kids because they know they carry a recessive gene that can cause a severe birth defect. These people will never be able to feel all of the experiences of parenthood. If you are against genetic modification, who are you to tell others they cannot go through the steps to make sure they can have a healthy child?

Our flaws are an integral part of what makes us human. However, there are some flaws that shouldn’t exist if they don’t need to. Superficial aspects of the human condition are not the ones this technology is trying to solve. It is attempting to solve the issues that cause the most harm to people.

This seems like an out-of-this-world idea, but it is a scientific reality that is around the corner. This will be a major debate that society will have. Thinking about it today sets us up to better address the situation of tomorrow. The simple fact is, soon we will have the chance to edit our genetics. If properly utilized, we will have healthier kids and more parents that are able to have healthy kids. I have no problem with ensuring a better future for anyone. No one should be sentenced to a genetic penalty if their only crime was being born.

Are you repulsed by the idea of lab-grown meat? The very thought is uncomfortable for a lot of people. It’s seen as unnatural, often called “frankenmeat” and perceived as a perversion of the purity of natural meat. I do not hold these views. Not only do I think there is nothing wrong with cultured meat, I think this is the way of the future, due to potential health benefits, environmental effects and more ethical treatment of animals.

This is not some speculative science fiction talk. Cultured (or in vitro) meat exists. Companies like Memphis Meats are on the frontline of this technology. By utilizing stem cell technology, the company can culture meats including beef, pork and chicken. By adding a protein that promotes tissue growth, tons of meat can be made from only a few cells. The major factor keeping this product out of stores is the cost. However, the price of producing the meat is lowering over time — and it won’t be long until its prices compete with those of natural meat products.

Cultured meat is not that different than normal meat. It is produced from naturally occurring cells. The difference is cultured meat is healthier. Red meats have been found to increase risks of type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease and even Alzheimer’s disease. By culturing the meat, the factors that cause health problems can be removed. For example, L-carnitine is a substance that is found naturally in red meat that causes hardening of blood vessels and increases the risk for heart disease. That and many other things can be removed to decrease the negative health effects that result from eating red meat. In addition to getting rid of negative aspects of consuming meat, you can also add healthy elements, such as adding omega-3 fatty acid which you can find in other meats like salmon.  

In the factory farm system, animals are stuffed together in filthy and cramped conditions. As a result, animals get sick and their meat becomes contaminated. To combat this, animals are given antibiotics to prevent disease. This presents health problems in humans such as superbugs, that could be resistant to antibiotics. Since cultured meat is grown in sterilized lab conditions, it is very clean.

The next reason cultured meat is the way of the future is the environmental benefits. Agriculture is a major contributor to global warming and environmental damage. According to an analysis by the United Nations, cattle agriculture alone causes 65 percent of nitrous oxide pollution. Nitrous oxide from cattle manure has 296 times the Global Warming Potential of CO2. In addition to this, the study found that cattle farming contributes to 37 percent of human-related methane (23 times the Global Warming Potential of CO2) emissions and is a leading cause of ammonia pollution, which is a contributor to acid rain.

Cattle farming now also takes up 30 percent of the Earth’s land surface and 70 percent of the Amazon rainforest has been turned to farmland. Researchers have found that cultured meat would require miniscule amounts of land compared to big agriculture — and the production process would be a significantly smaller contributor to CO2 emissions.

When you see the conditions of animals and the clear environmental damage, it is hard to make a case that our current methods are ethical and need no change. With our increasing knowledge of the damage we are doing to the planet — and our increasing ability to make a change to combat these problems — it is an ethical imperative that we change our ways. The technology is coming to really make a difference on this issue. If we do not act, we are denying the people of tomorrow the healthy and bright future that everyone deserves.

We do not need things to be wholly natural to make healthier decisions for the Earth and our health. Even factory farming isn’t natural when you consider farming conditions, growth hormones and genetic modification. Our current path in the meat industry is an unnatural and immoral monster that is wreaking havoc on our planet. We have the means to make a difference. Even if the thought of cultured meats makes you uneasy, look at the science behind the issue. It is clear something needs to be done.

A couple days ago, I got excited when I saw that The Chainsmokers released a collaboration with Coldplay titled “Something Just Like This.” The lyrics describe a man thinking back about the great heroes he has learned about through his life. From the ancient heroes of Achilles and Hercules, to the modern heroes of Spider-Man, Batman and Superman, he highlights their extraordinary gifts. He thinks to himself that he is not special — he is just an ordinary guy. A woman comes along in the story and says that she is not interested in “superhuman gifts” or “fairytale bliss.” She wants him, in all his ordinariness.

What I found interesting about this song is that it suggested a type of love that is not often discussed in art. The song got me thinking about relationships and many of the ideas that people have around them. I have realized that many issues that occur in relationships are a result of a series of expectations that we have for our romantic bonds. One idea that I think is particularly harmful is the notion of finding “The One.”

“The One” is an idea I’m sure we are all familiar with. You’ve seen it in romantic movies, shows and books. They are the ideal — the perfect partner. If only you can find them, you will marry them and live happily ever after. Everyone has that special someone that is perfect for them. Someone who shares your values, who fully understands you and is able to keep the passion alive. This expectation is unhealthy, because it neglects a key aspect of human nature: the fact that we are all flawed. No one is perfect — and to believe that someone is perfectly compatible with you is to deny this simple truth.

I believe that the idealism people have for relationships sets them up for eventual disappointment. We want perfect relationships, but they don’t exist. We want people to completely understand us, but they can’t. We want to be harmonious, but personalities clash. We want passion to last forever, but it dies.

“The One” is a beautiful thought — the idea that there is someone who’s destined for you, who will love you, unconditionally, forever. That’s why we love it. It feels good. It’s a comforting feeling. We grow up hearing the fairy tales that sell us this idea and it sounds wonderful. But it is simply not true.

This is not the happiest message and I am not usually a pessimist. But perhaps this view is not actually pessimistic. I would consider this view cautiously optimistic. I believe in the potential of people to have great relationships, but not if they believe in many irrational beliefs that our culture has promoted.

If we acknowledge that not all people are perfect, we can start to have more compassionate relationships: ones that can stand through the frustrations that inevitably arrive. These romantic images of relationships do not exist. Relationships take work, consideration and love. Without these things and with the irrational pursuit of romantic ideals, relationships do not last and we will leave ourselves dissatisfied.

The perfect one does not exist. That is okay. No one is perfect. If we acknowledge this, many of the issues that plague relationships will end. We can be more tolerant and reasoned towards each other and have happier and more satisfying relationships.

Have you ever gone out at night and just looked up at the stars? This is probably one of my favorite things to do. Over the years, I have learned a lot from my fascination of space. I believe that learning about astronomy and astrophysics is something that could benefit all people.

I think the greatest lesson that space can teach us is perspective. When you look into space, you are not just looking at things that are far away — you are looking backwards in time. The stars we see are so far away that the light they emit takes years to get here. Realizing that the universe is so large is a humbling experience. Many of the issues that cause us so much stress, from this scale, are so meaningless and insignificant. Why even bother?

One of my favorite pieces of writing is the end of the first chapter of Carl Sagan’s book “The Pale Blue Dot.” In this piece, Sagan writes about a picture of Earth taken from the perspective of the Voyager 1 when it was about 6 billion kilometers away. From this point, Earth is about the size of a pixel — a small speck of blue in a vast sea of darkness. What Sagan says about Earth is beautiful.

He writes, “Look again at that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every ‘superstar,’ every ‘supreme leader,’ every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there–on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.”

This sums up why astronomy is so important. From the perspective of space, there are no borders. There is just Earth. And living on it, there’s us. Recognizing the true vastness of space is uncomfortable, but only by recognizing these facts can we truly appreciate what we have.

Think of the planets in our solar system. Taking the facts we know about them, comparing the hellish heat of Mercury and Venus, the barrenness of Mars and the crushing gravity and deadly atmospheres of the gas giants, we live in paradise. We are lucky to be here. By chance, a rock flying through space was able to have the perfect conditions to create the world and through billions of years of evolution, we arrived. I think we should do well by the planet that has given us so much.

The humility that arises from acknowledging our cosmic insignificance is beneficial in creating a kinder and connected global society. There is a byproduct of our ability to realize this. That is the impending existential terror that strikes. Ernest Becker puts it perfectly in his book “The Denial of Death.”

He says, “Man is literally split in two: he has an awareness of his own splendid uniqueness in that he sticks out of nature with a towering majesty, and yet he goes back into the ground a few feet in order to blindly and dumbly rot and disappear forever.”

Our ability to look to the heavens and realize the infinite universe, in addition our finite lives, creates an anxiety that is tough to manage. How should we live with it? I’m not sure what the answer is here. But I want us all to talk about it. I believe that all people have these anxieties and we can help each other cope with them.

Learning about space can provide us with many things we need. We need humility. We need to drop our differences. We need to come together and work to better the lives we have. We need a more compassionate world. We need to “rage against the dying of the light.” One thing we can do to achieve these goals is step outside, look to the sky and think about our place among the stars.

Last week I engaged in one of my favorite pastimes — watching the advertisements during the Super Bowl. Despite the game being one for the history books, I was disappointed by the performance of the commercials. However, this isn’t the first time I think people were disappointed by ads.

Advertisements play a key role in our expectations. At its basic level, an advertisement is meant to sell you a product. This is not a bad thing. We often need things to help us with our lives. There is a bigger issue though that underlies this practice. It is the way that marketers target their ads to us. Think of the ads that you watch. Yes, they demonstrate the utility of the given product. However, hidden within the ads are several appeals to our higher needs.

In ads, you see happy families, passionate couples, beautiful places, confident people and other images of people living lives of fulfillment. Advertisers know what we want. We want satisfaction, love, connection, self-esteem, purpose and self-actualization. This creates a problem.

Companies and advertisers understand people’s psychological needs and wants. But presenting them to us in ads alongside their products, they create an association between the things we want and the products they sell. The issue is they cannot sell us the things we want. A new car will not make your family closer. The woman you love will not love you because you wear Old Spice. Reese’s Puffs will not give a child a fun and memorable childhood.

We cannot buy our way into fulfillment. This is the issue with consumer capitalism. Companies are selling us false promises of a deep satisfaction that they cannot provide. We are convinced through ads that they can. This makes us go out to the store and buy that thing that will make us happy. We even get a little reward — a little dose of dopamine for our purchase. Soon after, we realize the products we bought did not bring the satisfaction that they sold us. So we buy more and more.

One major issue with society is the deep dissatisfaction that people have with their lives. We work too much, buy stuff to try to make us happy and buy stuff to try to impress or cause people to envy us. This is not the way to a good life.

We spend too little with the people we love and too much on things we don’t need. We focus on our stuff and not on ourselves. We should all take a minute, sit back and think about the things we really want to do. We need to think of the places we wish to see, the people we want to connect with and the things we want to accomplish. Odds are, you won’t find those in a Wal-Mart. This does not mean we shouldn’t buy things. But we need to examine the reasons why we buy. If you can honestly tell yourself that buying something will make your life better, go ahead and do it. Not everything that we can buy can do this.

I also do not believe that money is evil. We should buy things that will really provide us with long-term utility and won’t become another thing to clutter our lives. We need to consider these facts when purchasing things. I now realize there have been countless purchases in my life that are pointless. And looking back, I was prioritizing the wrong things. If we rely on our material gains as a source for happiness, we will have lives that are superficial and unsatisfactory.

If we want to be happier we need to think about the moments that truly matter. The moment you embrace the ones you love and the feeling that you wish it could last forever. The times you laugh or cry with your friends. The moment you first lay eyes on the wonders of Earth. That time you and a friend looked to the night sky and pondered your place in the infinite. Times when you helped out a stranger and made their day a little better, or when your friend was down and you asked what was wrong.

Ads are showing us the things we want. They aren’t representing products, but the moments and feelings the marketers are associating with them. No many how many hours you work, how much money you make or the amount of stuff you have, you will never buy your way into happiness.

As you walk and act through life, you may feel a sense of freedom and agency. You can choose to do what you want because you are a free soul that is able to choose do whatever you want to do. There is you, riding around in a body, dictating its every action with autonomy. From the moment we become fully aware of our presence on Earth, this is how we view the world. We are the drivers of consciousness and the thinkers of thoughts. There is an issue with this — it’s an illusion.

Free will is the idea that human beings are free to act in any way possible. This idea simply does not work in conjunction with how we understand the order of the natural world. The entire universe can be measured; it is governed by natural laws that are observable. The human brain and body are not excluded from this. We are made of naturally occurring materials that the rest of universe is made of.

The brain is an incredibly complex organ. It is the essence of what makes us “us.” If it were not for the brain, conscious experience does not occur and our perceptions would be nothing. We have an understanding of how this all comes together. The brain operates as a complicated group of cells that send electrical signals back and forth. These synaptic firings and connections cause thoughts to occur. At what moment do you control the deterministic laws of nature? You don’t.

Scientists have found in lab experiments that when a subject is told to do a simple task like choosing to use their left or right hand, you can predict what people will do. By using fMRI testing, researchers could see activity in the frontopolar cortex and use the information to accurately predicted the decision the person would make 7 seconds before they made the decision.

You can see this when you examine the way your thoughts occur.

Sam Harris, a renowned neuroscientist and philosopher, has a thought experiment to demonstrate the lack of choice. Stop and think of a city in the world. Got one? Did you think of Atlanta, GA? If you didn’t, you know that Atlanta exists, right? However, it simply never came into your mind to pick it. At what moment are you free to pick something that did not occur to you? You cannot choose a decision that does not pop into your consciousness.

From this, let’s think about how free will would even work. To suggest full control of your thoughts is to believe that you think about your thoughts before their inception. You don’t do this — you just think and thoughts merely appear into your consciousness.

Science is clear that free will is not compatible with our knowledge of neuroscience. One scientific argument to rebut these claims is the rules of quantum mechanics. People argue quantum indeterminism leaves room for free will. This is because it adds an element of randomness into the equation. However, randomness doesn’t mean free will. In fact, it may even demonstrate the opposite. If quantum indeterminism guides your thoughts, you are still not in control of those situations.

What does this all mean? Free will is the basis for moral responsibility. It makes it so any evil done by someone is directly attributed to a choice they made. However, if we understand that choices are not freely made and are a result of a complex series of prior events, that means people are not directly responsible for the actions they commit.

Does this mean we shouldn’t punish people? No. If people are dangerous, we should still put them away. However, this does destroy the idea of retributive justice. If people are guilty but not responsible, how do we reform the justice system to fit this outlook?

By ending the free will debate, we free ourselves from hatred. Hatred does not make sense if we look at people as a product of genetics and environment. We don’t hate things that act in accordance with their true nature. If a tiger kills someone that hops into their cage, we don’t hate the tiger — we expect it to do that. If we begin to look at people in this light, we can start to create a social outlook that is more compassionate and just. By negating free will, we can begin to create a new outlook at our relationships with the world and the people around us.