It’s no secret that we as a society have an extremely large carbon footprint. One discovery we’ve made towards improving this footprint is the introduction of electric vehicles. Electric vehicles are in no way a cure-all for our colossal carbon footprint. However, they are a much more beneficial alternative than gasoline-powered vehicle counterparts currently on the market. Electric vehicles do decrease overall emissions in our environment.

Emissions from regular gasoline-powered vehicles are not only bad for our planet, but also bad for our health. Air pollutants from gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles cause asthma, bronchitis, cancer and premature death.

The Equation, a group of concerned scientists, indicates that the overall emissions depend almost entirely on where you live and if you drive an electric vehicle. In the United States, electric vehicles average at about 88 miles per gallon in a gas-powered vehicle. The most efficient gasoline-powered vehicles available average about 57 miles per gallon. In Maine and other New England states, the average is 110 miles per gallon. According to the Equation, over 90% of the population of the United States live in areas where driving the average electric vehicle produces fewer global warming emissions than even the most efficient gasoline-powered vehicles on the market.

Efficiency is one of the most important characteristics of electric vehicles. The more efficient a vehicle is, the less emissions it produces. Choosing the most efficient electric vehicle on the market minimizes emissions from driving. The most efficient electric vehicle available is the Tesla Model 3, which costs roughly $38,990. The most affordable electric vehicle on the market is the 2023 Chevrolet Bolt EV 1LT, which costs roughly $27,495. Obviously, electric vehicles are ridiculously expensive, but that’s not the importance of this article.

According to earthjustice.org, “the electricity that charges and fuels battery electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles comes from power grids, which rely on a range of sources — ranging from fossil fuels to clean renewable energy.” Once again, to truly compare electric and gasoline-driven vehicles, one has to consider where the units utilized are derived from. However, Earthjustice also notes that “​​electric vehicles are more efficient in converting energy to power cars and trucks. So electricity across the board is cleaner and cheaper as a fuel for vehicles, even when that electricity comes from the dirtiest grid.”

“Running electric or hybrid cars on the grid in any state has lower greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline-powered cars, as revealed in a study by experts at the Union of Concerned Scientists. As states clean up their energy grids, the benefits of electric vehicles become stronger.” Earthjustice’s reports prove that electricity is the far better choice in terms of carbon footprint emissions and overall sustainability.

While electric vehicles produce greater amounts of carbon emissions during their manufacturing process than their gasoline-powered alternatives, due to their expensive components, they tend to balance out their comparative emissions within eighteen months of driving. Electric vehicles outperform regular gasoline and diesel vehicles in most categories. They’re much better for the environment, especially long term. They tend to be relatively expensive, but that investment proves itself worthy in the long run. These vehicles outperform regular vehicles until the end of their life cycles, making them a superior choice that simultaneously decreases environmental emissions.

The gene editing program CRISPR has become a hot topic in recent years, but I am torn between whether or not I support the modification of the unborn; in one sense, the practice seems beneficial, but in another, the practice makes me think of placing an online order. This scientific advantage may seem like a way to enhance human health and our society. However, others (like myself) see this technology as scientific manipulation, which is essentially what genetic modification is. One issue with this therapy is the price. It is incredibly expensive to have these genetic modifications performed. Thus, it creates a class divide between those who can afford to ensure their children are born healthy and those who cannot. 

Using this technology to help fight and prevent diseases is a great tool, but when this technology becomes a way to pre-order a child, modification becomes a morally gray area that I find deeply concerning. I don’t believe that people should be able to pick certain genetics that do and don’t get passed on, as it takes away the diversity of our society and increases its animosity. 

Our population is nearly split down the middle when it comes to this topic. In a survey completed by Pew Research Center in 2021, 49% of adults surveyed would not want gene editing done on their children, and 48% would want the gene editing done. The same adults, however, when asked whether or not they would feel pressured by society to utilize this therapy, 25% stated they would not feel pressured, and 73% would feel pressured to have gene editing therapy done to their children.

These gene editing techniques allow parents to pick and choose certain attributes that they desire for their children. Some people argue that this technology has the potential to enhance overall human health by reducing a baby’s risk of getting serious diseases or conditions, while others consider it a measure to decrease the diversity found within society. There are numerous potential applications that gene editing techniques can serve for humans, like preventing or lowering the probability of developing diseases. There are also potential applications such as choosing what hair color your child would have, their anticipated eye color, whether they have freckles or no freckles, their gender, etc. All these are things that parents shouldn’t necessarily have the right to pick and choose, as this practice is essentially “build-a-kid.”

This gene-editing technique utilizes CRISPR technology and is currently being developed for therapeutic needs. Data from clinical trials suggest that this gene therapy has and can be helpful in the treatment of hereditary disorders and diseases such as sickle cell anemia. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) suggests the average cost of a gene therapy is between $1 million and $2 million per dose. The therapies have an incredibly high cost to produce, so it makes sense that the dosage itself is expensive. This price, however, makes it nearly unavailable for those who can’t shell out millions of dollars for gene therapies to help prevent or treat diseases and especially cannot shell out millions to pick and choose certain characteristics that they desire their future children to possess. 

As previously stated, I am incredibly torn in my beliefs about this entire process. On the one hand, I think that this technological advancement could be very beneficial with regard to the treatment of various syndromes and diseases. On the other hand, this advancement could also be utilized in a way that isn’t exactly moral. It’s essentially ordering a human, and I just can’t bring myself to agree with the practice of cosmetically enhancing embryos. I just really cannot understand why people should be able to pick and choose certain characteristics they want their children to have just because they have enough money to pay for it. I think that this would negatively affect society, as it would decrease the overall diversity of it.

One of the biggest associations that people make when they think of college students is partying, drinking and overall miscreant behavior. However, as many of us college students know, that truly isn’t the case. Most of the time, this behavior is more commonly expected by the same group of people who behaved similarly in middle and high school and will likely continue this lifestyle later in life. This behavior, however, results from one of the biggest social pressures seen on campuses nationwide.

The University of Maine is renowned for being a “party school,” and as a student, I can see why. Almost every Sunday morning, I wake up to vomit-covered bathrooms, red solo cups littering the halls, lobbies, elevators and even the stairs and surrounding areas of the dorm. Every Saturday night, I observe a stampede of tipsy undergrads staggering in, alerting the entire building of their arrival with the sounds of their boisterous laughter and incessant knocking on doors, as well as screeching, ripping posters off the walls and running at full speed (as fast as an intoxicated teenager can run).

Now, I’ve been on both sides of this situation. I, too, have been the obnoxious undergrad, disturbing the peace of the others who live in my building, but never to this extent. The fact that this behavior is not only expected but encouraged is incredibly detrimental to many social standings: either you drink, party and act like an animal, or you do none of it and watch TV all alone. A lot of the time, there is no in-between.

Pressures like this are so much greater nowadays than they ever were. Now, with the help of social media, people feel the need to show off their lifestyles constantly. Fifty years ago, if you weren’t at a certain social event, it was no big deal. Nowadays, if you aren’t there, you’ll get a point of view from everyone’s perspective, as well as a live stream and countless Snapchats to let you see exactly what you’re missing out on. This type of awareness institutes a great deal of pressure to perform for others. Past generations still had the pressure to perform, but they didn’t have the technological influence that students have nowadays, which unfortunately gives social pressure greater influence at higher rates than ever before.

This type of behavior also puts unnecessary strain on personal relationships with roommates, RAs and friends. If you are around someone who is constantly vomiting or needing to be taken care of, like a 5-year-old, it gets incredibly tiring, especially when you’re tasked with cleaning up after them. But, as previously mentioned, either you’re there and participating, or you’re in your dorm awaiting the arrival of your drunk friends. I have been told countless stories about roommates who participated in the festivities that UMaine has to offer, leaving their roommates to clean up the mess.

Technological advancements have greatly increased the amount of peer pressure and overall societal pressure that college students face. Hazing has always been associated with universities, but recording such treatments never occurred before the universal access to video cameras of today. Hazing, like partying, drinking, etc, is strongly associated with the college experience, especially for students participating in Greek life. Here on campus, we have a no-tolerance policy for this behavior, yet we all know it still occurs. Traditions such as hazing are generations-long and, much like underage drinking, will always be found on campuses nationwide.

Greek life is one of the biggest perpetrators of the negative behavior that was previously mentioned. Everybody wants to go to a frat party, and a lot of people do, but nobody really talks about what happens after the party. Once alcohol limits your inhibitions, good behavior is not a naturally occurring thought. Instead, students recklessly drive their vehicles and cause property and personal damage, steal signs, fall down stairs, vomit in hallways, and generally terrorize those who live near them.

Greek life has the opportunity to do such great things with its status here on campus. Still, many individuals continue to keep breaking the rules, introducing unnecessary pressures and getting themselves kicked off of campus.

These pressures have always been prominent on university campuses but are now more widespread than ever before. The influences of these pressures are found all over and aren’t going away anytime soon. How do we, as a society, determine when enough is enough?

In our technology-focused society, the value of sleep is suppressed at increasingly worrisome rates, and it’s incredibly harmful to the well-being of our population. With the chaos of technological advancements and modern life, sleep is just one of the many aspects of health disregarded by our current societal climate. A study conducted by the National Sleep Foundation found that, on average, American adults get just under seven hours of sleep per night, compared to a study conducted in the 1940s, where American adults averaged nearly eight hours nightly. 

In 1942, 84% of American adults got the recommended seven to nine hours of sleep, whereas a study completed in 2013 concluded that 59% of American adults were able to get the recommended hours of rest. For healthy sleep, it’s essential for adults to get seven to nine hours of sleep every night, as your sleep stages and cycles align with this amount of time. 

According to the National Sleep Foundation, sleep is generally divided into two stages: REM (rapid eye movement) and NREM (non-rapid eye movement). NREM is split into three additional parts: the initial stages of falling asleep, light sleep, and deep sleep. Most of your “rest” occurs during deep sleep, as your breathing slows down, your blood pressure drops and your energy is renewed. If you’re only getting a few hours of sleep every night, you’re not achieving adequate REM cycles. At that point, you’re only taking a nap, and your body does not gain the rest required for optimal function. REM sleep is essential to a truly restful night of sleep, where the body can reach a point of rejuvenation. Without giving the body a chance to recharge, over time, it will eventually be too exhausted to work properly. Good sleep is essential to not only your physical health but also your mental and emotional health.

Sleep is a known pillar of health and performance, so why do we, as a collective society, undervalue it? I interviewed five students on campus from a diversity of majors at various stages of progress with their degrees, and the majority (four of five) stated that they felt as though they didn’t get enough sleep every night. I figured the average amongst those four to be six and a half hours of sleep per night. The fifth person I interviewed was a business major who stated he got 10 hours every night. When asked, they all acknowledged how important sleep is but made it clear that it was not a top priority for them.
While having conversations with friends about the subject, one thing I notice is that when sleep is brought up, it’s almost a competition to see who is living the most unhealthy lifestyle. The less sleep you tend to get, the more bragging rights you’re granted, so not only does our society undervalue sleep, but we also encourage this unhealthy behavior. 

 “I’ll sleep when I’m dead” is a common mantra I’ve heard from Gen Z, but it is one of the most harmful. Sleep is essential for a healthy life. Many people, while understanding the importance of sleep, are not getting the sleep they need. However, getting enough sleep is often easier said than done. Our population needs to prioritize our health and bodies, which is rooted in our sleeping patterns. An article published by St. Jude’s Research, states that “sleep is the third pillar of health, along with nutrition and movement— that keeps us healthy and balanced. Insufficient sleep makes us overweight, sick and sluggish.”

Prioritizing sleep each night is not only core for an individual’s health but also for our collective well-being. 

Many of those who oppose child beauty pageants suggest that the activities prematurely sexualize young girls and encourage too much insecurity about their appearance at such an early age. Those not opposed to child beauty pageants often suggest that these competitions build confidence and are a family-friendly activity, which I wholeheartedly disagree with. Myself and many others believe that child beauty pageants are barbaric and reinforce society’s already unrealistic standards that are being pushed onto young girls. These pageants are created to reward children for their appearance, personality and little else. 

Child beauty pageants have existed in the United States for decades but became spotlit following the tragic death of JonBenét Ramsey in 1996. Indeed, when most people think about child beauty pageants, JonBenét is the person many initially think of. Since her death in 1996, pop-culture attention has intensified, with productions such as documentaries and television series focusing on the American subculture of child beauty pageants. Many young girls have become media starlets, even though by doing so, they’re subjected to great criticism. Also, a study published on the American Psychological Association website suggests that girls who compete frequently in beauty pageants tend to feel less competent in both physical and academic arenas, which runs counter to the assertions of those who encourage these competitions.

Vernon R. Wiehe, a professor at the University of Kentucky College of Social Work, states, “sexualization occurs through little girls wearing adult women’s clothing in diminutive sizes, the use of makeup which often is applied by makeup consultants, spray tanning the body, the dying of hair and the use of hair extensions, and assuming provocative postures more appropriate for adult models.” 

This premature sexualization of young girls is just one of the many reasons that I think this practice should be criminalized. Not only does it allow the perverse-minded a front-row seat to these young girls, but it also teaches them ways of sexualizing themselves, such as changing their physical appearances to become “more attractive” as though it were normal for school-aged children. The routines that these young children are put through are horrible and extremely unhealthy for their growing bodies.

Despite the long hours that these children work for the financial gain of their parents, the industry is mostly unregulated, with pageants existing independent of child labor laws. School-aged children need adequate rest, and it has been shown that the children participating in these competitions cannot achieve that. 

In addition to everything that’s already been stated, there are beauty pageants that are actually bikini contests for these young girls. Miss Tanguita, or “Miss Little Thong,” is held yearly for the “Del Rio Suarez” Festival in Colombia. Many of those who are against this festival say that, although it is legal, it goes against the human rights of the minors in the competition. Up until 2016, the United States held very similar pageants, but the swimsuit competitions have since been removed and replaced with an athletic wear round instead (although it’s not that much better). In the case of Ramsey, footage of the then-six-year-old performing onstage wearing a ‘skimpy’ outfit with full makeup and hair during a child beauty pageant was broadcast on televisions all across the United States. 

I may not have first-hand experience with these pageants, but I know a few girls who competed as children, and their responses are as expected. They loved the attention, the glamor and the pretty dresses, but it was also stressful, embarrassing and overly competitive. This is without even mentioning the body dysmorphia they received from being called fat at the ripe age of seven. I also know how these competitions influence personality. As these girls grew up in a highly competitive atmosphere, that general attitude of unnecessary competitiveness followed them well into adulthood. These pageants aren’t good for the children who participate in them and should be reserved for adults who can consent to the entire pageant process and not children whose innocence is being weaponized against them in the form of a sparkly crown. 

When I’m asked the question, “Should assisted suicide and euthanasia be legal?” My answer is simple: yes. 

To answer this question to the full extent of one’s knowledge, one must first possess as much knowledge about the subject as possible. The first question to ask oneself is: “What are assisted suicide and euthanasia? Are there alternatives?” The second question would then have to be: “Are assisted suicide and euthanasia ethical for all of those involved?” The last question asked will always have different answers: “What is my opinion? Why is this my opinion?” If you wanted to obtain even further knowledge of this subject, you could also ask: “Would I ever consider assisted suicide or euthanasia for myself or a loved one?” 

Euthanasia is “the practice of ending a patient’s life to limit the patient’s suffering. The patient in question would typically be terminally ill or experiencing great pain and suffering.” There are alternatives to assisted suicide and euthanasia, of course, and they are usually considered a last resort. An alternative is palliative care, which treats those in pain with little to no hope of recovery, especially those suffering from cancer, where the most common type of treatment utilized is opioids. 

When forming an opinion on the matter, the question of whether assisted suicide and euthanasia are ethical for those involved is incredibly complicated. For those on the receiving end, assisted suicide and euthanasia are a last resort and could be visualized as a much more humane way to end their suffering, especially for cancer and dementia patients.

 For those on the giving end, the answer is increasingly more difficult. Many think that if doctors are allowed to break their Hippocratic oath “to refrain from causing harm or hurt” for one patient, they will make harmful exceptions for others. However, it is important to consider other uses of anesthesia. If we use these methods for our beloved pets, why couldn’t we do this for our beloved family members? 

If “putting down” our beloved dogs, cats, hamsters, etc., is acceptable because they are suffering, why shouldn’t we, as humans, at least have the same options available? Instead of withering away in pain for months or even forgetting everything you’ve ever learned or experienced, why couldn’t you have the chance to say goodbye and die of your own volition, leaving those around you with a final pleasant memory? 

Personally, I would rather die of my own choosing than leave my family with horribly painful memories of my suffering. In my opinion, it’s more humane and allows for proper closure and emotional satisfaction for those involved.

Although these actions may not align with the original and debatably archaic Hippocratic oath, some doctors today have sworn to uphold a new and improved version, allowing doctor-assisted deaths. As of today, assisted suicide and euthanasia are allowed in the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, and several U.S. States. Shouldn’t we all have the right to choose how we die?